Rotation as a strategy to increase the sustainability of potato crop<sup>1</sup>

Camacho, Oscar Iván Monsalve; Ortiz, Wilmar Alexander Wilches; Diaz, Ruy Edeymar Vargas; Malagón, Eduardo María Espitia

doi:10.1590/1983-40632024v5477804

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Research Article • Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 54 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632024v5477804 copy

Rotation as a strategy to increase the sustainability of potato crop¹

Rotação como estratégia para aumentar a sustentabilidade da cultura da batata

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Potato cultivation is characterized by a high use of inputs, which results in soil degradation and contamination. Crop rotation is a good practice to counteract these problems. This study aimed to assess the sustainability of three rotation sequences (potato-pea-potato, potato-oat-pea and potato-potato-oat) using the sustainability assessment methodology oriented to agricultural experiments associated with soil management. It was observed that, both environmentally and economically, potato-potato-oat is the most sustainable treatment, while potato-oat-pea is the most socially sustainable. Balancing the three dimensions, potato-potato-oat is the most sustainable treatment, with sustainability index of 0.85, while potato-pea-potato is the least sustainable one, with 0.64. The potato-potato-oat rotation sequence generates a less negative environmental impact, as well as a higher social equity and economic return for the farmer.

KEYWORDS:
Solanum tuberosum; Pisum sativum; Avena sativa

Environmental	Environmental
Soil organic carbon (%)	Marine water toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq)
Carbon stock (Mg ha^-1)	Potential eutrophication (kg PO₄^3- eq)
pH (dimensionless)	Potential acidification (kg SO₂ eq)
Electrical conductivity (dS m^-1)	Global warming potential (kg CO₂ eq)
Effective cationic exchange capacity (cmol_c kg^-1)	Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 eq)
Phosphorus (mg kg^-1)	Social
Exchangeable bases (K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Na⁺) (cmol_c kg^-1)	Yield (kg)
Micronutrients (Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn, B) (mg kg^-1)	Percentage of first category (%)
Bulk density (g cm^-3)	Wages per cycle per hectare (unit)
Available water capacity (%)	Wages per year per hectare (unit)
Water retention curve (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3 and 1.5 MPa) (%)	Work effort indicator (%)
Water content (cm)	High and maximum work effort (%)
Texture (dimensionless)	Formation of photochemical oxidants (kg C₂H₄ eq)
Aggregate stability (%)	Human toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq)
Weighted mean diameter of soil peds (mm)	Economic
Geometric mean diameter of soil peds (mm)	Variable costs ($ ha^-1)
Nutrient concentration in plant tissue (mg kg^-1)	Fixed costs ($ ha^-1)
NO₃^- concentration of soil solution (mg L^-1)	Investment ($ ha^-1)
Soil management assessment framework (dimensionless)	Gross income ($ ha^-1)
Soil quality indicator using principal component analysis (dimensionless)	Net income ($ ha^-1)
Soil quality simple additive indicator (dimensionless)	Net present value ($)
Soil quality weighted additive indicator (dimensionless)	Benefit-cost ratio ($)
Land use (m² kg^-1)	Opportunity rate obtained (%)
Amount of water per kilogram produced (L kg^-1)	Internal rate of return (%)
Amount of nitrogen per kilogram produced (g kg^-1)	Breakeven point by quantity (kg ha^-1)
Fresh water toxicity (kg 1.4-DB eq)	Breakeven point by price ($ kg^-1)

Indicator	Threshold^* * HVB: highest value is the best; LVB: lowest value is the best.	Method
Environmental dimension - Attribute
Soil quality
SQ_SA	HVB	${S Q}_{S A} = ({S C}_{T t} - {S C}_{M i n}) / ({S C}_{M a x} - {S C}_{M i n})$ , where SQ_SA is the soil quality simple additive indicator, SC_Tt the total score achieved by each experimental unit of each treatment, SC_Min the minimum possible score and SC_Max the maximum possible score
Soil-plant
LU	LVB	LU = 1 m²/kgP, where LU is the land use and kgP the harvested product mass in kg
Soil-water
PE	LVB	$P E = \sum_{1} [(v_{i} / M_{i} \times {N o}_{2} / A_{e}) / (1 / M_{P O 4}^{3 -} x {N o}_{2} / A_{p})] m_{i}$ where PE is the potential eutrophication, v_i the amount of N or P moles in a molecule of the compound i, M_i the molecular weight (kg mol^-1), No₂ the amount of O₂ moles consumed during algae depletion, A_e the amount of N or P moles contained in a molecule of algae and m_i the weight of the substance 1 (kg) (Guinée et al. 2004GUINÉE, J. B.; GORREE, M.; HEIJUNGS, R.; HUPPES, G.; KLEIJN, R.; KONING, A. de; WEGENER SLEESWIJK, A.; SUH, S.; UDO de HAES, H. A.; BRUIJN, J. A. de; VAN DUIN, R.; HUIJBREGTS, M. A. J. Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Liden: Kluwer, 2004.). Estimated by life cycle assessment
Soil-atmosphere
GWP	LVB	$G W P = \sum_{i} i {[\int_{0}^{T} a_{i} c_{i} (t) d t] / [\int_{0}^{T} a_{C O 2} c_{C O 2} (t) d t] m_{i}$ where GWP is the global warming potential, T the time (years), a_i the heating produced by the increase in the concentration of gas i (W m^-2 kg^-1), c_i(t) the concentration of gas i in time (t) (kg m^-3) and m_i the mass of the substance i (kg). The corresponding CO₂ values are included in the denominator (Heijungs & Guinée 2012). Estimated by life cycle assessment
Social dimension
Food security
Yield	HVB	Potato: weighing all harvested tubers [20-24 weeks after planting (wap)] from 10 plants in the central area of each experimental unit Pea: weighing all pods of 20 plants from the central area of each experimental unit. Between two and three harvests were made at the end of pod filling (14-17 wap) Oat: weighing all plants cut from four 0.5 m² square templates, obtained from the central area of each experimental unit at the end of the vegetative period (9-10 wap)
Employment generation
JY	LVB	JY: wages per year per hectare (day’s pay year^-1 ha^-1)
Human health
HT	LVB	$H T = \sum_{i, n} {H T P}_{i, n} \times f_{i, n} \times m_{i}$ where HT is the human toxicity, f_i,n the fraction of substance i transported from crop to environmental compartment n and m_i the mass emitted from each pollutant i (Antón 2004ANTÓN, A. Utilización del análisis del ciclo de vida en la evaluación del impacto ambiental del cultivo bajo invernadero mediterráneo. 2004. Thesis (PhD in Environmental Engineering) - Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, 2004.). Estimated by life cycle assessment
Economic dimension
Expenses
VC	LVB	VC: variable costs; sum of variable costs
Investment
IV	LVB	IV: investment; all costs associated with the initial economic investment prior to field activities
Incomes
NI	HVB	$NI = GI - (VC + FC)$ , where NI is the net income, GI the gross income, VC the variable cost and FC the fixed costs
Profitability
B/C	HVB	$B⁄C = GI / (VC + FC)$ , where B/C is the benefit-cost ratio, GI the gross income, VC the variable cost and FC the fixed costs

Attribute	Indicator	^{________________} Mandatory ^{________________}								^______ Main non-mandatory ^______							^__ Alternate non-mandatory ^__						Correlated		Total
		StOb	QuAt	SpIn	TrSt	NoRd	SgDf	W_CS		AfMs	PrTz	MsEd	ObSt	VrRt	W_CS		AcTn	PtDv	PrFu	AgGt	W_CS		W_CS
		StOb	QuAt	SpIn	TrSt	NoRd	SgDf	0.5		AfMs	PrTz	MsEd	ObSt	VrRt	0.2		AcTn	PtDv	PrFu	AgGt	0.2		0.1
Environmental dimension
Soil quality	SQ_SMAF	2	1	1	1	1	0	0.0		3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	2	1	1	1	1.0	0.20	1.0	0.10	0.00
	SQ_SA	2	1	1	1	1	3	0.8	0.41	3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	2	0	1	1	0.8	0.16	1.0	0.10	0.81
	SQ_W	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	2	0	1	1	0.8	0.16	1.0	0.10	0.91
	SQ_PCA	2	1	1	1	1	0	0.0		3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	2	0	1	1	0.8	0.16	1.0	0.10	0.00
Soil- plant	LU	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	3	0	2	1	1	0.6	0.13	2	0	1	0	0.6	0.12	0.7	0.07	0.81
	W-kg	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	3	0	0	1	1	0.5	0.09	1	0	1	0	0.4	0.08			0.00
	N-kg	1	1	1	1	1	5	0.9	0.45	3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	1	0	1	0	0.4	0.08	1.0	0.10	0.78
Soil- water	FWT	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	0	1	0.3	0.05	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04			0.00
	MWT	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	0	1	0.3	0.05	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04			0.00
	PE	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	1	1	0.4	0.07	2	0	0	0	0.4	0.08	1.0	0.10	0.75
Soil- atmosphere	PA	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	0	1	0.3	0.05	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04			0.00
	GWP	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	0	1	0.3	0.05	2	0	0	0	0.4	0.08	1.0	0.10	0.73
	OLD	1	1	1	1	1	5	0.9	0.45	2	0	0	0	1	0.3	0.05	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04			0.00
Social dimension
Food security	Yd	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	2	1	1	0	0.8	0.16	1.0	0.10	0.91
Food security	FCat	2	1	1	1	1	3	0.8	0.41	3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04			0.00
Employment generation	JC	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	2	1	1	0.5	0.09	2	0	1	0	0.6	0.12	1.0	0.10	0.81
Employment generation	JY	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	2	2	1	0.5	0.11	2	0	1	0	0.6	0.12	1.0	0.10	0.83
Human health	EL_B	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	3	0	0	0	1	0.4	0.07	0	0	0	0	0.0	0.00	1.0	0.10	0.67
	EL_B(4.5)	2	1	1	1	0	5	0.0		3	0	0	0	1	0.4	0.07	0	0	0	0	0.0	0.00	1.0	0.10	0.00
	PO	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	0	1	0.3	0.05	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04			0.00
	HT	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	2	0	0	1	1	0.4	0.07	1	0	0	0	0.2	0.04	1.0	0.10	0.71
Economic dimension
Outcomes	VC	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	2	1	1	0.5	0.09	1	1	1	0	0.6	0.12	1.0	0.10	0.81
Outcomes	FC	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	2	0	0	0.3	0.05	1	1	1	0	0.6	0.12			0.00
Investment	IV	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	2	0	0	0.3	0.05	1	1	1	0	0.6	0.12	1.0	0.10	0.77
Incomes	GI	2	1	1	1	0	5	0.0		3	0	2	1	1	0.6	0.13	1	0	1	0	0.4	0.08			0.00
Incomes	NI	2	1	1	1	1	3	0.8	0.41	3	0	2	2	1	0.7	0.15	2	1	1	0	0.8	0.16	1.0	0.10	0.81
Profitability	B/C	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	3	0	0	2	1	0.5	0.11	2	1	1	1	1.0	0.20	0.4	0.04	0.85
	NPV	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	0	2	1	0.4	0.07	2	0	1	1	0.8	0.16			0.00
	ORO	2	1	1	1	0	5	0.0		1	0	0	2	1	0.4	0.07	1	0	1	1	0.6	0.12	0.4	0.04	0.00
	IRR	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	0	2	1	0.4	0.07	2	0	1	1	0.8	0.16	0.4	0.04	0.77
	BPQ	2	1	1	1	1	5	1.0	0.50	1	0	0	2	1	0.4	0.07	1	0	1	1	0.6	0.12	1.0	0.10	0.79
	BPP	2	1	1	1	1	3	0.8	0.41	1	0	0	2	1	0.4	0.07	1	0	1	1	0.6	0.12	0.4	0.04	0.64

Attribute	Indicator	Correlation matrix^§													Selection Factor					∑CS
Attribute	Indicator	Correlation matrix^§													FS₁	FS₂	FS₃	FS_N		∑CS
Environmental dimension
		SQ_SMAF	SQ_SA	SQ_W	SQ_PCA	LU	W-kg	N-kg	FWT	MWT	PE	PA	GWP	OLD
Soil quality	SQ_SMAF		0.37	0.53	0.64										0.5	4.0	4.0	1.0
	SQ_SA	0.37		0.63	0.66										0.4	4.0	4.0	1.0		0.71
	SQ_W	0.53	0.63		0.69										0.4	4.0	4.0	1.0		0.81
	SQ_PCA	0.64	0.66	0.69											0.3	4.0	4.0	1.0
Soil-plant	LU						0.78	0.16							0.5	2.0	2.0	0.7		0.75
	W-kg					0.78		0.49							0.4	2.0	2.0	0.7		0.67
	N-kg					0.16	0.49								0.7	3.0	3.0	1.0		0.68
Soil- water	FWT									1.00	1.00				0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.59
	MWT								1.00		1.00				0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.59
	PE								1.00	1.00					0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.65
Soil- atmosphere	PA												1.00	1.00	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.59
	GWP											1.00		1.00	0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.63
	OLD											1.00	1.00		0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.55
Social dimension
		Yd	FCat	JC	JY	EL_B	EL_B(4.5)	PO	HT
Food security	Yd		0.34												0.7	2.0	2.0	1.0	ϯ	0.81
Food security	FCat	0.34													0.7	2.0	2.0	1.0	ϯ	0.59
Employment generation	JC				1.00										0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.71
Employment generation	JY			1.00											0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.73
Human health	EL_B						0.99	0.21	0.21						0.5	3.0	3.0	1.0		0.57
	EL_B(4.5)					0.99		0.07	0.07						0.6	3.0	3.0	1.0
	PO					0.21	0.07		1.00						0.6	3.0	3.0	1.0	ϯ	0.59
	HT					0.21	0.07	1.00							0.6	3.0	3.0	1.0	ϯ	0.61
Economic dimension
		VC	FC	IV	GI	NI	B/C	NPV	ORO	IRR	BPQ	BPP
Outcomes	VC		0.51												0.5	2.0	2.0	1.0	ϯ	0.71
Outcomes	FC	0.51													0.5	2.0	2.0	1.0	ϯ	0.67
Investment	IV														-	-	-	1.0		0.67
Incomes	GI					0.98									0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ
Incomes	NI				0.98										0.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	ϯ	0.71
Profitability	B/C							0.98	1.00	0.97	0.05	0.71			0.3	2.0	2.0	0.4		0.81
	NPV						0.98		0.98	0.92	0.13	0.57			0.3	3.0	3.0	0.6		0.73
	ORO						1.00	0.98		0.96	0.04	0.71			0.3	2.0	2.0	0.4
	IRR						0.97	0.92	0.96		0.27	0.84			0.2	2.0	2.0	0.4		0.73
	BPQ						0.05	0.13	0.04	0.27		0.73			0.8	5.0	5.0	1.0		0.69
	BPP						0.71	0.57	0.71	0.84	0.73				0.3	2.0	2.0	0.4		0.60

Attribute	Indicator	Potato-pea-potato		Potato-oat-pea		Potato-potato-oat
Environmental dimension
Soil quality	SQ_SMAF	0.87	a	0.86	a	0.89	a
	SQ_SA	0.37	b	0.53	a	0.48	a
	SQ_W	0.61	b	0.62	ab	0.64	a
	SQ_PCA	0.46	a	0.48	a	0.48	a
Soil-plant	LU	0.653	b	0.704	c	0.273	a
	W-kg	306.48	c	206.07	b	122.14	a
	N-kg	7.56	c	4.65	a	6.27	b
Soil-water	FWT	0.033	c	0.020	a	0.028	b
	MWT	128.82	c	79.19	a	106.78	b
	EP	3.4E-04	c	2.1E-04	a	2.9E-04	b
Soil-atmosphere	AP	2.0E-03	c	1.2E-03	a	1.6E-03	b
	GWP	7.0E-01	c	4.3E-01	a	5.8E-01	b
	OLD	4.4E-08	c	2.7E-08	a	3.7E-08	b
Social dimension
Food security	Yd	69,607	c	84,288	b	119,535	a
Food security	FCat	0.746	b	0.863	a	0.726	b
Employment generation	JC	79	c	51	a	63	b
Employment generation	JY	237	c	154	a	189	b
Human health	EL_B	3.4740	b	3.4267	a	3.7316	c
	EL_B(4,5)	0.5440	b	0.5407	a	0.8195	c
	PO	5.92E-05	c	3.64E-05	a	4.91E-05	b
	HT	0.24	c	0.15	a	0.20	b
Economic dimension
Outcomes	VC	15.7	c	11.1	a	14.0	b
Outcomes	FC	20.1	c	19.3	b	18.8	a
Investment	IV	14.42	c	12.24	b	9.53	a
Incomes	GI	56.23	a	41.82	c	54.48	b
Incomes	NI	20.42	a	11.40	b	21.65	a
Profitability	B/C	1.53	b	1.31	c	1.63	a
	NPV	35.26	b	18.83	c	38.21	a
	ORO	0.33	b	0.22	c	0.39	a
	IRR	3.83	b	2.66	c	5.12	a
	BPQ	40,895	a	73,290	b	84,318	c
	BPP	1021.86	b	980.75	b	393.64	a

Parameters		^_____ Environmental (PCj) ^_____			^___________ Social (PCj) ^___________			^________ Economic (PCj) ^________
Parameters		PC1	PC2	PC3	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC1	PC2	PC3
Eigen values		1.732	2.3E-05	3.5E-07	1.400	1.020	0.036	1.525	1.293	0.026
Variability (%)		1.000	0.000	0.000	0.653	0.347	0.000	0.582	0.418	0.000
Accumulated (%)		1.000	1.000	1.000	0.653	1.000	1.000	0.582	1.000	1.000
PCj (%)		100			65	35		58	42
Dimension	Attribute		Eigen vectors (E_PCj):			(Eigen vectors)²: λj		PC1 x λ1	PC2 x λ2	W_k
Dimension	Attribute		E_PC1	E_PC2	E_PC3	λ1	λ2	PC1 x λ1	PC2 x λ2	W_k
Environmental	Soil quality		0.552	-0.254	0.794	0.304	0.065	0.222	0.018	0.24
	Soil-plant		0.065	0.963	0.263	0.004	0.926	0.003	0.252	0.26
	Soil-water		-0.588	-0.066	0.387	0.346	0.004	0.252	0.001	0.25
	Soil-atmosphere		-0.588	-0.066	0.387	0.346	0.004	0.252	0.001	0.25
Social	Food security		0.714	-0.042	0.699	0.509	0.002	0.333	0.001	0.33
	Employment generation		-0.234	0.927	0.294	0.055	0.859	0.036	0.298	0.33
	Human health		0.660	0.373	-0.651	0.436	0.139	0.285	0.048	0.33
Economic	Outcomes		-0.453	0.558	-0.594	0.206	0.312	0.120	0.130	0.25
	Investment		-0.542	0.434	0.680	0.294	0.188	0.171	0.079	0.25
	Incomes		0.454	0.558	-0.222	0.206	0.312	0.120	0.130	0.25
	Profitability		0.543	0.434	0.369	0.294	0.188	0.171	0.079	0.25

Escola de Agronomia/UFG Caixa Postal 131 - Campus II, 74001-970 Goiânia-GO / Brasil, 55 62 3521-1552 - Goiânia - GO - Brazil
E-mail: revistapat.agro@ufg.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] ^*
HVB: highest value is the best; LVB: lowest value is the best.

Brasil

Brasil

Rotation as a strategy to increase the sustainability of potato crop1

Rotação como estratégia para aumentar a sustentabilidade da cultura da batata

ABSTRACT

Rotation as a strategy to increase the sustainability of potato crop¹