ارزیابی اثرات زیست‌محیطی برخی گیاهان در تناوب زراعی با سویا با استفاده از نرم‌افزار سیماپرو (Vr 9.5)

نوع مقاله : مقاله کوتاه پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

تناوب زراعی، نقش مهمی در دستیابی به تولید بالا در سویا دارد. در این مورد، هفت گیاه ذرت، یونجه، چاودار، گندم، جو، کلزا و نخود برای قرارگیری در تناوب زراعی با سویا پیشنهاد شده‌­اند که اثرات زیست­‌محیطی گیاهان مورد توجه قرار نگرفته است. بر این اساس، در مطالعه حاضر کوشش شد تا اثرات زیست‌­محیطی هفت گیاه زراعی پیشنهاد شده مورد ارزیابی قرار گیرد تا بهترین گیاهان برای قرارگیری در تناوب زراعی با سویا با درنظر گرفتن تأثیر آن­ها بر برخی طبقات مرتبط با سلامت زیست­‌محیطی (شامل سلامت انسان، منابع محیطی و اکوسیستم‌­ها) معرفی شوند. بدین‌­منظور، اثرات زیست‌­محیطی گیاهان فوق با استفاده از تکنیک ارزیابی چرخه حیات و کاربرد نرم‌­افزار سیماپرو (Vr 9.5) مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که بیشترین خسارت زیست­‌محیطی (از نظر هر سه طبقه‌­ی سلامت انسان، منابع محیطی و اکوسیستم­‌ها) از طرف گندم و چاودار ایجاد شد. با این­‌حال، اثر چاودار بر مصرف آب و اکوسیستم­‌های خشکی منفی به­‌دست آمد. این موضوع نشان می‌­دهد که چاودار از نظر زیست­‌محیطی بر مصرف آب و اکوسیستم­‌های خشکی اثر مثبت دارد. یونجه، کمترین سطح خسارت به سلامت انسان را داشت، به طوری که درصد خسارتی که کاشت گندم و چاودار به طبقه‌­ی سلامت انسان وارد می­کند به‌­ترتیب 83 و 80 درصد بیشتر از یونجه بود. نتایج نشان داد که تمامی گیاهان مورد بررسی، بیشترین اثر زیست‌­محیطی را بر سلامت انسان داشتند، چرا که بیشترین سهم اثر زیست­‌محیطی در تمامی گیاهان مورد بررسی به طبقه­‌ی سلامت انسان تعلق داشت. اثر هر هفت گیاه بر مصرف منابع محیطی، ناچیز بود. به­‌طورکلی، با درنظر گرفتن هر سه طبقه خسارت (سلامت انسان، اکوسیستم­‌ها و منابع محیطی) گندم و چاودار، نامناسب‌­ترین گیاه برای قرارگیری در تناوب زراعی با سویا بودند و کمترین خسارت زیست­‌محیطی به یونجه و سپس کلزا اختصاص داشت. بر این اساس، می­توان گیاهان زراعی یونجه و کلزا را برای قرارگیری در تناوب زراعی با سویا پیشنهاد نمود تا ضمن تولید عملکرد مناسب سویا، اثرات سوء تولید بر محیط­زیست نیز به حداقل برسد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Some Plants in Crop Rotation with Soybeans Using SimaPro Software (Vr 9.5)

نویسندگان [English]

  • حمداله اسکندری 1
  • Seyed Nader Mosavian 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Soybean, as one of the most important plant-based protein sources in the world, plays a vital role in human nutrition, animal feed, and various industries. This oilseed crop is recognized as a functional food due to its high protein content, essential amino acids, isoflavones, and bioactive compounds. Soybean is crucial for both human and animal nutrition, accounting for 28% of global oil production and approximately 60% (ranked first) of the world's animal feed protein supply. This highlights the impossibility of eliminating soybean from the livestock industry. Monocropping (cultivating the same crop on a piece of land over consecutive years) is a major constraint in soybean production. For instance, four-year monocropping can reduce soybean grain yield by up to 18.7%. Therefore, implementing a proper crop rotation system is essential to mitigate the drawbacks of monocropping and ensure sustainable production. However, previous studies on rotational crops with soybean have primarily focused on yield enhancement, neglecting their environmental impacts. Management strategies should be designed to ensure sustainability from economic, agronomic, and environmental perspectives. A valuable tool for assessing the environmental impacts of crop production processes is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which provides a comprehensive approach to evaluating the environmental footprint of agricultural products across all production stages. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the environmental effects of seven proposed rotational crops to identify the most suitable plants for soybean rotation systems. The assessment considered their influence on key environmental health categories, including human health, natural resources, and ecosystems.
 
Materials and Methods
Impact analysis of crops on human health, ecosystems and resources was carried out using SimaPro vr 9.5.0. Method used for comparison was ReCiPe 2016 endpoint (H) V1.08/world (2010) H/A/characterization. The environmental damage data of plants was calculated based on the production of one kg of plants.
 
Results and Discussion
The studied crops (corn, alfalfa, rye, wheat, barley, rapeseed, and chickpea) influenced 22 impact categories across ecosystems, human health, and environmental resources. With the exception of rye's water consumption and terrestrial ecosystem impacts, all crops demonstrated negative environmental effects, indicating detrimental consequences for ecological health categories. Notably, rye exhibited positive environmental effects regarding water use and terrestrial ecosystems. The results showed that wheat and rye caused the most environmental damage in all three environmental categories (human health, ecosystems, and resources). While the least environmental damage belonged to alfalfa. The percentage of damage that wheat and rye cultivation inflicted on the human health category was obtained as 83% and 80% higher than alfalfa, respectively. After wheat and rye, the most damage to this category belonged to barley, which was about 60% higher than alfalfa. The results showed that all studied crops (corn, alfalfa, rye, wheat, barley, rapeseed, and chickpea) had their greatest environmental impact on human health, as the majority of environmental effects across all crops were associated with the human health category. Following human health, ecosystems were the second most affected category. The crops' impact on the resources category was negligible. Therefore, it can be concluded that when evaluating the environmental effects of these crops for soybean rotation systems, particular attention should be paid to their impacts on human health. Based on these findings, wheat and rye showed the most negative environmental impacts and are therefore not recommended for soybean rotation systems from an environmental perspective. In contrast, alfalfa and rapeseed, which demonstrated fewer negative environmental effects, can be utilized in rotation with soybeans. This approach would allow for both satisfactory grain yield and significant prevention of environmental degradation. However, considering wheat's economic importance and its crucial role in global food security, economic factors must be incorporated into final decision-making. Additional research is needed to determine whether wheat's environmental impacts in soybean rotation systems outweigh its economic benefits and the costs required to mitigate its negative environmental effects.
 
 
Conclusion
According to the findings of this research, among the crops proposed for rotation with soybeans, wheat and rye had the most negative impact on all three environmental categories: natural resources, ecosystems, and human health. In contrast, alfalfa production showed the lowest environmental impact. Based on the environmental effects of the evaluated crops, alfalfa and rapeseed are recommended as the most suitable options for rotation with soybeans to increase grain yield of soybean and reducing negative impacts of environment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Ecosystem
  • Environmental resources
  • Human health
Berger, M., Sonderegger, T., Alvarenga, R., Bach, V., Cimprich, A., Dewulf, J. and Young, S. B. (2020). Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(4), 798-813.
Carciochi, W. D., Schwalbert, R., Andrade, F. H., Corassa, G. M., Carter, P., Gaspar, A. P., Schmidt, J. and Ciampitti, I. A. (2020). Soybean yield, biological N₂ fixation, and response to nitrogen fertilizer in preceding crop rotations. Agronomy Journal, 112(3), 2051-2065. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20157
Chen, Y., Liu, K. and Zhang, W. (2024). Effects of 10-year soybean monoculture on soil organic carbon dynamics. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 349, 108453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108453
Cucek, L., Klemeš, J. J., and Kravanja, Z. (2022). A review of foot printing analysis for greenhouse gas emissions and water use. Journal of Cleaner Production, 363, 132303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132303
De Bauw, P., Merckx, R., Boluwase, O. and Vandamme, E. (2024). Soybean cultivation as a sustainable alternative for soil health and food security: A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 44(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00956-6
Esfahani, S. M. J., Naderi Mahdei, K., Saadi, H. and Dourandish, A. (2018). Evaluate the environmental impact of silage corn production in south Khorasan province. Journal of Agroecology, 10(1), 281-298. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v10i1.60850
Fantke, P., Aurisano, N., Bare, J., Backhaus, T., Bulle, C., Chapman, P. M. and Jolliet, O. (2023). Toward harmonizing ecotoxicity characterization in life cycle impact assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 57(26), 9710-9721.
Gan, Y., Hamel, C., O’Donovan, J. T., Cutforth, H., Zentner, R. P., Campbell, C. A., Niu, Y. and Poppy, L. (2015). Legume-based rotations enhance soybean yield and soil health. Field Crops Research, 172, 1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.12.002
Guinée, J. B. (2002). Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards. Springer, Netherlands.
Hashemi, S. S., Pourmasoumi, M. and Eskandari, S. (2022). A comparative life cycle assessment of different fertilization scenarios for wheat production: A case study in Iran. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(60), 90233-90245.
Hossein, H. Y., Aizpanah, A., Namdari, M. and Shirkhani, H. 2024. Environmental life cycle assessment of corn production in tropical regions. Scientific Reports, 14, 20036. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70923-4
Hughes, G., Ryan, D.J., Mukherjea, R. and Schasteen, C.S. (2023). Soy protein: A comprehensive review of composition, health benefits, and applications comprehensive. Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 22(3), 1447-1482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13126
Huijbregts, M. A., Steinmann, Z. J., Elshout, P. M., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M. and van Zelm, R. (2017). ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(2), 138-147.
Kazemi, K. and Eskandari, H. (2025). Scheduling a crop rotation program for potato based on some environmental considerations. Plant Production Technology, 17(1), 29-36. (In Persian).  https://doi.org/10.22084/ppt.2025.30250.2145
Kirkegaard, J. A., Sarwar, M., Wong, P. T. W., Mead, A., Howe, G. and Newell, M. (2008). Bio-fumigation and enhanced mineralization in canola-soybean rotations. Plant and Soil, 307(1-2), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9598-0
Li, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, X., Liu, J., Chen, S. and Zhang, W. (2022). Barley as a preceding crop improves soybean yield and soil health in semi-arid regions. Field Crops Research. 287, 108665.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108665
Liu, Y., Wang, H. and Li, J. (2023). Continuous soybean cropping enhances root disease incidence by altering soil microbial communities. Plant Disease, 107(8), 2156-2165. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-22-2634-RE
López-Maldonado, G., Sébastien, L. and Blanc, I. (2023). Addressing negative values in Life Cycle Assessment: A review of current practices and recommendations for interpreting environmental credits. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414, 137518
Messina, M., Duncan, A., Glenn, A. and Mariotti, F. (2023). The role of soy in plant-based diets: health benefits and sustainability. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 132, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.03.010
Payne, R.W. (2015). The design and analysis of long-term rotation experiments. Agronomy Journal. 107 (2), 772–785. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0411
Pedersen, P. and Lauer, J. G. (2003). Corn and soybean response to rotation sequence, row spacing, and tillage system. Agronomy Journal, 95(4), 965-971. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2003.0965
Perea, R. G., García, I. F., Ballesteros, R. and Ortega, J. F. (2023). Life cycle assessment of crop rotation systems using irrigation: A case study in the Spanish context. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118890
Pugesgaard, S., Schelde, K., Ugarte, C. M., and Jørgensen, U. (2023). Carbon footprint of perennial grass-forage legume mixtures for bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy, 15(4), 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkad028
Skinner, R. H., Dell, C. J. and Dell, E. J. (2023). Ecosystem services from perennial forages in crop rotations: A review. Agronomy Journal, 115(3), 1015-1033.  https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21345
Snapp, S. S., Swinton, S. M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J. R., Leep, R., Nyiraneza, J. and O'Neil, K. (2005). Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agronomy Journal, 97(1), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0151
Stanger, T. F. and Lauer, J. G. (2008). Corn and soybean rotation response to tillage and alfalfa. Agronomy Journal, 100(4), 1058-1066. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0310
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2024). Oilseeds: World markets and trade. Available at: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/downloads
Vásquez-Ibarra, L., Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Angulo-Meza, L., González-Araya, M. C. and Iriarte, A. (2021). The joint use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis methodologies for eco-efficiency assessment: A critical review, taxonomy and future research. Science of The Total Environment, 762, 143125.
Villarino, S. H., Laterra, P., Pinto, P. and Fernández, M. E. (2021). Life cycle assessment of soybean-based crop rotations in the Argentinean Pampas: a comparison between continuous and rotational cropping. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(8), 1563-1577.
Weiss, F. and Leip, A. (2021). Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products–Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? Journal of Environmental Management, 289, 112450.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112450  
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E. and Weidema, B. (2016). The Eco-invent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218-1230.
Zhang, L., Wang, X. and Chen, H. (2023). Long-term continuous soybean cropping impacts on yield and soil quality. Soil and Tillage Research, 225, 105542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105542