ارزیابی تأثیر مدیریت مصرف نهاده‌ها بر پایداری تولید کینوا: مصرف انرژی، مصرف آب و پیامدهای محیط‌زیستی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

محقق بخش مدیریت آب در مزرعه، مؤسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

10.22092/lmj.2026.371102.397

چکیده

با افزایش محدودیت منابع آب و انرژی و نیاز به توسعه کشاورزی پایدار در مناطق خشک و نیمه‌خشک، مدیریت مصرف بهینه آب و نهاده‌های کشاورزی در تولید کینوا اهمیت ویژه‌ای یافته است. هدف این پژوهش، ارزیابی اثر مدیریت بهینه مصرف نهاده‌ها بر پایداری کشت کینوا با تمرکز بر بهره‌وری انرژی (EUE)، کارایی مصرف آب(WUE)  و شاخص محیط­زیستی (EII) بود. این مطالعه به­صورت لایسیمتری و تحت مدیریت کنترل‌شده انجام شد. انرژی ورودی سیستم شامل انرژی ناشی از مصرف سوخت، آب، برق، کود و سم، بذر و نیروی انسانی و انرژی خروجی شامل انرژی حاصل از عملکرد دانه کینوا در نظر گرفته شد. شاخص‌های بهره‌وری انرژی، کارایی مصرف آب و شاخص محیط­زیستی بر اساس روابط استاندارد محاسبه گردیدند. نتایج نشان داد که مدیریت بهینه مصرف نهاده‌ها در کشت کینوا منجر به کاهش چشمگیر انرژی ورودی و شاخص محیط­زیستی و افزایش بهره‌وری انرژی و کارایی مصرف آب شد. به‌طور مشخص، انرژی ورودی سیستم برابر 20209/8 مگاژول بر هکتار بود، در حالی که انرژی خروجی حاصل از محصول برابر 49406/7 مگاژول بر هکتار برآورد شد که منجر به بهره‌وری انرژی (EUE) برابر با 2/44 شد. کارایی مصرف آب (WUE) نیز برابر 0/81کیلوگرم بر مترمکعب محاسبه شد که نشان‌دهنده استفاده مؤثر از آب در طول فصل رشد است. شاخص محیط­زیستی (EII) نیز با مقدار 2821/6 کیلوگرم دی­اکسیدکربن معادل در هکتار کاهش قابل توجه اثرات محیط­زیستی را نشان می‌دهد. مقادیر به‌دست‌آمده برای شاخص‌ها بیانگر نقش تعیین‌کننده مدیریت آبیاری و مصرف نهاده‌ها در افزایش پایداری تولید کینوا هستند. تحلیل حساسیت با استفاده از شبیه‌سازی مونت‌کارلو نشان داد که پایداری سیستم بیشترین حساسیت را نسبت به تغییرات شاخص‌های کارایی مصرف آب و بهره‌وری انرژی دارد، که بر اهمیت مدیریت دقیق این دو مؤلفه در سیستم‌های زراعی مناطق خشک و نیمه‌خشک تأکید می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Impacts of input consumption management on sustainable production of Quinoa: energy use, water use, and environmental implications

نویسنده [English]

  • Reza Mohammadikia
Researcher, On-Farm Water Management Department, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

Objectives
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) has emerged as a promising climate-resilient crop due to its exceptional adaptability to harsh environmental conditions, including drought, salinity, and poor soil fertility. Its high nutritional value, coupled with its ability to maintain acceptable productivity under limited water availability, has made quinoa an attractive option for diversifying cropping systems and improving food security in arid and semi-arid regions. However, despite its recognized tolerance to environmental stresses, achieving sustainable quinoa production still depends on efficient management of agricultural inputs, particularly water, energy, and agrochemicals, to ensure both economic viability and environmental sustainability. With increasing limitations on water and energy resources and the pressing need for sustainable agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions, optimizing the management of water and agricultural inputs has become crucial for quinoa production. This study is intended to evaluate the effects of optimal input management on quinoa cultivation sustainability, focusing on Energy Use Efficiency (EUE), Water Use Efficiency (WUE), and Environmental Impact Index (EII). Understanding how input management affects energy consumption, water productivity, and environmental impacts is essential for enhancing resource-use efficiency and promoting sustainable cropping systems in water-limited areas.
Material and Methods
A field-based study using lysimeters under controlled management conditions was conducted to quantify system inputs and outputs. System inputs included energy from fuel, water, and electricity as well as fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, and human labor while output energy was calculated based on quinoa grain yield. EUE, WUE, and EII were computed using standard formulas. Additionally, a Monte Carlo simulation was employed for sensitivity analysis to determine the relative effects of different efficiency indicators on system sustainability. To ensure exhaustive sustainability assessment, all the energy equivalents and environmental coefficients associated with agricultural inputs were derived from established conversion factors reported in the literature. Water Use Efficiency was determined bsed on grain yield relative to the total volume of irrigation water applied during the growing season. The environmental impact index was estimated based on greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of major agricultural inputs, enabling a comparative evaluation of management performance from both resource-use and environmental perspectives. The integration of deterministic efficiency calculations with probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided a robust framework for identifying the most influential factors affecting the sustainability of quinoa production under arid and semi-arid conditions.
Results
Optimal input management significantly reduced total energy inputs and the environmental impact index but enhanced energy and water use efficiencies. Specifically, total system input energy was estimated at 20,208 MJ ha⁻¹ whereas output energy from quinoa grain reached 49,406 MJ ha⁻¹, resulting in an EUE of 2.44. Water use efficiency was calculated at 0.81 kg m⁻³, indicating effective water utilization throughout the growing season. The environmental impact index (EII) was calculated at 2,821 kg CO₂-eq ha⁻¹, demonstrating a substantial reduction in environmental burden. Sensitivity analysis revealed that system sustainability was most responsive to variations in WUE and EUE, highlighting the critical role of precise management of water and energy inputs in arid and semi-arid cropping systems.
Conclusion
The findings highlight the pivotal role of optimal management of inputs for enhancing energy and water efficiencies and mitigating environmental impacts in quinoa cultivation. A holistic approach integrating precise irrigation scheduling and judicious input application can substantially improve the sustainability of quinoa production in water-limited regions. These results provide valuable insights for policymakers and land managers seeking sustainable agricultural practices and resource-efficient cropping strategies. Furthermore, the integration of energy, water, and environmental indicators in evaluating quinoa production systems provides a comprehensive framework for assessing agricultural sustainability under resource-constrained conditions. The results of this study suggest that improving input-use strategies not only enhances production efficiency but also contributes to reduced ecological footprint of crop production. It is, therefore, essential to adopt such integrated management approaches in order to develop resilient and sustainable farming systems, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions that face increasing pressures from climate change and water scarcity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Energy use efficiency
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Multi-Criteria analysis
  • Monte Carlo simulation
  • Water use efficiency

مراجع

  1. AbdElgalil, A. A., Seleiman, M. F., Alotaibi, M. and Refay, Y., 2023a. Energy use efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and economic analysis of sustainable crop production systems. Energy, 263, 125742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.125742
  2. AbdElgalil, A. A., Seleiman, M. F., Alotaibi, M. and Refay, Y., 2023b. Energy indices and environmental impacts of crop production systems under different management strategies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 45821–45835.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26345-9

  1. AbdElgalil, M. A., El-Harty, E. H. and Alotaibi, M. O., 2023c. Energy efficiency and environmental performance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under different irrigation regimes in arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 280, 108269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108269
  2. Alizadeh, A. and Keshavarz, A., 2005. Status of agricultural water use in Iran. In Water conservation, reuse, and recycling: Proceedings of an Iranian–American workshop (pp. 94–105). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11241
  3. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56). Rome: FAO.
  4. CAST, 2023. Potential for U.S. agriculture to be greenhouse gas negative (Report). https://cast-science.org/publication/potential-for-u-s-agriculture-to-be-greenhouse-gas-negative/
  5. De Klein, C., Novoa, R. S. A., Ogle, S., Smith, K. A., Rochette, P. and Wirth, T. C., 2006. N₂O emissions from managed soils, and CO₂ emissions from lime and urea application. In 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 4 – Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (Chapter 11). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
  6. Lotfalian Dehkordi, A. and Forootan, M., 2020. Estimation of energy flow and environmental impacts of quinoa cultivation through life cycle assessment methodology. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 21836–21846.

 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08576-9

  1. Del Pozo, A., Ruf, K. and Alfaro, C., 2023. Traits associated with higher productivity and resilience to drought prone Mediterranean environments of coastal lowland quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Field Crops Research, 299, 108985.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.108985

  1. El-Harty, E. H., 2023. Effect of irrigation and fertilization management on water use efficiency and productivity of quinoa in semi-arid environments. Irrigation Science, 41, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-023-00891-9
  2. El-Harty, E. H., Khan, M. A., Seleiman, M. F., Afzal, M. and Alghamdi, S., 2023. Water use efficiency and productivity of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotypes under different irrigation regimes. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 51(2), 13209. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha51213209
  3. FAO, 2013. The state of food and agriculture: Food systems for better nutrition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  4. Grimes, D. W. and Yamada, H., 1982. Relation of cotton growth and yield to minimum leaf water potential. Crop Science, 22(1), 134–139.

 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200010032x

  1. Hasanpanah, A., Rahimzadeh Khoei, F. and Bakhshandeh, A., 2020a. Energy and environmental analysis of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) production systems under different fertilization levels in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123–141.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124219

  1. Hasanpanah, M., Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Rafiee, S. and Firouzi, S., 2020b. Energy efficiency and environmental impacts of crop production systems: A comparative assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120267.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120267

  1. Howell, T. A., Evett, S. R., Tolk, J. A. and Schneider, A. D., 2004. Evapotranspiration of full-, deficit-irrigated, and dryland cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 130(4), 277–285.
  2. Howell, T. A., Schneider, A. D. and Jensen, M. E., 1991. History of lysimeter design and use for evapotranspiration measurements. In R. G. Allen et al. (Eds.), Advances in evapotranspiration (pp. 1–9). ASAE.
  3. IPCC, 2019. 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC.
  4. Iranian Meteorological Organization (IMO), 2021. Climatological data for Karaj, Iran (1990–2020). Tehran: Iranian Meteorological Organization. )In Persian(
  5. Jacobsen, S. E., 2003. The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Reviews International, 19(1), 167–177.
  6. Khan, M. A., Awan, I. U., Zafar, J. and Bakhash, A., 2009. Energy requirement and economic analysis of rice production in Dera Ismail Khan District of Pakistan. Plant, Soil and Environment, 55(5), 197–203.
  7. Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Mousavi-Avval, S. H. and Clark, S., 2022. Energy flow modeling and optimization in agricultural systems. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 52, 102198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102198
  8. Lal, R., 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International, 30(7), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.005
  9. Matkan, Ali Akbar.A., Darvishzadeh, Roshanak. B., Hosseiniasl, Amin.C., Ebrahimi Khusfid, Mohsen., Ebrahimi Khusfie, Zohre, (2012). Knowledge based drought risk zonation in arid regions using GIS (Case study: Sheitoor, Yazd), Journal of Climate Research, 2(5), 103. Magiran.com/p1157038. )In Persian(
  10. McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J. and Conover, W. J., 2000. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 42(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2000.10485979
  11. Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Mohtasebi, S. S. and Mousavi-Avval, S. H., 2021. Energy use efficiency and environmental impacts of agricultural production systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110889.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110889

  1. Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Rafiee, S. and Firouzi, S., 2023. Integrated assessment of energy use efficiency and water productivity in crop production systems. Energy Reports, 9, 2145–2156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.01.094
  2. Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E., 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In D. L. Sparks et al. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods (pp. 961–1010). Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy.
  3. Nikkhah, A., Khojastehpour, M. and Emadi, B., 2021. Energy, economic and environmental assessment of agricultural systems under sustainable management. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 40(6), e13693.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13693

  1. Oweis, T. and Hachum, A., 2006. Improving water productivity through deficit irrigation: Examples from Syria. Agricultural Water Management, 80(1–3), 100–111.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.003

  1. Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M., 2008. Food, energy, and society (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
  2. Razzaghi, F., Ahmadi, S. H., Jacobsen, S. E., Jensen, C. R. and Andersen, M. N., 2011a. Effects of salinity and soil drying on radiation use efficiency, water productivity and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 197(5), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00473.x
  3. Razzaghi, F., Ahmadi, S. H., Jacobsen, S.-E., Jensen, C. R. and Andersen, M. N., 2020. Salinity tolerance and grain yield of quinoa under high soil salinity. Agricultural Water Management, 234, 106122.
  4. Razzaghi, F., Tashiro, K. and Miyanaga, A., 2011b. Water use efficiency and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in comparison with wheat, barley, and rice in the semi-arid region of Iran. Agricultural Water Management, 98(9), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.005

  1. Roldán Cañas, J. and Moreno Pérez, M. F., 2021. Water and irrigation management in arid and semiarid zones. Water, 13(17), 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13172446
  2. Ruiz, K. B., Biondi, S., Oses, R. and Murphy, K., 2021. Yield performance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under drought stress conditions. Field Crops Research, 270, 108223.
  3. Ruiz, K., Rojas, W. and Jacobsen, S. E., 2014. Quinoa: Nutritional value and medicinal uses. Food Research International, 61, 1–8.
  4. Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M. and Tarantola, S., 2008. Global sensitivity analysis: The primer. John Wiley and Sons.
  5. Singh, H., Mishra, D., Nahar, N. M. and Ranjan, M., 2003a. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone India: Part II. Energy Conversion and Management, 44(7), 1053–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(02)00115-2
  6. Singh, R., Sharma, R. and Singh, H., 2022. Energy and water productivity assessment for sustainable agriculture under arid and semi-arid environments. Agricultural Systems, 198, 103393.
  7. Singh, R., Singh, H. and Singh, J., 2003b. Energy inputs and outputs in production agriculture: A review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 18(3), 165–174.
  8. Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L. and Fixen, P. E., 2009. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 133(3–4), 247–266.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021

  1. Sonntag, R. E. and Borgnakke, C., 2012. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics. Wiley.
  2. Thornthwaite, C. and Mather, J., 1955. The water balance. Laboratory of Climatology. NJ. 104 Pages.
  3. Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418, 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014
  4. Walkley, A. and Black, I. A., 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  5. Zhang, H., Wang, X., You, M. and Liu, C., 2019. Water–yield relations and water-use efficiency of winter wheat under different irrigation regimes. Agricultural Water Management, 221, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.05.002
  6. Zwart, S. J. and Bastiaanssen, W. G. M., 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agricultural Water Management, 69(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2004.04.007
مدیریت اراضی
دوره 14، شماره 1
شهریور 1405
صفحه 29-42

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار