آثار اقتصادی کاهش کیفیت آب در تولید کینوا در استان یزد
سمانه غزالی
1
(
استادیار اقتصاد کشاورزی، مرکز ملی تحقیقات شوری، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، یزد، ایران
)
حسین بیرامی
2
(
دانشیار خاکشناسی، مرکز ملی تحقیقات شوري، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزي، یزد، ایران
)
کلید واژه: ارزش اقتصادی آب, تابع تولید محیطی, رفاه اقتصادی, رقم تيتيکاکا,
چکیده مقاله :
چکیده
مقدمه و هدف: تغییر اقلیم و در پی آن محدودیت منابع آب در ایران نیاز به استفاده از منابع آبی کم کیفیت را اجتناب ناپذیر میسازد. در این راستا، گياه کينوا با دارا بودن ارزش غذایی بالا به دلیل قابليت كشت در نواحي شور و آبياري با آب‌هاي شور دارای اهمیت است. بدین ترتیب، هدف این مطالعه ارزیابی اثرات اقتصادی تولید کینوا تحت کاهش کیفیت آب است.
مواد و روشها: تابع تولید محیطی به فرم کاب-داگلاس برای برآورد اثر شوری و حجم آب مصرفی بر عملکرد گیاه کینوا استفاده گردید. برای ارزیابی اثرات اقتصادی تولید کینوا تحت شرایط آبیاری شور، اثر شوری و حجم آب بر درآمد، هزینه، و سود بررسی گردید.
یافتهها: نتایج این مطالعه در مزرعه تحقيقات شوري صدوق واقع در شهرستان اشکذر استان يزد حاکی از این است که اثرات اقتصادی کشت کینوا در شرایط آبیاری شور با ضرر 78/3 هزار ریال در هکتار مواجه است که هم راستا با نتایج مطالعات گذشته، بر کاهش رفاه زارعین ناشی از کشت محصولات کشاورزی، است. بدین ترتیب، توصیه میشود آب بهاء بر اساس ارزش اقتصادی این نهاده تعیین شود تا استفاده صحیح از آن صورت پذیرد.
بحث و نتیجهگیری: آگاه سازی کشاورزان نسبت به استفاده از فناوریهای آب اندوز در راستای دستیابی به هدف بهبود پایداری کشاورزی در بلندمدت میتواند کارساز باشد.
چکیده انگلیسی :
Abstract
Introduction: Climate change and the resulting limitations on water resources make the use of low-quality water resources inevitable in Iran. In this context, quinoa is significant due to its high nutritional value and its ability to be cultivated in saline areas and irrigated with saline water. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the economic effects of quinoa production under saline irrigation conditions.
Materials and Methods: The environmental production function in the form of Cobb-Douglas was used to estimate the effects of salinity and water consumption volume on quinoa yield. To evaluate the economic effects of quinoa production under saline irrigation conditions, the effect of salinity and water consumption volume on income, cost, and profit was examined.
Findings: The results of this study in the Sadouq Salinity Research Farm located in Ashkezar County, Yazd Province indicate that the economic effects of quinoa production under saline irrigation conditions result in a loss of 78.3 thousand Iranian Rials per hectare which is in line with the results of previous studies indicating a decrease in farmers' welfare resulting from the cultivation of agricultural products. Therefore, it is recommended that the water prices be determined based on the economic value of this input to ensure its proper use.
Conclusion: Increasing farmers’ awareness about adopting water-saving technologies can be effective in achieving agricultural sustainability in the long term.
References
1.FAO, 2022. GLOBAL SYMPOSIUM ON SALT-AFFECTED SOILS. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
2.Khoshkhalq Sima N, Ebadi A, Riahi Samani N, Darvish-Rouhani B. Salicornia: uses, economic potential, cultivation and exploitation. Agricultural Education Publication; 2021.
3.Momeni A. Geographical distribution and salinity levels of Iranian soil resources. Soil Research. 2010; 24 (3): 203-215. [DOI: 10.22092/ijsr.2011.126633].
4.Rahimian MH, Gholami H. An Analysis of the Salinity Status of Water Resources in Use in the Agricultural Sector. Journal of Water and Sustainable Development. 2022; 9 (3): 107-116. [DOI: 10.22067/jwsd.v9i3.2204.1135].
5.Adolf VI, Jacobsen SE, Shabala S. Salt tolerance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2013: 92: 43–54. [DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.07.004].
6.Jacobsen SE, Liu F, Jensen CR. Does rootsourced ABA play a role for regulation of stomata under drought in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Scientia Horticulturae. 2009; 122: 281–287. [DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.05.019].
7.Hinojosa L, González JA, Barrios-Masias FH, Fuentes F, Murphy KM. Quinoa abiotic stress responses: a review. Plants. 2018; 7: 106. [DOI: 10.3390/plants7040106].
8.Jacobsen SE, Quispe H, Mujica A. Quinoa: an alternative crop for saline soilsin the Andes. In: Scientists and Farmer-Partners in Research for the 21st Century. 2001; 403–408.
9.Bhargava A, Shukla S, Rajan S, Ohri D. Genetic diversity for morphological and quality traits in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) germplasm. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2007; 54: 167-173. [DOI: 10.1007/s10722-005-3011-0].
10.Hariadi Y, Marandon K, Tian Y, Jacobsen SE, Shabala S. Ionic and osmotic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants grown at various salinity levels. Journal of experimental botany. 2011; 62 (1): 185-193. [DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq257].
11.Jacobsen SE, Monteros C, Corcuera LJ, Bravo LA, Christiansen JL, Mujica A. Frost resistance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). European Journal of Agronomy. 2007; 26: 471–475. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2007.01.006].
12.Jamali S, Sharifan H. Investigation the effect of different Salinity levels on Yield and Yield components of Quinoa (Cv. Titicaca). Journal of Water and Soil Conservation. 2018; 25 (2): 251-266. [DOI: 10.22069/jwsc.2018.13721.2841].
13.Jamali S, Ansari H. Effects of Water Quality and Irrigation Management on Growth and Yield of Quinoa. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 2019; 33 (3): 339-351. [DOI: 10.22092/jwra.2019.120464].
14.Beyrami H, Rahimian MH, Salehi M, Yazdani-Biouki R. Effect of different levels of irrigation water salinity on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) yield and yield components in spring planting. Crop Production. 2020; 12 (4): 111-120. [DOI: 10.22069/ejcp.2020.16239.2209].
15.Beyrami H, Parvizi H, Parnian A, Hatami H. Effects of Different Moisture and Salinity Levels on Some Morphological Traits and Yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in Field Condition. Agricultural Engineering. 2024; 47 (1): 111-127. [DOI: 10.22055/agen.2024.45547.1702].
16.Golzary Z, Eshraghi F, Keramatzadeh A. Estimating the Economic Value of Water in Wheat Production in Gorgan County. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 2016; 30 (4): 457-466. [DOI: 10.22092/jwra.2017.109008].
17.Beyrami H. Determination of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) irrigation requirement under two different irrigation water salinity in field conditions. NATIONAL SALINITY RESEARCH CENTER. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENTION ORGANIZATION. Fall 2023.
18. Fathi F, Zibaei M. Loss of Social Welfare Due to Overexploitation of Groundwater in Firozabad Plain. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development. 2011; 25 (1). [DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v1390i1.8872].
19.Taghizadeh S, Soltani Gh. The impact of groundwater over-extraction on farmers, welfare: The case of wheat producers in Fasa county. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research. 2013; 5 (1): 1-22.
20.Seyedan SM, Bahramloo R. The Effect of Excessive Water Extraction from Groundwater Resources on the Welfare of Farmers in the Malayer Plain. Journal of Water and Soil Science. 2019; 22 (4) :357-370. [DOI: 10.29252/jstnar.22.4.357].
21.Ghazali S, Esmaeili A. Incorporate externalities of water extraction from agricultural wells around Parishan lake, case study: Wheat product. Agricultural Economics and Development. 2011; 25 (2), 161-171. [DOI: 10.22067/jead2.v1390i2.9706].
22. Kiani A, Mirlatifi SM, Homaei M, Abyar NM. The economic study of wheat production under salinity and water shortage conditions. Agricultural Economics and Development. 2002; 42, 165-180.
23. Agnihotri AK, Kumbhare PS, Rao KVGK, Sharma DP. Econometric consideration for reuse of drainage effluent in wheat production. Agricultural water management. 1992; 22(3), 249-270. [DOI: 10.1016/0378-3774(92)90029-V].
24. Datta KK, Dayal B. Irrigation with Poor Quality Water: An Empirical Study of Input Use, Economic Loss, and Coping Strategies. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2000; 55(1), 26-37.
25. Datta KK, Sharma VP, Sharma DP. Estimation of a production function for wheat under saline conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 1998; 36(1), 85-94.[DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3774(97)00015-2].
26. Jafari AM, Ghadami Firouzabadi A, Solgi M, Zarei G, Shanazi K. Economic Valuation of Water in Agricultural Sector of Hamedan Province, Iran. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 2023; 37(4), 369-383.
27. Omidi F, Ebrahimi K, Fazlolahi H. Development of AWPM Model for Determining the Economic Value of Water. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 2019; 50(1), 137-146.
28. Hosseini SM, Keramatzadeh A, Eshraghi F, Enayat M. Estimating the Economic Value of Irrigation Water in Rice Production in Golestan Province. Insurance and Agriculture. 2024; 13(3), 49-65.
29. Shams Aldini E, Mohammadi H, Rezaei MR, Determining Economic Value of Water in Sugar Beet Growing in Marvdasht District. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2010; 26(1), 93-103.