پایش پایداری بوم نظام‌های کشاورزی تولید محصولات زراعی روستای بلند استان سیستان و بلوچستان با استفاده از رهیافت تحلیل امرژی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل، زابل، ایران

2 گروه زراعت،دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل، زابل ، ایران

چکیده

تحلیل پایداری بوم‌نظام‌های زراعی در تصمیم‌گیری و مدیریت صحیح آن‌ها اهمیت دارد. کمی‌کردن پایداری بوم‌نظام‌های زراعی می‌تواند راهکارهایی در جهت رسیدن به نتایج اقتصادی و محیطی مثبت ارائه نماید. تحقیق حاضر، جهت پایش اکولوژیکی پایداری و بهره‌وری استفاده از نهاده‌ها در بوم‌نظام‌های تولید گندم، جو و یونجه چندساله بر مبنای رهیافت امرژی، با استفاده از اطلاعات جمع‌آوری شده از سطح نظام‌های خرده مالکی روستای بلند، استان سیستان و بلوچستان، ایران در 1398 انجام شد. برای تحلیل نظام‌های تولید، نهاده‌ها به چهار دسته تقسیم شدند، نهاده‌های محیطی تجدیدپذیر (R)، نهاده‌های محیطی تجدیدناپذیر (N)، نهاده‌های اقتصادی تجدیدپذیر، و نهاده‌های غیراقتصادی تجدیدناپذیر (FR & FN). مجموع امرژی پشتیبانی‌کننده از نظام‌های تولید گندم (Triticum aestivum)، جو (Hordeum vulgare) و یونجه (Medicago sativa) به‌ترتیب برابر با 1018×02/3 و 1017×06/7 و 1017×83/5 ام‌ژول خورشیدی در سال بود. جریان‌های رایگان تجدیدپذیر و تجدیدناپذیر به‌ترتیب 79/50، 89/45 و 29/42 درصد از کل امرژی ورودی نظام‌های تولید گندم، جو و یونجه را به خود اختصاص دادند. سهم زیاد نهاده‌های رایگان داخلی نشان می‌دهد که غالب مزارع مطالعه، نظام‌هایی غیرصنعتی هستند که به شیوه نیمه‌سنتی و کم نهاده مدیریت می‌شوند. مقادیر محاسبه غیربرای شاخص‌های پایداری (ESI و ESI*) نشان داد، پایداری اکولوژیکی نظام تولید یونجه بیشتر از سایر نظام‌های مطالعه است. دلیل اصلی پایداری بیشتر این نظام، سهم زیاد انرژی ورودی مربوط به نهاده‌های محیطی رایگان و منابع تجدید‌پذیر اقتصادی بود. همچنین پایین بودن کسر مبادله امرژی (EER)، پایداری زیست‌محیطی منتج از تأثیر بازار، مقدار انرژی صرف شده کمتر در تولید هر واحد خروجی و بهره‌وری بیشتر کل عوامل تولید حاکی از مزیت نسبی بیشتر نظام تولید یونجه است. در مجموع، ارزیابی‌های انجام غیربر اساس محاسبه شاخص‌های مبتنی بر امرژی نشان داد، در نظام‌های زراعی غالب روستا، توجه به راهکارهای عملی در مدیریت جامع بوم‌نظام تولیدی به‌ویژه حفاظت از مواد آلی خاک و جلوگیری از فرسایش خاک، می‌تواند در پایداری اکولوژیکی این نظام‌ها تأثیر چشمگیری داشته باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Monitoring the Sustainability of Cropland of Boland Village in Sistan and Baluchistan Province, Iran using Emergy Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farshad Golshani 1
  • Mohammad Reza Asgharipour 2
  • Ahmad Ghanbari 1
  • Esmaeel Seyedabadi 1
1 Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran.
2 Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction
 Sustainability analysis of agricultural ecosystems is important in their decision-making and proper management. Quantifying the sustainability of cropping agroecosystems can provide solutions to achieve positive economic and environmental results. Emergy analysis can be used to determine the degree to which ecological and economic systems are sustainable. By employing this method, we can gain a better understanding of ecological and economic systems and their interactions. Emergy analysis quantifies both environmental and economic costs associated with achieving sustainability, allowing for integrated management of ecological and economic factors. Emergy analysis is currently being used in agriculture to determine the sustainability of various scales of production systems. The present study was conducted to monitor the sustainability and productivity of the use of inputs in wheat, barley and alfalfa production systems using emergetic indicators, using information collected from the smallholder in Boland village, Sistan, Iran during 2019.
Materials and Methods
 Boland village is located in Teymurabad village, approximately 17 kilometers north of Zabol city in Sistan and Baluchestan province. Boland village's agricultural composition includes wheat, barley, and alfalfa cultivation. 148.9 hectares were designated for wheat cultivation, 50.8 hectares for barley cultivation, and 13.5 hectares for alfalfa cultivation during the study year. The inputs used included environmental renewable and non-renewable resources as well as purchased resources. These data were gathered during the study period using a database of agricultural organizations, verbal estimates, field measurements, and researcher observations. The first step is to analyze the system's boundaries and draw an energy diagram to classify the system's inputs. Emergy analysis's second step is to create emergy evaluation tables. After quantifying each system's input flow in joules, grams, or Rials, the inputs were multiplied by their transformities to obtain the solar emjoule (sej). Specific emergy, unit emergy value, renewable emergy percentage, emergy investment ratio, emergy yield ratio, environmental loading ratio, environmental sustainability index, and emergy exchange ratio were all used in this study.
Results and Discussion
 Free renewable and non-renewable flows accounted for 50.79%, 45.89% and 42.29% of the total input current of wheat, barley and alfalfa production systems, respectively. The large share of free domestic inputs indicates that the majority of study farms are non-industrial systems that are managed in a semi-traditional, low-input manner. The emergy input of non-renewable environmental resources was 2.73E+17, 6.42E+17, and 4.99E+17 sej/ha in wheat, barley, and alfalfa systems, respectively. Wheat and barley production systems have high emergy flows due to the high loss of soil organic matter and soil erosion in these systems. In wheat, barley, and alfalfa production systems, the highest proportions of purchased exergy resources were associated with animal manure, nitrogen fertilizer, and phosphorus fertilizer, respectively. In wheat, barley, and alfalfa production systems, the unit emergy value was 4.44E+05, 3.80E+05, and 3.64E+05 sej/J, respectively. The higher exergy efficiency of alfalfa production systems compared to wheat and barley production systems may be attributed to alfalfa's comparable economic performance to other systems. EYR was calculated to be 2.03, 1.85, and 1.73 in wheat, barley, and alfalfa production systems, respectively. The reason for the higher EYR in wheat production is that less purchased resources are used and a greater proportion of inputs are provided by purchased resources. Additionally, the ELR values for wheat, barley, and alfalfa production systems in Boland village were 17.36, 16.09, and 7.08, respectively.
The calculated values ​​for emergy sustainability indices (ESI and ESI*) showed that the ecological sustainability of the alfalfa production system is higher than other study systems. The main reason for the greater sustainability of this system was the large share of input energy related to free environmental inputs and economic renewable resources. Also, low energy exchangeable ratio (EER), environmental sustainability resulting from market impact, less emergy expended in the production of each output unit and higher productivity of total production factors indicate a greater comparative advantage of the alfalfa production system.
Conclusion
 In general, the evaluations based on the calculation of emergy-based indicators showed that in the dominant agricultural systems of the Boland village, Sistan, attention to practical solutions in the comprehensive management of the production system, especially protection of soil organic matter and prevention of soil erosion, can have a significant impact on ecological sustainability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Environmental load
  • Renewable inputs
  • Input-output based analysis
  • Emergy based indicators

مراجع

  1. Abbasi, H. R., Gohardasht, A., Khaksarian, F., & Ganjali, M. (2017). Morphological features of wind sediments and erosive winds in Sistan plain. Desert Management, 5, 28-42. (In Persian with English Summary) DOI: 10.22092/DM.2017.109802
  2. Agostinho, F., Diniz, G., Siche, R., & Ortega, E. (2008). The use of emergy assessment and the geographical information system in the diagnosis of small family farms in Brazil. Ecological Modeling, 210, 37–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.07.007
  3. Amiri, Z., Asgharipour, M.R., Campbell, D.E., & Aghapour Sabaghi, M. (2020). Comparison of the sustainability of mechanized and traditional rapeseed production systems using an emergy-based production function: A case study in Lorestan province, Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120569
  4. Amiri, Z., Asgharipour, M.R., Campbell, D.E., & Armin, M. (2019). A sustainability analysis of two rapeseed farming ecosystems in Khorramabad, Iran, based on emergy and economic analyses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 1051–1066. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.163
  5. Amiri, Z., Asgharipour, M.R., Campbell, D.E., Azizi, K., & Kakolvand, E. (2021). Conservation agriculture, a selective model based on emergy analysis for sustainable production of shallot as a medicinal-industrial plant. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126000. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126000
  6. Asgharipour, M.R., Amiri, Z., & Campbell, D.E. (2020). Evaluation of the sustainability of four greenhouse vegetable production ecosystems based on an analysis of emergy and social characteristics. Ecological Modelling, 424, 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109036
  7. Asgharipour, M.R., Shahgholi, H., Campbell, D.E., Khamari, I., & Ghadiri, A. (2019). Comparison of the sustainability of bean production systems based on emergy and economic analyses. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessments, 191, 2. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-7123-3
  8. Brown, M.T., & Ulgiati, S. (2004). Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum’s contributions to quantifying and understanding systems. Ecological Modelling, 178, 201–213.
  9. Campbell, D.E., Brandt-Williams, S.L., & 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, Washington, DC, pp. 116.
  10. Campbell, D.E., Lu, H.F., Knox, G.A., & Odum, H.T. (2009). Maximizing empower on a human-dominated planet: the role of exotic Spartina. Ecological Engineering, 35, 463–486.
  11. Cavalett, O., & Ortega, E. (2009). Emergy, nutrients balance, and economic assessment of soybean production and industrialization in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 762–771. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.022
  12. Cavalett, O., de Queiroz, J.F., & Ortega, E. (2006). Emergy assessment of integrated production systems of grains, pig and fish in small farms in the South Brazil. Ecological Modelling, 193, 205-224.
  13. Chen, F. (2011). Agricultural Ecology, second ed. China Agricultural University Press, Beijing. 312 p.
  14. Clark, E.A.( 2004). Benefits of re-integrating livestock and forages in crop production systems. Journal of Crop Improvement, 12(1-2), 405-436.
  15. Colaco, A.F., Povh, F.P., Molin, J.P., & Romanelli, T.L. (2012). Energy assessment for variable rate nitrogen application. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 14(3), 85-90. DOI: 1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.038
  16. de Barros, J.M., Blazy, G.S. Rodrigues, R., & Tournebize, J.P. (2009). Emergy evaluation and economic performance of banana cropping systems in Guadeloupe (French West Indies). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 129, 437–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.012
  17. Fallahinejad, S. and Armin, M. (2022). Role of mechanization on the sustainability of sugar beet production using emergy approach. Agriculture, Environment & Society, 2(1), 15-24. DOI: 10.22069/ijpp.2020.17336.1259.
  18. Fallahinejad, S., Armin, M. & Asgharipour, M.R. (2021). A survey on the ecological sustainability of introducing new crops in the cropping pattern using emergy approach. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, p.100083. DOI: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100083
  19. Fallahinejad, S., Armin, M. & Asgharipour, M.R. (2022). The effect of farm size on the sustainability of wheat production using emergy approach. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, p.100161.
  20. Franzluebbers, A.J., (2007). Integrated crop–livestock systems in the southeastern USA. Agronomy Journal, 99(2), 361-372.
  21. Guan, F., Sha, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., & Wang, C. (2016). Emergy assessment of three home courtyard agriculture production systems in Tibet Autonomous region, China. Biomedicine Biotechnology, 17(8), 628-639.
  22. Haynes, R.J., & Naidu, R. (1998). Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: A review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 51, 123-137.
  23. Heidari, H., Katircioğlu, S. T., & Saeidpour, L. (2015). Economic growth, CO2 emissions, and energy consumption in the five ASEAN countries. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 64, 785-791.
  24. Hu, S., Mo, X., Lin, Z. & Qiu, J. (2010). Emergy assessment of a wheat-maize rotation system with different water assignments in the North China Plain. Environmental Management, 46, 643-657. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9543-x
  25. Jafari, M., Asgharipour, M.R., Ramroudi, M., Galavi, & M. Hadarbadi, G. (2018). Sustainability assessment of date and pistachio agricultural systems using energy, emergy and economic approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193, 642-651. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.089
  26. Lan, S.F., Qin, P., & Lu, H.F. (2002). Emergy Assessment of Ecological Systems. Third Edition. Beijing China: Chemical Industry Press 76: 406–412.
  27. Lu, H., & Campbell, D.E. (2009). Ecological and economic dynamics of the Shunde agricultural system under China's small city development strategy. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2589-2600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.019
  28. Lu, H., Bai, Y., Ren, H., & Campbell, D.E. (2010). Integrated emergy, energy and economic evaluation of rice and vegetable production systems in alluvial paddy fields: Implications for agricultural policy in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2727-2735. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.025
  29. Lu, H.F., Kang, W.L., Campbell, D.E., Ren, H., Tan, Y.W., Feng, R.X., Luo, J.T., & 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.010
  30. Lu, H.F., Tan, Y.W., Zhang, W.S., Qiao, Y.C., Campbell, D.E., Zhou, L., & Ren, H. (2017). Integrated emergy and economic evaluation of lotus-root production systems on reclaimed wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158, 367-379. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.015
  31. Lu, H.F., Yuan, Y., Campbell, D.E., Qin, P., & Cui, L. (2014). Integrated water quality, emergy and economic evaluation of three bioremediation treatment systems for eutrophic water. Ecological Engineering, 69, 244–254. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.010
  32. Lu, P., Yu, Q., Liu, J., & Lee, X. (2006). Advance of tree-flowering dates in response to urban climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 138, 120-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.04.002
  33. McLaughlin, H., Shields, F., Jagiello, J., & Thiele, G. (2012). Analytical options for biochar adsorption and surface area. Particle Testing Authority, 15 pages. https://www.particletesting.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/PTA-Analytical-Options-for-Biochar-Adsorption-and-Surface-Area. pdf
  34. Moonilall, N.I., Homenauth, O., & Lal, R. (2020). Emergy analysis for maize fields under different amendment applications in Guyana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258(120761), 1-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120761
  35. Muzari, W. (2014). Interactions of biophysical and socioeconomic factors and outputs in mixed crop-livestock smallholder farming systems in Africa South of the Sahara. International Journal of Science and Research, 5(1), 1777-1787. DOI: 21275/23011603
  36. Odum, H.T. (1996). Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Decision Making. Wiley, New York. 425 p.
  37. Odum, H.T. (2000). Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio No. 2 e Emergy of Global Processes. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, p. 28.
  38. Odum, H.T., & Peterson, N. (1996). Simulation and evaluation with energy systemsblocks. Ecological Model, 93, 155–173.
  39. Ortega, E., Anami, M., & Diniz, G. (2002), September. Certification of food products using emergy analysis. In Proceedings of III International Workshop Advances in Energy Studies, 227-237.
  40. Panzieri, M., Marchettini, N., & Hallam, T.G. (2000). Importance of the Bradhyrizobium japonicum symbiosis for the sustainability of a soybean cultivation. Ecological Modelling, 135, 301–310.
  41. Pizzigallo, A.C.I., Granai, C., & Borsa, S. (2008). The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 86, 396–406.
  42. Porsur, K.(2009). Comparative study of wind erosion potential in the Sistan agricultural and non-agricultural lands using IRIFR models. Master Thesis, University of Zabol, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)
  43. Quintero-Angel, M., & Gonzalez-Acevedo, A. (2018). Tendencies and challenges for the assessment 999 of agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 254, 273–281. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.023
  44. Schulte, E.E., & Hopkins, B.G. (1996). Estimation of soil organic matter by weight loss‐on‐ Soil Organic Matter: Analysis and Interpretation, 46, 21-31.
  45. Sha, Z., Guan, F., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, H., & Wang, C. (2015). Evaluation of raising geese in cornfields based on emergy analysis: A case study in southeastern Tibet, China. Ecological Engineering, 84, 485-491. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.10.012
  46. Sneessens, I., Veysset, P., Benoit, M., Lamadon, A., & Brunschwig, G. (2016). Direct and indirect impacts of crop–livestock organization on mixed crop–livestock systems sustainability: A model-based study. Animal, 10(11), 1911-1922. DOI: 1017/S1751731116000720
  47. Tavousi, T., & Raeispour, K. (2011). Statistical analysis and prediction of the occurrence of severe storms using the method. Journal of Geographical Studies of Arid Areas, 1(2), 93-105. (In Persian with English Summary)
  48. Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D., May, M., Lewis, K., & 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), 101-119. DOI: 1016/j.agsy.2004.07.015.
  49. Ulgiati, S., & Brown, M.T. (1998). Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecological Modeling, 108(1-3), 23-
  50. Ulgiati, S., & Brown, M.T. (2012). Resource quality, technological efficiency and factors of scale within the emergy framework: A response to Macro Raugei. Ecological Modelling, 227, 109–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.11.019
  51. Ulgiati, S., Odum, H., & Bastianoni, S. (1994). Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability an emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling, 73: 215–268.
  52. Vandermeer, J. (2011). The ecology of agroecosystems. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 258 p.
  53. Vassallo, P., Bastianoni, S., Beiso, I., Ridolfi, R., & Fabiano, M. (2007). Emergy analysis for the environmental sustainability of an inshore fish farming system. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 290–298. DOI: 1016/j.ecolind.2006.02.003
  54. Wang, X., Dadouma, A., Chen, Y., Sui, P., Gao, W., Qin, F., Zhang, J., & Xia, Wu, L. (2014). Emergy analysis of grain production systems on large-scale farms in the North China Plain based on Agricultural Systems, 128, 66-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.03.002
  55. Xi, Y.G., & Qin, P. (2009). Emergy evaluation of organic rice-duck mutualism system. Ecological Engineering, 11, 1677-1683. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.06.013
  56. Yang, Q., Chen, G.Q., Liao, S., Zhao, Y.H., Peng, H.W., & Chen, H.P. (2013). Environmental sustainability of wind power: An emergy analysis of a Chinese wind farm. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 229-239. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.052
  57. Zhang, G., & Long, W. (2010). A key review on emergy analysis and assessment of biomass resources for a sustainable future. Energy Policy, 29, 4111-4129. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.056
  58. Zhang, M.M., Wang, Z.F., Xu, C., & Jiang, H. (2012). Embodied energy and emergy analyses of a concentrating solar power (CSP) system. Energy Policy, 42, 232-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.080
  59. Zia Tavana, & M.H. (1992). Characteristics of the natural environment of Sistan hole. Geographical articles of Dr. Mohammad Hassan Ganji's celebration letter. Tehran. Gitashenasi Publications, 185 p. (In Persian)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 03 مهر 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 28 آذر 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 07 دی 1400
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 07 دی 1400

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار