A comparative emergy analysis of rice and cotton farming ecosystems: implications for sustainability

Asadkhani, Hamid; Ramroudi, Mahmoud; Asgharipour, Mohammad Reza; Shahhoseini, Hamid Reza

doi:10.22034/jelsa.2025.455641.1062

A comparative emergy analysis of rice and cotton farming ecosystems: implications for sustainability

Document Type : Original research article

Authors

Hamid Asadkhani ¹

Mahmoud Ramroudi ²

Mohammad Reza Asgharipour ²

Hamid Reza Shahhoseini ³

¹ M.Sc graduate of Agroecology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

² Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

³ Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Plant Production, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

10.22034/jelsa.2025.455641.1062

Abstract

Environmental degradation stemming from excessive consumption of natural resources and chemical inputs threatens resource efficiency and the long-term sustainability of agricultural ecosystems. This study employed a comprehensive questionnaire survey combined with emergy evaluation to assess and compare the efficiency and sustainability of rice and cotton farming ecosystems in Golestan province, Iran, during the 2018–2019 growing season. Results indicated that the total emergy input for rice cultivation (1.01E+17 sej ha⁻¹) substantially exceeded that of cotton (5.14E+16 sej ha⁻¹), highlighting a greater concentration of embodied energy in rice production. In both systems, non-renewable environmental inputs dominated over renewable environmental, purchased renewable, and purchased non-renewable flows. Groundwater emerged as a critical input due to high crop water demand during summer cultivation and negligible seasonal rainfall in the region. The emergy analyses revealed that cotton was more productive per unit emergy invested. Both ecosystems exhibited low emergy renewability, reflecting heavy dependence on non-renewable resources. Cotton demonstrated superior resource efficiency, as evidenced by a higher emergy yield ratio. Economic indicators, including standard and modified emergy investment ratios, showed that rice production incurred significantly higher economic costs and lower efficiency. Environmental loading ratios further indicated that cotton imposed markedly lower environmental pressure, confirming its greater environmental sustainability. Overall, cotton outperformed rice across multiple metrics: production efficiency, resource consumption efficiency, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability. To enhance the sustainability of such agroecosystems, we recommend reducing reliance on non-renewable purchased inputs and advancing farmer awareness, education, and engagement in sustainable practices.

Highlights

Rice emergy input (1.01E+17 sej ha⁻¹) exceeds cotton (5.14E+16 sej ha⁻¹) in Golestan, Iran.
Cotton farming shows higher productivity and efficiency than rice via emergy indices.
Non-renewable inputs dominate both rice and cotton, with groundwater as top contributor.
Cotton has lower environmental load (ELR 64) than rice (ELR 123.13), more sustainable.
Reducing non-renewable inputs can boost sustainability in rice and cotton ecosystems.

Keywords

Environmental inputs

Environmental load

Groundwater

Renewability

Soil erossion

Ali, M., Marvuglia, A., Geng, Y., Robins, D., Pan, H., Song, X., Yu, Z., & Sun, H. (2019). Accounting emergy-based sustainability of crops production in India and Pakistan over the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.236

Amiri, Z., Asgharipour, M. R., Campbell, D. E., & Aghapoor 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, 120891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120891

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.091

Amiri, Z., Asgharipour, M. R., Campbell, D. E., Azizi, K., Kakolvand, E., & Hassani Moghadam, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126000

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, 109021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109021

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. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-7123-3

Brandt-Williams, S. L. (2002). Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: Folio #4 Emergy of Florida Agriculture. Gainesville, FL, USA: Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.002

Brown, M. T., Campbell, D. E., De Vilbiss, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). The geobiosphere emergy baseline: A synthesis. Ecological Modelling, 339, 92-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.018

Campbell, D. E., & Erban, L. E. (2017). A reexamination of the emergy input to a system from the wind. In Brown, M. T., Sweeney, S., Campbell, D. E., Huang, S., Rydberg, T., & Ulgiati, S. (Eds.), Emergy Synthesis 9: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology (Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Emergy Conference) (pp. 13–20). Gainesville: Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida.

Campbell, D. E., & Laherrere, J. (1998). The end of cheap oil. American Journal of Science, 278(3), 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0398-78

Campbell, D. E., Brandt-Williams, S. L., & Meisch, M. E. A. (2005). Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia. Washington, DC: USEPA, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-02/011.

Cochran, J. (2003). Patterns of Sustainable Agriculture Adoption/Non-Adoption in Panama: A Thesis Submitted to McGill University. Montreal, Canada: McGill University.

Cuadra, M., & Rydberg, T. (2006). Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua. Ecological Modelling, 196, 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.02.010

Elsoragaby, S., Yahya, A., Mahadi, M. R., Mat Nawi, N., & Mairghany, M. (2019). Energy utilization in major crop cultivation. Energy, 173, 1285-1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.142

Erdal, G., Esengun, K., Erdal, H., & Gunduz, O. (2007). Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy, 32, 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.007

Fallahinejad, S., & Armin, M. (2022). Role of mechanization on the sustainability of sugar beet production using emergy approach. Agriculture, Environment & Society, 2(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.22034/aes.2022.327793.1019

Ghaley, B. B., Kehli, N., & Mentler, A. (2018). Emergy synthesis of conventional fodder maize (Zea mays L.) production in Denmark. Ecological Indicators, 87, 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.027

Gheicari, G., Asgharipour, M. R., Mousavi Nik, M., & Ghanbari, A. (2021). Effects of different cotton tillage methods on N₂O and NH₃ emissions in a cotton-wheat rotation. Agriculture, Environment & Society, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.22034/aes.2021.144106

Houshyar, E., Wu, X. F., & Chen, G. Q. (2018). Sustainability of wheat and maize production in the warm climate of southwestern Iran: An emergy analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2246-2255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.187

Hu, S., S., Mo, X. G., Lin, Z. H., & Qiu, J. X. (2010). Emergy assessment of a wheat-maize rotation system with different water assignments in the North China Plain. Environmental Management, 46, 643-657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9543-x

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.089

Kaur, N., Kumar Vashist, K., & Brar, A. S. (2021). Energy and productivity analysis of maize based crop sequences compared to rice-wheat system under different moisture regimes. Energy, 216, 119286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119286

Kazemi, H., Shokrgozar, M., Kamkar, B., & Soltani, A. (2018). Analysis of cotton production by energy indicators in two different climatic regions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 729-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.195

Kumaraswamy, S. (2012). Sustainability issues in agro-ecology: Socio-ecological perspective. Agricultural Sciences, 3(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2012.32018

Lan, S. F., Qin, P., & Lu, H. F. (2002). Emergy Assessment of Ecological Systems. Beijing, China: Chemical Industry Press.

Lombardi, G. V., Parrini, S., Atzori, R., Stefani, G., Romano, D., Gastaldi, M., & Liu, G (2021). Sustainable agriculture, food security and diet diversity. Ecological Modelling, 458, 109702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109702

Lu, H. F., Kang, W. L., Campbell, D. E., Ren, H., Tang, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.08.001

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.025

Lu H., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.04.024

Martin, J. F., Diemont, S. A. W., Powell, E., Stanton, M., & Levy-Tacher, S. (2006). Emergy evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with different scales and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 115, 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.12.016

Ministry of Agricultural Jihad, (2016). Agricultural statistics. 2014–2015. Crops (Vol. 1, pp. 1–117).

Montoya, D., Gaba, S., de Mazancourt, C., Bretagnolle, V., & Loreau, M. (2020). Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers' demand in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Modelling, 416, 108889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108889

Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., & Mohammadi, A. (2011). Energy flow modeling and sensitivity analysis of inputs for canola production in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1464–1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.013

Odum, H. T. (1996). Environmental accounting: Emergy and environmental decision making. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Odum, H. T. (2000). Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Folio #2: Emergy Global Processes. Gainesville, FL: Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida.

Patterson, M., McDonald, G., & Hardy, D. (2017). Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting. Ecological Modelling, 362, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.07.022

Quintero-Angel, M., & Gonzalez-Acevedo, A. (2018). Tendencies and challenges for the assessment of agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 254, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.030

Shahhoseini, H. R., & Kazemi, H. (2022). Evaluation of sustainability of rainfed rapeseed production in Gorgan County using Emergy analysis. Journal of Emergy, Life Cycle and System Analysis in Agriculture, 2(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.22034/aes.2022.337172.1031

Shahhoseini H. R., Ramroudi, M., & Kazemi. (2022a). Emergy analysis for sustainability assessment of potato agroecosystems (case study: Golestan province, Iran). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(7), 6393–6418.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02309-3

Shahhoseini, H. R., Ramroudi, M., Kazemi, H., & Amiri, Z. (2022b). Sustainability assessment of autumn and spring potato production systems using extended exergy analysis (EEA). Energy, Ecology and Environment, 7(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-021-00222-5

Ulgiati, S., & Brown, M. T. (1998). Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, 108, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00016-7

Xi, Y. G., & Qin, P. (2009). Emergy evaluation of organic rice-duck mutualism system. Ecological Engineering, 35, 1677–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.11.006

Zhai, X., Huang, D., Tang, S., Li, S., Guo, J., Yang, Y., Liu, H., Li, J., & Wang, K. (2017). The emergy of metabolism in different ecosystems under the same environmental conditions in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China. Ecological Indicators, 74, 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.028

Zhang, L. X., Song, B., & Chen, B. (2012). Emergy-based analysis of four farming systems: Insight into agricultural diversification in rural China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.042

Zhou, Z., Jin, J., Liu, J., & Si, Y. (2023). Optimizing the sowing window for direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.) considering high yield and methane emissions in Central China. Agricultural Systems, 205, 103594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103594