Suru Munda*, Sandeep Kumar Mund and Rajendra Gartia

Assistant Professor, Guest Faculty, Rajendra University, Pragyan Vihar, Balangir, Odisha, India

*Corresponding Author: Suru Munda, Assistant Professor, Guest Faculty, Rajendra University, Pragyan Vihar, Balangir, Odisha, India.

Received: May 15, 2026; Published: June 17, 2026

Abstract

Dive into this study that plumbs the depths of agricultural disparities across four distinct categories: METEORIC, PROGRESSIVE, MEDIOCRE, and LAGGARD. We scrutinized land area and yield rate as pivotal performance indicators. Our findings depict a lucid panorama: METEORIC entities consistently outshine the rest, flaunting the largest average land area, the highest average yield rate, and even the highest average production in quintals. Nevertheless, this pre-eminence comes tinged with a caveat: METEORIC also displays the most substantial variation in all performance metrics. This hints at both elevated potential and potential instability within this classification. Significantly, all noted discrepancies among categories bear statistical significance, suggesting they stem not from chance. While METEORIC shines brightly, grasping the underlying factors propelling these divergences is imperative. Subsequent research should delve into how crop varieties, climatic conditions, and management methodologies sway land area and yield differentials. Furthermore, probing deeper into the dispersion of performance within each category via Gini coefficients or akin methodologies could unveil concealed pockets of inequality. Ultimately, this research harbours the potential to enlighten policymaking and resource allocation strategies aimed at amplifying overall agricultural performance and diminishing inequality across these classifications.

Keywords: Land Area Disparity; Yield Rate Gap; Meteoric Dominance; Performance Variation; Policy-Driven Improvement

References

1. Agresti A. “Foundations of linear and generalized linear models”. John Wiley & Sons (2015).
2. Agresti A. “An introduction to categorical data analysis (3^rd edition)”. John Wiley & Sons (2018).
3. Benjamini Y and Hochberg Y. “Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 1 (1995): 289-300.
4. Brinster R., et al. “Control procedures and estimators of the false discovery rate and their application in low-dimensional settings: An empirical investigation”. BMC Bioinformatics 19 (2018): 78.
5. Cohen J. “Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2^nd edition)”. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1988).
6. Cortina JM and Nouri H. “Effect size for ANOVA designs (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Volume 129)”. Sage Publications (2000).
7. Day RW and Quinn GP. “Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology”. Ecological Monographs4 (1989): 433-463.
8. Dunn OJ. “Multiple comparisons using rank sums”. Technometrics3 (1964): 241-252.
9. Ellis PD. “The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results”. Cambridge University Press (2010).
10. Faraway JJ. “Extending the linear model with R: Generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models”. CRC Press (2006).
11. Fisher RA. “The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance”. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52 (1918): 399-433.
12. Games PA and Howell JF. “Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n's and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study”. Journal of Educational Statistics2 (1976): 113-125.
13. Garcia LV. “Escaping the Bonferroni iron claw in ecological studies”. Oikos3 (2004): 657-663.
14. Garcia LV. “Controlling the false discovery rate in ecological research”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution11 (2005): 553-554.
15. Gbur EE., et al. “Analysis of generalized linear mixed models in the agricultural and natural resources sciences”. John Wiley & Sons (2012).
16. Gelman A. “The failure of null hypothesis significance testing when studying incremental changes, and what to do about it”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin1 (2017): 16-23.
17. Harter HL. “Early history of multiple comparison tests”. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.: Handbook of statistics) (Volume 1, pp.), Elsevier (1980): 617-622.
18. Holm S. “A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure”. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics2 (1979): 65-70.
19. Kéry M and Royle JA. “Applied hierarchical modeling in ecology: Analysis of distribution, abundance and species richness in R and BUGS (Volume 1)”. Academic Press (2016).
20. Kramer CY. “Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications”. Biometrics3 (1956): 307-310.
21. Kruschke JK. “Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General2 (2013): 573-603.
22. Kutner MH., et al. “Applied linear statistical models (5^th edition)”. McGraw-Hill (2004).
23. Lenth RV. “Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination”. The American Statistician3 (2001): 187-193.
24. McCabe DJ., et al. “Measuring standardized effect sizes improves interpretation of biomonitoring studies and facilitates meta-analysis”. Freshwater Science 3 (2012): 800-812.
25. Mendenhall W., et al. “Introduction to probability and statistics (14^th edition)”. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning (2013).
26. Milliken GA and Johnson DE. “Analysis of messy data: Volume III-Analysis of covariance”. CRC Press (2001).
27. Milliken GA and Johnson DE. “Analysis of messy data: Volume I-Designed experiments”. CRC Press (2009).
28. Munda S., et al. “A statistical SWOT up on garbled agricultural disparity at grassroots levels: A statistical analysis at block levels of Sambalpur district”. International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics2 (2022): 68-75.
29. Munda S., et al. “Exploring agricultural disparities in Western Odisha: A comprehensive study based on composite index scores”. Current Agriculture Research Journal3 (2023).
30. Murtaugh PA. “In defense of P values”. Ecology3 (2014): 611-617.
31. Nakagawa S and Cuthill IC. “Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists”. Biological Reviews 4 (2007): 591-605.
32. Osenberg CW., et al. “Effect size in ecological experiments: The application of biological models in meta-analysis”. The American Naturalist6 (1997): 798-812.
33. Pituch KA and Stevens JP. “Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (6^th edition)”. Routledge (2015).
34. Ruxton GD and Beauchamp G. “Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing”. Behavioral Ecology3 (2008): 690-693.
35. Ryan TH. “Significance tests for multiple comparison of proportions, variances, and other statistics”. Psychological Bulletin4 (1960): 318-328.
36. Steegen S., et al. “Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis”. Perspectives on Psychological Science5 (2016): 702-712.

Citation

Citation: Suru Munda., et al. “Unequal Harvests: Disparities in Land Allocation, Yield Efficiency, and Agricultural Output". Acta Scientific Agriculture 10.5 (2026): 35-57.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2026 Suru Munda., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.