ارزیابی کارآیی مصرف منابع و وضعیت پایداری در دو بوم‌نظام زراعی سیب‌زمینی (Solanum tuberosum L.) با استفاده از تحلیل امرژی (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان گرگان)

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه زابل

2 دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

چکیده

فشردگی بوم‌نظام­های کشاورزی و محدودیت منابع محیطی، ضرورت تعیین کارآیی مصرف منابع در راستای دستیابی به اصول پایداری، از لحاظ مصرف منابع محیطی و اقتصادی را در نظام­های کشاورزی ایجاب کرده است. تحلیل امرژی، به‌عنوان ابزار مناسبی برای این منظور، در بوم‌نظام­های مختلف استفاده می­شود. این پژوهش با هدف ارزیابی و مقایسه کارآیی مصرف منابع و پایداری بوم‌نظام­های پاییزه و بهاره سیب­زمینی (Solanum tuberosum L.) با استفاده از تحلیل امرژی در شهرستان گرگان در سال زراعی 97- 1396 انجام شد. به این منظور، تعداد 100 پرسش‌نامه برای سیب‌زمینی‌کاران پاییزه و 60 پرسش‌نامه برای سیب­زمینی‌کاران بهاره تکمیل شد. پس از تعیین مرز­های مکانی و زمانی و تقسیم­بندی منابع به چهار گروه محیطی تجدید­پذیر، محیطی تجدید­ناپذیر، بازاری (خریداری شده) تجدید­پذیر و بازاری تجدید­ناپذیر، شاخص­های امرژی در دو بوم‌نظام، محاسبه و مورد مقایسه قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان داد ورودی امرژی کل برای بوم‌نظام­های پاییزه و بهاره سیب­زمینی به‌ترتیب 1016×71/1 و 1016×76/1 امژول خورشیدی در هکتار در سال بود. در بوم‌نظام پاییزه وابستگی به ورودی­های خریداری شده بیشتر از ورودی­های محیطی بود، درحالی‌که در بوم‌نظام بهاره، این مورد عکس بود. بیشترین سهم از ورودی امرژی کل در هر دو بوم‌نظام پاییزه و بهاره مربوط به مصرف آب زیرزمینی به‌ترتیب 92/23 و 28/45 درصد بود. در بوم‌نظام­های پاییزه و بهاره سیب­زمینی به‌ترتیب، شاخص ضریب تبدیل 105×50/1 و 105×54/2 امژول خورشیدی بر ژول، تجدید­پذیری امرژی 85/22 و 78/12 درصد، نسبت عملکرد امرژی 44/1 و 06/2، نسبت سرمایه‌گذاری امرژی 29/2 و 94/0، نسبت بارگذاری محیطی 10/29 و 02/30 و شاخص پایداری امرژی 05/0 و 07/0 بود. اختلاف بین بوم‌نظام­های پاییزه و بهاره از نظر تمام شاخص­های امرژی معنی­دار شد. علی‌رغم سهم بالاتر ورودی­های محیطی نسبت به بازاری در بوم‌نظام بهاره، مصرف زیاد آب زیرزمینی، به‌عنوان یک ورودی تجدید­ناپذیر، موجب تشدید فشار محیطی در این بوم‌نظام گردید. استفاده از روش­های نوین آبیاری، موجب بهبود مصرف آب و در نتیجه کاهش فشار محیطی در بوم‌نظام بهاره خواهد شد. عملکرد، سودمندی و کارآیی تولید، تجدید­پذیری و پایداری محیطی بوم‌نظام پاییزه به­طور معنی­داری از بهاره بیشتر بود. پایداری اقتصادی بوم‌نظام پاییزه کمی از بوم‌نظام بهاره کمتر بود که عمدتاً به‌خاطر مصرف نامعقول ورودی­های بازاری از قبیل بذر و سوخت­های فسیلی بود. مدیریت و کاربرد بهینه این ورودی­ها موجب افزایش پایداری اقتصادی در بوم‌نظام پاییزه خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the resources use efficiency and sustainability indices for two potato production systems using emergy analysis (Case Study: Gorgan county)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamidreza Shahhoseini 1
  • Mahmoud Ramroudi 1
  • Hossein Kazemi 2
1 Zabol
2 Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Agricultural intensification has had negative effects on the environment. The sustainability in the agricultural systems that provides sufficient food on the one hand and maintains the quality of the environment on the other hand, is very important. In assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems, the contribution of both environmental and economic resources must be taken into account. Emergy analysis has many indices in which the efficiency, renewability, environmental burden, and sustainability of a system can be assessed in terms of environmental and economic. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the resource use efficiency and sustainability indices for two autumn and spring potato systems and provide suggestions for optimum and sustainable management of the crop.
Materials and Methods
In this study, two production systems of potato were evaluated using emergy sustainability indices in Gorgan County, Iran during the period of 2017-2018. To this end, 100 and 60 farms were selected for autumn and spring potato, respectively. To analyze the production systems, the spatial and temporal boundaries of the system were defined and resources were divided into four categories: renewable environmental sources (R), nonrenewable environmental resources (N0), purchased renewable resources (FR), purchased nonrenewable resources (FN). Emergy flow for each item was multiplied by their transformities in joules and grams. In this study, emergy indices were calculated and compared by t-test between warm and cool production systems.
Results and Discussion
Total emergy inputs for the autumn and spring potato production were estimated as 1.71E+16 and 1.76E+16 sej ha-1 year-1, respectively. In autumn potato production, dependence on purchased inputs was higher than environmental inputs, while in spring potato production, the dependence of environmental inputs was higher than purchased inputs. Groundwater emergy was the largest emergy inputs of the total in both autumn and spring potato production systems with a share of 23.92% and 45.28%, respectively. In autumn and spring potato production system, transformities were 1.50E+05 and 2.54E+05 sej j-1; emergy renewabilities were 22.85% and 12.78%; emergy yield ratios were 1.44 and 2.06; emergy investment ratios were 2.29 and 0.94; environmental loading ratios were 29.10 and 30.02; and emergy sustainability indices were 0.05 and 0.07, respectively. There is a significant difference between the emergy indices of the autumn and spring potato production systems. Despite the higher contribution of environmental resources in the spring potato production system, the high consumption of groundwater as a non-renewable input led to an increase in environmental burden. The use of new irrigation methods will improve water consumption and, as a result, reduce environmental pressure on ecosystems. The autumn production system was more favorable in terms of yield and resources use efficiency, renewability and environmental sustainability than the spring production system. The economic sustainability of the autumn potato production system was slightly lower than that of the spring potato production system, largely due to the unreasonable use of purchased inputs such as seed and fossil fuels. Optimum management of inputs such as seed and fossil fuels will increase economic sustainability in the autumn potato production system. The optimization of economic inputs will increase economic sustainability in production systems (Kohkan et al., 2017).
 
Conclusion
Two autumn and spring potato production systems in Gorgan had significant differences in terms of resources use efficiency, input renewability, environmental burden and ecological sustainability. The autumn potato production system was more favorable in terms of resources use efficiency and environmental sustainability. The economic sustainability of the autumn potato production system was slightly lower than that of the spring potato production system. Optimizing inputs through the use of appropriate seeds (size and recommended amount), the use of soil tillage and modernization of machinery and diesel engines of the well will increase the economic sustainability of the autumn ecosystem.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • economic sustainability
  • Environmental burden
  • Groundwater
  • productivity
Asgharipour, M.R., Shahgholi, H., Campbell, D.E., Khamari, I., and Ghadiri, A., 2019. Comparison of the sustainability of bean production systems based on emergy and economic analyses. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191(2): 1-21.
Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., Panzieri, M., and Tiezzi, E., 2001. Sustainability assessment of a farm in the Chianti area (Italy). Journal of Cleaner Production 9: 365-373.
Brandt-Williams, S.L., 2002. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: Folio #4 Emergy of Florida Agriculture. Center for Environmental Policy, Univercity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Brown, M.T., Campbell, D.E., De Vilbiss, C., and Ulgiati, S., 2016. The geobiosphere emergy baseline: a synthesis. Ecological Modelling 339: 92-95.
Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 2004. Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum's contributions to quantifying and understanding systems. Ecological Modelling 178: 201-213.
Campbell, D.E., 1998. Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: an example using the state of Maine. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 531-569.
Campbell, D.E., Brandt-Williams, S.L., and Meisch, M.E.A., 2005. Environmental accounting using Emergy: Evaluation of the state of West Virginia. EPA/600/R-02/011. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washigton, DC, p. 116.
Cochran, J., 2003. Patterns of sustainable agriculture adoption/non-adoption in Panama. A Thesis submitted to Ms.C., Gill University. McGill University, Montreal, Canad: p. 1-114.
Cuadra, M., and Rydberg, T., 2006. Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua. Ecological Modelling 196: 421-433.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Muller, N.D., O,Connel, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., and Zaks, D.P.M., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337-342.
Ghaley, B.B., Kehli, N., and Mentler, A., 2018. Emergy synthesis of conventional fodder maize (Zea mays L.) production in Denmark. Ecological Indicators 87: 144-151.
Ghisellini, P., Zucaro, A., Viglia, S., and Ulgiati, S., 2014. Monitoring and evaluating the sustainability of Italian agricultural system. An emergy decomposition analysis. Ecological Modelling 271: 132-148.
Houshyar, E., Wu, X.F., and Chen, G.Q., 2018. Sustainability of wheat and maize production in the warm climate of southwestern Iran: an emergy analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2246-2255.
Jafari, M., 2019. Analysis of pistachio and date agroecosystems of Nehbandan using integrated evaluation of energy, economy, emergy and water footprint. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Univercity of Zabol, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)
Jafari, M., Asgharipour, M.R., Ramroudi, M., Galavi, M., and Hadarbadi, G., 2018. Sustainability assessment of date and pistachio agricultural systems using energy, emergy and economic approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production 193: 642-651.
Kazemi, H., Shokrgozar, M., Kamkar, B., and Soltani, A., 2018. Analysis of cotton production by energy indicators in two different climatic regions. Journal of Cleaner Production 190: 729-736.
Kohkan, S.A., Ghanbari, A., Asgharipour, M.R., and Fakheri, B.A., 2017. Emergy evaluation of Yaghuti grape of Sistan. Journal Arid Biome 7(2): 73-84. (In Persian with English Sumarry)
Kumaraswamy, S., 2012. Sustainability issues in agro-ecology: Socio-ecological perspective. Agricultural Sciences 3(2): 153-169.
Lu, H., Yuan, Y., Campbell, D.E., Qin, P., and Cui, L., 2014. Integated water quality, emergy and economic evaluation of three bioremediation treatment systems for eutrophic water. Ecological Engineering 69: 244-254.
Lu, H.F., Kang, W.L., Campbell, D.E., Ren, H., Tand, Y.W., Fengd, R.X., Luo, J.T., and Chen, F.P., 2009. Emergy and economic evaluations of four fruit production systems on reclaimed wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Ecological Engineering 35: 1743-1757.
Martin, J.F., Diemont, S.A.W., Powell, E., Stanton, M., and Levy-Tacher, S., 2006. Emergy evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with different scales and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 115: 128-140.
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New York. USA.
Odum, H.T., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Folio #2 Emergy global processes. Center of Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 39.
Zangeneh, M., Omid, M., and Akram, A. 2010. A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 35: 2927-2933.
Zhai, X., Huang, D., Tang, S., Li, S., Guo, J., Yang, Y., Liu, H., Li, J., and Wang, K., 2017. The emergy of metabolism in different ecosystems under the same environmental conditions in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China. Ecological Indicators 74: 198-204.