4.7 Article

Integrated assessment of economic and environmental consequences of shifting cropping system from wheat-maize to monocropped maize in the North China Plain

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 193, Issue -, Pages 524-532

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.104

Keywords

Cropping system shifting; Economic analysis; Emergy; Life cycle assessment; North China Plain

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0300210, 2016YFD0300203]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Monocropped maize is being discussed as a possible alternative to the conventional wheat-maize cropping system in order to conserve water in the North China Plain. To evaluate the economic and environmental consequences of converting cropping systems, wheat-maize, monocropped maize systems with and without irrigation are compared through a joint use of economic analysis, emergy evaluation and life cycle assessment in this study. According to the economic analysis results, the wheat maize system has higher grain yield and levels of economic profit but a lower ratio of income to costs compared to monocropped maize systems with and without irrigation. The emergy evaluation results show that monocropped maize systems have higher levels of sustainability. Their environmental loading ratios are 8.16%-26.7% lower and the emergy sustainability indexes are 10.20%-30.52% higher than those of wheat-maize system, respectively. The life cycle assessment results reveal lower potential environmental impacts for monocropped maize systems and their total potential environment impact indexes are 39.59%-40.30% lower than that of wheat-maize system. These results indicate monocropped maize will be an effective measure to resolve the current issue of environmental pressures caused by the conventional wheat-maize system in the North China Plain. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available