ارزیابی توازن اقتصادی–زیست‌محیطی در تناوب‌های زراعی: مطالعه موردی تولید ماش

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی انگلیسی

نویسندگان

فاطمه نادی ¹

محمدهادی موحدنژاد ²

¹ گروه مهندسی بیوسیستم، دانشکده کشاورزی، واحد آزادشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، آزادشهر، ایران

² گروه مهندسی بیوسیستم، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی شاهرود، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2026.97894.1475

چکیده

ردپای اکولوژیک، میزان فشار انسان بر منابع طبیعی و ظرفیت زیستی محیط را نشان می‌دهد و به‌طور گسترده برای ارزیابی پایداری کشاورزی مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. این پژوهش اثر محصول پیشین (گندم، جو و کلزا) را بر عملکرد زیست‌محیطی و اقتصادی تولید ماش بررسی کرد. داده‌ها از طریق پرسشنامه و مصاحبه با کشاورزان جمع‌آوری شد. شاخص‌های زیست‌محیطی شامل ردپای اکولوژیک (EF)، ظرفیت زیستی (BC) و تراز اکولوژیک (EB)، و شاخص‌های اقتصادی شامل حاشیه سود ناخالص و نسبت فایده به هزینه (BCR) محاسبه شدند. نتایج نشان داد که محصول پیشین تأثیر معنی‌داری بر بیشتر شاخص‌ها داشت (0.05>P)؛ به‌طوری‌که کلزا با گندم و جو تفاوت معنی‌دار داشت، در حالی‌که بین گندم و جو تفاوت معنی‌داری مشاهده نشد. از دیدگاه زیست‌محیطی، کشت ماش پس از کلزا کمترین ردپای اکولوژیک کل (1.055 هکتار جهانی در هکتار) و بیشترین کارایی نسبی اکولوژیک (0.315) را داشت، اما کمترین ظرفیت زیستی (1.541 هکتار جهانی در هکتار) را نشان داد. کشت ماش پس از گندم بیشترین ردپای اکولوژیک (1.777 هکتار جهانی در هکتار) و همچنین بیشترین ظرفیت زیستی (2.277 هکتار جهانی در هکتار) را به خود اختصاص داد. اگرچه تراز اکولوژیک در تمامی تناوب‌ها مثبت بود (0.482 تا 0.500 هکتار جهانی در هکتار)، شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک (EFI) در محدوده «پایداری ضعیف» (0.216 تا 0.315) قرار گرفت و نسبت ردپای ناشی از بهره‌برداری بیش‌ازحد به ردپای ناشی از نهاده‌ها (EF_ovp/EF_inp) بین 4.30 تا 8.59 متغیر بود که نشان می‌دهد فشار ناشی از بهره‌برداری بیش‌ازحد به‌مراتب بیشتر از فشار ناشی از مصرف نهاده‌ها است. از نظر اقتصادی، گندم بالاترین حاشیه سود ناخالص (1887 دلار در هکتار) و نسبت فایده به هزینه (2.844) را به خود اختصاص داد، در حالی‌که کلزا کمترین مقادیر را نشان داد (به‌ترتیب 1032 دلار در هکتار و 1.479). شاخص ترکیبی با وزن‌های قابل‌تنظیم زیست‌محیطی–اقتصادی، آستانه مبادله‌ای را در حدود 0.55 w≈نشان داد؛ به‌گونه‌ای که در شرایط اولویت زیست‌محیطی، کلزا و در شرایط اولویت اقتصادی، گندم گزینه برتر بود. با توجه به ظرفیت زیستی منطقه مورد مطالعه، انتخاب گندم به‌عنوان محصول پیشین، متعادل‌ترین ترکیب مدیریت ردپای اکولوژیک و سودآوری اقتصادی را برای تولید ماش فراهم می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تحلیل هزینه–فایده کشاورزی

ردپای اکولوژیک

ظرفیت زیستی

کارایی اقتصادی

محصول پیشین

موضوعات

• پایداری، زیست‌اقتصاد چرخشی و تاب‌آوری محیطی

---

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

مراجع

1. Aynehband, A., & Aghasizadeh, V. (2007). The effect of different crop managements on yield and yield components of mung bean (Vigna Radiata). The Scientific Journal of Agriculture, 30(1), 71-84.
2. Blasi, E., Passeri, N., Franco, S., & Galli, A. (2016). An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results. Agricultural Systems, 145, 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.02.013
3. Bunalski, M., & Ghahari, H. (2017). Contribution to the study of darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from Golestan Province, Northern Iran. Wiadomości Entomologiczne, 36(1), 25-31.
4. Cao, Y., Chai, L., Yan, X., & Liang, Y. (2020). Drivers of the growing water, carbon and ecological footprints of the Chinese diet from 1961 to 2017. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1803. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051803
5. Cerutti, A. K., Bagliani, M., Beccaro, G. L., Gioelli, F., Balsari, P., & Bounous, G. (2011). Evaluation of the sustainability of swine manure fertilization in orchard through Ecological Footprint Analysis: results from a case study in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(4), 318-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.005
6. da Silva, J. T., Garzillo, J. M. F., Rauber, F., Kluczkovski, A., Rivera, X. S., da Cruz, G. L., Frankowska, A., Martins, C. A., da Costa Louzada, M. L., & Monteiro, C. A. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and ecological footprint of food purchases according to their degree of processing in Brazilian metropolitan areas: a time-series study from 1987 to 2018. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(11), e775-e785. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00254-0
7. Esfahani, M. J., & Javadi, H. (2022). An Evaluation of Sustainability Analysis of Rainfed Wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Production Systems in Iran. Journal of Agroecology, 14(1), 133-157. https://doi.org/10.22067/agry.2021.20247.0
8. Esfahani, S. M. J., & Khazaee, J. (2019). Application of Multifunctional Ecological Footprint in Sustainability Analysis of Saffron Production in Southern Khorasan. Saffron Agronomy & Technology, 7(4), 491-503. https://doi.org/10.22048/jsat.2019.119069.1290
9. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2015). Post-2015 and SDGs: Nourishing people, nurturing the planet (FAO and the Post-2015 Development Agenda Issue Paper). Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/publications/post-2015-and-sdgs-nourishing-people-nurturing-planet-17862
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Transforming food and agriculture to achieve the SDGs: 20 interconnected actions to guide decision-makers. Rome, Italy: Author. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/I9900EN/i9900en.pdf
11. Goodland, R. (1995). The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000245
12. Huijbregts, M. A. J., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hungerbühler, K., & Hendriks, A. J. (2008). Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 798-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.017
13. Joly, F., Roche, P. K., Dewulf, J., Werf, H. van der, & Boone, L. (2024). How closely do ecosystem services and life cycle assessment frameworks concur when evaluating contrasting animal-production systems with ruminant or monogastric species? Animal, 18(12), 101368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101368
14. Koocheki, A., Nasiri Mahallati, M., & Khorramdel, S. (2016). Ecological footprint of Iran. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(5), 493-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1138014
15. Kor, A., Naderi, M., Shanazi, K., & Esfahani, S. J. (2023). Study of Environmental Sustainability of Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) Cultivation with Ecological Footprint Approach (Case Study: Flue–Cured Tobacco and Air–Cured in Golestan Province). Journal of Agroecology, 15(3), 607-624. https://doi.org/10.22067/agry.2021.71190.1055
16. Laurentiis, V. de, Maier, S., Horn, R., Uusitalo, V., Hiederer, R., Chéron-Bessou, C., Tiago Morais, T. G., Canals, L. M. i, & Sala, S. (2024). Soil organic carbon as an indicator of land use impacts in life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29, 1190-1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02307-9
17. Li, M., Zhou, Y., Wang, Y., Singh, V. P., Li, Z., & Li, Y. (2020). An ecological footprint approach for cropland use sustainability based on multi-objective optimization modelling. Journal of Environmental Management, 273, 111147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111147
18. Li, Q., Zhang, D., Zhang, J., Zhou, Z., Pan, Y., Yang, Z., Zhu, J., Liu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2023). Crop rotations increased soil ecosystem multifunctionality by improving keystone taxa and soil properties in potatoes. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, 1034761. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1034761
19. Liu, H., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhou, X., & Liu, Y. (2017). The ecological footprint evaluation of low carbon campuses based on life cycle assessment: A case study of Tianjin, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 266-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.017
20. Liu, X., Bakshi, B. R., Benedetto Rugani, D. M. de S., Bare, J., Johnston, J. M., Laurent, A., & Verones, F. (2020). Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: Application of the cascade framework to rice farming systems. Science of the Total Environment, 747, 141278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141278
21. Martella, A., La Porta, I. M., Nicastro, M., Biagetti, E., & Franco, S. (2023). Ecological balance of agri-food supply chains—The case of the industrial tomato. Sustainability, 15(10), 7846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107846
22. Millar, N., Doll, J. E., & Robertson, G. P. (2014). Management of nitrogen fertiliser to reduce nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from field crops (Climate Change and Agriculture Fact Sheet Series, MSU Extension Bulletin E-3152). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Extension.
23. Moghaddam, A. N., Amerian, M. R., Biabani, A., & Mollashahi, M. (2021). Investigation of morphological traits, yield and yield components of mung bean under nitrogen and megafol fertiliser. Journal of Crop Production, 14(1), 185-198.
24. Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.009
25. Naderi Mahdei, K., Bahrami, A., Aazami, M., & Sheklabadi, M. (2015). Assessment of agricultural farming systems sustainability in Hamedan Province using ecological footprint analysis (Case study: Irrigated wheat). Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17(6), 1409-1420.
26. Nadi, F., Abad-Gonz´alez, J., & P´erez-Neira, D. (2026). Linking the energy-emissions-water-food security nexus to the economic return of wheat production in Iran: A nutritional LCA approach. Agricultural Water Management, 323, 110100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.110100
27. Namdari, M. (2025). Comparative LCA of diesel and grid electricity for agricultural irrigation in Iran: why diesel outperforms in fossil-reliant grids. PLOS one, 20(7), e0324371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324371
28. Nategh, N. A., Banaeian, N., Gholamshahi, A., & Nosrati, M. (2021). Sustainability assessment and optimization of legumes production systems: energy, greenhouse gas emission and ecological footprint analysis. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 36(6), 576-586. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170521000193
29. Niccolucci, V., Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Pulselli, R. M., Borsa, S., & Marchettini, N. (2008). Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 128(3), 162-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.05.015
30. Orzech, K., Wanic, M., & Załuski, D. (2025). Effect of preceding crops, soil packing and tillage system on soil compaction, organic carbon content and maize yield. Agriculture, 15(11), 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111231
31. Passeri, N., Blasi, E., Franco, S., Martella, A., Pancino, B., & Cicatiello, C. (2016). The environmental sustainability of national cropping systems: From assessment to policy impact evaluation. Land Use Policy, 57, 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.007
32. Passeri, N., Borucke, M., Blasi, E., Franco, S., & Lazarus, E. (2013). The influence of farming technique on cropland: A new approach for the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Indicators, 29, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.022
33. Pomè, A. P., Tagliaro, C., & Ciaramella, G. (2021). A proposal for measuring in-use buildings’ impact through the ecological footprint approach. Sustainability, 13(1), 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010355
34. Pourmaeini, S., Dorfard, E., Mosayeb Khuzani, F., & Askari, S. A. (2011). Effect of crop sequence and residue management on yield and yield components of mung bean in Andimeshk conditions. In Proceedings of the First National Conference on Strategies for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture. Ahvaz, Iran. Retrieved from https://civilica.com/doc/123594
35. Pourmoeini, S. (2008). Effect of crop rotation and crop residue management on yield and yield components of mung bean crop. In Proceedings of the 10th Iranian Congress of Agricultural Sciences and Plant Breeding. Karaj, Iran. Retrieved from https://civilica.com/doc/298807
36. Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z. P. (2018). Sustainable intensification of agriculture: Greening the world's food economy. Abingdon, England: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138638044
37. Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. In A. M. Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke, & R. Costanza (Eds.), Investing in natural capital: The ecological economics approach to sustainability (pp. 362–390). Washington, DC: Island Press.
38. 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). Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 29(2), 53-66.
39. Safitri, S., Wikantika, K., Riqqi, A., Deliar, A., & Sumarto, I. (2021). Spatial allocation based on physiological needs and land suitability using the combination of ecological footprint and SVM (Case Study: Java Island, Indonesia). ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(4), 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10040259
40. Schoenau, J. J., & Campbell, C. A. (1996). lmpact of crop residues on nutrient availability in conservation tillage systems. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 76(4), 621-626. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps96-111
41. Soldati, C., Luca, A. I. De, Iofrida, N., Spada, E., Gulisano, G., & Falcone, G. (2023). Ecosystem services and biodiversity appraisals by means of life cycle tools: state-of-art in agri-food and forestry field. Agriculture & Food Security, 12, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00438-0
42. Soltani, E., Soltani, A., Alimagham, M., & Zand, E. (2021). Ecological footprints of environmental resources for agricultural production in Iran: a model-based study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(48), 68972-68981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15119-3
43. te Wierik, S., DeClerck, F., Beusen, A., Gerten, D., Maggi, F., Norberg, A., Noone, K., Schulte-Uebbing, L., Springmann, M., Tang, F. H. M., de Vries, W., van Vuuren, D., Vermeulen, S., & Rockström, J. (2025). Identifying the safe operating space for food systems. Nature Food, 6(12), 1153-1163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01252-6
44. Topographic-map.com. (n.d.). Golestan Province topographic map, elevation, terrain. Retrieved April 27, 2026, from https://en-au.topographic-map.com/map-ms6b1h/Golestan-Province
45. UNESCO. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2026, from https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/golestan
46. Van der Werf, H. M. G., Knudsen, M. T., & Cederberg, C. (2020). Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment. Nature Sustainability, 3, 419-425. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0489-6
47. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.
48. World Vegetable Center. (2023). International mungbean improvement network. Retrieved from https://avrdc.org/intl-mungbean-network
49. Yang, X., Xiong, J., Du, T., Ju, X., Gan, Y., Li, S., Xia, L., Shen, Y., Pacenka, S., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2024). Diversifying crop rotation increases food production, reduces net greenhouse gas emissions and improves soil health. Nature Communications, 15(1), 198. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44464-9
50. Zadehdabagh, N., Monavari, S., Kargari, N., Taghavi, L., & Pirasteh, S. (2024). Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Two Crop Ecosystems with Ecological Footprint Analysis Approach (Case Study: Dez Catchment). Journal of Agroecology, 15(4), 739-753. https://doi.org/10.22067/agry.2022.74317.1085
51. Zanjani, H. (2002). GORGĀN i. Geography. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Retrieved from https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gorgan-i
52. Zhen, H., Goglio, P., Hashemi, F., Cederberg, C., Fossey, M., & Trydeman, K. M. (2025). Toward Better Biodiversity Impact Assessment of Agricultural Land Management through Life Cycle Assessment: A Systematic Review. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(15), 7440-7451. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c02000