Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Selection of best conservation tillage alternative for Kharif rice using AHP and TOPSIS methods

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8988
Submitted
20 April 2025
Published
05-03-2026

Abstract

Conservation agriculture (CA) stands out as a recognized alternative to conventional tillage methods, aiming to conserve natural resources while delivering various farm benefits. A field experiment on Kharif rice was conducted during 2019–2020 at the BCKV Farm, Balindi, West Bengal. By integrating different tillage techniques, such as zero, reduced and traditional methods, along with considerations for crop residue quantity and fertilization. CA practices were constructed to minimize energy expenditure for crop cultivation. The performance of these practices was evaluated using diverse indicators encompassing energy usage, benefit-cost ratio, soil criteria, crop criteria (Agronomic) and plant protection criteria. Three multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM), namely (i) Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), (ii) Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and (iii) Weighted Sum Model (WSM) were applied to identify and validate the most suitable tillage approach for Kharif rice. TOPSIS ranked reduced tillage as the top choice for Kharif rice cultivation, followed by conventional tillage. The same was validated by WSM by deriving the similar ranking. This underscores the potential for promoting and adopting reduced tillage as a viable alternative. AHP played a crucial role in establishing the relative importance of various criteria, ensuring the reliability of decision-making processes. By pinpointing areas for improvement, particularly in addressing weak links, the integration of AHP and TOPSIS facilitated decision-makers in discerning the effects of different criteria on Kharif rice under various CA regimes. This approach provides valuable insights for optimizing agricultural practices and enhancing overall performance. It will assist stakeholders in making cost-effective decisions to improve crop productivity and promote eco-friendly farming practices.

References

  1. 1. Kumar A, Pant S. Analytical hierarchy process for sustainable agriculture: An overview. MethodsX. 2023;10:101954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101954
  2. 2. Rehman T, Romero C. The application of the MCDM paradigm to the management of agricultural systems: some basic considerations. Agric Syst. 1993;41:239–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(93)90002-J
  3. 3. Biswas T, Majumder A, Dey S, Mandal A, Ray S, Kapoor P, et al. Evaluation of management practices in rice–wheat cropping system using multicriteria decision-making methods in conservation agriculture. Sci Rep. 2024;14:8600. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58022-w
  4. 4. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018;562:519–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
  5. 5. Ishizaka A, Nemery P. Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118644898
  6. 6. Biswas T, Ishizaka A, Majumder A, Mandal B, Dey S, Mukherjee S, et al. The PROMETHEE-GAIA: A multi-criteria decision-making method for identifying best conservation agricultural practices. Soil Tillage Res. 2025;245:106315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106315
  7. 7. Bhaskar AS, Khan A. Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications. Expert Syst Appl. 2022;209:118268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118268
  8. 8. Zoma F, Sawadogo M. A multicriteria approach for biomass availability assessment and selection for energy production in Burkina Faso: A hybrid AHP-TOPSIS approach. Heliyon. 2023;9:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20999
  9. 9. Seyedmohammadi J, Sarmadian F, Jafarzadeh AA, Ghorbani MA, Shahbazi F. Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma. 2018;310:178–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012
  10. 10. Kundu CK, Majumder A, Nath R, Gunri S, Mondal TK. Assessment of weeds of different kinds in mulberry cultivation based on multiple indicators. Indian Biol. 2005;37:45–50.
  11. 11. Srisawat C, Payakpate J. Comparison of MCDM methods for intercrop selection in rubber plantations. J Inform Commun Technol. 2016;15:165–82. https://doi.org/10.32890/jict2016.15.1.8
  12. 12. Davarpanah S, Bonab S, Khodaverdizadeh M. Assessment and comparison of sustainable agriculture approach using a combination of AHP and TOPSIS. Int Acad J Econ. 2016;3:7–18.
  13. 13. Magableh GM. An integrated model for rice supplier selection strategies and a comparative analysis of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making approaches based on the fuzzy entropy weight method for evaluating rice suppliers. PLoS One. 2024;19:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301930
  14. 14. Azadi A, Jalili AS, Navidi MN. Land evaluation approaches comparing TOPSIS and SAW with parametric methods for rice cultivation. Environ Monit Assess. 2023;195:1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11849-8
  15. 15. Kang D, Jaisankar R, Murugesan V, Suvitha K, Narayanamoorthy S, Omar AH, et al. A novel MCDM approach to selecting a biodegradable dynamic plastic product: a probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set-based COPRAS method. J Environ Manag. 2023;340:117967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117967
  16. 16. Tercan E, Dengiz O. Determination of rice (Oryza sativa L.) site suitability using multi-criteria decision-making based on the best-worst method. Geocarto Int. 2022;37:15982–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2104389
  17. 17. Ozkan B, Dengiz O, Demirag Turan I. Site suitability assessment and mapping for rice cultivation using multi-criteria decision analysis based on fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS approaches under semihumid ecological condition in delta plain. Paddy Water Environ. 2019;17:665–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-019-00692-8
  18. 18. Maddahi Z, Jalalian A, Zarkesh M, Kheirkhah M, Honarjo N. Land suitability analysis for rice cultivation using a GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach: central part of Amol District, Iran. Soil Water Res. 2017;12:29–38. https://doi.org/10.17221/1/2016-SWR
  19. 19. Qureshi MRN, Singh RK, Hasan MA. Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM. Environ Dev Sustain. 2018;20:641–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9903-7
  20. 20. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications-A state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. p. 186.
  21. 21. Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. Kobe: University of Pittsburgh; 1980. p. 1–69.
  22. 22. Afshari A, Mojahed M, Yusuff RM. Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem. Int J Innov Manag Technol. 2010;1:511.
  23. 23. Haque ME, Bell RW, Islam MA, Rahman MA. Minimum tillage unpuddled transplanting: an alternative crop establishment strategy for rice in conservation agriculture cropping systems. Field Crops Res. 2016;185:31–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.10.018
  24. 24. Calcante A, Oberti R. A technical-economic comparison between conventional tillage and conservative techniques in paddy-rice production practice in northern Italy. Agronomy. 2019;9:886. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9120886
  25. 25. Kumar R, Choudhary JS, Mishra JS, Mondal S, Poonia S, Monobrullah M, et al. Outburst of pest populations in rice-based cropping systems under conservation agricultural practices in the middle Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Sci Rep. 2022;12:3753. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07760-w

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.