Short communication Soybean yield and resource conservation field borders W. Terrell Stamps a, * , Thomas V. Dailey b , Ned M. Gruenhagen c , Marc J. Linit d a 1-31 Agriculture Building, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211, United States b Missouri Department of Conservation, 1110 South College Avenue, Columbia 65201, United States c U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1243 N Street, Fresno 93721, United States d 2-44 Agriculture Building, Office of Research and Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211, United States Received 28 February 2007; received in revised form 2 August 2007; accepted 10 August 2007 Available online 27 September 2007 Abstract The ecological and environmental shortcomings of landscapes dominated by monocultures of crops have led to increased pressure to farm in a more holistic, environmentally sound, socially acceptable manner. The USDA Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP) is one answer to this shift in philosophy. One program within CCRP, CP33, habitat buffers for upland birds, was designed to provide incentives for substituting herbaceous buffers for crop field margins to promote wildlife habitat. Farmers have been slow to sign up for CP33, possibly out of concern for the borders’ impact on insect pest abundance, crop yield and profitability. We examined the impact of three herbaceous border compositions on yield in soybean over 3 years. The border treatments were: (1) a cool-season grass/legume mixture, (2) a warm-season grass/ legume mixture, and (3) tall fescue. In addition, the experimental control (soybean border) provided the opportunity to examine the effect of hedgerows on crop yield. We found only a few differences in soybean yield among border treatments and discerned no specific cause-and- effect relationship between buffers and soybean yield, or among distances into the soybean fields from the crop–border interface. We conclude that herbaceous conservation buffers would have little or no impact on soybean yield and should be promoted for their positive environmental benefits. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Colinus virginianus; Conservation Reserve Program; Field margin; Bobwhite; Grassland birds 1. Introduction Environmental stewardship and conservation have become increasingly important aspects of farming worldwide over the past several decades. The new paradigm is now one of matching crop production and profits with conservation and sustainability (Paoletti et al., 1992). Previously, non-crop areas within the farm landscape had been viewed as antagonistic to production, consuming resources and harbor- ing pests, diseases, and weeds (Marshall and Smith, 1987). A greater understanding of ecology and the interactions of flora and fauna, from individual plants to landscape-wide, has changed that perspective. In the context of intensive farming, Europe and the United Kingdom were early adopters of initiatives for conserving plant and animal species and communities (Mineau and McLaughlin, 1996). For example, conservation headlands and beetle banks are two fairly popular management options in the UK that provide multiple environmental benefits, including increased abundance of insect pollinators, song birds, and gamebirds (Rands, 1985; Vickery et al., 2002; Marshall and Moonen, 2002; Thomas et al., 1991, 1992). The USDA Food Security Act of 1985 established the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a voluntary program for landowners to retire environmentally sensitive or highly erodible pasture or cropland from production in the United States (Sullivan et al., 2004). Enrolled land is taken out of production for 10–15 years and planted to trees, grasses, or other cover to reduce runoff pollution and erosion, to enhance biodiversity, and to provide wildlife habitat (Sullivan et al., 2004). The CRP compensates landowners www.elsevier.com/locate/agee Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 124 (2008) 142–146 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 573 882 1093; fax: +1 573 882 1469. E-mail address: stampst@missouri.edu (W.T. Stamps). 0167-8809/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2007.08.004