Türkiye’nin Sulak Alanlarının Genel Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 348 - 360, 30.06.2024

Furkan Salih Yiğit , Akif Keten

https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1404950

Abstract

Ekolojik ve ekonomik katkısı yüksek olan sulak alanlar geçmişte önemli alansal kayıplar vermiştir. Son yıllarda korunma çalışmaları artmıştır. Bu çalışma ile Türkiye’deki Ramsar Sözleşmesi (1971) sulak alan tanımına uygun alanların genel değerlendirilmesi yapılmıştır. Ülkemizdeki sayıları, alansal dağılımları, yükselti basamaklarına göre dağılımları vb incelenmiştir. Sulak Alan Bilgi Sisteminde (SAYBİS) 2021 yılı itibariyle kayıtlı 1 159 adeti doğal durgun sulak alan, 78 adeti denizel sulak alan ve 1 357 adeti yapay sulak alan olmak üzere. toplam 2 594 adet sulak alan vardır. Bu alanların toplamı ise 1 491 936 ha’dır. Harita Genel Müdürlüğü (HGM) kayıtlarına göre Türkiye’de toplamda 44 595 adet sulak alan belirlenmiş ve bu alanlar toplam 1 213 830 ha’dır. En fazla sulak alan 0-500 m yükselti basamağındadır. Yine 1 ha’dan küçük sulak alan sayısı diğer alanlara göre fazladır. Sürdürülebilir yönetim için alanların özelliklerinin bilinmesi faydalı olacaktır.

Keywords

Doğal sulak alan, Ramsar, Havza

References

• Ameli, A. A., & Creed. I. F. (2019). Does Wetland Location Matter When Managing Wetlands for Watershed‐Scale Flood and Drought Resilience? JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 55(3), 529-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12737
• Anderson, J. T., & Smith, L. M. (1999). Carrying capacity and diet habitat use of managed plays wetlands by non-breeding waterbirds. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27 (2): 281-291.
• Barbier, E. (1993). Sustainable Use of Wetlands Valuing Tropical Wetland Benefits: Economic Methodologies and Applications. The Geographical Journal, 159(1), 22-32. doi:10.2307/3451486
• Barbier, E. B. (2011). Wetlands as natural assets. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(8), 1360-1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.629787
• Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, (6630), 253-260.
• Cowardin, L. M. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior.
• Cowardin. L. M., & Golet. F. C. (1995). US Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 wetland classification: A review. Vegetatio, 118(1-2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045196
• Davidson, N. C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65(10), 934-941.
• Evenson, G. R., Golden, H. E., Lane, C. R., McLaughlin, D. L., & D’Amico, E. (2018). Depressional wetlands affect watershed hydrological. biogeochemical. and ecological functions. Ecological Applications, 28(4), 953-966. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1701
• Finlayson, C. M., & Valk, A. G. (1995). Wetland classification and inventory: A summary. Vegetatio, 118(1-2), 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045199
• Hu, S., Niu, Z., Chen, Y., Li, L., & Zhang, H. (2017). Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Science of the total Environment, 586, 319-327.
• Kayaer, M., & Çiftçi, S. (2018). ‘Su Sorunu’ ve Türkiye’nin Tatlısu Potansiyeli Çerçevesinde Türkiye’nin Sınıraşan Sularının Stratejik. Etik ve Hukuki Boyutlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Pesa Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(3), 386-404.
• Keddy, P. A. (1983). Freshwater wetlands human-induced changes: indirect effects must also be considered. Environmental Management, 7(4), 299-302.
• Keddy, P. A. (2010). Wetland Ecology. Cambridge University Press., https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778179
• Larson, J. S., Mueller, A. J., & MacConnell, W.P. (1980). A model of natural and man-induced changes in open freshwater wetlands on the Massachusetts coastal plain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 17, 667–673.
• Ma, Z., Cai, Y., Li, B., & Chen, J. (2010). Managing wetland habitats for waterbirds: an international perspective. Wetlands, 30(1), 15-27.
• Mazzotti, F. J., Hughes, N., & Harvey, R. G. (2007). Why do we need environmental monitoring for Everglades restoration? Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Publication Number WEC, 241, 1-3.
• Mistry, J., Berardi, A., & Simpson, M. (2008). Birds as indicators of wetland status and change in the North Rupununi. Guyana. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(10), 2383.
• Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2015). The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics, 35(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00165-8.
• Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2018). The Ramsar Convention Manual: A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands.
• Ruaro, R., & Laurance, W. F. (2021). Pending bill could devastate Brazil’s Serra do Divisor National Park. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 6(2), 120-121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01632-8
• Shine, C., & Klemm, C. (1999). Wetlands. Water and the Law. Using law to advance wetland conservation and wise use – IUCN. Gland. Switzerland. Cambridge. UK and Bonn. Germany.
• Taft, O. W., Colwell, M. A., Isola, C. R., & Safran, R. J. (2002). Waterbird responses to experimental drawdown: implications for the multispecies management of wetland mosaics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(6), 987-1001.
• Van Asselen, S., Verburg, P. H., Vermaat, J. E., & Janse, J. H. (2013). Drivers of Wetland Conversion: a Global Meta-Analysis. PloS ONE, 8(11), e81292.
• Weller, M. W. (1988). Issues and approaches in assessing cumulative impacts on waterbird habitat in wetlands. Environmental Management, 12(5), 695-701.
• Zorrilla-Miras, P., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2014). Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 160-174.