Fiziko-kimyasal içerikleri belirlenmiş toprakların CBS tabanlı mekansal değerlendirilmesi: Samsun-Vezirköprü örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, Samsun ili Vezirköprü ilçesinde farklı arazi kullanım türlerine sahip alanlardan alınan toprak örnekleri üzerinden, fiziksel ve kimyasal özelliklerin mekânsal dağılımını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın yapıldığı alanda mera, orman ve tarım alanı olmakla birlikte, 3 farklı arazi kullanım ve arazi örtü türü vardır. Bu alan üzerinde dağılım gösteren tarım topraklarının, temel bazı özellikleri ve mevcut verimlilik durumlarının belirlenmesi amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Yüzey (0–20 cm) ve yüzey altı (20–40 cm) olmak üzere toplam 1.293 noktadan toprak örnekleri alınarak; tekstür (Kum, Kil, Silt), organik madde (OM), kireç (CaCO₃), pH ve elektriksel iletkenlik (EC) analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Toprak özelliklerinin konumsal dağılımını tahmin etmek amacıyla 15 farklı enterpolasyon yöntemi değerlendirilmiş ve en düşük RMSE değerine sahip modellerle dağılım haritaları oluşturulmuştur. Bulgular, özellikle Kriging tabanlı yaklaşımların çoğu parametrede en yüksek doğruluğu sağladığını ortaya koymuştur. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, çalışma alanı topraklarının büyük bölümü killi bünye özelliği göstermekte, hafif alkali pH aralığında yer almakta ve tuzluluk problemi bulunmamaktadır. Organik madde içeriği ise çoğunlukla düşük düzeydedir. Elde edilen bulgular, bölgenin sürdürülebilir arazi yönetimi stratejilerinin planlanmasında ve tarımsal üretim potansiyelinin artırılmasında önemli bir temel teşkil etmektedir. Ayrıca, coğrafi bilgi sistemleri ve jeoistatistiksel yöntemlerin birlikte kullanımı, tarımsal verimliliğin artırılmasına yönelik karar destek süreçlerinde güçlü bir araç olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Enterpolasyon
• konumsal dağılım
• CBS
• toprak özellikleri

GIS-based spatial evaluation of soils with determined physico-chemical properties: A case study of Samsun-Vezirköprü

Öz

This study aims to determine the spatial distribution of physical and chemical properties using soil samples taken from areas with different land use and land cover types (agricultural, forest, and pasture) in the Vezirköprü district of Samsun province. Soil samples were taken from a total of 1.293 locations, including surface (0–20 cm) and subsurface (20–40 cm), and analyses were conducted for texture, organic matter (OM), lime (CaCO₃) and pH. 15 different interpolation methods were evaluated to estimate the spatial distribution of soil properties, and distribution maps were created using models with the lowest RMSE values. The findings revealed that Kriging-based approaches, in particular, provided the highest accuracy for most parameters. According to the analysis results, the majority of the study area soils have a clayey texture, are in the slightly alkaline pH range. Organic matter content is mostly low. The findings provide an important basis for planning sustainable land management strategies and increasing the region's agricultural production potential. Furthermore, the combined use of geographic information systems and geostatistical methods presents a powerful tool in decision-support processes aimed at increasing agricultural productivity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Interpolation
• spatial distribution
• GIS
• soil properties

Kaynakça

1. Abad JRS, Khosravi H, Alamdarlou EH. 2014. Assessment the effects of land use changes on soil physicochemical properties in Jafarabad of Golestan province, Iran. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 3(3), 296-300.
2. AbdelRahman MA., Arafat SM. 2020. An approach of agricultural courses for soil conservation based on crop soil suitability using geomatics. Earth Systems and Environment, 4(1), 273-285.
3. Abdulmanov R, Miftakhov I, Ishbulatov M, Galeev E, Shafeeva E. 2021. Comparison of the effectiveness of GIS-based interpolation methods for estimating the spatial distribution of agrochemical soil properties. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 24, 101970.
4. Adetunji MT. 2004. Integrated soil nutrient management options for Nigerian Agriculture. In Managing soil resources for food security and sustainable environment. 20th Annual Conference of the Soil Science Society of Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria (pp. 189-195).
5. Alaboz P, Demir S, Dengiz O. 2020. Farklı enterpolasyon yöntemleri kullanılarak toprakların nem sabitelerine ait konumsal dağılımların belirlenmesi, Isparta Atabey Ovası örneği. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fak. Dergisi, 17(3), 432-444. Anonim, 2023. Vezirköprü ilçesinin iklimi. http://www.vezirkopru.gov.tr/iklimi---bitki-ortusu. Erişim Tarihi: 30/08/2023.
6. Aytop H, Ateş Ö, Dengiz O, Yılmaz CH, Demir ÖF. 2023. Environmental, ecological and health risks of boron in agricultural soils of Amik Plain under Mediterranean conditions. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 1-13.
7. Barrena-González J, Lavado Contador JF, Pulido Fernández M. 2022. Mapping Soil Properties at a Regional Scale: Assessing Deterministic vs. Geostatistical Interpolation Methods at Different Soil Depths. Sustainability, 14(16), 10049.
8. Bayraklı F, 1987. Toprak ve bitki analizleri, Ondokuz Mayıs üniversitesi Yayınları, No:17, Samsun.

9. Birol M, Günal H. 2022. Field scale variability in soil properties and silage corn yield. Soil Studies, 11(1), 27-34.
10. Bouyoucos GJ. 1951. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soils 1. Agronomy journal, 43(9), 434-438.
11. Çelik P, Dengiz O. 2018. Akselendi Ovası tarım topraklarının temel toprak özellikleri ve bitki besin elementi durumlarının belirlenmesi ve dağılım haritalarının oluşturulması. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(1), 9-18.
12. Dengiz O, Saygın F, İmamoğlu A, 2019. Spatial variability of soil organic carbon density under different land covers and soil types in a sub-humid terrestrial ecosystem. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 8(1): 35-43.
13. Ding Y, 2011. Research on the spatial interpolation methods of soil moisture based on GIS, International Conference on Information Science and Technology, 709-711, China
14. El-Aswad AF, Fouad MR, Badawy ME, Aly MI. 2023. Effect of calcium carbonate content on potential pesticide adsorption and desorption in calcareous soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 54(10), 1379-1387.
15. El-Ramady HR, Domokos-Szabolcsy É, Abdalla NA, Taha HS, Fári M. 2014. Postharvest management of fruits and vegetables storage. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews: Volume 15 (pp. 65-152). Cham: Springer Inter. Publ.
16. Emadi M, Baghernejad M. 2014. Comparison of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil pH and salinity in agricultural coastal areas, northern Iran. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 60(9), 1315-1327.
17. FAO, 2005. The importance of soil organic matter. Key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production. In: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 80. Rome, Italy.
18. Fu W, Tunney H, Zhang C. 2010. Spatial variation of soil nutrients in a dairy farm and its implications for site-specific fertilizer application. Soil and Tillage Research, 106(2), 185-193.
19. Hayes RC, Rohan M, Li GD, Orgill SE, Poile GJ, Oates AA, Conyers MK. 2022. The nature of spatial variability of four soil chemical properties and the implications for soil sampling. J. of Soils and Sediments, 22(12), 3006-3017.
20. Jackson ML. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
21. Jaleta D, Mbilinyi B, Mahoo H, Lemenih M. 2016. Eucalyptus expansion as relieving and provocative tree in Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, 6(3), 1-12.
22. Jeong G, Oeverdieck H, Park SJ, Huwe B, Ließ M. 2017. Spatial soil nutrients prediction using three supervised learning methods for assessment of land potentials in complex terrain. Catena, 154, 73-84.
23. Jiang B, Xu W, Zhang D, Nie F, Sun Q. 2022. Contrasting multiple deterministic interpolation responses to different spatial scale in prediction soil organic carbon: A case study in Mollisols regions. Ecol. Indicators, 134, 108472.
24. Khan MZ, Islam MR, Salam ABA, Ray T. 2021. Spatial variability and geostatistical analysis of soil properties in the diversified cropping regions of Bangladesh using geographic information system techniques. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2021(1), 6639180.
25. Kishchuk BE. 2000. Calcareous soils, their properties and potential limitations to conifer growth in Southeastern British Columbia and Western Alberta: a literature review. Information Report-Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, (NOR-X-370).
26. Komolafe AA, Olorunfemi IE, Oloruntoba C, Akinluyi FO. 2021. Spatial prediction of soil nutrients from soil, topography and environmental attributes in the northern part of Ekiti State, Nigeria. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 21, 100450.
27. Liu L, Jin Y, Wang J, Hong Q, Pan Z, Zhao J. 2019. Comparation of spatial interpolation methods on slowly available potassium in soils. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 234, No. 1, p. 012018). IOP Publishing.
28. McBratney AB, Pringle M J. 1997. Spatial variability in soil-implications for precision agriculture.
29. Motaghian HR, Mohammadi J. 2011. Spatial estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity from terrain attributes using regression, kriging, and artificial neural networks. Pedosphere, 21(2), 170-177.
30. Mouazen AM, Dumont K, Maertens K, Ramon H. 2003. Two-dimensional prediction of spatial variation in topsoil compaction of a sandy loam field-based on measured horizontal force of compaction sensor, cutting depth and moisture content. Soil and Tillage Research, 74(1), 91-102.
31. Özyazıcı MA, Dengiz O, Aydoğan M, Bayraklı B, Kesim E, Urla Ö, Ünal E, 2016. Orta ve Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi tarım topraklarının temel verimlilik düzeyleri ve alansal dağılımları. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 31(2016): 136-148.
32. Peker AE, Dengiz O, Birol M. 2024. Bafra Ovası örnek mera alanlarının bazı fiziksel kalite indeksleri ve konumsal dağılımları. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(1), 58-70.
33. Raheem AM, Naser IJ, Ibrahim MO, Omar NQ. 2023. Inverse distance weighted (IDW) and kriging approaches integrated with linear single and multi-regression models to assess particular physico-consolidation soil properties for Kirkuk city. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 1-23.
34. Santra P, Chopra UK, Chakraborty D. 2008. Spatial variability of soil properties and its application in predicting surface map of hydraulic parameters in an agricultural farm. Current science, 937-945.
35. Saygın, F., & Dengiz, O. 2023. Detailed soil mapping and classification study for sustainable agricultural land management; Samsun-Vezirköprü example. Soil Studies, 12(1), 40-53.
36. Saygın F, Aksoy H, Alaboz P, Dengiz O. 2023. Different approaches to estimating soil properties for digital soil map integrated with machine learning and remote sensing techniques in a sub-humid ecosystem. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(9), 1061.
37. Soil Survey Staff, 1993. Soil Survey Manual, USDA. Handbook No: 18 Washington D.C.
38. Sönmez B, Özbahçe A, Akgül S, Keçeci M. 2018. Türkiye topraklarının bazı verimlilik ve organik karbon (TOK) içeriğinin coğrafi veritabanının oluşturulması (Report No. TAGEM/TSKAD/11/A13/P03).T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Tarımsal Araştırmalar ve Politikalar Genel Müdürlüğü. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/toprakgubre/Belgeler/2018%20Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20Proje%20Raporlar%C4%B1/T%C3%BCrkiye%20Topraklar%C4%B1n%C4%B1n%20Baz%C4%B1%20Verimlilik%20ve%20Organik%20Karbon%20(TOK)%20%C4%B0%C3%A7eri%C4%9Finin%20Co%C4%9Frafi%20Veritaban%C4%B1n%C4%B1n%20Olu%C5%9Fturulmas%C4%B1.pdf
39. Spurgeon DJ, Keith AM, Schmidt O, Lammertsma DR, Faber JH. 2013. Land-use and land-management change: relationships with earthworm and fungi communities and soil structural properties. BMC ecology, 13(1), 46.
40. Srivastava PK, Pandey PC, Petropoulos GP, Kourgialas NN, Pandey V, Singh U. 2019. GIS and remote sensing aided information for soil moisture estimation: A comparative study of interpolation techniques. Resources, 8(2), 70.
41. Şenol H, Alaboz P, Dengi̇z O. 2020. Farklı ana materyal üzerinde oluşmuş toprakların fiziko-kimyasal ve besin elementi içeriklerinin enterpolasyon yöntemle değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 35(3), 505-516.
42. Taşan M, Demir Y. 2017. Çeltik yetiştiriciliği yapılan arazilerde demir ve mangan içeriklerinin alansal dağılımının farklı enterpolasyon yöntemleri ile belirlenmesi. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 32(1), 64-73.
43. Taşan S, Demir Y. 2019. Toprakların tuzluluk ve sodikliliğinin alansal ve zamansal değişiminin jeoistatistiksel yöntemlerle değerlendirilmesi: Bafra ovası örneği. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 34(3), 336-350. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.557601
44. Turan M, Dengiz O, Turan İD. 2018. Samsun ilinin Newhall modeline göre toprak sıcaklık ve nem rejimlerinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 131-142.
45. Van Wambeke AR. 2000. The Newhall Simulation Model for estimating soil moisture and temperature regimes. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
46. Varol M, Deliboran A, Aytop H, Ateş Ö. 2023. Boron contamination and related health risk assessment in the soils collected from olive groves in İzmir province, Türkiye. Chemosphere, 140210.
47. Vieira SR, Dechen SCF. 2010. Spatial variability studies in São Paulo, Brazil along the last twenty five years. Bragantia, 69, 53-66.
48. Wilding LP. 1985. Spatial variability: Its documentation accommodation and implication to soil surveys In: Soil spatial variability (Nielsen DR, Bouma J eds,) Pudoc Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 166–194.
49. Xie B, Jia X, Qin Z, Zhao C, Shao MA. 2020. Comparison of interpolation methods for soil moisture prediction on China's Loess Plateau. Vadose Zone Journal, 19(1), e20025.
50. Zhang Y, Hartemink AE. 2021. Quantifying short-range variation of soil texture and total carbon of a 330-ha farm. Catena, 201, 105200.