Pamuk Yetiştiriciliğinde Alternatif Toprak İşleme Yöntemlerinin Verime Etkisi: Türkiye Çalışmalarının Meta-Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, bireysel çalışmalardan elde edilen verileri bir veya birkaç istatistiksel analizle birleştirerek yorumlanmasına katkı sağlayan meta-analiz tekniği kullanılarak, Türkiye genelinde yürütülen pamuk tarımında toprak işleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılmasına yönelik çalışmaların sonuçları birlikte değerlendirilerek, iklim, toprak ve uygulanan tarımsal işlemlerin farklı toprak işleme yöntemlerindeki verim üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla, meta-analize dahil edilme kriterlerini karşılayan 16 çalışmadan elde edilen toplam 52 gözlem değeri birlikte analiz edilmiştir. Meta-analiz sonucunda, alternatif toprak işleme yöntemlerinin geleneksel toprak işleme ile karşılaştırıldığında genel etki büyüklüğünün istatistiksel olarak anlamsız olduğu belirlenmiştir (Genel Etki Büyüklüğü = -0.076; %95 Güven Aralığı = -0.350, 0.199). Bu durum, alternatif toprak işleme yöntemlerinin genel olarak geleneksel yöntemlere kıyasla belirgin bir üstünlük ya da dezavantaj sağlamadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, analizde yüksek düzeyde heterojenite tespit edilmiştir (Q = 142.943, p < 0.001, I² = %64.32). Bu durum ise alternatif toprak işleme yöntemlerinin pamuk verimine etkisinin, uygulanan alternatif toprak işleme yönteminin özellikleri, ekim nöbeti, anız yönetimi, iklim ve toprak koşulları gibi faktörlerden etkilendiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, alternatif toprak işleme yöntemlerinin Türkiye koşullarında kütlü pamuk verimi üzerinde geleneksel toprak işleme yöntemlerine kıyasla belirgin bir üstünlük veya olumsuzluk oluşturmadığı, ancak uygulama koşullarına bağlı olarak etkilerinin değişebileceği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta-analiz
• Toprak işleme
• Pamuk
• Verim

The Effect of Alternative Tillage Methods on Yield in Cotton Cultivation: A Meta-Analysis of the Studies Conducted in Türkiye

Öz

This study utilizes meta-analysis, a technique that combines data from individual studies with one or more statistical analyses to facilitate interpretation. The results of studies comparing tillage methods in cotton farming across Turkey are evaluated together, and the effects of climate, soil, and agricultural practices on cotton yield in different tillage methods are examined. For this purpose, a total of 52 observational values from 16 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were analyzed together. The meta-analysis revealed that the overall effect size of alternative tillage methods compared to conventional tillage was statistically insignificant. This indicates that alternative methods generally do not provide a significant advantage or disadvantage compared to conventional methods. However, a high level of heterogeneity was detected in the analysis (Q = 142.943, p < 0.001, I² = %64.32). This suggests that the effect of alternative tillage methods on cotton yield is influenced by factors such as the characteristics of the applied alternative tillage method, crop rotation, stubble management, climate, and soil conditions. In conclusion, it appears that alternative tillage methods do not create a significant advantage or disadvantage in terms of seed cotton yield compared to conventional tillage methods under Turkish conditions; however, the effects may vary depending on the application conditions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta-analysis
• Tillage
• Cotton
• Yield

Kaynakça

1. Aşık, K. (2015). Söke Ovasında II. Ürün pamukta toprak işleme, ekim ve dikim yöntemlerinin bazı toprak ve bitki özellikleri üzerine etkisi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ Atakan, E., & Boyacı, K. (2017). Pamukta farklı ekim şekli ve ekim zamanının yeşilkurt (Helicoverpa armigera Hubn. Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) popülasyonuna ve bitki gelişmesine etkisinin araştırılması. Türkiye Entomoloji Bülteni, 7(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.16969/entoteb.289802
2. Aykas, E., Yalçın, H., Önal, İ., & Evcim, Ü. (2007). İkinci ürün pamuk üretiminde doğrudan ekim uygulama olanakları. Tübitak Proje Sonuç Raporu, Proje No. TOVAG 2675.
3. Blaise, D., & Ravindran, C. D. (2003). Influence of tillage and residue management on growth and yield of cotton grown on a vertisol over 5 years in a semi-arid region of India. Soil and Tillage Research, 70 (2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00153-8
4. Bordovsky, J. P., Lyle, W. M., & Keeling, J. W. (1994). Crop rotation and tillage effects on soil water and cotton yield. Agronomy Journal, 86, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600010001x
5. Constable, G. A., Rochester, I. J., & Daniells, I. G. (1992). Cotton yield and nitrogen requirement is modified by crop rotation and tillage method. Soil and Tillage Research, 23(1-2), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(92)90004-U
6. Çopur, O. (2018). GAP Projesinin Türkiye pamuk üretimine etkisi: son on yıldaki değişimler. ADYUTAYAM Dergisi, 6(1), 11-18. https://izlik.org/JA46SU29DH
7. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Taylor and Francis Group.
8. Demirtaş, M., & Şimşek, M. K. (2015). Kışlık fiğ üretimi sonrası pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) tarımı için uygulanan farklı toprak işleme sistemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Tarım Makinaları Bilimi Dergisi, 11(2), 105 – 112. https://izlik.org/JA44FW73YN

9. Dogan, M. N., Ünay, A., Boz, Ö, & Ögüt, D. (2009). Effect of pre-sowing and pre-emergence glyphosate applications on weeds in stale seedbed cotton. Crop Protection, 28, 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.01.013
10. Egan, J. F., Barlow, K. M., & Mortensen D. A. (2014). A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Science, 62, 193-206. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43700647
11. Endale, D. M., Cabrera, M. L., Steiner, J. L., Radcliffe, D. E., Vencill, W. K., Schomberg, H. H., & Lohr L. (2002). Impact of conservation tillage and nutrient management on soil water and yield of cotton fertilized with poultry litter or ammonium nitrate in the Georgia Piedmont. Soil and Tillage Research, 66, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00013-2
12. Farooq, O., Mubeen, K., Khan, A. A., & Ahmad, S. (2020). Sowing methods for cotton production. In S. Ahmad, & M. Hasanuzzaman (Eds.), Cotton Production and Uses. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1472-2_4
13. Gencsoylu, I., & Yalcın, I. (2004). Advantages of different tillage systems and their effects on the economically important pests, thrips tabaci lind. and aphis gossypii glov. in cotton fields. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190, 381—388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2004.00104.x
14. Gurevitch, J., & Hedges, L. V. (1999). Statistical issues in ecological meta-analysis. Ecology, 80, 1142-1149. Gürsoy, S., Sessiz, A., Karademir, E., Karademir, Ç., Kolay, B., Urğun, M., & Malhi S. S. (2011). Effects of ridge and conventional tillage systems on soil properties and cotton growth. International Journal of Plant Production, 5(3), 227-236.
15. Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999). The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology, 80, 1150-1156.
16. Himmelstein, J., Ares, A., Gallagher, D., & Myers, J. (2017). A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332
17. Hulugalle, N. R., Lobry de Bruyn, L. A., & Entwistle, P. (1997). Residual effects of tillage and crop rotation on soil properties, soil invertebrate numbers and nutrient uptake in an irrigated Vertisol sown to cotton. Applied Soil Ecology, 7, 11-30.
18. Idowu, O. J., Sultana, S., Darapuneni, M., Beck, L., Steiner, R., & Omer, M. (2020). Tillage effects on cotton performance and soil quality in an ırrigated arid cropping system. Agriculture, 10(11), 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110531
19. Ishaq, M., Ibrahim, M., & Lal, R. (2001). Tillage effect on nutrient uptake by wheat and cotton as influenced by fertilizer rate. Soil and Tillage Research, 62, 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00211-2
20. Karamanos, A. J., Bilalis, D., & Sidiras, N. (2004). Effects of reduced tillage and fertilization practices on soil characteristics, plant water status, growth and yield of upland cotton. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190, 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2004.00101.x
21. Krause, U., Koch, H. J., & Maerlaender, B. (2009). Soil properties effecting yield formation in sugar beet under ridge and flat cultivation. European Journal of Agronomy, 31(1), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.02.002
22. Luo, Y. Q., Hui, D. F., & Zhang, D. Q. (2006). Elevated CO2 stimulates net accumulations of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecology, 87, 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1724
23. Martin, S. W., & Hanks, J. (2009). Economic analysis of no tillage and minimum tillage cotton-corn rotations in the Mississippi Delta. Soil and Tillage Research, 102(1), 135-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.08.009
24. Meng, X., Meng, F., Chen, P., Hou, D., Zheng, E., & Xu, T. (2024). A meta-analysis of conservation tillage management effects on soil organic carbon sequestration and soil greenhouse gas flux. Science of The Total Environment, 954, 176315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176315
25. Mert, M., Aslan, E., Akişcan, Y., & Çalişkan M.E. (2006). Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to different tillage systems and intra-row spacing. Soil & Tillage Research 85, 221–228.
26. Nyakatawa, E. Z., Reddy, K. C., & Sistani, K. R. (2001). Tillage, cover cropping and poultry litter effects on selected soil chemical properties. Soil and Tillage Research, 58, 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00183-5
27. O’Rourke, K. (2007). An historical perspective on meta-analysis: Dealing quantitatively with varying study results. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100(12), 579-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076807100012020
28. Osipitan, O. A., Dille, J. A., Assefa, Y., & Knezevic, S. Z. (2018). Cover crop for early-season weed suppression in crops: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Agronomy Journal, 110, 2211–2221. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.12.0752
29. Özdemir, S., & Bereket Barut, Z. (2025). The Effect of strip tillage method applied in cotton cultivation in Ceyhan plain on yield. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 13 (1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.1595516
30. Ozpinar, S., & Isik, A. (2004). Effects of tillage, ridging and row spacing on seedling emergence and yield of cotton. Soil and Tillage Research, 75, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.07.004
31. Philibert, A., Loyce, C., & Makowski, D. (2012). Assessment of the quality of meta-analysis in agronomy. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 148, 72-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.003
32. Pittelkow, C. M., Linquist, B. A., Lundy, M. E., Liang, X., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee J., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea R. T., & van Kessel, C. (2015). When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 183, 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020
33. Rickerl, D. H., Gordon, W. B., Curl, E. A., & Touchton, J. T. (1988). Winter legume and tillage effects on cotton growth and soil ecology. Soil and Tillage Research, 11(1), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(88)90031-1
34. Rohatgi, A. (2012, Ocak 10).WebPlotDigitalizer: HTML5 Based Online Tool to Extract Numerical Data from Plot Images, Version 3. http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/index.html.
35. Seguy, L., Bouzinac, S., Maeda, E., & Maeda, N. (1998). Large scale mechanized direct drilling of cotton in Brazil. ICAC Recorder, 16 (1), 11-17.
36. TEPGE. (2025, Mart 10). Pamuk Durum Tahmin Raporu 2024. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge/Menu/36/Durum-Ve-Tahmin-Raporlari.
37. Topdemir, T. (2018). Menemen koşullarında pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde uygulanan farklı toprak işleme yöntemlerinin enerji verimliliği ve kullanım etkinliğinin belirlenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
38. Triplett Jr., G. B., Dabney, S. M., & Siefker, J. H. (1996). Tillage systems for cotton on silty upland soils. Agronomy Journal, 88(4), 507-512. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800040002x
39. Unay, A., Tan, E., Konak, C., & Celen, E. (2005). Influences of winter cover crop residues and tillage on cotton lint yield and quality. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 37(4), 905-911.
40. Wallace, B. C., Lajeunesse, M. J., Dietz, G., Dahabreh, I. J., Trikalinos, T. A., Schmid, C. H., & Gurevitch, J. (2017). OpenMEE: intuitive, open-source software for meta-analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 941-947. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12708
41. Wright, A. L., Hons, F. M., Lemon, R. G., McFarland, M. L., & Nichols, R. L. (2008). Microbial activity and soil C sequestration for reduced and conventional tillage cotton. Applied Soil Ecology, 38, 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.10.006
42. Yalçın, İ., Ünay, A., & Uçucu R. (2005). Effects of reduced tillage and planting systems on seed cotton yield and quality. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 29 (5), 401-407.
43. Yalçın, İ., Yavas, İ., Topuz, N., & Ünay, A. (2009). Pamukta farklı üretim tekniklerinin ve büyüme düzenleyicisi PİX’in verim ve erkencilik üzerine etkisi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 29-33. https://izlik.org/JA52PW98ZX
44. Yön, A., & Uysal, C. (1980). Çukurova’da sulu ve kuru koşullarda pamuk ziraatı için toprak işleme tekniği. T.C. Köyişleri ve Kooperatifler Bakanlığı Toprak Su Genel Müdürlüğü, Tarsus Bölge Toprak Su Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü Yayınları.