Eco-Planning Approaches to Wildlife-Oriented Water Structures in High-Altitude Regions

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 999 - 1009, 27.12.2025

Nursevil Yuca , Şevket Alp

https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.1786423

Abstract

Access to clean and reliable water is essential for sustaining wildlife populations. In high-altitude and topographically rugged rural areas, access becomes increasingly difficult due to summer scarcity and poses a freezing risk during winter, creating serious survival challenges.This study proposes two nature-based conceptual habitat designs that integrate both natural and artificial water sources. The models incorporate multifunctional ecological components, including windbreak vegetation belts, gently sloped shoreline access zones, native plant assemblages, and wildlife movement corridors. Results indicate that habitat structures with a minimum size of one hectare, aligned with natural hydrological flow regimes, significantly improve habitat quality and overall biodiversity. Practices such as enhancing shoreline accessibility, planting native vegetation to increase microhabitat heterogeneity, and reducing moisture loss through windbreak systems further strengthen ecological performance. In conclusion, this study provides planners and policymakers with a conceptual framework, highlighting the role of nature-based solutions in biodiversity conservation and climate resilience.

Keywords

Wildlife conservation , ecological planning , native vegetation , freshwater ecosystems , ater resource management

Yüksek Rakımlı Bölgelerde Yaban Hayatı Odaklı Su Yapılarına Yönelik Eko-Planlama Yaklaşımları

Abstract

Yaban hayatının sürdürülebilirliği için temiz ve güvenilir su kaynaklarına erişim kritik öneme sahiptir. Yüksek rakımlı ve topoğrafik olarak engebeli kırsal alanlarda ise bu erişim, yaz aylarında yaşanan kuraklık ve kış aylarında ortaya çıkan donma riski nedeniyle ciddi şekilde tehdit altındadır. Bu çalışma, yaban hayatını desteklemek amacıyla hem doğal (göletler, akarsular, sulak alanlar) hem de yapay (set göletleri, sulama kanalları) su kaynaklarını bütünleştiren iki doğa temelli kavramsal habitat modeli önermektedir. Modeller; rüzgâr kıran bitki kuşakları, eğimli kıyı erişim alanları, yerli bitki toplulukları ve yaban hayatı geçiş koridorları gibi çok işlevli ekolojik bileşenleri içermektedir. Bulgular, en az bir hektar büyüklüğündeki ve doğal hidrolojik akış rejimlerine uyumlu habitatların ekolojik kaliteyi ve biyolojik çeşitliliği artırdığını göstermektedir. Kıyı erişiminin iyileştirilmesi, yerli bitkilerle mikrohabitat çeşitliliğinin artırılması ve rüzgâr kıran sistemlerle nem kaybının azaltılması gibi uygulamalar da ekolojik performansı güçlendirmiştir.

Keywords

Yaban hayatı koruma , ekolojik planlama , yerli bitki örtüsü , tatlı su ekosistemleri , su kaynakları yönetimi

Ethical Statement

The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics committee approval was not required for the study.

References

• Arslangündoğdu, Z. (2023). Türkiye’de yaban hayatı ve biyoçeşitlilikteki rolü. In M. E. Aydın & N. Sivri (Eds.), Biyoçeşitlilik ve Ekosistemler (pp. 235–274). Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
• Baldwin, D. S. & Mitchell, A. M. (2000). The effects of drying and re-flooding on the sediment and soil nutrient dynamics of lowland river–floodplain systems: A synthesis. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 16(5), 457–467. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1646
• Becker, A. & Bugmann, H. (Eds.). (2001). Global change and mountain regions: The Mountain Research Initiative (IGBP Report No. 49).
• Beniston, M. (2003). Climatic change in mountain regions: A review of possible impacts. Climatic Change. 59; 5–31.
• Bennett, G., & Mulongoy, K. J. (2006). Review of experience with ecological networks, corridors and buffer zones. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Access Address (01.01.2025): https://rpp- msu.ru/workspace/uploads/files/cbd-ts-23-5dcfbc6eecf73.pdf
• Boon, P. J. (2000). The development of integrated methods for assessing river conservation value. Hydrobiologia, 422/423, 413–428. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017045521792
• Bunn, S. E. & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4), 492–507.
• Colvin, S. A. R., Mitchell, R. M., Gerlak, A. K., & Springer, A. E. (2009). Defining and protecting environmental flows: A new framework for managing environmental water needs. Ecology and Society, 14(1), Access Address (01.01.2025): https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art19/
• Çolak, A. H. & Rotherham, I. D. (2006). A review of the forest vegetation of Turkey: Its status past and present and its future conservation. Biological Conservation, 129(3), 377–387.
• Davis, S. M., & Ogden, J. C. (Eds.). (1994). Everglades: The ecosystem and its restoration. CRC Press.
• Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z. I., Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., ... & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81(2), 163–182. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
• Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2000). Evaluating wetlands within an urban context. Ecological Engineering, 15(3–4), 253–265.
• EEA (European Environment Agency). (2012). European waters: Assessment of status and pressures 2012 (EEA Report No. 8/2012). Publications Office of the European Union. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2800/63959
• Finlayson C. M., D’Cruz R., Davidson N., (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Beıng: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
• Gözcelioğlu, B. (2023). Türkiye’de biyoçeşitlilik ve Anadolu’dan yansımalar. In M. E. Aydın & N. Sivri (Eds.), Biyoçeşitlilik ve Ekosistemler (pp. 87–102). Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
• Gutzwiller, K. J. (Ed.). (2002). Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer.
• Hoffmann, M. (1998). Restoration of degraded floodplain ecosystems in Europe. Ecological Engineering, 10(1), 49–56. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(97)10022-7
• Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B., & Sparks, R. E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in river‐floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 106(1), 110–127.
• Kačergytė, I. (2021). Wetland creation and restoration for biodiversity: Outcomes of conservation initiatives to benefit birds, amphibians and occasionally fish (Doctoral dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, 2021:62. Access Address (01.01.2025): https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/
• Karadeniz, N., Tırıl, A. & Baylan, E. (2009). Wetland management in Turkey: Problems, achievements and perspectives. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(11), 1106–1119.
• Kingsford, R. T. (2000). Ecological impacts of dams, flow regulation and water diversion on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology, 25(2), 109–127.
• Kingsford, R. T., Bino, G. & Porter, J. L. (2016). Continental impacts of water development on waterbirds, contrasting two Australian river basins: Global implications for sustainable water use. Global Change Biology, 22(3), 900–911. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13176
• Kristensen, P., Whalley, C., Zal, F. N. N. & Christiansen, T. (2018). European waters – assessment of status and pressures (EEA Report No. 8/2018). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
• Lapin, K., Oettel, J., Braun, M. & Konrad, H. (Eds.). (2025). Ecological Connectivity of Forest Ecosystems. Springer. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-82206-3
• Lowrance, R., Altier, L. S., Newbold, J. D., Schnabel, R. R., Groffman, P. M., Denver, J. M. & Correll, D. L. (1997). Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management, 21(5), 687–712. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900060
• McHarg, I. L. (1992). Design with nature. John Wiley & Sons. (Original work published 1969)
• Meli, P., Rey Benayas, J. M., Balvanera, P. & Martínez Ramos, M. (2014). Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: A meta-analysis. PloS one, 9(4), e93507.
• MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
• Mitsch, W. J. & Gosselink, J. G. (2015). Wetlands (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Mooney, H. A. & Godron, M. (Eds.). (1983). Disturbance and ecosystems: Components of response. Springer.
• Mount, J. F. (1995). California rivers and streams: The conflict between fluvial process and land use. University of California Press.
• Naidu, R. & Birke, V. (Eds.). (2015). Permeable reactive barrier: Sustainable groundwater remediation. CRC Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/b18318
• National Research Council. (1992). Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology, and public policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/1807
• Nilsson, C. & Berggren, K. (2000). Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river regulation. BioScience, 50(9), 783–792.
• O'Connell, E., Ewen, J., O'Donnell, G. & Quinn, P. (2007). Is there a link between agricultural land-use management and flooding? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11(1), 96–107.
• Palmer, M. A., Bernhardt, E. S., Allan, J. D., Lake, P. S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S. & Galat, D. L. (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 208–217. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
• Philips, J. D. & Slattery, M. C. (2006). Sediment storage, sea level, and sediment delivery to the ocean by coastal plain rivers. Progress in Physical Geography, 30(4), 513–530.
• Phillips, J. D., Marion, D. A. & Scatena, F. N. (1999). Equilibrium states in forested headwater catchments. Ecosystems, 2(6), 582–594. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900102
• Postel, S. L., & Carpenter, S. R. (1997). Freshwater ecosystem services. In G. C. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 195–214). Washington, DC: Island Press.
• Postel, S., & Richter, B. (2003). Rivers for life: Managing water for people and nature. Island Press.
• Puttock, A., Graham, H. A., Ashe, J., Luscombe, D. J. & Brazier, R. E. (2017). Eurasian beaver activity increases water storage, attenuates flow and mitigates diffuse pollution from intensively-managed grasslands. Science of the Total Environment, 576, 430–443. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.122
• Rey Benayas, J. M., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A meta‐analysis. Science, 325(5944), 1121–1124.
• Simberloff, D. & Dayan, T. (1991). The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 22(1), 115–143.
• Tockner, K., Malard, F. & Ward, J. V. (2000). An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrological Processes, 14(16–17), 2861–2883.
• Toth, L. (2004). Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature, by S. Postel and B. Richter, Island Press: Washington, DC, 2003. No. Of pages: 220. Paperback: ISBN 1-55963-444-8, price: US$25.00; hardcover: ISBN 1- 55963-443-X, price: US$50.00. River Research and Applications, 20(6), 751-752. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.820
• Van der Valk, A. G. (2006). The biology of freshwater wetlands. Oxford University Press.
• Zale, A. V., Parrish, D. L., & Sutton, T. M. (1989). Habitat use and requirements of important fishes of the Upper Mississippi River System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 89(12).
• Zedler, J. B. (2000). Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(10), 402–407. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01959-5
• Zedler, J. B., & Kercher, S. (2005). Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 39–74.