Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Felipe de Mendiburu

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1. Variance analysis of fixed factors for agronomic (FTY—fresh tuber yield per plot and IW—total irrigated water), environmental (TE—total emissions carbon footprint), and economic (PC—production cost) indicators. F-values are presented at p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.05 (*), and p > 0.05 (ns) of significance. DF: degrees of freedom.

Table 1 Variance analysis of fixed factors for agronomic (FTY—fresh tuber yield per plot and IW—total irrigated water), environmental (TE—total emissions carbon footprint), and economic (PC—production cost) indicators. F-values are presented at p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.05 (*), and p > 0.05 (ns) of significance. DF: degrees of freedom.

Related Figures (6)

Figure 1. Total irrigated water (IW, A), fresh tuber yield (FTY, B), production cost (PC, C), and total C emissions (TE, D) with treatments under furrow (FI, red bars) and drip (DI, white bars) irrigation using timing schedule irrigation treatments: control (T1), 0.4 (T2) and 0.6 (T3) thresholds of crop water stress index (CWSI). Different letters show significant differences among timing schedule water treatments (T1-T3) under FI (lowercase letters) and DI (capital letters) using the least significant different (LSD) multiple pairwise comparison test at a 0.05 probability level based on the mixed linear model. and —184.5 kg CO>-eq t fresh tubers“! in T1, T2, and T3, respectively (Figure 1D). T3 showed significantly higher TE values than T1-T2 for both IS. The main source of TE was fertilizer inputs (33.5-47.2%) in T1-T2 for both IS, followed by seed production (27.4—28.7%) in T2 and energy use activities (24.7-27.0%) in T1 (Table 2). Regarding T3, it was seed production (40.1-43.4%) followed by fertilizer inputs (33.7-35.7%). In all treatments, off- farm transport activity was negligible (<1%).
Figure 1. Total irrigated water (IW, A), fresh tuber yield (FTY, B), production cost (PC, C), and total C emissions (TE, D) with treatments under furrow (FI, red bars) and drip (DI, white bars) irrigation using timing schedule irrigation treatments: control (T1), 0.4 (T2) and 0.6 (T3) thresholds of crop water stress index (CWSI). Different letters show significant differences among timing schedule water treatments (T1-T3) under FI (lowercase letters) and DI (capital letters) using the least significant different (LSD) multiple pairwise comparison test at a 0.05 probability level based on the mixed linear model. and —184.5 kg CO>-eq t fresh tubers“! in T1, T2, and T3, respectively (Figure 1D). T3 showed significantly higher TE values than T1-T2 for both IS. The main source of TE was fertilizer inputs (33.5-47.2%) in T1-T2 for both IS, followed by seed production (27.4—28.7%) in T2 and energy use activities (24.7-27.0%) in T1 (Table 2). Regarding T3, it was seed production (40.1-43.4%) followed by fertilizer inputs (33.7-35.7%). In all treatments, off- farm transport activity was negligible (<1%).
The extracted components with eigenvalues > 1 represented 94.9% of the total cu mulative variance (Table 3). FTY and TE mainly explained the first principa PComp) with positive and negative signs, respectively. In contrast, the sec was represented primarily by PC and IW, with a negative and positive sign, Table 2, Figure 2). FI-T2 showed higher values of IIN for scenarios IV-VI for FI-T1 with values of 0.42 and 0.50 under scenarios II and III, respective ona (0. polygon of lower FTY and IW and higher PC and TE (Figure 4). with higher IIN in most scenarios (FI-T2) was in the group of higher FTY and TE and PC, whereas DI-T3 treatment with lower IIN in all scenarios was grouped in th componen PCom] respectivel 52-0.71 reaching in VII the maximum value of 0.71 in all the scenarios. Additionally, IIN was highe y (Figure 3 DI-T3 showed lower IIN values (0.19-0.29) in all the scenarios (Figure 3). The treatmen low IW Figure 2. Drip (DI) and furrow (FI) irrigation under control (T1), 0.4 (T2) and 0.6 (T3) thresholds o! crop water stress index (CWSI), with ordination based on principal component analysis for agronomic (DTY and IW), environmental (TE) and economic (PC) indicators. See abbreviations in Table 1.
The extracted components with eigenvalues > 1 represented 94.9% of the total cu mulative variance (Table 3). FTY and TE mainly explained the first principa PComp) with positive and negative signs, respectively. In contrast, the sec was represented primarily by PC and IW, with a negative and positive sign, Table 2, Figure 2). FI-T2 showed higher values of IIN for scenarios IV-VI for FI-T1 with values of 0.42 and 0.50 under scenarios II and III, respective ona (0. polygon of lower FTY and IW and higher PC and TE (Figure 4). with higher IIN in most scenarios (FI-T2) was in the group of higher FTY and TE and PC, whereas DI-T3 treatment with lower IIN in all scenarios was grouped in th componen PCom] respectivel 52-0.71 reaching in VII the maximum value of 0.71 in all the scenarios. Additionally, IIN was highe y (Figure 3 DI-T3 showed lower IIN values (0.19-0.29) in all the scenarios (Figure 3). The treatmen low IW Figure 2. Drip (DI) and furrow (FI) irrigation under control (T1), 0.4 (T2) and 0.6 (T3) thresholds o! crop water stress index (CWSI), with ordination based on principal component analysis for agronomic (DTY and IW), environmental (TE) and economic (PC) indicators. See abbreviations in Table 1.
* Calculated with validated default values for fertilizer production. Table 2. Average total carbon emissions (TE, kg CO eq. to fresh tubers~!) are divided into different agricultural activities under drip irrigation (DI) and furrow irrigation (FI) using timing schedule irrigation treatments: control (T1), 0.4 (T2), and 0.7 (T3) thresholds of crop water stress index (CWSI). Calculations were made using the Cool Farm Tool [30]. 3.2. Interaction of the Indicators and Treatments Valuation Based on the Integrated Index
* Calculated with validated default values for fertilizer production. Table 2. Average total carbon emissions (TE, kg CO eq. to fresh tubers~!) are divided into different agricultural activities under drip irrigation (DI) and furrow irrigation (FI) using timing schedule irrigation treatments: control (T1), 0.4 (T2), and 0.7 (T3) thresholds of crop water stress index (CWSI). Calculations were made using the Cool Farm Tool [30]. 3.2. Interaction of the Indicators and Treatments Valuation Based on the Integrated Index
Figure 3. Average values of the integrated index for each treatment (T1, T2, and T3 for control and thresholds of 0.4 and 0.6 crop water stress index for irrigation timing) under drip (DI) and furrow (FI) irrigation for seven scenarios: (I) “highly important” fresh tuber yield (FTY), with other indicators labeled as “unimportant”, (II) “highly important” FTY and “moderately important” production cost (PC), with the other indicators labeled as “unimportant”, (IIT) “highly important” FTY and PC, with the other indicators labeled as “unimportant”, (IV) “highly important” FTY and PC, “moderately important” total irrigated water (IW), and “unimportant” total C emissions (TE), (V) “unimportant” TE, with the other indicators labeled as “highly important”, (VI) “moderately important” TE, with the other indicators labeled as "highly important”, and (VII) “highly important” for all the indicators.
Figure 3. Average values of the integrated index for each treatment (T1, T2, and T3 for control and thresholds of 0.4 and 0.6 crop water stress index for irrigation timing) under drip (DI) and furrow (FI) irrigation for seven scenarios: (I) “highly important” fresh tuber yield (FTY), with other indicators labeled as “unimportant”, (II) “highly important” FTY and “moderately important” production cost (PC), with the other indicators labeled as “unimportant”, (IIT) “highly important” FTY and PC, with the other indicators labeled as “unimportant”, (IV) “highly important” FTY and PC, “moderately important” total irrigated water (IW), and “unimportant” total C emissions (TE), (V) “unimportant” TE, with the other indicators labeled as “highly important”, (VI) “moderately important” TE, with the other indicators labeled as "highly important”, and (VII) “highly important” for all the indicators.
Figure 4. Radar diagram illustrating drip (DI) and furrow (FI) irrigation systems under control (T1) and thresholds of 0.4 (T2) and 0.6 (T3) of the crop water stress index (CWSI) for agronomic (FTY) environmental (TE), and economic (PC) indicators. See abbreviations in Table 1.
Figure 4. Radar diagram illustrating drip (DI) and furrow (FI) irrigation systems under control (T1) and thresholds of 0.4 (T2) and 0.6 (T3) of the crop water stress index (CWSI) for agronomic (FTY) environmental (TE), and economic (PC) indicators. See abbreviations in Table 1.
See abbreviations in Table 1. Table 3. Loading of the first two principal components (PComp) obtained for agronomic (FTY anc IW), environmental (total carbon emissions, TE) and economic (PC) indicators. In gray: scores > |0.7| TCV = total cumulative variance. 4. Discussion
See abbreviations in Table 1. Table 3. Loading of the first two principal components (PComp) obtained for agronomic (FTY anc IW), environmental (total carbon emissions, TE) and economic (PC) indicators. In gray: scores > |0.7| TCV = total cumulative variance. 4. Discussion
Related topics:
Environmental ScienceAgronomyDrip IrrigationSurface Irrigation
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved