Accounting for current and expected weather risks in crop production based on mathematical game theory

UDC 68.29.05
https://doi.org/10.25630/PAV.2020.13.27.001

Perevertin K.A., Leunov V.I., Belolyubtsev A.I., Simakov E.A., Ivantsova N.N., Vasil’ev T.A.

Trends of climate-related changes – warming, aridization of land, degradation of the cryolithozone, etc. can be taken into account in the strategic planning of adaptive landscape systems of agriculture (climate is one of the most important characteristics of agricultural landscapes). However, the greatest danger is posed by weather risks associated with increased climate nervousness. In this paper, we consider a method for accounting for weather risks, where (seemingly paradoxical) the actual forecast is declared secondary (and even optional in conditions of complete uncertainty according to forecasts!). The described method of risk compensation can be classified as tactical. Within the framework of mathematical game theory, A (agronomist) and P (nature/weather) are considered as conditional players. Adhering to the calculated optimal strategy A minimize crop losses in any «whims» of the P. Sowing 25% of the technology for the wet year (X1) and 75% - technology for dry years (X2), the agronomist has guaranteed the price of the game 0,85 (conditionally net income), while any only one strategy guaranteed to get only 0.7 (for X1) or 0.8 (for X2). The optimal agronomic solution will be to use technology for drought in one third of the area, and technology for a wet year with precipitation in an unfavorable period in two thirds. The obtained solutions do not have the character of universal regional recommendations, but they allow us to successfully optimize agronomic solutions on a farm scale. For small farms, this method will be less popular. However, large farms (agricultural holdings) are extremely interested in obtaining a guaranteed level of income, and it is quite possible to organize the simultaneous use of two technologies on their sufficiently developed base.

Key words: climate, risk, game theory, yield

Perevertin K.A. (author for correspondence), D. Sci (Biol.), Parasitology Centre, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Soil Institute named after V.V. Dokuchaev. E-mail: perevertink@mail.ru

Leunov V.I., D. Sci (Agr.), professor, department of vegetable growing, RSAU–MTAA after K.A. Timiryazev. E-mail: vileunov@mail.ru

Belolubtsev A.I., D. Sci (Agr.), professor, acting dean of faculty of agronomy and biotechnology, RSAU–MTAA after K.A. Timiryazev. E-mail: agrofak@rgau-msha.ru

Simakov E.A., D. Sci (Agr.), professor, head of the experimental gene pool department, Lorch Potato Research Institute

Ivantsova N.N., Cand. Sci. (Techn.), associate professor, department of higher mathematics, RSAU–MTAA after K.A. Timiryazev. E-mail: kozuch75@rgau-msha.ru

Vasil'ev T.A., research fellow, Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Mathematical Modeling of Soil Systems, Soil Science Institute named after V.V. Dokuchaev. E-mail: soilsystemslab@gmail.com

  1. Appendix A2. Agrometeorological hazards. Guidance Document (RD-52.88.699-2008). Regulations on the procedure of actions of institutions and organizations in the event of a threat of occurrence and occurrence of dangerous natural phenomena [Web resource]. URL: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200105083. Access date: 28.05.2020. (In Russ.).
  2. Sagitov A.O., Perevertin K.A. Phytonematology – agricultural production. Alma-Ata. Kainar. 1987. 184 p. (In Russ.).
  3. R.S.-Kh. Edelgeriev (ed.) Global climate and soils of Russia: Assessment of risks and ecological and economic consequences of land degradation. Adaptive systems and technologies of rational nature management (agriculture and forestry). Moscow. GEOS 2019. 286 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Babkina A.V. Ermakova E.A., Svetlova G.N. Economic and mathematical methods and modeling: educational and methodological guide. Moscow. RSAU–MSHA after K. A. Timiryazev, 2018. 112 p. (In Russ.).
  5. Sabinin D.A. Physiological bases of plant nutrition. Moscow. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1965. 346 p. (In Russ.).
  6. Vander Zaag, P., Demagante, A. Acasio, R., Domingo, A., Hagerman, H.: Response of solanum potatoes to mulching during diff erent seasons in an isohyperthermic environment in the Philippines. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad). 1986. Vol. 63. Pp. 229–239.
  7. Malik N.J., Dwell R.B., Thornton M.K., Pavek J.J. Dry matter accumulation in potato cloves under seasonal high temperature conditions in Pakistan. Amer. Potato J. 1992 Vol. 52. Pp. 267–274. DOI:10.1007/BF02852679
  8. Struik P.C., Ewing E.E. Crop physiology of potato (Solanum tuberosum): responses to photoperiod and temperature relevant to crop modelling. In: Haverkort A.J., MacKerron D.K.L. (eds) Potato Ecology And modelling of crops under conditions limiting growth. Current Issues in Production Ecology. Dordrecht. Springer, 1995. Vol. 3. Pp. 19–40.

PDF(Rus)

For citing: Accounting for current and expected weather risks in crop production based on mathematical game theory. K.A. Perevertin, V.I. Leunov, A.I. Belolyubtsev, E.A. Simakov, N.N. Ivantsova, T.A. Vasil’ev. Potato and vegetables. 2020. No6. Pp. 6-10. https://doi.org/10.25630/PAV.2020.13.27.001 (In Russ.).

 

This entry was posted in Main topic and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Accounting for current and expected weather risks in crop production based on mathematical game theory

  1. Pingback: №6, 2020en | Potato and Vegetables

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *