| Literature DB >> 36011495 |
Abbas Ali Chandio1, Yasir A Nasereldin2,3, Dao Le Trang Anh4, Yashuang Tang1, Ghulam Raza Sargani1, Huaquan Zhang1.
Abstract
Agriculture is an integral sector in China mandated to feed over 1.3 billion of its people and provide essential inputs for many industries. Sichuan, a central grain-producing province in Southwest China, is a significant supplier of cereals in the country. Yet, it is likely to be threatened by yield damages induced by climate change. Therefore, this study examines the effects of technological progress (via fertilizers usage and mechanization) and climatic changes (via temperature and precipitation) on the productivity of main food crops, such as rice (Oryza sativa), wheat (Triticum aestivum), and maize (Zea mays) in Sichuan province. We employ the generalized method of moments (GMM) model to analyze Sichuan provincial data from 1980 to 2018. Our findings show a positive nexus between fertilizers use and yields of main food crops. Only rice and maize yields are significantly improved by mechanization. Increased average temperature reduces rice and wheat yields significantly. Rainfall is unlikely to have a significant impact on agricultural production. The study suggests that the Chinese government should consider revising its strategies and policies to reduce the impact of climate change on food crop production and increase farmers' adaptive ability.Entities:
Keywords: GMM model; global warming; staple crop; technological advancement
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011495 PMCID: PMC9408519 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Production (A) and sown area (B) of food crops in Sichuan province. (Source: China Rural Statistical Yearbook of Sichuan Province [20]).
Figure 2Temperature change and rainfall change in Sichuan province (Source: Weather Bureau of Sichuan Province [22]).
Summary of empirical studies on the impact of technical progress on grain crops production.
| References | Country | Time | Model | Crop | Fertilizers | Mechanization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ali et al. [ | Pakistan | 1989–2015 | ARDL | Wheat + Rice | +/* (wheat) | Not-sig |
| Ali et al. [ | Pakistan | 1989–2015 | ARDL | Sugarcane | +/* | −/* |
| Chandio et al. [ | China | 1982–2014 | KPSS, ADF, PP, ARDL | Agricultural output | +/* | NA |
| Chandio et al. [ | Nepal | 1990–2016 | ARDL | Rice | +/* | NA |
| Chandio et al. [ | Nepal | 1983–2016 | ARDL, VECM, IRF, VD | Maize | +/* | NA |
| Chandio et al. [ | Pakistan | 1977–2014 | ARDL, DOLS, FMOLS, CCR | Cereal production | +/* | NA |
| Gul et al. [ | Pakistan | 1985–2016 | ARDL | Major food crops | +/* | NA |
| Gul et al. [ | Pakistan | 1970–2018 | ARDL, FMOLS, CCR, VECM | Rice | +/* | −/* |
| Rehman et al. [ | Pakistan | 1978–2015 | P–P, ADF | Agricultural output | +/* | NA |
| Pickson et al. [ | China | 1998–2017 | PMG | Rice | +/* | NA |
| He et al. [ | China | 1978–2018 | ARDL | Cereal production | NA | +/* |
| Abbas [ | Pakistan | 2000–2019 | FMOLS, PMG, DOLS | Major crops | +/* | NA |
Note: ARDL: Auto Regressive Distributed Lag, KPSS: Kwiatkowski, Phillips, P–P: Phillips–Perron, ADF: Augmented Dickey Fuller, VECM: Vector Error Correction Model, IRF: Impulse Response Function, VD: Variance Decomposition, DOLS: Dynamic Ordinary Least Square, FMOLS: Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square, CCR: Canonical Cointegration Regression, ECM: Error Correction Model, IMFs: Impulse Response Functions, VARD: Variance Decomposition, PMG: Pooled mean group, NA: Not applicable; +: positive; −: negative; *: Significant.
Summary of empirical studies on the impact of climatic factors on grain crops production.
| References | Country | Time | Model | Crop | Temperature | Rainfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chandio et al. [ | Thailand | 1969–2016 | ARDL, VECM, VARD | Rice | −/* | NA |
| Gul et al. [ | Pakistan | 1985–2016 | ARDL | Major food crops | −/* | +/* |
| Gul et al. [ | Pakistan | 1970–2018 | ARDL, FMOLS, VECM | Rice | −/* | NA |
| Chandio et al. [ | Pakistan | 1968–2014 | ARDL, FMOLS, CCR | Rice | +/* | NA |
| Bhardwaj et al. [ | India | 1981–2017 | FMOLS, DOLS, PMG | Rice + Wheat | −/* | +/* |
| Devkota & Paija [ | Nepal | 1971–2014 | ARDL | Rice | −/* | +/* |
| Kumar et al. [ | Selected countries | 1971–2016 | FGLS, FMOLS | Cereal production | −/* | +/* |
| Pickson et al. [ | China | 1990–2013 | ARDL | Cereal production | −/* | Not-sig |
| Abbas [ | Pakistan | 2000–2019 | FMOLS, PMG, DOLS | Major crops | −/* | NA |
| Rayamajhee et al. [ | Nepal | 2003–2010 | SFM | Rice | −/* | −/* |
| Abbas et al. [ | Pakistan | 1979–2020 | ARDL, ADF, PP | Wheat | −/* | −/* |
| Kumar et al. [ | India | 1982–2016 | ARDL, FMOLS, CCR | Rice | −/* | +/* |
Note: ARDL: Auto Regressive Distributed Lag, KPSS: Kwiatkowski, Phillips, Schmidt and Shin, ADF: Augmented Dickey–Fuller, PP: Phillips—Perron, DOLS: Dynamic Ordinary Least Square, FMOLS: Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square, VECM: Vector Error Correction Model, IRF: Impulse Response Function, VD: Variance Decomposition, ECM: Error Correction Model, IMFs: Impulse Response Functions, VARD: Variance Decomposition, JJC: Johansen and Juselius cointegration, SFM: Stochastic frontier model, CCR: Canonical Cointegration Regression, PMG: Pooled Mean Group, FGLS: Feasible Generalized Least Square, NA: Not applicable; +: positive; −: negative; *: Significant.
Figure 3Map of the study area.
Figure 4LNRP, LNRSA, LNWP, LNWSA, LNMP, LNMSA, LNFER, LNTEMP, LNRF, LNACR, and LNRL denote the natural log of rice production, rice sown area, wheat production, wheat sown area, maize production, maize sown area, fertilizers used, temperature, rainfall, agricultural credit, and rural labor, while MECH shows mechanical farming rate.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Obs. | Mean | Std. Dev | Min | Max | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnRP | 39 | 7.324 | 0.080 | 7.096 | 7.452 | −0.485 | 3.766 |
| lnRSA | 39 | 5.351 | 0.077 | 5.233 | 5.454 | −0.182 | 1.492 |
| lnWP | 39 | 6.141 | 0.299 | 5.510 | 6.532 | −0.651 | 2.323 |
| lnWSA | 39 | 4.901 | 0.322 | 4.151 | 5.228 | −1.025 | 2.851 |
| lnMP | 39 | 6.378 | 0.308 | 5.931 | 6.973 | 0.532 | 2.152 |
| lnMSA | 39 | 4.883 | 0.164 | 4.674 | 5.228 | 0.965 | 2.625 |
| lnFER | 39 | 5.169 | 0.363 | 4.387 | 5.532 | −0.783 | 2.199 |
| MECH | 39 | 0.306 | 0.225 | 0.109 | 0.790 | 1.013 | 2.474 |
| lnTEMP | 39 | 2.430 | 0.042 | 2.351 | 2.493 | −0.094 | 1.866 |
| lnRF | 39 | 6.780 | 0.067 | 6.633 | 6.914 | −0.591 | 2.734 |
| lnACR | 39 | 5.686 | 1.402 | 2.899 | 7.560 | −0.430 | 2.174 |
| lnRL | 39 | 7.831 | 0.183 | 7.468 | 8.070 | −0.557 | 1.991 |
Note: lnRP, lnRSA, lnWP, lnWSA, lnMP, lnMSA, lnFER, lnTEMP, lnRF, lnACR, and lnRL denote the natural logarithm of rice production, sown area of rice, wheat production, sown area of wheat, maize production, sown area of maize, fertilizers used, temperature, rainfall, agricultural credit, and rural labor, while MECH means mechanization.
Figure 5Summary of descriptive statistics in Box plots.
The effect of technical progress and climate change on rice productivity (Model 1).
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _Cons | −2.881607 | 1.784180 | −1.615087 | 0.1168 |
| lnRP (−1) | 0.246357 | 0.113660 | 2.167498 | 0.0383 |
| lnFER | 0.259965 | 0.085917 | 3.025749 | 0.0051 |
| MECH | 0.623438 | 0.166159 | 3.752058 | 0.0008 |
| lnTEMP | −0.486761 | 0.277146 | −1.756333 | 0.0892 |
| lnRF | 0.038773 | 0.114849 | 0.337600 | 0.7380 |
| lnRSA | 0.129937 | 0.412785 | 0.314782 | 0.7551 |
| lnACR | −0.034713 | 0.025730 | −1.349087 | 0.1874 |
| lnRL | 0.931849 | 0.226162 | 4.120273 | 0.0003 |
| R2 | 0.773248 | Adjusted R2 | 0.712781 | |
| D-W stat | 1.414508 | J-stat | 2.143243 |
Note: Dependent variable is ln(RP). Instrumental list is comprised of the lag value of independent variables. ln denotes the natural logarithm. FER and MECH denote the technical factors, TEMP and RF denote the climatic factors, RSA, ACR, and RL refer other determinants and RP is rice production.
Figure 6Key findings for Models 1, 2, and 3.
The impact of technological progress and climate change on wheat production (Model 2).
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _Cons | 1.641766 | 4.455109 | 0.368513 | 0.7151 |
| lnWP (−1) | 0.459326 | 0.189632 | 2.422193 | 0.0217 |
| lnFER | 0.200000 | 0.068682 | 2.911969 | 0.0067 |
| MECH | −0.293055 | 0.210186 | −1.394266 | 0.1735 |
| lnTEMP | −1.892169 | 0.544067 | −3.477822 | 0.0016 |
| lnRF | −0.004890 | 0.645698 | −0.007573 | 0.9940 |
| lnWSA | 0.021784 | 0.163566 | 0.133180 | 0.8949 |
| lnACR | 0.023577 | 0.026385 | 0.893580 | 0.3787 |
| lnRL | 0.654596 | 0.100562 | 6.509367 | 0.0000 |
| R2 | 0.946107 | Adjusted R2 | 0.931736 | |
| D-W stat | 1.714645 | J-stat | 3.248512 |
Note: Dependent variable is ln(WP). FER and MECH denote the technical factors, TEMP and RF denote the climate change factors, WSA, ACR, and RL refer other determinants and WP is wheat production. The instrumental list is comprised of the lag value of independent variables.
The impact of technical progress and climate change on corn production (Model 3).
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _Cons | 3.138381 | 4.347365 | 0.721904 | 0.4759 |
| lnMP (−1) | −0.840622 | 0.435557 | −1.929995 | 0.0631 |
| lnFER | 1.668068 | 0.584661 | 2.853051 | 0.0078 |
| MECH | 3.136348 | 1.388329 | 2.259080 | 0.0313 |
| lnTEMP | −0.396964 | 0.538677 | −0.736924 | 0.4669 |
| lnRF | −0.206295 | 0.372776 | −0.553403 | 0.5841 |
| lnMSA | 0.122215 | 0.573120 | 0.213246 | 0.8326 |
| lnACR | −0.413497 | 0.165381 | −2.500264 | 0.0181 |
| lnRL | 0.406761 | 0.582054 | 0.698837 | 0.4900 |
| R2 | 0.700403 | Adjusted R2 | 0.620511 | |
| D-W stat | 0.566122 | J-stat | 7.324322 |
Note: Dependent variable is ln(MP). FER and MECH denote the technical factors, TEMP and RF denote the changing climate factors, MSA, ACR, and RL refer other determinants and MP is production of maize. The instrumental list contains the lagged value of independent variables.