Rangeland Condition, Health and Biodiversity Assessments for Two Rangeland Vegetations in The Central Anatolia Region

Öz

Improvement and management of rangelands are highly important to sustain and maintain for nowadays and next generations. The first step in vegetation studies is to determine its current vegetation status. For this reason vegetation surveys were performed on the rangelands of Kırıkkale-Akçaağaç village and Sivas-Çelebiler village in 2008. A modified wheel point method was used for vegetation survey. The results of research indicated that vegetation cover and bare ground were found as 47.10 and 52.90%; 69.43 and 30.57% in Akçakavak (20 survey sites) and Çelebiler (21 survey sites), respectively. The rangeland health class was found unhealthy and risky for rangeland in Akçakavak and Çelebiler, respectively. The 73 species in Akçakavak and 179 species in Çelebiler were counted on rangeland vegetation community. Desired plant species were also found in a satisfactory level for rehabilitation of rangelands. Simpsons’ index of diversity was calculated to evaluate biological diversity of rangelands vegetation. Vegetation biodiversity was higher in rangelands of Çelebiler than that of Akçakavak. As a results it is suggested that proper management and improvement  techniques should be conducted for both village rangelands.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rangeland condition; health; decreaser; increaser; biodiversity

Orta Anadolu Bölgesine Ait İki Merada Mera Durumu, Sağlığı ve Biyoçeşitlilikle İlgili Değerlendirmeler

Öz

Meraların yönetimi ve iyileştirilmesi, günümüz ve gelecek nesiller için sürdürülmesi ve korunması oldukça önemlidir. Mera çalışmaları genellikle mevcut mera durumunun belirlenmesiyle başlar. Bu nedenle 2008 yılında Kırıkkale – Akçaağaç ve Sivas - Çelebiler köylerinde mera vejetasyon etüdleri yapılmıştır. Modifiye edilmiş tekerlekli nokta metodu vejetasyon etüdlerinde kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları Akçakavak’ta (20 etüd noktası) bitki ile kaplı alan oranının %47.10 çıplak alan oranının %52.9 ve Çelebiler’de (21 etüd noktası)  bitki ile kaplı alan oranının 69.43, çıplak alan oranının %30.57 olduğunu göstermiştir. Mera sağlık durumu Akçakavak’ta sorunlu Çelebiler’de riskli olarak bulunmuştur. Akçakavak mera vejetasyonunda 73 tür, Çelebiler’de 179 tür sayılmıştır. Mera ıslahı için istenen bitki türleri yeterli düzeyde bulunmuştur. Mera vejetasyonlarının biyolojik çeşitliliğini değerlendirmek üzere Simpson ideksi hesap edilmiştir. Çelebiler meralarının vejetasyon biyoçeşitlilik değeri Akçakavak’tan daha yüksek olmuştur. Sonuç olarak iki köy merasında uygun yönetim ve ıslah teknikleri uygulanması önerilmektedir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mera durumu; sağlığı; azalıcı; çoğalıcı; biyoçeşitlilik

Kaynakça

1. Allan B. and Lowther B., 1992. Pasture grazing management. Guide to Tussock Grassland Farming (Editor: Mike Floate). AgReseach, Invermay, New Zealand Pastoral Agriculture Research Institute Ltd. Mosgiel, New Zealand
2. Altın M., 1999. Fertilizer Applications on Meadow and Rangeland. Training and Application Handbook of Range Act. 1. The Turkish Ministry of Agricultural And Rural Affairs. General Director of Agricultural Production and Development
3. Anonymous, 1991. Threats to biodiversity in the United States. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
4. Anonymous, 2005. Meadow and Range Plants Handbook. The General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Improvement, The Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, page: 317
5. Anonymous, 2009. The challenge of the rangelands in Turkey (Towards a sustainable rangeland economy). Government to government project G2G07/TR/9/3 Turkey – The Netherlands, Final report of the G2G project: sustainable rangeland management in Turkey, 2008 and 2009, p: 57
6. Anonymous, 2012. The Result Report of National Rangeland Use and Management Project, project no:106G017. The Scentific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) Support Programme for Research and Improvement Projects of Public Institutions (1007 Programme), Public Research Grant Committee, (Unpublished Report)
7. Anonymous, 2015. Biodiversity. Measuring biodiversity, Student and Teachers guide
8. www.rewardinglearning.org.uk A2AS-BIOOL-REVISED-Support-5925.doc (Access date, 20.12.2015)

9. Bakır Ö., 1969. Studies on the ecological factors affecting growth and improvement of major forage crops. Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Press, 327. Ankara, page:116
10. Bakır Ö., 1987. Grazing Period. Management of Meadow and Rangeland. Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Presses, 992, p: 114-132
11. Campbell M., 1997. Pasture weeds. Pasture Production and Management (Editors: J.V. Lovett and J.M. Scott). Reel International Books Australia Pty Ltd trading as Inkata Press, pp. 254-268
12. Canals R.M. and Sebastia M.T., 2000. Analyzing mechanisms regulating diversity in rangelands through comaparative studies: a case in the South-western Pyrennes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9: 964-984
13. Davis P.H., 1965 - 1985. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 1 – 9, Edinburgh Univ. Press., Edinburgh
14. 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
15. De Bello F., Leps J. and Sebastia M.T., 2005. Do species and functional diversity indices reflect change in grazing regimes ans climatic condiions in northeastern Spain? XXth Int. Grassland Congress, 26 June-1 July, 2005 Dublin, Ireland, page : 620
16. Filet P.G., 1994. State and transition models for rangelands. 3. The impact of the state and transition model on grazing lands research, management and extension: A review. Tropical Grasslands Vol. 28:214-222
17. 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
18. 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
19. Koç A. and Çakal Ş., 2004. Comparison of some rangeland canopy coverage methods. Int. Soil Cong. On Natural Resource Manage. For Sustainable. Development, June 7-10, 2004, Erzurum, Turkey, D7, 41-45
20. Simpson E. H., 1949. "Measurement of diversity". Nature 163:(4148):688 doi:10.1038/163688a0
21. Ünal S., Mutlu Z., Mermer A., Öztekin U., Ünal E., Aydoğdu M., Dedeoğlu F., Özaydın K. A., Avağ A., Aydoğmuş O., Şahin B. and Arslan S., 2012a. A study on assessment of rangelands in Ankara Province. Journal of Field Crops Central Research Institute 21 (2): 41-49
22. Ünal S., Mutlu Z., Mermer A., Öztekin U., Ünal E., Özaydın K.A., Avağ A., Yıldız H., Aydoğmuş O., Şahin B. and Arslan 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)
23. 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
24. Ünal S., Mutlu Z., Öztekin U., Hakan Y., Aydoğdu M., Şahin B., and Arslan S., 2014. improvement possiblities and effects of vegetation subjected to long-term heavy grazing in the steppe rangelands of Sivas. Journal of Field Crops Central Research Institute 23 (1): 22-30
25. West N.E., 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. J. Range Manage. 46 (1): 2-13