انتشار دی‌اکسید‌کربن و پتانسیل گرمایش جهانی ناشی از مصرف انرژی در تولید پنبه (Gossypium herbaceum L.) در استان گلستان

نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه آزاد واحد گرگان

2 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد گرگان

10.22067/jag.v10i2.61846

چکیده

مدیریت صحیح در انتخاب روش‌ها مناسب عملیات‌های زراعی باعث کاهش مصرف سوخت، انرژی و کاهش تولید گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای در تولید محصولات کشاورزی می‌شود. در این مطالعه مقادیر انرژی ورودی، خروجی و انتشار گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای در تولید پنبه (Gossypium hirsutum L.) در استان گلستان و شهرستان‌های علی‌آباد کتول و آق‌قلا مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. بدین منظور، عملیات زراعی در 100 مزرعه در دو سال زراعی 93 و 94 به صورت تصادفی انتخاب و اطلاعات مربوط به تمامی مزارع ثبت شد. مقادیر مختلف کاربرد نهاده‌ها و اطلاعات جامع‌ در هر مرحله از کاشت تا برداشت جمع‌آوری و ثبت و پردازش گردید. در حین اجرای عملیات زراعی مختلف جهت تولید پنبه با استفاده از ضرایب تبدیل انرژی و انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای استخراج شده از منابع متعدد برای هر عملیات معادل‌سازی شد و سپس مقدار انرژی و انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای برای هر نهاده و عملیات محاسبه گردید. با توجه به نتایج به‌دست آمده میانگین انرژی خروجی برابر 154 گیگاژول در هکتار به‌دست آمد که حدود شش برابر میانگین انرژی ورودی با 26 گیگا‌ژول در هکتار می‌باشد. دامنه انرژی‌های خروجی برای تولید پنبه بین 49 گیگاژول در هکتار تا 243 گیگاژول در هکتار و برای انرژی ورودی بین 15 تا 43 گیگاژول در هکتار متغیر بود مقدار پتانسیل گرمایش جهانی (GWP) کل ناشی از فعالیت-های مختلف در هر مزرعه پنبه بین 741 تا 7790 کیلوگرم معادل CO2 در هکتار متغیر بوده است. بیشترین انتشار گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای مربوط به کود‌های شیمیایی و مقدار گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای منتشر شده در نهاده‌ها کود حیوانی و سوخت در رتبه‌های بعدی قرار داشتند. نتایج مقایسه بین انرژی-های ورودی و پتانسیل گرمایش جهانی ناشی از آن نشان داد که بین انرژی‌های ورودی در مزارع تولید پنبه و GWP ناشی از آن ارتباط مستقیمی وجود دارد. عملیات‌های آبیاری، تغذیه و آماده‌سازی بیشترین مصرف سوخت را داشته که متعاقب آن باعث افزایش گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای می‌شود. از نتایج این تحقیق می‌توان به این نتیجه رسید که از طریق کاهش مصرف سوخت و کاهش مصرف کود‌های شیمیایی میزان مصرف انرژی و انتشار گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای را کاهش داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Carbon Dioxide Emission and Global Warming Potential of Energy Consumption in the Cotton Production in Golestan Province

نویسندگان [English]

  • reza arefi 1
  • afshin soltani 2
  • hosein ajamnorozei 1
1 Islamic Azad University of Gorgan
2 Islamic Azad University of Gorgan
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Nowadays, due to population growth, decreased the arable lands and improved living standards, energy consumption in the agricultural sectors has been increased. Therefore, intensive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, energy and natural resources are required in order to supply the nutritional demands of the increasing population. Ahamadi & Aghaalikhani (2013) investigated the energy consumption in cotton production in Golestan province and showed that energy consumption for tractor and engine pump fuel was 24% and 30%, respectively, or totally 54% for diesel fuel. Also, fertilizers and chemical materials with 13% energy consumption had the second and third rank, respectively and total energy input for cotton production in Alborz province was 31 GJ/ha. Dastan et al., (2014) carried out a study on the rate of energy consumption in rice planting systems and the rate of carbon dioxide emission and concluded that the highest values of energy input in the production systems was related to the electric power to pump water for irrigation that had the highest value in terms of carbon dioxide emission and global warming potential and Nitrogen fertilizer and fuel also had the second and third rank in terms of carbon dioxide emission.
Materials and Methods
One hundred cotton fields around the cities of Aliabad and Aq Qala in Golestan province were selected during two sowing years 2014 and 2015. All operations and events were observed during the growing season in these fields and detailed data of typical production methods and cultivation practices was collected in past years, this data included the use of equipment, fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides and so on. To this end, at first, all agricultural practices were divided into eight categories, including preparing the land, planting, fertilizing, plant protection, weed control, irrigation, harvesting and transport to the factory to crop delivery, then, different amounts of input use and more comprehensive information were collected and recorded at every stage from planting to harvesting and they were processed by Excel software, data analysis in three parts of energy input (consumption), energy output (production) and Global warming potential (GWP) of GHG emissions.
Results and Discussion
In this study, input and output energy of GHGs emission and the GWP of agricultural activities in the cotton fields of Golestan province were investigated. The results revealed that the average energy input per hectare is 26 GJ/ha and the ratio of output energy to input energy was 154 GJ/ha and energy output was six times more than the input energy. There was a direct relationship between input energy and energy output, in other words, an increase in energy input, increases the crop performance, thereby increasing the output energy and GHG emission (Table 5). Figure 11 shows a significant direct relationship between performance and GHG emitted from the cotton production. The average of the GHG emission for cotton production was estimated 2181kg/ha that the maximum rate was 33% of total GHGs of chemical fertilizer inputs. Fuel and manure inputs had lower rates. Maximum energy was consumed for irrigation, nutrition and preparation that increased the GHGs. The comparison between energy output and a GWP of manure input showed a significant direct relationship difference between the output energy in cotton farms and its GWP.
Conclusion
The results of this study indicated that by reducing the fuel consumption and chemical fertilizers, energy consumption and GHG emissions can be reduced. A number of management solutions for reducing the fossil fuel consumption and chemical fertilizers that result in GHG emission in agriculture include: conservation tillage that reduces the farm traffic, and consequently, reduces the fuel; use of legumes in agriculture that reduces nitrogen use, use of new methods of irrigation and increase in water efficiency, use of crop rotation and biological methods to control pests and weeds, application of nitrogen fertilizers based on soil test, adaptation of the fertilizing time to the plants' needs, improvement of fertilization methods such as placement in the soil rather than manual distribution and centrifuge, the use of inhibitors combinations of Nitrification or coated fertilizers, use of green manure.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cotton
  • Energy Input
  • Energy Output
  • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission
  1. Abdollahpour, S., and Zaree, S. 2009. Evaluation of wheat energy balance under rain fed farming in Kermanshah. Journal of Agricultural and Sustainable Production 20: 106-96.
  2. Ahmadi, M., and Aghaalikhani, D. 2013. Analysis of energy consumption of cotton in golestan province in order to provide a solution for increasing resource efficiency. Journal of Agroecology 4(2): 151-158. (In Persian with English Summary)
  3. Akcaoz, H., Ozcatalbas, O., and Kizilay, H. 2009. Analysis of energy use for pomegranate production in Turkey. Journal of Food Agricultural and Environmental 7: 475-480.
  4. Azarpour, A. 2012. Evaluation energy balance of canola production under rain fed farming in north of. Journal of Agricultural Biological Science 7: 285-288. (In Persian with English Summary)
  5. Barut, Z.B., Ertekin, C., and Karaaga, H.A. 2011. Tillage effects on energy use for corn silage in Mediterranean Coastal of Turkey. Energy 36: 5466-5475.
  6. Beheshti Tabar, I., Keyhani, A., and Rafiee, S. 2010. Energy balance in Iran s agronomy (1990-2006). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14: 849-588.
  7. Dagistan, E., Akcaoz, H., Demirtas, B., and Yilmaz, Y. 2009. Energy usage and benefit-cost analysis of cotton. Production in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4: 599-604
  8. Darvin, R., Tsigas, M., Lewandrowski, J., and Raneses, A. 1995. World agriculture and climate change: Economic adaptations. Natural Resources and Environment Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Journal of Agricultural Economics 703 pp.
  9. Dastan, S., Soltani, A., Normohamadi, G., and Madani, H. 2014. Global warming potential of carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in systems of culture paddy. Journal of Agroecology 4: 823-835. (In Persian with English Summary)
  10. Dayar, J.A., and Desjardins, R.L. 2006. Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm machinery in Canada. Bio =systems Engineering 93: 107-118.
  11. Dayar, J.A., and Desjardis, R.L. 2003. The impact of from machinery management on the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture. Agriculture for Sustainable Development Journal 22: 59-74.
  12. Dyer, J.A.A., and Desjardins, R.L. 2003. Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emission in Canada. Bio systems Engineering 85: 503-513.
  13. Fezbakhash, M.T., and Soltani, A. 2014. Energy flow and global warming potential of corn farm (Gorgan City). Journal of Crop Production 6(3): 89-107.
  14. Haidari, M.D., and Omid, M. 2011. Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy 36: 220-225.
  15. Hydrocarbon balance sheet, the Institute for International Energy Studies, Ministry of Petroleum, 2088.
  16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Revised Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Cambridge University Press, UK.
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996a. Climate change 1995. The science of climate change, contribution of working group I to the second. Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Great Britain.
  18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA 996 pp.
  19. Johnson, J.M.F., Franzluebbers, A.J, Weyers, S.L, and Reicosky, D.C. 2007. Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Pollution 150(1): 107-24.
  20. Kaltsas, A.M., Mamolos, A.P., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Nanos, G.D., and Kalburtji, K.L. 2007. Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 122: 243-251.
  21. Kitani, O. 1999. CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering, Energy and Biomass Engineering. ASAE Publication 5: 95-101.
  22. Lal, R. 2004. Carbon emission from operations. Environment Intonation 30: 981-990.
  23. Marashi, M.R., and Vaghefi, H. 1981. Trade cotton - cotton- cotton crops - Iran. (In Persian)
  24. Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., and Schwizer, V. 2008. Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 222-230.
  25. Monthly Clean Development Mechanism. 2009. Volume 6. (In Persian)
  26. Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., and Mohammadi, A. 2011a. Optimization of energy consumption for soybean production using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach. Energy 88: 3765-3772.
  27. Nikkhah, A., Emadi, B., Shabanyan, F., and HamzehKalknari, H. 2014. Sensitivity assessment of energy and greenhouse gas emissions tea production in Gilan province. Journal of Agroecology 6(3): 622-632. (In Persian with English Summary)
  28. Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., and Fert, C. 2004. Energy input-output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renewable Energy 29: 39-51.
  29. Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., and Karadeniz, F. 2005. Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Conversion Management 45: 1821-1830.
  30. Pathak, H., and Wassmann, R. 2007. Introducing greenhouse gas mitigation as a development objective in rice-based agriculture: I. Generation of technical coefficients. Agricultural Systems 94: 807-825.
  31. Pervanchon, F., Bockstaller, C., and Girardin, P. 2002. Assessment of energy use in arable farming systems by means of an agro-ecological indicator: the energy indicator. Agricultural Systems 72: 149-172.
  32. Pimental, D., and Pimental, M.H. 2008. Food, Energy and Society. Taylor and Francis 266 pp.
  33. Pishgar- Komleh, S.H., and Omid, M., and Heidari, M.D. 2013. On the study of energy use and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in greenhouse cucumber production in Yazd province. Energy 59: 63-71.
  34. Pishgar-Komleh, S.H. and Sefeedpari, P., and Ghahderijani, M. 2012. Exploring energy consumption and CO emission of cotton production in Iran. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 4: 033115-033114.
  35. Rajabi, M.H., Soltani, A., Zeinali, A., and Soltani, A. 2013. Evaluation of greenhouse gas emission and global warming potential in wheat production in Gorgan, Iran. Electronic Journal of Crop Production 5(3): 23-44. (In Persian)
  36. Rathke, G.W., and Diepenbrock, W. 2006. Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. European Journal of Agronomy 24(1): 35-44.
  37. Safa, M., Samarasinghe, S., and Mohsen, M. 2011. Determination of fuel consumption and indirect factors affecting it in wheat production in Canterbury, New Zealand Energy Corp 35: 5400-5405.
  38. Safa, M., Samarasinghe, S., and Mohsen, M., 2011. A field study of energy consumption in wheat production in Canterbury. New Zealand. Energy Conversion Management 52: 2526-2532.
  39. Soltani, A., Rajabi, M.H., Zeinali, E., and Soltani, E. 2013. Energy inputs and greenhouse gases emissions in wheat production in Gorgan, Iran. Energy. 50 pp. (In Persian)
  40. Strapatsa, A.V., Nanos, G.D., and Tsatsarelis, C.A. 2006. Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 116: 176-180.
  41. Taheri-Rad, A.R., Nikkhah, A., Khojastehpour, M., and Nourozieh, S. 2014. Assessing GHG emissions, and energy and economic analysis of cotton production in the Golestan province. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 5(2): 428-445.
  42. Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D.J., May, M., Lewis, K.A., and Jaggard, K. 2005a. An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emission in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the UK. Agricultural Systems 85: 101-119.
  43. Tzilivakis, J., Jaggard, K., Lewis, K.A., May, M., and Warner, D.J. 2005b. Environmental impact and economic assessment for UK sugar beet production systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 107: 341-358.
  44. Xiamei, L., and Kotelko, M. 2003. An Integrated manure utilization system (Imus): its social and environmental benefits. In: The 3rd International Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation Conference, Beijing, China, 17-21 November; (Lecture No: AG056).
  45. Yilmaz, I., and Akcaoz, H., and Ozkan, B. 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production on Turkey. Renewable Energy 30: 145-155.