Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056   IUP :10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056    Tam Metin (PDF)

Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye)

Seda Akkurt GümüşMeral Avcı

Biyoçeşitlilik kavramı ilk ortaya çıktığından beri çeşitli yaklaşım ve metotlarla açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Türkiye’de bitki tür çeşitliliği ve endemizm oranının yüksek olduğu belirli alanlarda biyoçeşitliliğin korunması ve sürdürülebilir bir şekilde yönetilmesi oldukça önemlidir. Biyoçeşitliliğin farklı ölçeklerde belirlenmesi, korumaya yönelik tedbirler alınmadan önce atılacak en önemli adımlardan birisidir. Özellikle Akdeniz Bölgesi’nde bitki türleri birçok farklı etmen sebebiyle tehlike altındadır. Bu tehditler karşısında tür çeşitliliğinin daha zengin olduğu alanlara odaklanıp koruma önceliğinin bu bölgelere verilmesi faydalı bir girişim olacaktır. Bu çalışmada Akdeniz Bölgesi’nde iki akarsu vadisinde (Kargı Çayı vadisi ve Karpuz Çayı vadisi) aynı fenolojik dönemde yapılan arazi çalışmalarıyla toplanan veri kullanılarak, bitki tür çeşitliliği alfa (α) ve beta (β) biyoçeşitlilik indisleriyle hesaplanmıştır. Alfa tür çeşitliliği için ShannonWiener indisi (αH), beta çeşitlilik için ise Whittaker’ın beta çeşitlilik (βw) indisi kullanılmıştır. Karpuz Çayı’nda alfa çeşitliliğin en az olduğu alanlar akarsuyun kaynak çevresi ve üst çığırı, en fazla olduğu alanlar alt ve orta çığırdır. Beta çeşitlilik ise üst çığırda yüksek, antropojenik faaliyetlerin hakim olduğu alt ve orta kesimlerde düşüktür. Kargı Çayı’nda alfa ve beta çeşitlilik orta kesimde az, yukarı ve aşağı çığırlarda fazladır. İki vadinin bitki çeşitliliği Whittaker’ın gama çeşitlilik (γ) indisi kullanılarak karşılaştırılmış ve Kargı Çayı vadisi korumada öncelikli alan olarak belirlenmiştir. 

DOI :10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056   IUP :10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056    Tam Metin (PDF)

Primary Conservation Area Selection with Biodiversity Indices: A Case Study on the Kargı and Karpuz River Valleys (Mediterranean Region–Turkey)

Seda Akkurt GümüşMeral Avcı

Diversity components are explained with different concepts, approaches, and methods. Biodiversity conservation in specific areas of rich plant species diversity and endemism rate in Turkey is significant enough to be managed sustainably. Identifying biodiversity at different scales is one of the most critical steps before implementing protection measures. In the Mediterranean region, plant species are in danger due to various factors: expansion of urban areas, rapid population growth, and fire. Against these threats, it will be a useful initiative to focus on areas with diverse species and to give priority to conservation in these regions. In this study, plant species diversity was calculated with the alpha (α) and beta (β) biodiversity indices, using data collected from fieldwork in the two river valleys, Kargı and Karpuz. The Shannon–Wiener index (αH) was used for alpha species diversity, and Whittaker’s index (βw) was preferred for the beta diversity index. As a result, the areas with the least alpha diversity in the Karpuz River valley are the source and the upper course of the river and the areas with the highest diversity are the lower and middle courses. Beta diversity is high in the upper course and less in the lower and middle courses where anthropogenic activities are dominant. In contrast, in the Kargı River valley, alpha and beta diversity is low in the middle part and more in the upper and lower courses. For all plant species diversity of the two valleys, Whittaker’s gamma diversity index (γ) was used and the Kargı River valley was identified as the priority area for conservation.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Biodiversity models are mostly used in the identification of areas where the species show high variation, i.e., richness, to determine the priority areas in conservation plans. The method selection and size of the study area is selected according to the purpose of the study to be performed. 

The process of inventory creation, which forms the basis of biodiversity calculations, requires many preliminary studies such as limiting the study area, selecting sample areas, and determining the plants to be included in the diversity. In this study, the two river valleys were compared in terms of the plant species richness to discover the area that should initially be protected in the conservation plans. The sampled valleys were Kargı and Karpuz, where the streams take their resources from the south of the Central Taurus Mountains and drain their waters into the Mediterranean Sea. The Kargı River valley, which has 26 nationally rare species taxa and has no official protection status, faces the threat of tourism and urbanization. The river is in the region defined as the Toros Mountains Plant Diversity Center (SWA No. 15). The Karpuz River valley surrounded by large settlements such as Manavgat is also at risk for the same reasons. The Karpuz River valley also has no official protection status.

In this study, the Shannon–Wiener indice (αH) was used to define alpha (α) diversity, Whittaker’s beta diversity indice (βw) was used for beta (β) diversity, and Whittaker’s gamma diversity (γ) index was used for gamma diversity. With fieldwork conducted in the same phenological period in the two river valleys, the rates of the coverage area and habitat characteristics of each plant layer (herbaceous, shrub, and woody plant species) in the sample areas were recorded and coded. Before the field study, valleys were divided into 10 × 10 m2 grids by Fishnet in the GIS environment. Sample area determination was used only as a reference; main sampling sites were created in places with high plant species diversity and abundance, with observations in fieldwork. A total of 175 different plant species were identified in 160 sample areas (80 each in the per valley), and the density ratio of each species was recorded.

The high alpha diversity areas in the Karpuz River were ÖA3A, ÖA5B, ÖA14A, ÖA1A, and ÖA8A; low alpha plant diversity was determined in the sample areas of ÖA7B, ÖA11D, ÖA10D, ÖA19D, and ÖA20C. All the sample areas with low diversity were relatively close to the settlements. High beta diversity values were calculated in ÖA14, ÖA3, Ö6, Ö18, and ÖA11. Low beta diversity values were calculated in ÖA2 and ÖA9, ÖA13, ÖA10, and ÖA12. ÖA2, which was one of the sample areas with low beta diversity, is in the middle of the stream bed and forest area with low coverage. The beta value is associated with the distance or proximity to human activities along with the natural ecological conditions. In the Karpuz River valley, nearby sample areas such as Hacıoba, Uzunlar, and Gençler had low diversity values. High beta values were identified in the sample areas surrounded by Pinus brutia forests in the central part of the valley, Ahmetler, and north Güçlüköy.

The high alpha diversity values in Kargı River were ÖA18 and ÖA20A, ÖA8A, ÖA9A, and ÖA11A. The low alpha diversity values were in ÖA17C, ÖA15C, ÖA1D, Ö17B, and ÖA17D. The areas with low value are in the middle of the stream bed near the Dereköy settlement, where the grazing and livestock activities have gained intensity. In Kargı River, beta diversity was high in ÖA8, ÖA3, ÖA4, ÖA10, and ÖA20; it was low in ÖA13 and ÖA15, ÖA17, and ÖA16. Almost all the areas with reduced diversity coincide with the middle of the river valley.

In the areas close to the source and the estuary of the Kargı River valley, plant diversity was high. The slope is quite steep in the middle part of the stream, making it difficult for plant growth. There are dense Pinus brutia forests in relatively flat areas with deep soils. The forest cover of coniferous species is weaker in species diversity. Another reason is that different types of plants can settle in larger areas where the riverbed width is relatively increased. According to the gamma results, which are evaluated by considering the whole valleys, the Kargı River valley has more diversity than the Karpuz River valley, so it should be protected first.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Anderson, M. J., Crist, T. O., Freestone, A. L. & Sanders, N. J. (2011). Navigating the multiple meanings of β-diversity: a roadmap for the practising ecologist. Ecology Letters, 14, 19–28. google scholar
  • Avcı, M. (2018). Ekosistem Coğrafyası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Açık ve Uzaktan Eğitim Fakültesi, Coğrafya Lisans Programı, İstanbul. google scholar
  • Boulos, L., Miller, A. G. & Mill, R. R. (1994). Regional overview South West Asia and the Middle East. Centers of Plant Diversity I (Ed. S.D. Davis, V.H. Heywood and A.C. Hamilton), WWF and IUCN, U.K., 293–308. google scholar
  • Buckley, L. B. & Jetz, W. (2007). Environmental and historical constraints on global patterns of amphibian richness. Proceedings Biological Science/The Royal Society, 274, 1167–1173. google scholar
  • Cayuela, L., Benayas, J. M. R., Justel, A. & Salas-Rey, J. (2006). Modelling tree diversity in a highly fragmented tropical montane landscape. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15(6), 602–613. google scholar
  • Cody, M. L. (1975). Towards a theory of continental species diversities: bird distributions over mediterranean habitat gradients, Ecology and Evolution of Communities, (Ed: Cody, M.L. & Diamond, J.M.), Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 214–275. google scholar
  • Condit, R., Pitman, N., Egbert, G., Leigh, J., Chave, J., Terborgh, J., Foster, R., Nunez, V., Aguilar, V., Valencia, R., Villa, G., Muller-Landau, H., Losos, E. & Hubbel, H. (2002). Beta- diversity in Tropical forest trees. Science, 295, 666–669. google scholar
  • Davis, P. H. (1965-1985). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Edinburgh University Press, Vol: 1-9, Edinburgh. google scholar
  • Davis, P. H., Mill, R. R., Tan, K., (1998). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands (Supplement 1). Edinburgh University Press, Vol: 10, Edinburgh. google scholar
  • Duman, H. (2005). Kargı Çayı vadisi, Türkiye’nin 122 Önemli Bitki Alanı, (Ed: N. Özhatay, A. Byfield, S. Atay), WWF Türkiye (Doğal Hayatı Koruma Vakfı) Yayını, İstanbul, 231–232. google scholar
  • Fortin, M. & Dale, M. R. T. (2005). Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists, Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Gaston, K. J. (2010). Biodiversity, Conservation Biology for All (Ed. Sodhi, N.S. ve Ehrlich, P.R.). Oxford University Press Inc., New York. google scholar
  • Groombridge, B. & Jenkins, M. D. (2002). World Atlas of Biodiversity. UNEP, University of California Press, USA. google scholar
  • Gueze, M., Paneque-Galvez, C., Luz, A.C., Pino, J., Orto-Martines, M., Reyes-Garcia, V. & Manuel, J. (2013). Determinants of tree species turnover in southern Amazonian rain forest. Journal of Vegetation Science, 24, 284–295. google scholar
  • Gülsoy, S. & Özkan, K. (2008). Tür çeşitliliğinin ekolojik açıdan önemi ve kullanılan bazı indisler. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, A(1): 168–178. google scholar
  • Güner, A., Özhatay, N., Ekim, T. & Başer, K. H. C. (2000). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands (Supplement 2). Edinburgh University Press, Vol: 11, Edinburgh. google scholar
  • Harrison, S., Ross, S. J. & Lawton, J. H. (1992). Beta diversity on geographic gradients in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology, 61(1), 151–158. google scholar
  • Hui, C. (2015). Unlocking Patterns of Nature- The Marriage of Mathematics and Ecology, Sun Media Press. google scholar
  • Jost, L. (2007). Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology, 88(10), 2427–2439. google scholar
  • Jurasinski, G., Retzer, V. & Beierkuhnlein, C. (2009). Inventory, differentiation, and proportional diversity: a consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity. Oecologia, 159, 15–26. google scholar
  • Keil, P., Schweiger, O., Kühn, I., Kunin, W. E., Kuussaari, M., Settele, J., Henle, K., Brotons, L., Pe’er, G., Lengyel, S., Moustakas, A., Steinicke, H. & Storch, D. (2012). Patterns of beta diversity in Europe: the role of climate, land cover and distance across scales. Journal of Biogeography, 39, 1473–1486. google scholar
  • Koleff, P., Gaston, K. J. & Lennon, J. J. (2003). Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. Journal of Animal Ecology, 72, 367–382. google scholar
  • Legendre, P., Borcard, D. & Peres-Neto, P. P. (2005). Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecological Monographs, 75(4), 435–450. google scholar
  • Legendre, P., Mi, X., Ren, H., Ma, K., Yu, M., Sun, I.F. & He, F. (2009). Partitioning beta diversity in a subtropical broad-leaved forest in China. Ecology, 90, 663–674. google scholar
  • Loreau, M. (2000). Are communities saturated? on the relationship between α, β and γ diversity. Ecology Letters, 3(2), 73–76. google scholar
  • MacArthur, R. H. (1965). Patterns of species diversity. Biological Reviews, 40, 510–533. google scholar
  • Magurran, A. E. (2005). Species abundance distributions pattern or process?. Functional Ecology, 19(1), 177–181. google scholar
  • Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B. & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8): e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127 google scholar
  • Negiz, M. G. (2013). Gölhisar (Burdur) Yöresinde Odunsu Tür Çeşitliliği ile Yetişme Ortamı Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkiler, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi. google scholar
  • Negiz, M. G. & Özkan, K. (2016). The relationships between beta plant diversity and climatic variables: a case study in Kuyucak mountain district. GEOMED 2016 Bildiri Özetleri Kitabı, 218. google scholar
  • Neilan, W. L., Barton, P. S., McAlpine, C. A., Wood, J. T. & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2019). Contrasting effects of mosaic structure on alpha and beta diversity of bird assemblages in a human-modified landscape.Ecography, 42(1), 173–186. google scholar
  • Nekola, J. C. & White, P. S. (1999). The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology, Journal of Biogeography, 26(4), 867-878. google scholar
  • Özkan, K. (2010). Orman ekosistem çeşitliliği haritalama çalışmaları için ekolojik alan çeşitliliğinin belirlenmesi üzerine bir öneri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, A(2), 136–148. google scholar
  • Özkan, K. (2016), Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Bileşenleri (α, ß ve γ) Nasıl Ölçülür, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Yayınevi, Isparta. google scholar
  • Pimm, S. L. & Gittleman, J. L. (1992). Biological diversity: where is it?. Science, 255(5047), 940. google scholar
  • Pinto-Ledezma, J. N., Larkin, D. J. & Cavender-Bares, J. (2018). Patterns of beta diversity of vascular plants and their correspondence with biome boundaries across North America. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 1–13. google scholar
  • Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J. J., Kunin, W. E. & Edwards, D. P. (2016). How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(1), 67–80. google scholar
  • Tuomisto, H. (2010a). A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity, Ecography, 33(1), 2–22. google scholar
  • Tuomisto, H. (2010b). A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. Ecography, 33, 23–45. google scholar
  • Veech, J. A. & Crist, T. O. (2007). Diversity partitioning without statistical independence of alpha and beta. Ecology, 91(7), 1964–1969. google scholar
  • Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. (2003). Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature, 424, 1035–1037. google scholar
  • Wang, Z., Fang, J., Tang, Z. & Shi, L. (2012). Geographical patterns in the beta diversity of China’s woody plants: the influence of space, environment and range size. Ecography, 35, 1092–1102. google scholar
  • Westhoff, V. & Maarel, E. van der (1980). The Braun-Blanquet Approach. Classification of Plants Communities (Ed. R.J. Whittaker): 287-399. The Haque: Dr. W. Junk bv Publishers. google scholar
  • Whittaker, R. H. (1960). Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs, 30, 279–338. google scholar
  • Whittaker, R. H. (1972). Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon, 21, 213–251. google scholar
  • Wilson, M. V. & Shmida, A. (1984). Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. Journal of Ecology, 72, 1055–1064. google scholar
  • Zhang, Q., Hou X., Li F.Y., Niu J., Zhou Y., Ding Y. (2014). Alpha, beta and gamma diversity differ in response to precipitation in the inner Mongolia grassland. Plos One, 9(3), 1–9. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Akkurt Gümüş, S., & Avcı, M. (2020). Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye). Coğrafya Dergisi, 0(41), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


AMA

Akkurt Gümüş S, Avcı M. Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye). Coğrafya Dergisi. 2020;0(41):147-164. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


ABNT

Akkurt Gümüş, S.; Avcı, M. Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye). Coğrafya Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 41, p. 147-164, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Akkurt Gümüş, Seda, and Meral Avcı. 2020. “Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye).” Coğrafya Dergisi 0, no. 41: 147-164. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


Chicago: Humanities Style

Akkurt Gümüş, Seda, and Meral Avcı. Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye).” Coğrafya Dergisi 0, no. 41 (Jul. 2022): 147-164. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


Harvard: Australian Style

Akkurt Gümüş, S & Avcı, M 2020, 'Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye)', Coğrafya Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 41, pp. 147-164, viewed 4 Jul. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Akkurt Gümüş, S. and Avcı, M. (2020) ‘Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye)’, Coğrafya Dergisi, 0(41), pp. 147-164. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056 (4 Jul. 2022).


MLA

Akkurt Gümüş, Seda, and Meral Avcı. Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye).” Coğrafya Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 41, 2020, pp. 147-164. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


Vancouver

Akkurt Gümüş S, Avcı M. Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye). Coğrafya Dergisi [Internet]. 4 Jul. 2022 [cited 4 Jul. 2022];0(41):147-164. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056 doi: 10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056


ISNAD

Akkurt Gümüş, Seda - Avcı, Meral. Biyoçeşitlilik İndisleri Kullanılarak Öncelikli Koruma Alanı Seçimine Bir Örnek: Kargı Çayı ve Karpuz Çayı Vadileri (Akdeniz Bölgesi-Türkiye)”. Coğrafya Dergisi 0/41 (Jul. 2022): 147-164. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2020-0056



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim02.07.2020
Kabul30.09.2020
Çevrimiçi Yayınlanma22.12.2020

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.