4.7 Article

Patterns of Use of Residue Biomass in Cereal-Sheep Production Systems of North Africa: Case of Tunisia

期刊

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture11070612

关键词

crop residues; livestock; Bayesian belief network (BBN); natural resources management; livestock income; harvest index (HI)

类别

资金

  1. CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on WHEAT [200077]
  2. CLCA project Phase II - International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (ICARDA agreement) [200116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper analyzes the complex relationships of factors influencing residue biomass management in cereal-sheep production systems in semi-arid areas of Tunisia. The Bayesian belief network methodology was applied to identify factors enabling the better management of crop residue at the farm level. Livestock income, livestock herds, cost of livestock feed, and off-farm income are all found to be strong influencing factors on residue biomass management.
This paper analyzes the complex relationships of factors influencing residue biomass management in cereal-sheep production systems in semi-arid areas of Tunisia. The Bayesian belief network (BBN) methodology was applied to identify factors enabling the better management of crop residue (CR) at the farm level. Data were collected from 152 farms located in the governorate of Siliana in north-west Tunisia. After designing the complex interactions between different variables that have an influence on the allocation of CR, BBN was also applied as a predictive model by inserting evidence conditional probabilities on the quantity of CR left on the soil and simulating the incurrent changes in the probability state of the remaining network variables. The results show that around 70% of farmers in our sample retain an overall quantity of CR lower than 200 kg/ha. The share of livestock income, livestock herds, cost of livestock feed, and off-farm income are all factors that have a strong influence on residue biomass management.

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