| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,251 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,918 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 54,582,843 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 93,699,530 |
اولویت‌بندی مراحل مختلف رشد چغندرقند برای مدیریت پایدار منابع آب با استفاده از تئوری تصمیم-گیری چندمعیاره | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 41، شماره 2، اسفند 1404، صفحه 283-302 اصل مقاله (1.06 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2026.372764.1405 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| رضا محمدی کیا* | ||
| بخش مدیریت آب در مزرعه، مؤسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| کم‌آبی یکی از مهم‌ترین عوامل محدودکننده تولید پایدار چغندرقند است و اثر آن در طول دوره رشد گیاه یکنواخت نیست. این پژوهش با هدف اولویت‌بندی مراحل مختلف رشد چغندرقند از منظر بهره‌وری مصرف آب، با استفاده از مدل تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره ویکور (VIKOR) انجام شد. دو شاخص شامل بهره‌وری آب زیست‌توده و سهم نسبی رشد گیاه در چهار مرحله ابتدایی رشد (از کاشت تا حدود 10% پوشش خاک)، مرحله توسعه (از 10% تا حدود 70% پوشش خاک)، مرحله میانی (از 70% تا پوشش کامل خاک)، مرحله پایانی (از پوشش کامل خاک تا برداشت) مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. تجزیه واریانس داده‌ها بر اساس نتایج هر سال و همچنین میانگین دو سال انجام شد. همچنین، تحلیل چندمعیاره به روش ویکور با دو رویکرد وزن‌دهی یکسان به معیارها و وزن‌دهی آنتروپی- شانون انجام گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که در تمام سناریوهای تجزیه داده، مرحله توسعه دارای کمترین مقدار شاخص ویکور (0=Q) و بالاترین اولویت تصمیم‌گیری بود. پس از آن، مرحله میانی با مقادیر Q حدود 781/0-212/0 در رتبه دوم، مرحله ابتدایی با مقادیر Q حدود 969/0-845/0 در رتبه سوم و مرحله پایانی با مقدار 1=Q در رتبه چهارم قرار گرفت. بررسی شرایط پذیرش ویکور نشان داد که اگرچه شرط پایداری در تمامی سناریوها برقرار بود، اما شرط برتری مطلق در روش آنتروپی- شانون به‌طور کامل تأمین نشد؛ بنابراین، مجموعه راه‌حل‌های سازشی شامل مراحل توسعه و میانی قابل تعریف است. ضریب همبستگی اسپیرمن و تجزیه حساسیت تورنادو نشان داد که مرحله توسعه در بازه وزنی 2/0 تا 8/0 کاملاً پایدار بوده و بیش از 95 درصد ثبات رتبه‌ای را حفظ کرده است، در حالی که تنها یک نقطه گذار در حدود وزن 58/0 مشاهده شد که در آن جایگاه مراحل ابتدایی و میانی تغییر می‌کند. در مجموع، نتایج نشان داد که مرحله توسعه پایدارترین و بهینه‌ترین مرحله برای مدیریت مصرف آب در چغندرقند است. جهت توسعه اطلاعات به دست آمده در این تحقیق ارزیابی در شرایط اقلیمی و مدیریتی متنوع‌تر و مقایسه با سایر روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره و مدل‌های هوشمند در مطالعات آینده ضرورت دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| آنتروپی- شانون؛ بهره‌وری آب؛ تحلیل چندمعیاره؛ مدل ویکور | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Prioritization of sugar beet growth stages for sustainable water resource management using multi-criteria decision-making theory | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Reza Mohammadikia | ||
| Researcher, On-Farm Water Management Department, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Efficient irrigation management is one of the most important challenges in sugar beet production, particularly under conditions of increasing water scarcity. Since the sensitivity of sugar beet to water deficit varies throughout its growth cycle, identifying the critical growth stages for water allocation can substantially improve water productivity while maintaining crop performance. Conventional irrigation scheduling generally treats all growth stages similarly and therefore may not maximize the efficiency of limited water resources. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques provide an effective framework for integrating multiple agronomic criteria into a single decision-making process. Among these methods, the VIKOR model is capable of identifying compromise solutions by simultaneously considering group utility and individual regret. Therefore, this study aimed to prioritize sugar beet growth stages for sustainable irrigation management using the VIKOR multi-criteria decision-making method based on biomass water productivity and the relative contribution of each growth stage to plant growth. Materials and Methods The study was conducted using data obtained from a two-year field experiment. Two evaluation criteria, including biomass water productivity (kg m⁻³) and the relative growth share (%) of each growth stage, were used to construct the decision matrix. Four growth stages (Initial, Development, Mid-season, and Late-season) were considered as the decision alternatives. Criteria weights were determined using both equal weighting and Shannon entropy weighting approaches. The VIKOR method was then employed to rank the growth stages based on the S, R, and Q indices. The acceptable advantage and acceptable stability conditions proposed by Opricovic were evaluated to verify the validity of the compromise solution. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis based on systematic variation of criteria weights, together with Tornado analysis and Spearman rank correlation coefficient, was performed to assess the robustness and stability of the obtained rankings. Results and discussion The biomass accumulation pattern followed a typical sigmoid growth curve, with rapid dry matter accumulation occurring primarily during the development and mid-season stages. Mean biomass water productivity values for the Initial, Development, Mid-season, and late-season stages were 4.91, 8.66, 3.84 and 3.83 kg m⁻³, respectively for the Initial, Development, Mid and Late stages, respectively, while their corresponding relative growth shares were 7.24, 45.99, 41.77 and 5.01%, respectively. Application of the VIKOR model indicated that the Development stage consistently ranked first with Q = 0.000, followed by the Mid (Q = 0.774), Initial (Q = 0.903), and Late (Q = 1.000) stages. Both acceptable advantage (ΔQ = 0.774 > DQ = 0.333) and acceptable stability conditions were satisfied, confirming the existence of a unique compromise solution. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the Development stage maintained 100% ranking stability under all w eight scenarios, whereas the Mid and Initial stages exhibited 64% stability and exchanged their relative positions only within a narrow range of weight variation. The Late stage consistently remained the least preferred alternative. In addition, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient equaled 1.00 for both annual analyses and the two-year average, indicating complete agreement between rankings obtained using equal and entropy weighting methods. Conclusion The results demonstrated that integrating physiological growth characteristics with water productivity indicators through the VIKOR multi-criteria framework provides a reliable approach for identifying critical irrigation stages in sugar beet. Among all growth stages, the Development stage was consistently identified as the most efficient and robust stage for water allocation owing to its higher biomass water productivity, greatest contribution to biomass accumulation, and complete ranking stability under different weighting scenarios. The Mid stage represented the second priority but showed moderate sensitivity to changes in criteria weights, whereas the Initial and Late stages had comparatively lower management priority. The robustness confirmed by sensitivity analysis and Spearman correlation further supports the reliability of the proposed ranking. Therefore, prioritizing irrigation during the Development stage can improve water-use efficiency and support sustainable irrigation management of sugar beet under water-limited conditions. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Growth stages, Irrigation management, Multi-criteria decision making, Sensitivity analysis, Sugar beet, Water productivity, VIKOR | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop evapotranspiration- Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO, Rom,1998; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Anonymous. Irrigation water quality guidelines. FAO . Rome, Italy, 2003; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/y3674e/y3674e00.htm [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Anonymous. Long-term climatic data for Karaj region (1992–2021). Iran Meteorological Organization. Tehran, Iran. 2021 (In Persian). Ayers RS, Westcot DW. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Rome, Italy, 1985; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/t0234e/T0234E00.htm [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Bahraseman SE, Firoozzare A, Pourmohammad F, Boccia F, Saghaian S. Determining the best strategies to improve agricultural water productivity in arid and semi-arid regions: An ordinal priority approach. Journal of Arid Environments. 2025; 231: Article 105458. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2025.105458. Biswas T, Sah RP, Kumar R, Kumar V, Nath CP. Evaluation of management practices in rice–wheat cropping system using multicriteria decision-making methods in conservation agriculture. 2024; Scientific Reports, 14, 8600. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58022-w Borg H, Grimes DW. Depth development of roots with time: An empirical description. Transactions of the ASAE. 1986; 29(1):194–197. Doi: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.30125 [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Doorenbos J, Kassam AH. Yield response to water. FAO Rome, Italy, 1979; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Draycott AP. Sugar Beet, Oxford , 2006; pp.474 Blackwell Publishing. Ebrahimipak NA, Tafteh A, Ramezani Etedali H. Evaluation of AquaCrop model for wheat, corn and sugar beet under different irrigation managements in Karaj area. Journal of Water and Soil, 2012; 26(4): 777–789. [In Persian] Gee GW, Bauder JW. Particle-size analysis. InKlute A. (Ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America. 1986; 383–411. Hoffmann CM, Kenter C. Yield potential of sugar beet—Have we hit the ceiling? Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018; 9, Article 289. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00289 Hoffmann CM. Root quality of sugarbeet. Sugar Tech. 2010; 12(3–4): 276–287 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-010-0040-6 [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Jafarpour M, Adib A, Lotfirad M, Kisi Ö. Spatial evaluation of climate change-induced drought characteristics in different climates based on De Martonne Aridity Index in Iran. Applied Water Science. 2023; 13, Article 133. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-023-01939-w Kenter C, Hoffmann C, Märländer B. Effects of weather variables on sugar beet yield development (Beta vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy. 2006; 25(1): 62–69. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.04.004 [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Kiziloglu FM, Sahin U, Kuslu Y, Tunc T. Determining water–yield relationship, water use efficiency, crop and pan coefficients for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in a semi-arid region. Irrigation Science. 2008; 27(1):1–10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-008-0118-z Koocheki A, Nassiri Mahallati M, Alizadeh A. Ecological agriculture and sustainable development in Iran. Journal of Environmental Studies. 2007; 33(42):1–12. [In Persian] Li, M., Sun, H., Singh, V. P., Zhou, Y., & Ma, M. 2019. Agricultural water resources management using maximum entropy and entropy-weight-based TOPSIS methods. Entropy, 21(4), 364. Mäck G, Hoffmann C. Crop growth and nitrogen turnover in sugar beet under drought stress. Sugar Industry. 2017; 142(4): 222–229. Milford GFJ. Plant structure and crop physiology.pp. 30–49. In: Draycott AP. (Ed). Sugar beet. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006. Mohammadian, R., Moghaddam, M., Rahimian, H., & Sadeghian, S.Y. 2005. Effect of early season drought stress on growth characteristics of sugar beet genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 29(5), 357–368. Mohammadian, R., Moghaddam, M., Rahimian, H., & Sadeghian, S.Y. 2005. Effect of early season drought stress on growth characteristics of sugar beet genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 29(5), 357–368. Mohammadian, R., Sadeghian, S.Y., Rahimian, H., & Moghadam, M. 2008. Reduced water consumption of dormant-seeded sugar beet in a semiarid climate. Agricultural Water Management, 95(5), 545–552. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2007.12.004 Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004; 156(2): 445–455. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1 [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Opricovic, S. 1998. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of civil engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5-21. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445-455. Payero JO, Melvin SR, Irmak S. Soybean and corn water productivity under deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management. 2006; 83(3): 233–243. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.10.010 [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Pidgeon JD, Werker AR, Jaggard KW, Richter GM, Lister DH, Jones PD. Climatic impact on the productivity of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in Europe, 1961–1995. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2001; 109(1): 27–37. Qureshi MRN, Singh RK, Hasan MA. Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2018; 20(2): 641–659. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9903-7 [Accessed 10 May 2026]. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Europan of Operational research .1990; 48: 9-26. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 1948; 27(3): 379–423. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2nd ed. New York: 1988. Topak R, Süheri S, Acar B. 2010. Comparison of energy of irrigation regimes in sugar beet production in a semi-arid region. Energy. 35: 5464-5471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.06.018. Tuncel G, Gunturk B. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for agricultural land selection. Sustainability. 2024; 16(23), Article 10509. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310509 Yonts CD, Haghverdi A, Reichert L, Koehler A. Irrigation management for sugar beet. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Central Plains Irrigation Conference. Colorado State University. 2003; P.65–72. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 99 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 61 |
||