Submitted:
24 April 2023
Posted:
25 April 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Location and Cropping Systems
2.2. Identification of Socio-Demographic and Physiographic Variables and Their Description
2.3. Primary Data Collection
2.4. Rice equivalent Yield and System Yield
2.5. Costs and Returns for Farm Enterprises
2.6. Risk Analysis
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic and Physiographic Features
3.2. Climatic Trends
3.3. Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate and Market Changes
- #Farmer 1: ’First, there was a flood in 2006 in my area, then Aila in 2009, and now Fani in 2019... Field crops are damaged every time because of salt intrusion in crop fields... It takes time to restore normal soil conditions... For the last few years, I have been growing lathyrus, but I do not know whether we will be able to grow it in the coming rabi (winter) season (in 2019) or not, as there will be a salinity problem.’
- #Farmer 2: Due to these devastating effects of nature, sustainable livelihood is affected, and despite adoption of new technologies and varieties farmers could hardly have any savings because of these recurrent cyclone or flood.
- #Farmer 3: ’I use farm profit to meet family expenditure, but there are no extra savings because every year we have to face cyclone and flood... We face damages to our property like homes, ponds and crop fields. And every time it takes some time to recover from the situation. Not only that, but the uncertain weather conditions like early monsoon also sometimes destroy the summer (pre-kharif) crops.’
- #Farmer 9: this year, due to the early monsoon, I incurred huge loss, and could manage only 188.75 kg/ha yield of green gram. The price of green gram varied from INR35 to 45/kg in general. However, in some years it may rise up to INR65/kg. But we seldom get an opportunity to exploit the price rise.”
- #Farmer 10: ’Chilli was once a very remunerative crop in our area. But frequent virus attack (chilli leaf curl virus) has reduced the area of chilli cultivation. The price also varies... if demand rises in market and if it is your lucky day, you will be able to sale it at INR120 per kg, but in normal situation it is generally sold at INR55 to 65.’
3.4. Productivity of Rice-Based Cropping Systems
3.5. Profitability of Rice-Based Cropping Systems
3.6. Stochastic Dominance Analysis
3.7. Sensitivity Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Schut M, van Asten P, Okafor C, Hicintuka C, Mapatano S, Nabahungu NL et al. Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African; 2016.
- Xie H, Huang Y, Chen Q, Zhang Y, Wu Q. Prospects for agricultural sustainable intensification: a review of research. Land. 2019;8(11):157. [CrossRef]
- Wezel A, Soboksa G, McClelland S, Delespesse F, Boissau A. The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2015;35(4):1283-95. [CrossRef]
- Cassman KG, Grassini P. A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(4):262-8. [CrossRef]
- Tittonell P, Giller KE. When yield gaps are poverty traps: the paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Res. 2013;143:76-90. [CrossRef]
- Smith A, Snapp S, Chikowo R, Thorne P, Bekunda M, Glover J. Measuring sustainable intensification in smallholder agroecosystems: a review. Glob Food Sec. 2017;12:127-38. [CrossRef]
- Cortner O, Garrett RD, Valentim JF, Ferreira J, Niles MT, Reis J et al. Perceptions of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy. 2019;82:841-53. [CrossRef]
- Mahon N, Crute I, Simmons E, Islam MM. Sustainable intensification -’oxymoron’ or ’third-way’? A systematic review. Ecol Indic. 2017;74:73-97. [CrossRef]
- Umesha S, Manukumar HMG, Chandrasekhar B. Chapter 3. Sustainable agriculture and food security. In: Singh RK, Mondal S, editors. Biotechnology for sustainable agriculture: emerging approaches and strategies. Woodland Publishing; 2018. p. 67-92.
- Tripathi SC, Venkatesh K, Meena RP, Chander S, Singh GP. Sustainable intensification of maize and wheat cropping system through pulse intercropping. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):18805. [CrossRef]
- Lamichhane JR, Alletto L, Cong WF, Dayoub E, Maury P, Plaza-Bonilla D et al. Relay cropping for sustainable intensification of agriculture across temperate regions: crop management challenges and future research priorities. Field Crops Res. 2023;291:108795. [CrossRef]
- FAO. World food and agriculture – statistical [yearbook]. Vol. 2021. Rome; 2021. [CrossRef]
- Kumar HMV, Chauhan NB, Patel DD, Patel JB. Predictive factors to avoid farming as a livelihood. Economic Structures. 2019;8(1):10. [CrossRef]
- Kumar R, Mishra JS, Upadhyay PK, Hans H. Rice fallows in the eastern India: problems and prospects. Indian J Agri Sci. 2019;89(4):567-77. [CrossRef]
- Zsögön A, Peres LEP, Xiao Y, Yan J, Fernie AR. Enhancing crop diversity for food security in the face of climate uncertainty. Plant J. 2022;109(2):402-14. [CrossRef]
- Mainuddin M, Karim F, Gaydon DS, Kirby JM. Impact of climate change and management strategies on water and salt balance of the polders and islands in the Ganges Delta. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7041. [CrossRef]
- Banerjee H, Sarkar S, Ray K. Energetics, GHG emissions and economics in nitrogen management practices under potato cultivation: a farm level study. Energy Ecol Environ. 2017;2(4):250-8. [CrossRef]
- Ghosh S, Mistri B. Drainage induced waterlogging problem and its impact on farming system: a study in Gosaba Island, Sundarban, India. Spat Inf Res. 2020a;28(6):709-21. [CrossRef]
- Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of WB. Area, yield and production of major field crops. Evaluation wing, directorate of agriculture, Govt. of WB; 2021.
- Ray K, Sen P, Goswami R, Sarkar S, Brahmachari K, Ghosh A et al. Profitability, energetics and GHGs emission estimation from rice-based cropping systems in the coastal saline zone of West Bengal, India. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233303. [CrossRef]
- Ghosh S, Mistri B. Coastal agriculture and its challenges: A case study in Gosaba Island, Sundarban, India. Space Cult, (India). 2020b;8(2):140-54. [CrossRef]
- Mandal S, Sarangi SK, Mainuddin M, Mahanta KK, Mandal UK, Burman D et al. Cropping system intensification for smallholder farmers in coastal zone of West Bengal, India: A socio-economic evaluation. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2022;6:1001367. [CrossRef]
- Mandal S. Risks and profitability challenges of agriculture in Sundarbans India. In: The Sundarbans: A disaster-prone eco-region, coastal research (Sen, H.S. Ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland pp; 2019. p. 353-71. [CrossRef]
- Hassan A, Wahid S, Shrestha ML, Rashid MA, Ahmed T, Mazumder A et al. Climate change and water availability in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basin: impact on local crop production and policy directives. In: Vaidya R, Sharma E, editors. Research insights on climate and water in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD); 2014. p. 97-108.
- Lázár AN, Clarke D, Adams H, Akanda AR, Szabo S, Nicholls RJ et al. Agricultural livelihoods in coastal Bangladesh under climate and environmental change-a model framework. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2015;17(6):1018-31. [CrossRef]
- Kabir MJ, Cramb R, Gaydon DS, Roth CH. Bio-economic evaluation of cropping systems for saline coastal Bangladesh: III Benefits of adaptation in current and future environments. Agric Syst. 2018a;161:28-41. [CrossRef]
- Kabir J, Cramb R, Gaydon DS, Roth CH. Bio-economic evaluation of cropping systems for saline coastal Bangladesh: II. Economic viability in historical and future environments. Agric Syst. 2017;155:103-15. [CrossRef]
- Kabir MJ, Gaydon DS, Cramb R, Roth CH. Bio-economic evaluation of cropping systems for saline coastal Bangladesh: I. Biophysical simulation in historical and future environments. Agric Syst. 2018b;162:107-22. [CrossRef]
- Ray K, Hasan SS, Goswami R. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of different rice-based cropping systems in an inceptisol of West Bengal, India. J Cleaner Prod. 2018;205:350-63. [CrossRef]
- Kabir MJ, Cramb R, Alauddin M, Gaydon DS. Farmers’ perceptions and management of risk in rice-based farming systems of south-west coastal Bangladesh. Land Use Policy. 2019;86:177-88. [CrossRef]
- Tittonell P. Ecological intensification of agriculture – sustainable by nature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2014;8:53-61. [CrossRef]
- Bogužas V, Skinulienė L, Butkevičienė LM, Steponavičienė V, Petrauskas E, Maršalkienė N. The effect of monoculture, crop rotation combinations, and continuous bare fallow on soil CO2 emissions, earthworms, and productivity of winter rye after a 50-year period. Plants (Basel). 2022;11(3):431. [CrossRef]
- Kumar R, Mishra JS, Rao KK, Mondal S, Hazra KK, Choudhary JS et al. Crop rotation and tillage management options for sustainable intensification of rice-fallow agro-ecosystem in eastern India. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11146. [CrossRef]
- Yadav GS, Lal R, Meena RS, Datta M, Babu S, Das A et al. Energy budgeting for designing sustainable and environmentally clean/safer cropping systems for rainfed rice fallow lands in India. J Cleaner Prod. 2017;158:29-37. [CrossRef]
- Singh AK, Das B, Mali SS, Bhavana P, Shinde R, Bhatt BP. Intensification of rice-fallow cropping systems in the Eastern Plateau region of India: diversifying cropping systems and climate risk mitigation. Clim Dev. 2020;12(9):791-800. [CrossRef]
- Ray LIP, Swetha K, Singh AK, Singh NJ. Water productivity of major pulses – a review. Agric Water Manag. 2023;281:108249. [CrossRef]
- Samant TK. System productivity, profitability, sustainability and soil health as influenced by rice-based cropping systems under mid central table land zone of Odisha. Int J Agric Sci. 2015;7(11):746-9.
- Samanta B. Changing scenario of red chilli cultivation after Cyclone Aila in Haripur. Int J Res Anal Rev. 2018;5(3):920-5.
- Lahiri K. Role of participatory management for livelihood resurgence in Sundarban region with special reference to Sagar Island and canning blocks; 2011. Sodhganga [cited Apr 12, 2023]. Available from: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/155888.
- Debnath A. Condition of agricultural productivity of Gosaba C.D. Block, South24 Parganas, West Bengal, India after severe Cyclone Aila. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2013;3(7):1-4.
- Patel LC, Mondal CK. Management of causal agents of chilli leaf curl complex through bio-friendly approaches. The J Plant Prot Sci. 2013;5(2):20-5.
- Kassie M, Teklewold H, Jaleta M, Marenya P, Erenstein O. Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and southern Africa. Land Use Policy. 2015;42:400-11. [CrossRef]









| Cropping System | Wet Season | Dry Season | Early Wet Season |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existing | Rice | Tomato | Fallow |
| Rice | Lathyrus | Fallow | |
| Rice | Potato | Fallow | |
| Rice | Fallow | Fallow | |
| Rice | Rice | Fallow | |
| Rice | Lentil | Fallow | |
| Rice | Onion | Fallow | |
| Rice | Chilli | Fallow | |
| Potential | Rice | Fallow | Greengram |
| Rice | Maize | Fallow | |
| Rice | Potato | Greengram |
| Variables | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (Years) | |
| <40 | 10 (20) |
| 40-60 | 27 (54) |
| >60 | 13 (26) |
| Primary occupation | |
| Agriculture | 44 (88) |
| Non-agriculture | 6 (12) |
| Secondary occupation | |
| Agriculture | 2 (4) |
| Non-agriculture | 34 (68) |
| Nil | 14 (28) |
| Education (class) | |
| <10 | 41 (82) |
| 10-11 | 8 (16) |
| ≥12 | 1 (2) |
| Caste | |
| General | 44 (88) |
| Schedule Caste | 6 (12) |
| Total family member (number) | |
| <5 | 24 (48) |
| 5-7 | 24 (48) |
| >7 | 2 (4) |
| Family type | |
| Nuclear | 38 (76) |
| Extended | 12 (24) |
| Tenurial statusof land | |
| Own land | 32 (64) |
| Leased-in land | 18 (36) |
| Total operational land (acre)* | |
| <1 | 32 (64) |
| 1-2.5 | 14 (28) |
| >2.5 | 4 (8) |
| Irrigation availability | |
| Unirrigated | 22 (44) |
| Irrigated | 28 (56) |
| Soil testing done or not | |
| Not done | 44 (88) |
| Done | 6 (12) |
| Fertility status of soil | |
| Fertile | 16(32) |
| Medium fertile | 19 (38) |
| Unfertile | 15 (30) |
| Perception about the participation of women in agricultural activities | |
| Active participation | 43 (86) |
| No participation | 7 (14) |
| Perception about participation of women in household activities | |
| Active participation | 46 (92) |
| No participation | 4 (8) |
| Crop | Grain Yield (t/ha) | Selling Price (INR/kg) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best Seasonal Condition | Normal Seasonal Condition | Worst Seasonal Condition | % Variation (1-3) | High Price | Normal Price | Low Price | % Variation (5-7) | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Wet season rice | 5.4 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 40.74 | 15 | 13 | 12 | 20.00 |
| Dry season rice | 6.5 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 41.54 | 17 | 15.5 | 14 | 17.65 |
| Potato | 18.3 | 16.6 | 15.0 | 18.03 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 33.33 |
| Lathyrus | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 35.71 | 26 | 22 | 20.5 | 21.15 |
| Lentil | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 30.00 | 70 | 50 | 40 | 42.86 |
| Tomato | 15.0 | 14.0 | 13.0 | 13.33 | 30 | 20 | 14 | 53.33 |
| Onion | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 11.11 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 44.44 |
| Chilli | 5.6 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 32.14 | 100 | 75 | 65 | 35.00 |
| Greengram | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 42.86 | 40 | 35 | 30 | 25.00 |
| Maize | 7.3 | 5.5 | 4.8 | 34.25 | 15 | 12 | 10 | 33.33 |
| Sl. No. | Cropping Systems | Ranks |
|---|---|---|
| Existing | Rice-tomato | 2 |
| Rice-lathyrus | =5 | |
| Rice-potato | 4 | |
| Rice-fallow | =5 | |
| Rice-rice | =5 | |
| Rice-lentil | =5 | |
| Rice-onion | 6 | |
| Rice-chilli | 1 | |
| Potential | Rice-fallow-greengram | =5 |
| Rice-maize | =5 | |
| Rice-potato-greengram | 3 |
| Systems | Input | Net Return (INR/ha) |
|---|---|---|
| Rice-tomato | Rice price | 9,820 |
| Rice yield | 26,694 | |
| Tomato price | 1,64,858 | |
| Tomato yield | 91,303 | |
| Rice-lathyrus | Rice price | 10,627 |
| Rice yield | 26,221 | |
| Lathyrus price | 4,274 | |
| Lathyrus yield | 7,865 | |
| Rice-potato | Rice price | 10,671 |
| Rice yield | 26,556 | |
| Potato price | 65,956 | |
| Potato yield | 47,215 | |
| Rice-fallow | Rice price | 10,689 |
| Rice yield | 26,297 | |
| Rice-rice | Rainy season rice price | 10,612 |
| Rainy season rice yield | 26,190 | |
| Summer season rice price | 12,023 | |
| Summer season rice yield | 29,673 | |
| Rice-lentil | Rice price | 10,758 |
| Rice yield | 26,381 | |
| Lentil price | 17,634 | |
| Lentil yield | 9,411 | |
| Rice-onion | Rice price | 10,641 |
| Rice yield | 26,383 | |
| Onion price | 18,707 | |
| Onion yield | 10,095 | |
| Rice-chilli | Rice price | 10,346 |
| Rice yield | 25,860 | |
| Chilli price | 89,345 | |
| Chilli yield | 78,872 | |
| Rice-fallow-green gram | Rice price | 10,717 |
| Rice yield | 26,263 | |
| Greengram price | 7,795 | |
| Greengram yield | 14,663 | |
| Rice-maize | Rice price | 10,617 |
| Rice yield | 26,148 | |
| Maize price | 20,291 | |
| Maize yield | 21,913 | |
| Rice-potato-green gram | Rice price | 10,698 |
| Rice yield | 26,522 | |
| Potato price | 65,911 | |
| Potato yield | 47,139 | |
| Greengram price | 7,550 | |
| Greengram yield | 14,286 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).