Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Two Crop Ecosystems with Ecological Footprint Analysis Approach (Case Study: Dez Catchment)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• nasim zadeh dabagh ¹
• Seyed Masood Monavari ²
• Nargess Kargari ³
• Lobat Taghavi ⁴
• Saeid pirasteh ⁵

¹ Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

² Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

³ Department of Environmental Science, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran.

⁴ Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Geosciences and Environmental Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

⁵ Professor, Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Geosciences and Environmental Management, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China.

10.22067/agry.2022.74317.1085

Abstract

Introduction
Wheat and maize are important and strategic crops in Iran. These crops are widely grown in the Dez catchment area. Therefore, due to climate change, recent droughts, water bankruptcy in the country, low water consumption efficiency in agriculture, and the excessive consumption of input which pose a serious threat to agriculture and food security, it is necessary to achieve a correct understanding of the sustainable production of crops in the region. Improper use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels, machinery causes irreversible damage to the environment. To reduce these adverse environmental effects of methods the idea of sustainable agriculture and the transformation of agriculture from high-input to low-input consumption is very important. The footprint index determines the amount of pressure on nature caused by man or other man-made systems. The carbon uptake criterion is used as a basis for assessing the ecological footprint. Ecological footprint estimates the amount of productive land needed to compensate for the environmental impacts of a particular activity by calculating resource consumption and carbon dioxide production. According to studies, each hectare of land can absorb 1.8 tons of carbon. The carbon uptake criterion is used as a basis for assessing the ecological footprint.
Materials and Methods
The method of the present study has a practical approach because it is in line with achieving sustainable agricultural development. This research was carried out in the cropping year of 2019-2020 at the Dez catchment. To determine the environmental sustainability of agriculture we used the modified ecological footprint method presented by Kissinger and Gottlieb (2012) and Guzman et al (2013). In this study, the ecological footprint was determined based on a place-oriented approach by obtaining energy consumption of the inputs, and the amount of crop and land energy. All the variables were collected in the form of a questionnaire and through interviews with 400 farmers of wheat and maize in the study area. Equivalent factors were also selected from similar studies. Independent samples t-test was performed between the two crops to determine whether there are differences in evaluation of EF.
Results and Discussion
The results of evaluating the ecological footprint method of wheat and maize cultivation in the study area at the level of one hectare were 3.50 and 4.66 global hectares, respectively. The results of the ecological footprint assessment for wheat and maize showed that both cropping systems are in an unsustainable state in terms of the environment. These systems produce 1.7 tons and 2.86 tons of excess carbon to produce wheat and maize, respectively which are more than the ecological capacity of one hectare to absorb environmental pollution. For both wheat and maize crops, nitrate fertilizer with 40.85% and 49.36%, diesel fuel with 18.57% and 17.60%, and water consumption with 14.57% and 16.31%, respectively, had the greatest impact on environmental instability in the study area. Mean comparison of the ecological footprint between the two crops showed that there was no significant difference between wheat and maize. The high ecological footprint of traditional agriculture was consistent with previous studies (Naderi Mahdei et al, 2015; Kissinger and Gottlieb, 2012; Bevec et al, 2011). Also, the important role of nitrate fertilizer and fossil fuels in increasing environmental hazards and ecological unsustainability was consistent with Fallahpour et al, (2012). It should be noted that No study was found to contradict the findings of the current study.
Conclusion
Both wheat and maize cropping systems were not environmentally sustainable and the total consumption inputs for both crops; chemical fertilizers, especially nitrate fertilizer and then diesel fuel have had the greatest impact on environmental instability in the study area. As a final result, the ecosystem of irrigated wheat production is more desirable than grain maize in terms of environmental sustainability, therefore, the production of both crops, especially maize, must be done with the highest accuracy and consider environmental considerations in the region.

Keywords

• Cereals
• Energy
• Global hectare
• Input
• Sustainable agriculture

Main Subjects

• Sustainable agriculture and food production systems

---

©2023 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

1. Agostinho, F., & Pereira, L. (2013). Support area as an indicator of environmental load: Comparison between embodied energy, ecological footprint, and emergy accounting methods. Ecological Indicators, 24, 494-503. DOI:1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.006
2. Ahmadi, F., Radmanesh, F., Parham, G.A., & Mirabbasi Najafabadi, R. (2017). Application of Archimedean joint functions in flood frequency analysis (Case study: Dez catchment). Iranian Soil and Water Research (Iranian Agricultural Sciences), 48(3), 477-489. (In Persian with English Summary). DOI:22059/ijswr.2017.217805.667551
3. Akcaoz, H., Ozcatalbas, O., & Kizilay, H. (2009). Analysis of energy use for pomegranate production in Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 7(2), 475-480.
4. Amini, S., Rohani, A., Aghkhani, M.H., Abbaspour-Fard, M.H., & Asgharipour, M.R. (2020). Sustainability assessment of rice production systems in Mazandaran province, Iran with emergy analysis and fuzzy logic. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 40, 100744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100744
5. Bahrami, A. (2015). Environmental impact assessment of agricultural farming systems in Hamedan province: using ecological footprint analysis. D. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University of Hamedan, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)
6. Bavec, M., Narodoslawsky, M., Bavec, F., & Turinek, M. (2011). Ecological impact of wheat and spelt production under industrial and alternative farming systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(3), 242-250. DOI:1017/S1742170511000354
7. Canakci, M., & Akinci, I. (2006). Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy, 31(8-9), 1243-1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.05.021
8. Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I., & Ozmerzi, A. (2005). Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: Case study for Antalya region, Turkey. Energy conversion and Management, 46(4), 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.04.008
9. Cetin, B., & Vardar, A. (2008). An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 33(3), 428-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.008
10. Fallahpour, F., Aminghafouri, A., Behbahani, A.G., & Bannayan, M. (2012). The environmental impact assessment of wheat and barley production by using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(6), 979-992. DOI:1007/s10668-012-9367-3
11. Fang, K., Heijungs, R., & de Snoo, G.R. (2014). Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecological Indicators, 36, 508-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.017
12. Feyzbakhsh, M.T., & Soltani, A. (2013). Energy flow and global warming potential of corn farm (Gorgan city). Journal of Crop Production (EJCP), 6(3), 89-107. (In Persian with English Summary). 1001.1.2008739.1392.6.3.6.6
13. Solís-Guzmán, J., Marrero, M., & Ramírez-de-Arellano, A. (2013). Methodology for determining the ecological footprint of the construction of residential buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecological Indicators, 25, 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.008
14. Kaltsas, A.M., Mamolos, A.P., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Nanos, G.D., & Kalburtji, K.L. (2007). Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 122(2), 243-251. DOI:1016/j.agee.2007.01.017
15. Kissinger, M., & Gottlieb, D. (2012). From global to place oriented hectares—The case of Israel's wheat ecological footprint and its implications for sustainable resource supply. Ecological Indicators, 16, 51-57. DOI:1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.012
16. Naderi Mahdei, K., Bahrami, A., Aazami, M., & Sheklabadi, M. (2015). Assessment of agricultural farming systems sustaina bility in Hamedan province using ecological footprint analysis (Case study: irrigated wheat). Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology (JAST), 17, 1409-1420.
17. Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., & Fert, C. (2004). Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renewable Energy, 29(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00135-6
18. Pilevar, A.R., Matinfar, H.R., Sohrabi, A., & Sarmadian, F. (2020). Integrated fuzzy, AHP and GIS techniques for land suitability assessment in semi-arid regions for wheat and maize farming. Ecological Indicators, 110, 105887. DOI:1016/j.ecolind.2019.105887
19. Rathke, G.W., & Diepenbrock, W. (2006). Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. European Journal of Agronomy, 24(1), 35-44. DOI:10.1016/j.eja.2005.04.003
20. Rees, W.E., & Wackernagel, M. (1999). Monetary analysis: Turning a blind eye on sustainability. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 47-52.
21. Rezaei, P., Naderi Mahdei, K., Karimi, S., & Shanazi, K. (2019). Environmental sustainability assessment of farming system using ecological footprint analysis (Case study: potato and cucumber cultivation in Sofalgaran district of Bahar county). Agricultural Knowledge and Sustainable Production, 29(2). (In Persian with English Summary)
22. Sarkar, D., Kar, S.K., Chattopadhyay, A., Rakshit, A., Tripathi, V.K., Dubey, P.K., & Abhilash, P.C. (2020). Low input sustainable agriculture: A viable climate-smart option for boosting food production in a warming world. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106412
23. Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., Weldekidan, H., Asamoah, E.F., Owusu, P.A., & Doyi, I.N.Y. (2019). Environmental sustainability assessment using dynamic autoregressive-distributed lag simulations-nexus between greenhouse gas emissions, biomass energy, food and economic growth. Science of the Total Environment, 668, 318-332. DOI: 1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.432
24. Silalertruksa, T., & Gheewala, S.H. (2018). Land-water-energy nexus of sugarcane production in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 521-528. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618303913
25. Strapatsa, A.V., Nanos, G.D., & Tsatsarelis, C.A. (2006). Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 116(3-4), 176-180. DOI:1016/j.agee.2006.02.003
26. Streimikis, J., & Baležentis, T. (2020). Agricultural sustainability assessment framework integrating sustainable development goals and interlinked priorities of environmental, climate and agriculture policies. Sustainable Development, 28(6), 1702-1712.
27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2118
28. Tabatabaeefar, A., Emamzadeh, H., Varnamkhasti, M.G., Rahimizadeh, R., & Karimi, M. (2009). Comparison of energy of tillage systems in wheat production. Energy, 34(1), 41-45. DOI:1016/j.energy.2008.09.023
29. Talukder, B., Blay-Palmer, A., & Hipel, K.W. (2020). Towards complexity of agricultural sustainability assessment: Main issues and concerns. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 6, 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100038
30. Tarazkar, M.H., Dehbidi, N., & shokoohi, Z. (2019). Estimating the ecological footprint of agricultural production in D-8 Islamic countries. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 16(4), 17-32. (In Persian with English Summary)
31. Tipi, T., Cetin, B., & Vardar, A. (2009). An analysis of energy use and input costs for wheat production in Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 7(2), 352-356.
32. Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D.J., May, M., Lewis, K.A., & Jaggard, K. (2005). An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the UK. Agricultural Systems, 85(2), 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.015