Remote sensing offers the capability of observing an object without being in contact with the object. Throughout the recent history of agriculture, researchers have observed that different wavelengths of light are reflected differently by plant leaves or canopies and that these differences could be used to determine plant biophysical characteristics, e.g., leaf chlorophyll, plant biomass, leaf area, phenological development, type of plant, photosynthetic activity, or amount of ground cover. These reflectance differences could also extend to the soil to determine topsoil properties. The objective of this review is to evaluate how past research can prepare us to utilize remote sensing more effectively in future applications. To estimate plant characteristics, combinations of wavebands may be placed into a vegetative index (VI), i.e., combinations of wavebands related to a specific biophysical characteristic. These VIs can express differences in plant response to their soil, meteorological, or management environment and could then be used to determine how the crop could be managed to enhance its productivity. In the past decade, there has been an expanded use of machine learning to determine how remote sensing can be used more effectively in decision-making. The application of artificial intelligence into the dynamics of agriculture will provide new opportunities for how we can utilize the information we have available more effectively. This can lead to linkages with robotic systems capable of being directed to specific areas of a field, an orchard, a pasture, or a vineyard to correct a problem. Our challenge will be to develop and evaluate these relationships so they will provide a benefit to our food security and environmental quality.

Core Ideas: Dairy manure matches synthetic fertilizer in yield and quality of row crops. Manure application increases soil organic matter and soil P levels. Appropriate application rates are critical to avoid negative environmental impacts. Dairy production systems rely on row crop agriculture to produce feed because animal density continues to rise, whereas land allocated to dairy farms is decreasing. Management of the entire dairy system, including animals, forages, and manure, must be optimized to meet production goals while remaining economically viable. Many producers apply dairy manure to meet crop nutrient demand, both reducing the need for synthetic fertilizer and the cost associated with manure disposal. However, repeated manure applications have been linked with environmental concerns, such as soil nutrient loading, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and decreased water quality. The objective of this research was to synthesize the literature comparing dairy manure fertilizer with synthetic fertilizer in row crop agricultural production systems to determine impacts on both crop productivity and environmental quality. Fifty‐eight studies were included in a meta‐analysis that showed that, when applied at rates providing comparable levels of plant‐available N, manure fertilizer matched synthetic fertilizer in crop production, quality, and digestibility. Manure application increased soil organic matter, which may have an overall positive effect on long‐term soil fertility, but it also increased soil P, suggesting a threat to water quality. Soil nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions were highly variable across studies, so no clear trends were evident. Overall, these findings suggest that manure is a suitable fertilizer in row crop agriculture, but it should be applied with caution to limit risk to environmental quality, which can vary with site‐specific factors like climate, soil texture, and application practices.

Climate impacts agricultural productivity and the distribution of crops grown around the world. Because the United States is a leader in food exports, climate change impacts in the United States have the potential to disproportionately affect the global food supply. Given the change in temperature, precipitation, and carbon dioxide occurring now and expected into the future, the potential for agroecosystems to produce sufficient quantities of food to meet world demand is in question. To address this question, the concept of yield gaps, as the difference between potential yield (PY) and farm or actual yield (FY), provides a framework for the evaluation of progress in production. Across all crops, there have been increases in both PY (breeding, technological advances) and FY (implementation of improved genetic resources and management practices); however, climate change threatens to diminish those advances due to temperature stresses and more uncertain precipitation patterns. Climate change will not only directly increase the yield gap in the future but also further indirectly widen the yield gap by the degradation of the soil resource due to interactions of climate and management. Modern agricultural systems must adapt to become more resilient to climate change, and the tools to this adaptation involve genetics, environmental monitoring, and evolving management practices. However, progress can only begin once agricultural systems are managed from a more holistic view of providing both quantity and quality of a more diverse mixture of agricultural crops that will provide sustainability, equity, nutrition, and a secure food future.

Agroecosystems in the upper Mississippi River Basin are highly productive but often contribute to deterioration of water quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Cover cropping and no‐till are conservation strategies implemented to reduce the environmental impact of these agroecosystems. However, using multiple strategies can lead to systemwide interactions that are not fully understood. These interactions can affect not only environmental quality metrics, such as subsurface drainage nitrate losses or nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, but also may influence crop production potential. A field trial was initiated comparing nitrate losses, N₂O emissions, and crop production under systems with fall chisel plow tillage, fall chisel plow tillage with an oat (Avena sativa L.) cover crop (CP‐oat), no‐till (NT), no‐till with a rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop (NT‐rye), and NT with zero N fertilizer. Pathways for nitrate losses and N₂O emissions did not appear linked and were not tied to cover crop or tillage practices. Nitrate losses were linked with drainage volumes, and cover crops and tillage had limited effect on cumulative drainage volumes. Notably, NT‐rye altered the relationship between drainage volume and nitrate losses by reducing nitrate concentrations, lowering nitrate losses by 59 ±9% compared with CP‐oat and 67 ± 9% compared with NT. Neither cover crop nor tillage consistently affected N₂O emissions or crop yield. Rather, N₂O emissions were closely tied with fertilizer N application and seasonal weather patterns. These findings indicate that nitrate leaching and N₂O emissions are regulated by separate mechanisms, so conservation management may require stacking multiple practices to be effective.