Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 161, Issue 1–4, pp 327–342 | Cite as

Sustainable natural resource management and environmental assessment in the Salt Lake (Tuz Golu) Specially Protected Area

  • Orhan Dengiz
  • Hesna Ozcan
  • E. Selim Koksal
  • Oguz Baskan
  • Yakup Kosker
Article

Abstract

The Salt Lake Specially Protected Area is a unique ecosystem for both agricultural activities and natural life in Turkey. In the present study, an attempt was made to develop a conceptual land use strategy and methodology, taking into account ecological factors for regional development in the Salt Lake Specially Protected Area. A detailed Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis was done to create a comprehensive database including land use, land suitability, and environmental factors (soil, climate, water quality, fertilizing status, and heavy metal and pesticide pollution). The results of the land suitability survey for agricultural use showed that, while 62.6% of the study area soils were classified as best and relatively good, about 15% were classified as problematic and restricted lands, only 22.2% of the study area soils were not suitable for agricultural uses. However, this is not enough to derive maximum benefit with minimum degradation. Therefore, environmental factors and ecological conditions were combined to support this aim and to protect the ecosystem. Excessive irrigation practices, fertilizer and pesticide application, and incorrect management practices all accelerate salinization and degradation. In addition to this, it was found that a multi-layer GIS analysis made it easy to develop a framework for optimum land use and could increase the production yield preserving the environmental conditions. Finally, alternative management and crop patterns were undertaken to sustain this unique ecosystem, considering water, soil, climate, land use characteristics, and to provide guidance for planners or decision makers.

Keywords

Environmental assessment Natural resource management Land evaluation Salt Lake (Tuz Golu) GIS and RS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirement (300 p.). FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56, Rome.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1990). Analytical for atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Norwalk: Perkin Elmer.Google Scholar
  3. Aronoff, S. (1989). Geographic information system: A management perspective. Ottawa: WLD.Google Scholar
  4. Barandela, R. (1997). Geographic information systems and environmental assessment: Difficulties and opportunities. International Journal of Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences. The Netherlands, 1, 74–78.Google Scholar
  5. Bayramin, I., & Usul, M. (2004). Physical land evaluation of Salihli right coast irrigation area. International Soil Congress on Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development, Erzurum—Turkey.Google Scholar
  6. Beek, K. J., De Bie, K., & Driesses, P. (1997). Land information and land evaluation for land use planning and sustainable land management. The Land, 1(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, J. B. (1987). Introduction to remote sensing. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Dengiz, O., & Baskan, O. (2009). Land quality assessment and sustainable land use in Salt Lake (Tuz Gölü) specially protected area. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 148, 233–243. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0154-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dogdu, M. S., & Sagnak, C. (2008). Climate change, drought and over pumping impact on groundwaters: Two examples from Turkey. Third International Conference BALWOIS 2008—Orhid. Republic of Macedonia, 27–31 (May).Google Scholar
  10. Doorenbos, J., & Kassam, A. H. (1986). Yield response to water (pp. 33–193). FAO irrigation and drainage paper, Rome.Google Scholar
  11. Doorenbos, J., & Pruitt, W. O. (1992). Guidelines for predicting crop water requirement (3rd ed.) (pp. 24–193). FAO irrigation and drainage paper, Rome.Google Scholar
  12. Eaton, D. A., Cleascerri, L. S., & Greenberg, A. E. (1995). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  13. FAO (1977). A framework for land evaluation. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement/ILRI. Publication no. 22, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 87.Google Scholar
  14. FAO (1983). Guidelines: Land evaluation for rainfed agriculture soils bulletin 52. Rome: FAO of the UN.Google Scholar
  15. FAO (1993). Guideline for land use planning. FAO Development Series No: 1, FAO, Rome, pp. 96.Google Scholar
  16. Green, K. (1995). Using GIS to predict fire behaviour. Journal of Forestry, 93, 21–25.Google Scholar
  17. Hinton, J. C. (1996). GIS and RS integration for environmental applications. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 10, 877–890.Google Scholar
  18. Isawip (1994). Sustainability of the integrated soil and water improvement project. Experiences in integrated land and water management. In Proceedings of a seminar, Port Said, April 1994. CIDA, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  19. Keller, J., & Bliesner, R. D. (1990). Sprinkle and trickle irrigation. Caldwell: Blackburn.Google Scholar
  20. Lake-Tuz (2001). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tuz. Last update.
  21. Matkeron, G. (1973). The intrinsic random functions and their applications. Advances in Applied Probability, 5, 239–465.Google Scholar
  22. Patil, A., Prathumchai, K., Samarakoon, L., & Honda, K. (2001). Evaluation of land utilization for regional development, a GIS Approach. In 22nd Asian conference on remote sensing, Singapore.Google Scholar
  23. RCSP (2001). Official gazette. Regulation for control of soil pollution. 10.12.2001/24609.Google Scholar
  24. RCWP (1991). Official gazette. Regulation for control of water pollution. 7.1.1991/20748.Google Scholar
  25. Senol, S. (1994). Bilgisayar destekli bir model yardimiyla goksu deltasi topraklarinin tarimsal kullanimina uygunluk siniflamasi. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 18(5), 437–443.Google Scholar
  26. Senol, S., & Tekes, Y. (1995). Arazi degerlendirme ve arazi kullanim planlamasi amaciyla gelistirilmis bir bilgisayar modeli. Turkiye Toprak Ilmi Dernegi. Ilhan Akalan Toprak ve Cevre Sempozyumu. No:7. Cilt 1. Ankara, pp. 204–210 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  27. Soil Survey Division Staff (1993). Soil survey manual. Soil conservation service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.Google Scholar
  28. Soil Survey Staff (1996). National soil survey center. Soil survey laboratory methods manuals. Soil survey investigation report no: 2, version: 3 January, 1996, National resources conservation service-USDA.Google Scholar
  29. Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil taxonomy. A basic of soil classification for making and interpreting soil survey. National resources conservation service-USDA Handbook No: 436, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  30. Throp, J., & Baldwin, M. (1938). New nomenclature of the higher categories of soil classification as used in the Department of Agriculture. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 3, 160–168.Google Scholar
  31. TNT (1999). TNT (The new thing) MIPS (MicroImage processing system), getting started geospatial analysis. USA: MicroImages.Google Scholar
  32. Ulgen, N., & Yurtseven, N. (1995). Türkiye gübre ve gübreleme rehberi TC basbakanlik KHGM. Toprak ve gübre arastirma enstitüsü müdürlüǧü yayinlari genel yayin no. 209, Teknik yayın no: T: 66, Ankara (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954). Diagnosis improvement of Saline and sodic soils. USDA. Handbook 60. U.S. Gov. Printing Office. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  34. Vauclin, M., Vieira, S. R., Vachaud, G., & Nielsen, D. R. (1983). The use of co-kriging with limited field soil observations. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 47, 175–184.Google Scholar
  35. Vieira, S. R., Hatfield, J. L., Nielson, D. R., & Biggar, J. W. (1983). Geostatistical theory and application to variability of some agronomical properties. Hilgardia, 51(3), 1–75.Google Scholar
  36. Wu, J., Ransom, M. D., Kluitenberg, G. J., Nellis, M. D., & Seyler, H. L. (2001). Land use management using a soil survey geographic database for Finney County, Kansas. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orhan Dengiz
    • 1
  • Hesna Ozcan
    • 2
  • E. Selim Koksal
    • 2
  • Oguz Baskan
    • 2
  • Yakup Kosker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, Agriculture FacultyUniversity of Ondokuz MayısKurupelit SamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Agricultural MinistryAnkara Research InstituteAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations