| Literature DB >> 34862424 |
Azhar Ali Janjua1, Muhammad Aslam2, Naheed Sultana3, Zia Batool4.
Abstract
The study attracted to insinuate the inhabitant anomalies of the crop yield in the districts of the Punjab where climate variation, inputs utilization, and district exponents are indispensable factors. Impact evaluation of sowing and harvesting dates for rice yield has been analyzed. Suitable sowing and harvesting dates and potential districts for the crop are proposed. Data consisting of 13,617 observations of more than 90 factors encompassing valuable dimensions of the growth of the crops collected through comprehensive surveys conducted by the Agriculture Department of Punjab are formulated to incorporate in this study. The results establish the significant negative repercussions of climate variability while the impacts vary in the districts. The crop yield deteriorates considerably by delaying the sowing and harvesting times. Districts climate-induced vulnerability ranking revealed Layyah, Jhelum, Mianwali, Khanewal and Chinniot, the most vulnerable while Kasur, Gujrat, Mandi Bhauddin, Nankana Sahib and Hafizabad, the least vulnerable districts. Spatial mapping explains the geographical pattern of vulnerabilities and yield/monetary losses. The study ranks districts using climate-induced yield and monetary loss (222.30 thousand metric tons of rice which are equal to 27.79 billion PKR climatic losses in single rice season) and recommends: the formation of district policy to abate the adverse climate impact, utilization of suitable climate variation by adhering proper sowing and harvesting times, setting the prioritized districts facing climate-induced losses for urgent attention and preferable districts for rice crop.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34862424 PMCID: PMC8642530 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02691-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Map of province Punjab, Pakistan. Source Generating using Arc GIS version 10.3.1.
Summary statistics of rice variables.
| Variables | N | Mean | Median | Skewness | Kurtosis | Max. | C.V | Min. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 13,617 | 11.0929 | 11.1 | 0.0204 | 3.6968 | 25.2 | 0.2681 | 0 |
| Sowing time | 13,617 | 2.9018 | 3 | 0.7646 | 2.8472 | 6 | 0.4123 | 1 |
| Harvest. time | 13,617 | 2.4978 | 3 | 0.1360 | 1.3653 | 5 | 0.5756 | 1 |
| Rice varieties | 13,617 | 7.2384 | 6 | 1.1533 | 2.9860 | 16 | 0.5442 | 1 |
| Seed type | 13,617 | 1.9571 | 2 | 0.0668 | 1.8640 | 3 | 0.3744 | 1 |
| Seed quantity | 13,617 | 5.0825 | 5 | − 0.6824 | 2.7477 | 6 | 0.1774 | 2 |
| Soil type | 13,617 | 1.3676 | 1 | 2.2768 | 6.4688 | 4 | 0.6726 | 1 |
| Plough | 13,617 | 2.8143 | 3 | − 0.1054 | 1.9462 | 4 | 0.3266 | 1 |
| Sow. mode | 13,617 | 1.3701 | 1 | 0.5383 | 1.2898 | 2 | 0.3524 | 1 |
| Cutting mac. | 13,617 | 2.1206 | 2 | − 0.2373 | 1.3185 | 3 | 0.4173 | 1 |
| Dap | 13,617 | 38.8540 | 50 | − 0.4057 | 2.9200 | 150 | 0.6173 | 0 |
| Urea | 13,617 | 74.9835 | 75 | 0.4345 | 3.2313 | 200 | 0.4072 | 0 |
| Watering no. | 13,617 | 19.8871 | 19 | 0.2107 | 2.4210 | 43 | 0.3137 | 1 |
| Irrig. mode | 13,617 | 2.3206 | 2 | − 0.2769 | 2.3551 | 3 | 0.2592 | 1 |
| Attack pest | 13,617 | 1.6980 | 2 | − 0.8626 | 1.7441 | 2 | 0.2704 | 1 |
| Attack weed | 13,617 | 1.7013 | 2 | − 0.8794 | 1.7734 | 2 | 0.2691 | 1 |
| Spray ps. no. | 13,617 | 1.2688 | 1 | 0.9163 | 4.7896 | 11 | 0.7804 | 0 |
| Last crop | 13,617 | 5.3097 | 6 | − 1.8107 | 4.6019 | 6 | 0.2766 | 1 |
| District id | 13,617 | 16.6061 | 16 | 0.1714 | 2.3553 | 32 | 0.4691 | 1 |
N number of observations, Mean arithmetic mean, Max maximum, Min minimum, CV coefficient of variation.
Figure 2Sowing time and plough machines used for rice growth.
Figure 3Rice varieties with mean of yield and sowing time.
Frequency distribution of categorical variables for rice.
| Variables | Frequency | Percent | Cumulative freq. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Up to may | 289 | 2.12 | 2.12 |
| June 1–15 | 810 | 5.95 | 8.07 |
| June 16–30 | 1919 | 14.09 | 22.16 |
| July 1–15 | 5172 | 37.98 | 60.14 |
| July 16–31 | 4587 | 33.69 | 93.83 |
| August onward | 840 | 6.17 | 100 |
| Total | 13,617 | 100 | |
| Up to Sep. | 694 | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| Oct. 1–15 | 2097 | 15.4 | 20.5 |
| Oct. 16–31 | 4295 | 31.54 | 52.04 |
| Nov. 1–15 | 5991 | 44 | 96.03 |
| Nov 16–30 | 540 | 3.97 | 100.00 |
| Total | 13,617 | 100 | |
Sowing and harvesting impact on rice yield in the Punjab.
| Variables | 1 |
|---|---|
| Sowing | − 0.345*** |
| Harvesting | − 0.956*** |
| Constant | 15.64*** |
| Observations | 13,617 |
| R-square | 0.144 |
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1, Robust standard errors.
Sowing and harvesting time impact on rice yield in the Punjab.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3a | 4 | 5a | 6a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Up to May 31 | Ref. | 2.15*** | 2.15*** | . | . | 11.39*** |
| June 1–15 | − 0.68*** | 1.47*** | 1.47*** | 12.06*** | 11.92*** | 10.71*** |
| June 16–30 | − 0.90*** | 1.25*** | 1.25*** | 11.19*** | 11.02*** | 10.49*** |
| July 1–15 | − 1.02*** | 1.14*** | 1.13*** | 10.86*** | 10.67*** | 10.38*** |
| July 16–31 | − 1.34*** | 0.81*** | 0.81*** | 10.50*** | 10.29*** | 10.05*** |
| August onward | − 2.15*** | Ref. | Ref. | 9.66*** | 9.45*** | 9.24*** |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Up to Sep. 30 | Ref. | 3.38*** | 3.37*** | . | . | 3.37*** |
| Oct. 1–15 | − 1.35*** | 2.03*** | 2.03*** | 1.55*** | 1.73*** | 2.03*** |
| Oct. 16–31 | − 2.25*** | 1.13*** | 1.12*** | 0.66*** | 0.86*** | 1.12*** |
| Nov. 1–15 | − 3.38*** | Ref. | Ref. | − 0.42*** | − 0.22 | . |
| Nov. 16–30 | − 3.31*** | 0.07 | . | − 0.39* | . | . |
| Constant | 14.77*** | 9.24*** | 9.24*** | . | . | . |
| Observations | 13,617 | 13,617 | 13,617 | 13,617 | 13,617 | 13,617 |
| R-square | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.94 |
***p < 0.01, *p < 0.1.
aRobust standard errors.
Rice yield as dependent variable in districts of the Punjab.
| Variables | Coefficients | Variables | Coefficients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Up to May 31 | 0.574*** | Up to Sep. 30 | Reference |
| June 1–15 | 0.877*** | Oct. 1–15 | − 0.518*** |
| June 16–31 | 0.853*** | Oct. 16–31 | − 1.061*** |
| July 1–15 | 0.854*** | Nov. 1–15 | − 1.431*** |
| July 16–31 | 0.627*** | Nov. 16–30 | − 1.411*** |
| August onward | Reference | Observations | 13,617 |
| Constant | 16.53*** | R-Square | 0.381 |
***p < 0.01, Robust standard errors.
Tests for equality of climate impact on rice across the districts.
| Characteristics | F-test | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | F(9, 237) = 4.69 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 2 | F(22, 741) = 5.51 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 3 | F(26, 1844) = 7.14 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 4 | F(28, 5094) = 16.35 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 5 | F(29, 4509) = 14.96 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 6 | F(27, 769) = 3.96 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 1 | F(18, 629) = 4.91 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 2 | F(22, 2026) = 7.21 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 3 | F(29, 4216) = 11.09 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 4 | F(29, 5913) = 18.12 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
| 5 | F(25, 469) = 6.47 | Prob > F = 0.0000 |
Figure 4Spatial mapping of climate induced district vulnerability ranking for rice yield. Source Generating using Arc GIS version 10.3.1.
Climate induced monetary and yield loss ranking of districts of the Punjab.
| Ranking | Districts | Rice loss | Monetary loss | Ranking | Districts | Rice loss | Monetary loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gujranwala | 34,920.24 | 4365.03 | 17 | Khanewal | 5021.45 | 627.68 |
| 2 | Sialkot | 19,487.42 | 2435.93 | 18 | Vehari | 4912.23 | 614.03 |
| 3 | Sheikhupura | 17,045.43 | 2130.68 | 19 | Muzaffar Garh | 4797.90 | 599.74 |
| 4 | Okara | 15,900.87 | 1987.61 | 20 | Sahiwal | 4135.44 | 516.93 |
| 5 | Narowal | 14,252.03 | 1781.50 | 21 | Lahore | 4013.45 | 501.68 |
| 6 | Bahawalnagar | 8977.41 | 1122.18 | 22 | R. Y. Khan | 3754.10 | 469.26 |
| 7 | Hafizabad | 8203.49 | 1025.44 | 23 | Khushab | 3698.86 | 462.36 |
| 8 | Jhang | 7324.22 | 915.53 | 24 | D.G. Khan | 3343.17 | 417.90 |
| 9 | Sargodha | 6876.93 | 859.62 | 25 | Gujrat | 3062.88 | 382.86 |
| 10 | Nankana Sahib | 6698.18 | 837.27 | 26 | Layyah | 2956.65 | 369.58 |
| 11 | Chinniot | 6650.93 | 831.37 | 27 | Multan | 2933.94 | 366.74 |
| 12 | Pakpattan | 6440.06 | 805.01 | 28 | Bahawalpur | 1397.46 | 174.68 |
| 13 | M.B. Din | 5731.24 | 716.41 | 29 | Lodhran | 1236.38 | 154.55 |
| 14 | Kasur | 5663.72 | 707.97 | 30 | Mianwali | 1052.68 | 131.59 |
| 15 | Faisalabad | 5595.33 | 699.42 | 31 | Rajanpur | 440.55 | 55.07 |
| 16 | Tobatek Singh | 5431.47 | 678.93 | 32 | Jhelum | 340.91 | 42.61 |
Figure 5Spatial mapping of climate induced rice loss in districts of Punjab. Source Generating using Arc GIS version 10.3.1.