Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 114, Issue 1–3, pp 157–168 | Cite as

Environmental Monitoring of Land-Use and Land-Cover Changes in a Mediterranean Region of Turkey

  • S. Kilic
  • F. Evrendilek
  • S. Berberoglu
  • A. C. Demirkesen
Article

Abstract

Unprecedented rates of human-induced changes in land use and land cover (LULC) at local and regional scales lead to alterations of global biogeochemical cycles. Driving forces behind LULC changes mainly include rapid growth rates of population and consumption, lack of valuation of ecological services, poverty, ignorance of biophysical limitations, and use of ecologically incompatible technologies. One of the major ecological tragedies of the commons in a Mediterranean region of Turkey is the loss of Lake Amik at the expense of increasing the area of croplands, which used to provide vital ecosystem goods and services for the region. In this study, we aimed at quantifying the effects of past land-use transitions on soil organic carbon (SOC) pools (0–20 cm) in a Mediterranean region of 3930 km2, between 1972 and 2000. LULC changes were quantified from a time series of satellite images of Landsat-MSS in 1972, Landsat-5 TM in 1987, and Landsat-7 ETM+ in 2000 using geographic information systems. The study showed that the increase in croplands between 1972 and 1987 took place at the expense of the irreversible losses of Lake Amik and its related wetlands of over 53 km2. In the period of 1972 to 2000, croplands, settlements, and evergreen forests increased by 174%, 106%, and 14%, respectively. The increase in settlements occurred mostly to the detriment of croplands. Given the average rates of all the land-use transitions, and associated changes in SOC density for the study region of 3930 km2, total SOC pool was estimated to decrease by 14.1% from 130.1 Mt in 1972 to 111.7 Mt in 2000.

Keywords

environmental degradation land cover land use sustainable ecosystem management GIS Turkey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amezaga, J. M., Santamaria, L. and Green, A. J.: 2002, ‘Biotic wetland connectivity-supporting a new approach for wetland policy,’ Acta Oecologica 23, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berberoglu, S., Lloyd, C. D., Atkinson, P. M. and Curran, P. J.: 2000, ‘The integration of spectral and textural information using neural networks for land cover mapping in the Mediterranean,’ Comp. Geosci. 26, 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berberoglu, S.: 2003, ‘Sustainable management for the Eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey,’ Environ. Manage. 31, 0442–0451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berberoglu, S., Yilmaz, K. T. and Ozkan, C.: 2004, ‘Mapping and monitoring of coastal wetlands of Çukurova Delta in the Eastern Mediterranean region,’ Biodiv. Conserv. 13, 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, O. K., Minckley, T., Moutoux, T., Jull, T. and Kalin, B.: 2002, ‘The transformation of Sonoran Desert wetlands following the historic decrease of burning,’ J. Arid Environ. 50, 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellison, A. M.: 2004, ‘Wetlands of Central America,’ Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 12, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evrendilek, F. and Doygun, H.: 2000, ‘Assessing major ecosystem types and the challenge of sustainability in Turkey,’ Environ. Manage. 26, 479–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Evrendilek, F. and Ertekin, C.: 2002, ‘Agricultural sustainability in Turkey: Integrating food, environmental and energy securities,’ Land Degradation Develop. 13, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evrendilek, F.: 2004, ‘An inventory-based carbon budget for forest and woodland ecosystems of Turkey,’ J. Environ. Monit. 6, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evrendilek, F. and Wali, M. K.: 2004, ‘Changing global climate: Historical carbon and nitrogen budgets and projected responses of Ohio's cropland ecosystems,’ Ecosystems 7, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GDSW (General Directory of Soil-Water): 1972, ‘Inventory Report of Soils in the Province of Hatay,’ Ministry of Rural Affairs, Office of Soil Surveys and Mapping, Ankara (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  12. Gibbs, J. P.: 2000, ‘Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation,’ Conserv. Biology 14, 314–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Houghton, R. A.: 2003, ‘Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000,’ Tellus 55B, 378–390.Google Scholar
  14. IEC (International Engineering Company): 1966, ‘Technical and Feasibility Report of Amik Development: Projects of Lake Amik and Tahtaköprü Dam,’ Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, General Directory of State Hydroulic Works, Ankara.Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, J. R.: 1996, Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective, 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  16. Kalnay, E. and Cai, M.: 2003, ‘Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate,’ Nature 423, 528–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kilic, S.: 1999, ‘Soil Survey and Land Use Planning of Antakya by Using Remote Sensing/GIS Techniques,’ Ph.D. dissertation, Çukurova University. Adana-Turkey.Google Scholar
  18. Kilic, S., Senol, S. and Evrendilek, F.: 2003, ‘Evaluation of land use potential and suitability of ecosystems in Antakya for reforestation, recreation, arable farming and Residence,’ Turkish J. Agriculture Forestry 27, 15–22.Google Scholar
  19. Kilic, S., Evrendilek, F., Senol, S. and Celik, I.: 2004, ‘Developing a suitability index for land uses and agricultural land covers: A case study in Turkey,’ Environ. Monit. Assess. 102, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumerloeve, H.: 1988, ‘Amik Gölü, the lake of Antioch: Proposal for its revival as wildlife national park in South Eastern Turkey,’ Istanbul Univ. Fac. Natural Sci. Biol. J. 53, 17–26.Google Scholar
  21. Lal, R.: 2004, ‘Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security,’ Science 304, 1623–1627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemly, A. D., Kingsford, R. T. and Thompson, J. R.: 2000, ‘Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation: Conflict on a global scale,’ Environ. Manage. 25, 0485–0512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MicroImage, Inc.: 2001, TNTmips V6.6. Lincoln NE, USA. Available at http://www.microimages.com/.
  24. RARAFI (Research Association of Rural Areas and Forestry Issues): 2000, ‘Wildlife Protection Areas of Turkey’ Dönmez Ofset. Ankara.Google Scholar
  25. STRCT (Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey): 2003, ‘Vision and Projection Report of Environment and Sustainable Development Thematic Panel,’ Vision 2023: Science and Technology Strategies, Technology Projection Project. Ankara.Google Scholar
  26. Townshend, J. R. G. and Justice, C. O.: 2002, ‘Towards operational monitoring of terrestrial systems by moderate-resolution remote sensing,’ Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wali, M. K., Evrendilek, F., West, T., Watts, S., Pant, D., Gibbs, H. and McClead, B.: 1999, ‘Assessing terrestrial ecosystem sustainability: Usefulness of regional carbon and nitrogen models,’ Nature Resources 35, 20–33.Google Scholar
  28. Wali, M. K., Safaya, N. M. and Evrendilek, F.: 2002, Ecological Rehabilitation and Restoration in the Americas with Special Reference to the United States of America’. In: M. R. Perrow and A. J. Davy (eds.), Handbook of Restoration Ecology, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Kilic
    • 1
  • F. Evrendilek
    • 2
  • S. Berberoglu
    • 3
  • A. C. Demirkesen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceMustafa Kemal UniversityAntakya-HatayTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Landscape ArchitectureMustafa Kemal UniversityAntakya-HatayTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Landscape ArchitectureCukurova UniversityBalcali-AdanaTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Geodesy & Photogrammetry EngineeringNigde UniversityNigdeTurkey

Personalised recommendations