Uzun Süre Ağır Otlatmanın Sivas Step Meralarında Vejetasyona Etkileri ve Islah İmkânları

Öz

Meralar gerçekte hayvanlar için yem kaynakları olarak bilinirler. Aynı zamanda meralar, su kaynağı, zengin flora ve fauna olma özelliği ve dinlenme alanı gibi çok yönlü kullanımlar için potansiyel kaynaklara sahiptir. Meralar uzun süreli optimum fayda sağlamak için dikkatli kullanılmalı ve muhafaza edilmelidirler. Bu alanlar hala kötü yönetim nedeniyle bozulmakta ve bu bozulma süreci devam etmektedir. Mevcut mera durumu iyi yönetim uygulamalarıyla tersine çevrilebilir. Bu sebeple Sivas ili meralarında 2008, 2009 ve 2010 yıllarında arazi çalışmaları yürütülmüştür. Vejetasyon etüt çalışmaları lup ile modifiye edilmiş tekerlek nokta yöntemi ile Sivas meralarını temsil eden 103 durakta yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın sonucunda bitkiyle kaplı alan % 60,68 olarak bulunmuştur. Azalıcı ve çoğalıcı bitki türlerinin kaplama oranları sırayla % 15,53 ve % 22,23’   tür. İncelenen mera duraklarında iyi, orta ve zayıf durumda olan duraklar sırayla 6, 62 ve 35 olarak bulunmuştur. Toplam durakların 97 adeti mera durumu orta ve zayıf sınıflamada yer almıştır. Diğer taraftan, mera sağlığı açısından yapılan sınıflamada 26 durak sağlıklı, 35 durak riskli, 42 durak sorunlu olarak bulunmuştur. Toplam 77 adet durak mera sağlığı açısından riskli ve sorunludur. Çalışma sonuçları, meraların yavaş olarak bozulma eğiliminde olduğunu ve bu alanların uygun ıslah ve yönetim uygulamaları ile başarılı olarak orijinal hallerine dönme potansiyeli taşıdığını, göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mera durumu; sağlığı; yönetimi; ıslahı

Improvement Possibilities and Effects of Vegetation Subjected to Long-Term Heavy Grazing in the Steppe Rangelands of Sivas

Öz

Rangelands are actually known as feed resources for animals. At the same time they have potential resources for multiple-uses such as water source, rich of flora and fauna, and recreation areas. They should be carefully used and conserved for their optimum benefits of long term. Deterioration and degradation process have still continued due to mismanagement of rangelands. Present range status should be reversed with good management practices. For this reason, field works were conducted on the rangelands of Sivas Province in years of 2008, 2009 and 2010. A modified wheel point method with Loop was used for vegetation survey in the 103 representative study sites of rangelands in Sivas province. The results of this study indicated that vegetation cover was quantified as 60.68%. The cover rates of decreasers and increasers were 15.53% and 22.23%, respectively. The studied sites numbers were 6, 62, and 35 for good, fair, and poor conditions, respectively. The 97 sites of total sites were identified as fair and poor in condition based on the rangeland condition classes. On the other hand, 26 sites were found at healthy, 35 sites at risky and 42 sites at unhealthy in rangeland health categories. Total site numbers of the last two classes was 77. Study results indicate that rangelands are also in slow degradation trend and high potential for having been successively reversed to the climax situation with proper restoration and management practices for rangelands.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rangeland condition; health; restoration; management

Kaynakça

1. Bakır Ö. 1969. Studies on the ecological factors affecting growth and improvement of major forage crops. Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Press, 327. Ankara.
2. Bakır Ö. 1970. A rangeland vegetation survey in the field of Middle-East Technical University. Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Press, 382. Ankara.
3. Büyükburç, U. 1983. A study of rangeland improvement with fertilization and resting on the rangeland of Yavrucak village of Ankara Provence. Rangeland Meadow and Livestock Research Institute, Press No.79, Ankara.
4. Büyükburç U. 1999. A research on improvement possibilities and grazing system of rangelands ( local name, Dereağzı) in Çamlıbel Town of Tokat Province. Turkey 3rd Field Crops Congress, 15-18 November, 1999, Adana, vol.3:1-5.
5. CSFWRRI 2010. Soil analysis results of studied sites of Sivas province. Central Soil, Fertilizer and Water Resources Research Institute, Ankara.
6. Davis P.H. (ed.). 1965 - 1985. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 1 – 9, Edinburgh Univ. Press., Edinburgh.
7. Davis P.H., Mill R.R., and Tan K., 1988. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Edinburgh Univ. Press., (supple. 1), Vol. 10, Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.
8. GDSMS 2010. The climatic data of Sivas province. The General Director of State Meteorological Service, Ankara, Turkey.

9. Güner A., Özhatay N., Ekim T., and Başer K.H.C., 2000. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, (supple. 2), Vol. 11, Edinburgh Univ. Press., Edinburgh.
10. Holechek J.L, Pieper R.D., and Herbel C. H., 2004. Rangeland and Man. Range Management, Principles and Practices, pp. 1-28.
11. Koç A., Gökkuş A. and Altın M., 2003. Comparison of commonly used determination methods of rangeland condition in the world and a suggestion for Turkey. Turkey V. Field Crops Congress, 13-17 October, Diyarbakır, p. 36-42.
12. Koç A. and Çakal Ş., 2004. Comparison of some rangeland canopy coverage methods. Int. Soil Cong. On Natural Resource Manage. For Sust. Develp., June 7-10, Erzurum, Turkey, D7, 41-45.
13. Özmen T., 1977. The trials on the vegetation of the rangeland in Konya Province PHD thesis (not printed), Rangeland –Meadow and Livestock Research Institute, Ankara.
14. PAED 2010. Agricultural data of Sivas Province. The provincial agriculture extension directorates of Sivas.
15. Tokluoğlu M., 1979. Studies on morphological, biological and agronomical important characters of some rangeland plants. Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Press No: 728, Ankara.
16. Tosun F., 1996. History, present and future of Rangeland –meadow and forage crops in the herbage production of Turkey. Turkey 3rd Rangeland Meadow and Forage Crops Congress, 17-19 June, Erzurum p.1-15.
17. TÜİK 2001. Agriculture census, Turkish Statistical Institute.
18. TÜİK 2012. Agriculture – Crop production statistics, Turkish Statistical Institute.
19. Uluocak N., 1977. Rangelands and rangelands in forest. The Ministry of Food- Agricultural and Livestock, The General Directorate of The Agricultural Affairs, No, 6.
20. Ünal S., Dedebali M. and Ocal M. B., 2010. Ecological interpretations of rangeland condition of some villages in Kirikkale Province of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops Volume:15, No:1, 43-49.
21. Ünal S., Karabudak E., Öcal, M.B. and 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.
22. Ünal S., Mutlu Z., Mermer A., Öztekin U., Ünal E, Aydoğdu M., Dedeoğlu F., Özaydın K. A., Avağ A., Aydoğmuş O., Şahin B. and Aslan S., 2012a. A Study on assessment of rangelands in Ankara Province. Journal of Field Crops Central Research Institute 2 (21): 41-49.
23. Ünal S., Mutlu Z., Mermer A., Öztekin U., Ünal E., Özaydın A., Avağ A., Yıldız H., Aydoğmuş O., Şahin B. and Aslan S., 2012b. A study on determination of condition and health of rangelands in Çankırı Province. Tabad-Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(2):131-135 (Prof Dr. Selahattin İptaş Agricultural Congress).
24. Ünal S., Mutlu Z., Öztekin U., Hakan Y. and Şahin B., 2013. Evaluation and determination of rangeland vegetation in Kayseri Province. Journal of Field Crops Central Research Institute 22 (2): 86-95.