Twofold excessive utilization rate yields high financial equivalent but seriously threatens public rangelands in Turkey

Year 2019, Volume: 3 Issue: 3, 155 - 161, 27.09.2019

Abdurrahman Kara , Emre Süreyya Dumlu Mustafa Uzun Şerafettin Çakal

https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2019.3.7

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the utilization rate and financial equivalent of the utilized rangeland forage to quantify the extent of grazing pressure on the semiarid Turkish rangelands, and to attract the public attention to the importance of rangelands in national economy. The study was conducted in Erzurum province of Turkey. In permanent 12 representative sites in each of village rangelands, cages of 1 m height and 1 m × 1 m floor area, were placed and forage under cages was clipped to the ground at the end of the grazing seasons in 2007 and 2008. Simultaneously, the forage outside the cages was sampled with random quadrats. Financial equivalent of the utilized rangeland forage was estimated using surrogate market valuation method.  In data analysis were employed descriptive statistical methods and one-way ANOVA test. According to the results, the average rangeland dry forage yield was 1012 kg.ha^–1 and rangeland utilization rate was 69 per cent, roughly two-fold higher than suggested rates. Under the prevailing conditions, the financial equivalent of the utilized rangeland forage is about 526 TRY or 92 USD per hectare. It was concluded that utilization rate or grazing period should be deflated by 50% for sustainable resource use by allowing rangeland plants to regenerate.

Keywords

Rangeland forage, Semiarid rangelands, Financial equivalent, Surrogate market valuation, Eastern Anatolia

Supporting Institution

General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policy

Project Number

TAGEM/HAYSÜD/05/01/01/01

References

• Altın, M., Gökkus, A., Koc, A. (2005). Pasture and meadow improvement, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development, Ankara, Turkey.
• Avağ, A., Koç, A, Kendir, H. (2012). Result report for the National Rangeland Utilization and Management Project: TÜBİTAK Project No: 106G017. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies, Ankara, Turkey.
• Browning, D.M., Duniway, M.E., Laliberte, A.S., Rango, A. (2012). Hierarchical analysis of vegetation dynamics over 71 years: soil–rainfall interactions in a Chihuahuan desert ecosystem. Ecological Applications. 22(3), 909–926.
• Cousins, B. (1999). Invisible capital: The contribution of communal rangelands to rural livelihoods in South Africa. Development Southern Africa. 16 (2), 299–318.
• Çakal, Ş. (2016). An investigation on spatial and temporal changes in some properties of rangeland vegetation in Çoruh Basin. PhD Thesis, Atatürk University School of Natural and Applied Sciences: Erzurum, Turkey.
• Duan, C., Shi, P., Zhang, X., Zong, N., Chai, X., Geng, S., Zhu, W. (2017). The rangeland livestock carrying capacity and stocking rate in the Kailash sacred landscape in China. Journal of Data and Information Science. 8(6), 551-558.
• Dumlu, S.E., Özgöz, M.M., Çakal, Ş., Aksakal, E., Uzun, M., and Şimşek, U. (2011). Important legume and grass forage crop species commonly found in natural mountain grasslands in Yusufeli –Artvin. International Journal of Forest, Soil and Erosion. 1, 43–46.
• Erkovan, H.İ., Koç, A., Serin, Y. (2003). Some vegetation properties of Bayburt (Turkey) Province rangeland. In: Proceedings of the 12th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation. 8, 617–619.
• ETB, (2019). Commodity exchange bulletin for the year 2019, Erzurum Commodity Exchange, Erzurum. www.erzurumtb.org.tr/bulten–Aylik–Bulten (accessed 18 June 2019).
• Gökkuş, A., Koç, A. (2001). Range and pasture management, Atatürk University Faculty of Agriculture: Erzurum, Turkey.
• GTHB, (2018). Variations in rangeland assets (1998–2017), – Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Plant Production.
• Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic Econometrics, McGraw–Hill, New York, USA.
• Hopkins, A., Holz, B. (2006). Grassland for agriculture and nature conservation: production, quality and multi–functionality. Agronomy Research. 4, 3–20.
• IBM, (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
• Kara, A. (2019). Threshold rangeland condition for rangeland restoration investments and the financial equivalent of liveweight losses due to rangeland degradation. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(2):4475-4497.
• Kara, A., Çakal, Ş., Tavlaş, A., Yazıcı, A., Aygün, C., Avağ, A. (2009). Customs and problems in exploiting meadow and pastures in north–east Anatolia. Alinteri Zirai Bilimler Dergisi. 16, 7–18.
• Kara, A., Kadıoğlu, S., Dumlu, S.E., Aksakal, E., Özgöz, M.M., Uzun, M., Çakal, S., Şimsek, U. (2014). How long does it take to pay back rangeland improvement investments? A case study from Erzurum Province in Turkey. The Rangeland Journal. 36, 469–474.
• Kara, A., Şimşek, U., Kadıoğlu, S., Dumlu, S.E., Çakal, Ş., Uzun, M., Aksakal, E., Özgöz, M.M. (2015). Quantifying the financial losses of rangeland degradation due to reduced milk yield in the rangelands of Erzurum Province in Turkey. The Rangeland Journal. 37(5), 459-466.
• Khumalo, G. Holechek, J. (2005). Relationships between Chihuahuan Desert perennial grass production and precipitation. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 58, 239–246.
• Kutiel, P., Lavee, H. (1999). Effect of slope aspect on soil and vegetation properties along an aridity transect. Israel Journal of Plant Science. 47, 169e178.
• Maren, I.E., Karki, S., Prajapati, C., Yadav, R.K., Shrestha, B.B. (2015). Facing north or south: Does slope aspect impact forest stand characteristics and soil properties in a semiarid trans–Himalayan valley?. Journal of Arid Environments. 121, 112–123.
• MBS, 1998. Pasture Regulation. – In: 31.07.1998 dated and 23419 numbered Official Gazette. Legislation Information System. [URL] (accessed 15 May 2013).
• NRC, 1999. Perspectives on Biodiversity: Valuing its Role in an Everchanging World, National Academy Press, Washington, USA.
• O’Connor, T.G., Rouxt, P.W. (1995). Vegetation changes (1949–71) in a semi–arid, grassy dwarf shrubland in the Karoo, South Africa: influence of rainfall variability and grazing by sheep. Journal of Applied Ecology. 32, 612–626.
• Rehber, R. (1999). Agricultural valuation and expertise, Vipaş Inc. Bursa, Turkey.
• Sokal, R. R., Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, USA
• Teague, W.R., Kreuter, U.P., Grant, W.E., Diaz–Solis, H., Kothmann, M.M. (2009). Economic implications of maintaining rangeland ecosystem health in a semi–arid savanna. Ecological Economics. 68 (5), 1417–1429.
• Torrell, L.A, Rimbey, N.R., Tanaka, J.A., Taylor, D.T., Wulfhorst, J.D. (2014). Ranch level economic impact analysis for public lands: a guide to methods, issues, and applications. Journal of Rangeland Applications. 1, 1–13.
• TÜMAS, (2013). Climatic data. – Meteorological Data Archive System of Turkey (TÜMAS), Turkish State Meteorological Service, Ankara, Turkey.
• Vallentine, J.F. (1990). Grazing Management, Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, USA.
• Wangchuk, K., Gyaltshen, T., Yonten, T., Nirola, H., Tshering, N. (2013). Shrubland or pasture? Restoration of degraded meadows in the mountains of Bhutan. Mountain Research and Development. 33 (2), 161–169.
• Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical Analysis. 4th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA