Journals / Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 41

Assessment of Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Viticulture Production Model with Reduced Field Traffic and Mechanical Weed Management

Azaltılmış Tarla Trafiği ve Mekanik Yabancı Ot Yönetimi ile Bağcılık Üretim Modelinde Sera Gazı Emisyonlarına Etkilerin Değerlendirilmesi

Ersin Karacabey(Manisa Bağcılık Araştırma Enstitüsü)0000-0003-4166-1553
Oğuzhan Soltekin(Manisa Bağcılık Araştırma Enstitüsü)0000-0001-7886-6531
Pınar Doğan(Manisa Bağcılık Araştırma Enstitüsü)0000-0001-6460-7264
Nurdan Güngör Savaş(Manisa Bağcılık Araştırma Enstitüsü)0000-0002-3450-4747
Mahmut Aşık(Manisa Bağcılık Araştırma Enstitüsü)0009-0006-0205-5197
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The total seasonal emission under controlled conditions was calculated as 62.2 kg CO₂e per decare, which was 45.9% lower than that observed under typical grower conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Viticulture is one of the agricultural production systems with the highest input use, exerting significant impacts on soil and the environment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In vineyards, repeated tillage operations interrows and intrarows lead to increased soil degradation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The total seasonal emission under controlled conditions was calculated as 62.2 kg CO₂e per decare, which was 45.9% lower than that observed under typical grower conditions.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bağcılık · Üretim modeli · Çevresel etki

Abstract

Viticulture is one of the agricultural production systems with the highest input use, exerting significant impacts on soil and the environment. Among these impacts, the use of agricultural inputs such as pesticides, fertilizers, and water plays a major role; however, intensive energy consumption resulting from irrigation electricity and fuel use in agricultural machinery also contributes substantially to environmental effects. In vineyards, repeated tillage operations interrows and intrarows lead to increased soil degradation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, the production and application of agrochemicals used for crop protection and weed control during the production period are known to have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, achieving sustainable and environmentally friendly grape production requires minimizing input and energy consumption while maintaining yield and fruit quality. In this study, conducted in a vineyard producing raisin in Manisa Province (Türkiye), a production model involving reduced soil intervention and mechanical weed control was evaluated. Basic input and energy use levels during the production period were quantified, their effects on greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using fundamental mathematical models and conversion factors, and the results were compared with conventional grower practices. Measurement and calculation results revealed that fuel consumption was the primary source of CO₂ emissions, followed by irrigation, pesticide, and fertilizer applications. The total seasonal emission under controlled conditions was calculated as 62.2 kg CO₂e per decare, which was 45.9% lower than that observed under typical grower conditions.

Özet

Bağcılık, tarımsal faaliyetler içerisinde en fazla girdi kullanımının gerçekleştiği üretim şekillerinden biri olarak toprak ve çevre üzerinde önemli etkilere sahiptir. Bu etkiler arasında ilaç, gübre, su gibi girdilerin kullanımı önemli paya sahip olmakla birlikte tarımsal sulamada tüketilen elektrik enerjisi ve tarım makinaları kullanımından kaynaklı yakıt tüketimi gibi yoğun enerji kullanımının da çevresel etkileri bulunmaktadır. Bağda sıra arası ve üzerinde yapılan toprak işleme faaliyetlerinde toprağa uygulanan çok fazla işlem nedeniyle toprak kayıpları ve sera gazı emisyonları artmaktadır. Üretim periyodu içerisinde ürünün korunması ve yabancı otların kontrolü için kullanılan kimyasalların hem üretiminin hem de kullanımının çevre üzerinde olumsuz etkilere sahip olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu nedenle bağcılık faaliyetlerinde sürdürülebilir ve çevreye duyarlı üretimin gerçekleştirilmesi üründe verim-kalite değerlerinin korunarak girdi ve enerji tüketiminin en düşük seviyede tutulmasıyla mümkün olabilmektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında Manisa ilinde kurutmalık üzüm üretiminin gerçekleştirildiği bir bağda toprağa en az müdahale ve mekanik yöntemle yabancı ot kontrolün sağlanarak üretim periyodu içerisinde temel girdi ve enerji kullanım düzeyleri belirlenmiş, bunların sera gazı emisyonlarına etkileri temel matematik model ve çevrim faktörleri kullanılarak ortaya konulmuş ve üretici şartlarındaki uygulamalarla kıyaslanarak değerlendirilmiştir. Yapılan ölçüm ve hesaplamalar sonucunda bağda CO2 emisyonları üzerine en büyük etkininin yakıt tüketiminden kaynaklı olduğu ve bunu sulama, ilaçlama ve gübreleme uygulamalarının izlediği saptanmıştır. Üretim sezonu boyunca toplam emisyon değerinin 1 dekar alan başına kontrollü şartlar altında 62.2 kg CO2e olarak gerçekleştiği ve bu değerin üretici şartlarında ortaya çıkan emiayon miktarına kıyasla %45.9 oranında daha az olduğu hesaplanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karacabey, E., Soltekin, O., Doğan, P., Savaş, N. G., Aşık, M. (2026). Assessment of Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Viticulture Production Model with Reduced Field Traffic and Mechanical Weed Management. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 41. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.1809215

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. APA, 2023. Fator de emissão de gases de efeito de estufa para a eletricidade produzida em portugal. Agência Portuguesa de Ambiente, Amadora, Portugal.
  2. Bartocci, P., Fantozzi, P., Fantozzi, F., 2017. Environmental impact of Sagrantino and Grechetto grapes cultivation for wine and vinegar production in central Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 140, Part 2, 2017, 569-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.090.
  3. Bosco, S., Di Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D., Massai, R., Bonari, E., 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 2011, 6, 93–100.
  4. Buesa, I., Mirás-Avalos, J. M., De Paz, J. M., Visconti, F., Sanz, F., Yeves, A., Guerra, D., Intrigliolo, D. S., 2021. Soil management in semi-arid vineyards: Combined effects of organic mulching and no-tillage under different water regimes. European Journal of Agronomy, Volume 123, 2021, 126198, ISSN 1161-0301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126198.
  5. Cengiz, A., Çakilli, H., Ateş, Ö., Taşpinar, K., Yalçin, G., Polat, M., Yücel, E., 2025. Effects of different tillage techniques on soil enzymes and organic carbon in semi-arid conditions. Chemistry and Ecology, https://doi: 10.1080/02757540.2025.2533274.
  6. Cheng, K., Pan. G., Smith, P., Luo, T., Li, L., Zheng, J., Xuhui, Z., Han, X., Yan, M., 2011. Carbon footprint of China’s crop production—An estimation using agro-statistics data over 1993–2007. Agr Ecosyst Environ, 142:231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.012
  7. Cheng, K., Yan, M., Nayak, D., Pan, G. X., Smith, P., Zheng, F., Zheng, J. W., 2015. Carbon footprint of crop production in China: an analysis of National Statistics data. J Agric Sci, 153:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859614000665.
  8. Cool Farm Alliance, 2023. Cool Farm Tool. Available from URL: https://coolfarm.org/ (Erişim tarihi: 20 Eylül 2025). Çiçek, G., Sümer, S.K., 2016. Çeltik üretiminde alana bağlı olarak makina sayısındaki değişimin doğrusal denklemler yardımı ile incelenmesi. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 31 (2016): 233-239.
  9. Da Silva, L. P., da Silva, J. C. G. E., 2022., Evaluation of the carbon footprint of the life cycle of wine production: a review. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2022, 2, 100021.
  10. Ghiglieno, I., Simonetto, A., Facciano, L., Tonni, M., Donna, P., Valenti, L., Gilioli, G., 2023. Comparing the carbon footprint of conventional and organic vineyards in northern Italy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5252. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065252.
  11. Gierling, F., Blanke, M. 2021. Lower carbon footprint from grapevine cultivation on steep slopes compared with flat terrain? A case study. Acta Hortic. 1327, 703-706 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1327.93
  12. Grosso, S. J. D., Parton, W. J., Adler, P. R., Davis, S. C., Keough, C., Marx, E., 2012. DayCent model simulations for estimating soil carbon dynamics and greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural production systems. Book Chapter, Elsevier Inc., New York, 241-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-386897-8.00014-0.
  13. Hefler, Y. T., Kissinger, M., 2023. Grape wine cultivation carbon foot print: embracing a life cycle approach across climatic zones. Agriculture, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020303.
  14. IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). Hayama, Japan.
  15. IPCC, 2023. Emission factor database with minor processing by our world in data. Available from URL: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-dioxide-emissions-factor (Erişim tarihi: 20 Eylül 2025).
  16. Laca, A., Gancedo, S., Laca, A., Díaz, M., 2021. Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with vineyards and winemaking. A case study in mountain areas. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 1204–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10567-9.
  17. Lal, R., 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International, 30, 981–990. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.005.
  18. Lazcano, C., Gonzalez-Maldonado, N., Yao, E. H., Wong, C. T. F., Falcone, M., Peterson, J. D., Casassa, L. F., Malama, B., Decock, C., 2022. Assessing the short-term effects of no-till on crop yield,greenhouse gas emissions, and soil c and n pools ina cover-cropped, biodynamic mediterranean vineyard. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Volume 2022, Article ID 8100818, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8100818.
  19. Nelson, G. C., Robertson, R., Msangi, S., Zhu, T., Liao, X., Jawajar, P., 2009. Greenhouse gas mitigation ıssues for Indian agriculture. IFPRID Discussion Paper 00900, 1–52.
  20. Neto, B., Dias, A. C., Machado, M., 2013. Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of a Portuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 590–602 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0518-4.
  21. Marras, S., Masia, S., Duce, P., Spano, D., Sirca, C., 2015. Carbon footprint assessment on a mature vineyard. Agric Meteorol, 214–215:350–356. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agrformet. 2015.08.270.
  22. OECD&IEA, 2004. Energy statistics manual. France (URL: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2004/11/energy-statistics-manual_g1gh4bd8/9789264033986-en.pdf).
  23. OIV, 2017. International organization of vine and wine 2017: Methodological recommendations for accounting for GHG balance in the vitivinicultural sector. OIV Collective expertise.
  24. Point, E., Tyedmers, P., Naugler, C., 2012. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 27, 2012, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.035.
  25. Pölz, W., Rosner, F. G., 2023. Calculation of the CO2 footprint using the example of Austrian wine. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg, 73 (2023): 152–167.
  26. Soltekin, O., Altındişli, A., İşçi, B., 2021. İklim değişikliğinin Türkiye’de bağcılık üzerine etkileri. Ege Univ. Ziraat Fak. Derg., 58 (3):457-467. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.882893.
  27. Steenwerth, K. L., Strong, E. B., Greenhut, R. F., Williams, L., Kendall, A., 2015. Life cycle greenhouse gas, energy, and water assessment of wine grape production in California. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 20, 1243–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0935-2
  28. Süer, S., Keskin, N., 2023. Sürdürülebilir bağ ve şarap turizmi uygulamaları. Bahçe 52 (Özel Sayı 1): 258–268. Taylor’s, 2018. Carbon footprint. Retrieved from URL: https://www.taylor.pt/en/about/sustainable-practices/carbon-footprint (September 29, 2025).
  29. Tomaz, A., Dôres, J., Martins, I., Catarino, A., Boteta, L., Santos, M., Patanita, M., Palma, P., 2025. Water and carbon footprints in irrigated vineyards: an on-farm assessment. Irrig Sci 43, 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-024-00926-6.
  30. Vázquez-Rowe, I., Rugani, B., Benetto, E., 2013. Tapping carbon footprint variations in the European wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 43, 146-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.036.
  31. West, T.O., Marland, G. 2002. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 91:217–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(01) 00233-X.
  32. Yalçın, M., Arslanoğlu, M. C., 2018. Traktörle arazide çalışmada yerinde yakıt tüketiminin ölçülebilirliği. Tarım Makinaları Bilimi Dergisi, 14 (3): 189-192.
  33. Zoldoske, D. F., Norum, E. M., 1997. Final report. progress report on the lehman farms project: a case study in the conversion of an old vineyard from flood to surface drip (sdi) and subsurface drip (ssdi) irrigation. Center for Irrig. Tech., Pub. No:970702, Fresno, Calif: California State University.