4.7 Article

Resource management in cropping systems using artificial intelligence techniques: a case study of orange orchards in north of Iran

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00477-015-1152-z

关键词

Energy analysis; Greenhouse gas emission; Orange; Artificial neural networks; Multi-objective optimization; Data envelopment analysis

资金

  1. University of Tabriz, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of energy use and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in agricultural system is the important topic. For this purpose, many methods have been proposed in different researches for solution of these items in recent years. Obviously, the selection of appropriate method was a new concern for researchers. Accordingly, the energy inputs and GHG emissions of orange production in north of Iran were modeled and optimized by artificial neural networks (ANN) and multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) in this study and the results obtained were compared with the results of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Results showed that, on average, an amount of 25,582.50 MJ ha(-1) was consumed in orange orchards in the region and the nitrogen fertilizer was accounted for 36.84 % of the total input energy. The outcomes of this study demonstrated that on average 803 kg carbon dioxide (kgCO(2eq).) is emitted per ha and diesel fuel is responsible for 35.7 % of all emissions. The results of ANN signified that they were capable of modeling crop output and total GHG emissions where the model with a 13-4-2 topology had the highest accuracy in both training and testing steps. The optimization of energy consumption using MOGA revealed that the total energy consumption and GHG emissions of orange production can be reduced to the values of 13,519 MJ ha(-1) and 261 kgCO(2eq). ha(-1), respectively. A comparison between MOGA and DEA clearly showed the better performance of MOGA due to simultaneous application of different objectives and the global optimum solutions produced by the last generation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据