TÜRKİYE’NİN YARI KURAK KOŞULLARINDA MERALARIN VEJETASYON DEĞERLENDİRMESİNDE FARKLI YAKLAŞIMLAR

Mera bitki örtüsü, mera alanlarının durumu ve dinamikleri hakkında değerli bilgiler verir. Mevcut bilgiler hassas bir şekilde değerlendirilir ve gelecekteki eylem programının temelini oluşturur. Ayrıca, mera rehabilitasyonu ve yönetimi geçmiş ve şimdiki mera eğilimi neticesinde biçimlenir. Mevcut bitki türleri ve mera kullanımları ekolojik yorumlar üretmek için imkan sağlar. Böylece, mevcut mera bitki örtüsü ve eğilimi için yeterli bilgiye sahip olunur. Türkiye’de yer alan Kırıkkale ilinin Akçakavak köyü için ekolojik yorumlamalar yapmak amacıyla tanımlayıcı bilgiler çoklu değişken analiz metoduyla değerlendirildi. 2008 yılında Akçakavak’da 20 durakta arazi çalışması değiştirilmiş bir tekerlek nokta yöntemiyle uygulanmıştır. Dört eksenli temel bileşen analizi (PCA), Akçakavak’taki tür verisi ve tür-çevre ilişkisinin varyansının %59.02’sini açıklamıştır. Akçakavak’ta verim ve rakım arasında yakın bir ilişki bulundu, ancak verim ile boş alan, eğim ve köye uzaklık gibi diğer bazı çevresel değişkenler arasında ters ilişki ortaya çıktı. Sonuç olarak, verim ve çıplak zemin arasında ters bir ilişki olduğu açıkça görülmektedir, ancak değişken çevresel faktörler nedeniyle diğer faktörler arasındaki ilişkiler farklı çıkabilmektedir.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR VEGETATION ASSESSMENT OF RANGELANDS IN THE SEMIARID CONDITIONS OF TURKEY

Rangeland vegetation gives valuable information for the status and dynamics of rangeland. Present knowledge’s are finely assessed and based on future action program. Moreover, rangeland rehabilitation and management are formed with past and current rangeland trend. The existing plant species and rangeland uses provide to produce ecological interpretations. Therefore, enough information is possessed for current rangeland vegetation and tendency. The descriptive information was assessed with multivariate analysis to make ecological interpretations for one village rangeland of Akçakavak/Kırıkkale province in Turkey. A modified wheel point method was applied for field work in 20 sites of Akçakavak in 2008. Principle component analysis (PCA) with four axis explained 59.02% of the variance of species data and species-environment relationship in Akçakavak. In Akçakavak, yield and altitude had a close relationship, but there becomes adverse relationship between yield and other some environmental variables such as bare ground, slope and distance. As a result, there obviously appears adverse relation between yield and bare ground, but the relation among other factors may be variable owing to various environmental factors.

PDF

___

1. Anonymous, 2009. The challenge of the rangelands in Turkey (towards a sustainable rangeland economy). Government to Government Project G2G07/TR/9/3 Turkey-The Nederland, Final report of the G2G Project: Sustainable Rangeland Management in Turkey, 2008 and 2009, p.57.
2. Bakır, Ö., 1987. Grazing period. Management of Meadow and Rangeland. Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Presses 992:114-132.
3. Bosch, O.J.H., K. Kellner, 1991. The use of a degradation gradients for ecological interpretation of condition assessments in the western grassland biome of southern Africa. Journal of arid Environments 21:21-29.
4. Davis, P.H., 1965-1985. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Vol. 1-9, Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.
5. Davis, P.H., Mill, R.R., Tan, K., 1988. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Edinburgh Univ. Press. (Supple. 1), Vol.10, Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.
6. Filet, P.G., 1994. State and transition models for rangelands. 3. The impact of the state and transition model on grazing lands research, management and extension: A review. Tropical Grasslands 28:214-222.
7. Güner, A., Özhatay, N., Ekim, T., Başer, K.H.C., 2000. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. (Supple. 2), Vol.11, Edinburgh Univ. Press., Edinburgh.
8. Holechek, L.J., R.D. Pieper, C.H. Herbel, 2010. Range management, principles and practices (6. edition). Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 456p.
9. Jongman, R., C.J.F. Ter Braak, O.F.R. Tongeren, 1995. Data Analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
10. Koç, A., T. Öztaş, L. Tahtacıoğlu, 2000. Rangeland interaction in our near history problems and recommendations. Proc. Intern. Symp. Desertification, 13-17.06.2000, Konya, Turkey, p:293-298.
11. Koç, A., Ş. Çakal, 2004. Comparison of some rangeland canopy coverage methods. Int. Soil Cong. On Natural Resource Manage. For Sust. Develp., 7-10.06.2004, Erzurum, D7:41-45.
12. Koç, A., H.İ. Erkovan, Y. Serin, 2008. Changes in vegetation and soil properties under semi-nomadic animal raising areas in highlands, rangelands of Turkey. Current World Environ. 3:15-20.
13. Manly, B.F.J., 1995. Cluster analysis multivariate statistical methods. A primer Second Edition Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago, New Zealand, pp:128-145.
14. Öztaş, T., A. Koç, B. Çomaklı, 2003. Changes in vegetation and soil properties along a slope on overgrazed and eroded rangelands. J. Arid Environ. 55:93-100.
15. Sürmen, M., 2004. Vegetation chances related to the distances from Kümbet village center (Erzurum Province) (Master thesis). Atatürk University, The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Field Crops Department, Erzurum.
16. Şimşek, U., Ş. Çakal, M.M. Özgöz, S. Dumlu, E. Aksakal, 2007. Determination of rangelands of Horasan and Köprüköy towns in Erzurum province with use of remote sensing and geographic information system. Turkey 7. Field Crops Congress, 25-27 June, Erzurum, pp:366-369.
17. Ünal, S., Dedebali, M., Ocal, M.B., 2010. Ecological interpretations of rangeland condition of some villages in Kirikkale province of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 15(1):43-49.
18. Ünal, S. Karabudak E., Öcal, M.B., Koç, A., 2011. Interpretations of vegetation changes of some villages rangelands in Çankiri province of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 16(1):39-47.