Gökçeada topraklarının erozyon duyarlılığı

Year 2018, Volume: 33 Issue: 1, 68 - 72, 15.02.2018

Remzi İlay , Yasemin Kavdır

https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.329204

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Gökçeada, organik tarım uygulamaları açısından
ülkemizdeki en uygun bölgelerden biri olup 
"organik tarım adası" olarak ünlenmiştir.  Gökçeada’da doğal kaynakların kalitesinin
korunmasına yönelik tespitlerin yapılarak gerekli önlemlerin alınması
gerekmektedir. Ekosistemin sürdürülebilirliği için toprak, en temel doğal
kaynaklardan biridir. Toprak kalitesinin sürdürülebilir olması için öncelikle
toprağın korunarak mevcut durumunun belirlenmesi ve varsa risklerin de
belirlenerek gerekli önlemlerin alınması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada Gökçeada
topraklarının erozyona duyarlılığının (erodibilitesinin) RUSLE modelinde
belirtildiği şekilde tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla arazi kullanımı
ayırmaksızın 248 farklı noktadan yüzey toprak örneği alınmış ve gerekli analizler
yapılmıştır. Gökçeada toprakları genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde RUSLE-K
değerlerinin 0 ila 0.65 arasında değiştiği, ortalamanın ise 0.25 olduğu ve
Gökçeada topraklarının yaklaşık  % 52'sinde
orta, yüksek ve çok yüksek düzeyde erozyon riski bulunduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Gökçeada, erozyon, Rusle-K, toprak

Soil erodibilty of Gökçeada

Abstract

Gökçeada is one of the most suitable regions for
organic farming practices in our country and known as "organic agriculture
island ". In Gökçeada, necessary measures must be performed to protect the
quality of natural resources by making determinations. Soil is one of the main
natural sources for ecosystem sustainability. In order to obtain sustainable
soil quality, soil must be conserved and current situation risks should be
determined, and then necessary precautions must be taken. In this study, it is
aimed to determine the erosion sensitivity (erodibility) of Gökçeada soil as
specified in the RUSLE model. For this purpose, soil samples were taken from
248 different locations of Gökçeada and necessary soil analyzes were carried
out. It was determined that the RUSLE-K values ranged from 0 to 0.65 and the
mean value was 0.25. There was a medium, high and very high level of erosion
risk in about 52 % of the Gökçeada soil.

Keywords

Gökçeada, Erosion, RUSLE-K, Soil

References

• Auerswald, K., Kainz, M., Angermüller, S., Steindl, H., 1996. Influence of exchangeable potassium on soil erodibility. Soil Use and Management, 12: 117–121. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.1996.tb00531.x.
• Bouyoucous, G.J., 1951. A Recalibration of the Hydrometer Method for Making Mechanical Analysis, Agronomy Journal, Vol. 43, No. 9, 1951, pp. 434-438. doi:10.2134/agronj1951.00021962004300090005x.
• Dangler, E.W., El-Swaify, S.A., Ahuja, L.R., Barnet, A.P., 1976. Erodobility of Selected Hawaii Soils by Rainfall Simulation. Ars W-35. Ars/Usda- Univ. of Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn., Honululu, Hi. doi:10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000050040x.
• European Environment Agency (EEA)., 2010. Corine Land Cover, (CLC) 2006 Raster Data 100 x 100 m - Version 13 (02/2010).
• Evrendilek, F., Celik, I., Kilic, S., 2004. Changes In Soil Organic Carbon and Other Physical Soil Properties Along Adjacent Mediterranean Forests, Grassland and Cropland Ecosystems in Turkey. Journal of Arid Environment, 59: 743-752. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.03.002.
• Foster, G.R., 2005. RUSLE 2.0 science documentation (Draft). USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.
• Gupta, O.P., 2002. Water In Relation to Soils and Plants. Agrobios, India. 31-34.
• Hoyos, N., 2005. Spatial Modeling of Soil Erosion Potential In A Tropical Watershed of The Colombian Andes. Catena, 63: 85-108. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.05.012.
• İlay ,R., 2016.. Gökçeada Topraklarının Bazı Kalite Parametreleri ve Erozyon Riskinin Belirlenmesi. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Çanakkale.
• KHGM., 1999. Köy Hizmetleri Çanakkale İl Müdürlüğü, Çanakkale İli Arazi Varlığı, Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, İl Rapor No: 17, Ankara.
• Lal, R., 1999. Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. The Soil and Water Conservation Society. Boca Raton, Fla. Crc Press, 1999.
• Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Alewell, C., Montanarella, L., 2012. Soil erodibility estimation using LUCAS point survey data of Europe. Environmental Modelling & Software, 30, 143-145. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.002.
• Pauwels, J. M., Aelterman, J., Gabriels, D., Bollinne, A., Rosseau, P., 1980. Soil Erodibility Map of Belgium. In De Boodt, M. and Gabriels, D., Editors, Assessment of Erosion. Chichester: J. Wiley. 193-201.
• Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G. A., McCool, D. K., Yoder, D.C., 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (Vol. 703). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
• Rhoton, F.E., Lindbo, D.L., Romkens, M.J.M., 1998. Iron Oxides Erodibility Intractions for Soils of The Memphis Catena. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 62(3): 1693-1703. doi:10.2136/sssaj1998.03615995006200060030x.
• Rodriguez, R.R., Arbelo, C.D., Guerra, J.A., Natario, M.J.S., Armas, C.M., 2006. Organic Carbon Stocks and Soil Erodibility In Canary Islands Andosols. Catena, 66: 228-235. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2006.02.001.
• Santos, F.L., Reis, J.L., Martins, O.C., Castanheira, N.L., Serralheiro, R.P., 2003. Comparative Assessment of Infiltration, Runoff and Erosion of Sprinkler Irrigated Soils. Biosystems Engineering, 86(3): 355-364. doi:0.1016/S1537-5110(03)00135-1.
• Soil Survey Staff., 1983. National Soils Handbook, Title 430-Vi. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
• Summer, R.M., 1982. Field and Laboratory Studies on Alpine Soil Erodibility, Southern Rocky Mountains, Colorado. Soil Use and Management, 7(3): 253-266. doi: 10.1002/esp.3290070304.
• Veihe, A., 2002. The Spatial Variability of Erodibility and Its Relation to Soil Types: A Study from Northern Ghana. Geoderma, 106: 101-120. doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00120-3.
• Wischmeier W H, Smith D D (1978). Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agricultural Handbook, No. 537. USDA.
• Wischmeier W H, Johnson C B, Cross B V (1971). A soil erodibility nomograph for farmland and construction sites. Journal Soil and Water Consv., 26:189-193.
• Zhang K, Li S, Peng W, Yu B (2004). Erodibility of Agricultural Soils and Loess Plateau of China., Soil Tillage Res., 76: 157-165. doi:0.1016/j.still.2003.09.007.