Standart Yağış İndeksi İle Ceyhan Havzasında Kuraklık Analizi

Öz

Kuraklık, yağışların yıllar itibariyle gözlemlenen normal seviyelerinin altına düşmesiyle oluşan su arzında azalma sebebiyle yaşamsal faaliyetleri negatif yönde etkileyen bir afet olarak tanımlanır. Tarımsal kuraklık, topraktaki nem oranının iklimsel olarak uygun miktarın altına sürekli düşmesi, böylece bitkisel üretimi, dolaylı olarak hayvansal üretimi olumsuz etkilemesi anlamına gelir. Bu çalışma, Standart Yağış İndeksi (SPI) yöntemini kullanarak Ceyhan havzasında kurak dönemleri ve bölgeleri belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Böylece kuraklığın etkilerini azaltacak politikalar kuraklıktan etkilenen bölgelerde geliştirilebilecektir. SPI, basitlik ve zamansal esneklik de dahil olmak üzere önceki indekslere göre daha gelişmiş olan ve su kaynakları için tüm zaman çizelgelerinde kullanılmasına izin veren çeşitli özelliklere sahiptir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, havzada son beş yılın kurak geçtiğini, kuraklığın yıllar itibari ile arttığını ve su verimliliğini artırmak için havzada en kurak ilçeler olan Afşin ve Elbistan’da kuraklığa dayanıklı bitki yetiştirmenin ve basınçlı sulama yöntemleri kullanımının daha akıllıca olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kuraklık,yağış,su verimliliği,tarım,SPI

Drought Analysis in Ceyhan Basin Using Standardized Precipitation Index

Öz

Drought is defined as a disaster that affects vital activities negatively due to the decrease in the water supply caused by falling rainfall below normal levels observed over the years. Agricultural drought means that the moisture content in the soil is consistently falling below the climatically appropriate amount, so this directly affects vegetative production and indirectly affects animal production. This study aims to determine dry periods and areas in the Ceyhan Basin by using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). Thus, policies that will reduce the effects of drought will be developed in the regions affected by drought. The SPI has several features that are more advanced than previous indexes, including simplicity and temporal flexibility, and allow for use in all timelines for water resources. The results have shown that the past five years have been dry and the drought has increased over the years, and it is also wiser to grow drought-resistant crops and use pressurized irrigation methods in Afşin and Elbistan, the driest districts of the basin, to improve water efficiency.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Drought,precipitation,water efficiency,agriculture,SPI

Kaynakça

1. Aksoy U, Can HZ, 2012. Expected effects of climate change on organic agriculture in Turkey. New Medit, A Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Agricultural and Environment, 11(4 SI): 3-10.
2. Ashraf M, Routray JK, 2013. Perception and understanding of drought and coping strategies of farming households in north-west Balochistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 5: 49-60.
3. Dai A, Trenberth KE, Qian T, 2004. A global dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5(6): 1117-1130.
4. Erinç S, 1965. Yağış Müessiriyeti Üzerine Bir Deneme ve Yeni Bir İndis. İstanbul University, Geography Institute Publications, No: 41, İstanbul.
5. Gümüş V, Başak A, Oruç N, 2016. Drought Analysis of Şanlıurfa Station with Standard Precipitation Index (SPI). Harran University, Journal of Engineering, 1(1): 36-44.
6. Ilgar R, 2010. Drought Status and Trends in the Dardanelles and the Standardized Precipitation Index Determination. Marmara Geographical Review, 22: 183-204.
7. Işıldar M, 2010. Investigation of Changes in Corn Yield with Agricultural Drought Indices in Some Provinces of Aegean Region. (Master's thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences). 92 p.
8. Kapluhan E, 2013. Drought and drought in Turkey effect of agriculture. Marmara Geographical Review, 27: 487-510.

9. Keskiner AD, Çetin M, Uçan M, Şimşek M, 2016. Meteorological Drought Analysis with Different Return Periods by Using Standardized Precipitation Index in Geographic Information Systems Environment: A Case Study in The Seyhan River Basin. Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Çukurova Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 31(2): 79-90.
10. Kim H, Park J, Yoo J, Kim TW, 2015. Assessment of drought hazard, vulnerability, and risk: a case study for administrative districts in South Korea. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 9(1): 28-35.
11. Li Z, Hao Z, Shi X, Déry SJ, Li J, Chen S, Li, Y, 2016. An agricultural drought index to incorporate the irrigation process and reservoir operations: A case study in the Tarim River Basin. Global and Planetary Change, 143: 10-20.
12. McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J, 1995. Drought monitoring with multiple time scales. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Applied Climatology. Dallas, Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society, 233-236.
13. McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J, 1993. The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Applied Climatology. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society, 179-183.
14. Merkoci AL, Mustaqi V, Mucaj L, Dvorani M, 2013. Arnavutluk Bölgesinde Kuraklik ve Standart Yağiş İndeksinin (SPI) Kullanimi. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering & Architecture of Gazi University, 28(1): 161-166
15. Narasimhan B, Srinivasan R, 2005. Development and evaluation of soil moisture deficit index (SMDI) and evapotranspiration deficit index (ETDI) for agricultural drought monitoring. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 133(1): 69-88.
16. Nastos PT, Politi N, Kapsomenakis J, 2013. Spatial and temporal variability of the aridity index in Greece. Atmospheric Research, 119: 140-152.
17. Quiring SM, Papakryiakou TN, 2003. An evaluation of agricultural drought indices for the Canadian prairies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 118(1): 49-62.
18. Reis M, Dutal H, 2016. Determining hydrological drought probability in future using markov chain model for Kahramanmaras city. Kastamonu University, Journal of Forestry Faculty, 16(1): 34-43.
19. Seçkin N, Topçu E, 2016. Drought Analysis of the Seyhan Basin by Using Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and L-moments Journal of Agricultural Sciences., 22(2): 196-215.
20. Şimşek O, Çakmak B, 2010. Drought analysis for 2007-2008 agricultural year of Turkey. JOTAF/ Journal of Tekirdag Agriculture Faculty, 7(3): 99-109.
21. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2016. Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources., Final Report, Ceyhan Basin, General Directorate of Water Management, Ankara.
22. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, 2016. 6th National Communication on Climate Change, Directorate General of Environmental Management, Ankara.
23. TÜBİTAK 2010. Preparation of Basin Protection Action Plans -Ceyhan Basin, Final Report, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Marmara Research Center, Environment and Cleaner Production Institute. Gebze, Kocaeli.
24. Türkeş M, 2005. Climate of southern part of the Middle Kızılırmak Sub-Region (Cappadocia District) and its vulnerability to desertification. Aegean Geographical Journal, 14(1-2): 73-97
25. Wells N, Goddard S, Hayes MJ, 2004. A self-alibrating Palmer drought severity index. ournal of Climate, 17(12): 2335-2351.
26. Yetmen H, 2013. Van Gölü Havzası’nın Kuraklık Analizi. Education and Society in the 21st Century, 2(5):184-198.