Investigation of Water Quality of the Karasu River in Bilecik Province in terms of Agricultural Irrigation

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 4, 1001 - 1016, 20.09.2024

Çayan Alkan , Ramazan Meral

https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1400172

Öz

Together with increasing people's need for water, water needs to be monitored due to the pressure created by factors such as drought and pollution. In this study, water quality was monitored by determining 10 points on the Karasu River in Bilecik Province and it was aimed to examine the seasonal change in water quality. pH, EC, Na, K, Ca, Mg, CO3, HCO3, Cl, B, SO4, Sodium Adsorption Rate (SAR), Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) and %Na parameters were determined in water. And then using these parameters, quality classes were determined with the help of water quality classification systems developed by scientists such as Schofield, Wilcox, Thorne, Doneen and Soifer. The study were temporally diveded into 4 periods. They are period 1, period 2 (Spring), period 3 (Summer) and period 4 (Fall). After all, for the period 3, heavy metal pollution, especially Al, attracts attention. Except for the period 2 of point 7 and period 4 of point 9, the class of all periods and points in terms of sulphate was "Very good (class 1)". According to Schofield (1933 and 1935) systems, point 7 is in particularly bad situation in terms of EC. According to Wilcox (1948), point 7 is not suitable for irrigation in the period 2. At point 7, water pollution in period 2 has been identified as common to most classification systems. According to Christiansen et al. (1977), there is intense pollution in terms of EC and Na2CO3 parameters. According to Soifer (1987), point 2 is the cleanest point. As a result, Karasu river is not suitable for irrigation in terms of Al and B. It was understood that heavy metal pollution did not cause much of a problem in non-industrialized cities such as Bilecik. Besides, it was understood that the most common element among heavy metals was Pb in Karasu River. The SAR and RSC values of all periods, seasons and points were classified as "Very Good-Safe (C1S1)".

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agricultural water quality, Water quality index, Water quality classification systems, Sakarya river, Karasu stream

Etik Beyan

There is no conflict.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University

Proje Numarası

2021-02.BŞEÜ.06-05

Teşekkür

This work was supported by the Office of Scientific Research Projects in Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University (Project No:2021-02.BŞEÜ.06-05), Turkey. The authors also thank Betül ÇANGA for her contribution.

Bilecik İli Karasu Irmağı Su Kalitesinin Tarımsal Sulamalar Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

İnsanların suya olan ihtiyaçlarının artmasına ek olarak, kuraklık ve kirlilik gibi etmenlerin yaratacağı baskı sebebiyle suların izlenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada; Bilecik ili Karasu ırmağı üzerinde 10 nokta belirlenerek su kalitesi izlenmiş ve mevsimsel olarak su kalitesindeki değişim incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Sudaki; pH, EC, Na, K, Ca, Mg, CO3, HCO3, Cl, B, SO4, Sodyum Adsorpsiyon Oranı (SAR), Kalıntı sodyum karbonat (RSC) ve %Na parametreleri belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra bu parametreler kullanılarak; Schofield, Wilcox, Thorne, Doneen ve Soifer gibi bilim insanlarının geliştirdiği, su kalitesi sınıflandırma sistemleri yardımıyla kalite sınıfları belirlenmiştir. Çalışma, zamansal olarak; 1. dönem, 2. dönem (İlkbahar), 3. dönem (Yaz) ve 4. dönem (Sonbahar) şeklinde 4 döneme ayrılmıştır. Sonuçta; 3. dönem için; Al başta olmak üzere ağır metal kirliliği dikkate çekmektedir. 2. dönemin 7 nolu noktası ve 4. dönemim 9 nolu noktaları haricinde, tüm dönem ve noktalar sülfat açısından “Çok iyi (1. sınıf)” dir. Schofield (1933 ve 1935) sistemlerine göre; 7 nolu nokta, özellikle EC açısından kötü durumdadır. Wilcox (1948)’a göre; 7 nolu nokta, 2. dönemde sulama açısından uygun değildir. 7 nolu noktada, 2. dönemdeki su kirliliği, çoğu sınıflandırma sisteminde ortak olarak tespit edilmiştir. Christiansen ve ark. (1977)’na göre, EC ve Na2CO3 parametreleri açısından yoğun bir kirlilik yaşanmaktadır. Soifer (1987)’a göre, 2 nolu nokta en temiz noktadır. Sonuç olarak; Karasu ırmağı, Al ve B açısından sulamaya uygun değildir. Bilecik gibi sanayileşmemiş şehirlerde, ağır metal kirliliğinin çok fazla sorun yaratmadığı anlaşılmıştır. Ayrıca; Karasu Irmağı’ndaki ağır metaller arasında en yaygın bulunan elementin Pb olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Tüm dönem, mevsim ve noktalara ait SAR ve RSC değerleri “Çok İyi-Güvenli (C1S1)” sınıfında yer almaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tarımsal su kalitesi, Su kalite indeksi, Su kalitesi sınıflandırma sistemleri, Sakarya nehri, Karasu ırmağı

Proje Numarası

2021-02.BŞEÜ.06-05

Kaynakça

• Ağca, N. and Doğan, K. (2020). Determination of water quality parameters of Asi River. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 25 (1): 1-9.
• Akkan, T. and Mutlu, T. (2022). Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution of Çoruh River (Turkey). The Black Sea Journal of Sciences. 12(1): 355-367.
• Alaboz, P., Demir, S. and Dengiz, O. (2020). Determination of Spatial Distribution of Soil Moisture Constant Using Different Interpolation Model Case study, Isparta Atabey Plain. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 17 (3), 432-444.
• Anonymous (2023). "2000/60/EC Water Framework Directive" and the "Surface Water Quality Regulation" harmonized within its scope (Official newspaper in 30th November 2012 and numbered 28483), 1. Su Şurası Çalışma Belgesi Formatı (tarimorman.gov.tr), (Accessed Date: 01.12.2023).
• Ayers, R. S. and Westcot, D. W. (1989). Water Quality for Agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No: 29, FAO, Rome.
• Ayyıldız, M. (1983). Irrigation water quality and salinity problems. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture publications, Ankara.
• Christiansen, J. E., Olsen, E. C. and Willardson, L. S. (1977). Irrigation water quality evaluation. Journal of lrrigation and Drainage, 103(2): 155-169.
• Diri, M. (2018). Monitoring alteration of the Konya Closed Basin’s surface water quality. (MSc Thesis) The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science of Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
• Doneen, L. D. (1959). Evaluating The Quality of İrrigation Waters in Yentura Counry. State Department Water Resources Bulletin.
• Doneen, L. D. (1966). Water Quality Requirement for Agriculture. National Symposium Quality Standards for Natural Waters. University of Michigan, Annual Report, 213- 218.
• Dündar, M. Ş. (2008). Determination of water and sediment quality of the low Sakarya River. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (106Y037) Project Report.
• Gençoğlan, C., Tüysüz, M. D. and Gençoğlan, S. (2023). Evaluation of water levels and flow-rates measured in irrigation canal using limnigraph, pressure and ultrasonic sensors. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 20(3): 642-652.
• Kapdı, E. B. and Aşık, B. B. (2021). Evaluation of irrigation pond water in terms of surface water quality and irrigation water quality: Sample of Gullubag pond in Usak Province. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 1(2): 52-69.
• Kar, M. and Leblebici, Z. (2020). Using multivariate statistical techniques to evaluate the quality of water reservoirs: Yamula Dam Lake Case Study. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Science and Engineering, 20: 189-195.
• Karademir, B., Koç, E., Oğrak, Y. Z., Tufan, T. and Kadirhanoğulları, İ. H. (2020). Investigation of Farm Animal Drinking Water Mineral Contents in Iğdır Province of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 8(12): 2677-2682.
• Osmanoğlu, Ş. and Özalp, M. (2023). Determining the Temporal and Spatial Effects of Human Induced Interventions on Some Water Quality Parameters of Murgul Creek. Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment, 9(1): 136-151.
• Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline Alkali Soils, Agriculture, 160, Handbook 60. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
• Schofield, C. S. (1933). South coastal basin investigation, quality of irrigation water. California Department Public Works, Division Water Resources, California.
• Schofield, C. S. (1935). The Salinity of Irrigation Water. Smithsonian Institute Annual Report.
• Soifer, S. Y. (1987). Irrigation water quality requirements. Smithsonian Institute Annual Report.
• Tepe, R. and Kutlu, B. (2019). Examination water quality of Karkamış Dam Lake. Turkish Journal of Agriculture -Food Science and Technology, 7(3): 458-466.
• Thorne, J. P and Thorne, D. W. (1951). Irrigation Water of Utah. Utah Agriculture Station Bulletin 346, Utah.
• Topçu, E. and Taş, İ. (2020). Irrigation water quality for groundwater of Çanakkale-Biga Plain. Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 8(1): 251–260.
• Tüzüner, A. (1990). Soil and Water Analysis Laboratories Handbook. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs. Ankara.
• USSL (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. U.S Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 60.
• Wilcox, L.V. (1948). The Quality of Water for Irrigation Use. Techical Bulletin 962, U.S Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.
• Wilcox, L. V. and Magistrad, D. C. (1943). Interpretation of Analysis of İrrigation Water and The Relative Tolerance of Crop Plants. U.S Department of Agriculture, Bureau Plant Industry, Soil and Agriculture Engineering.