SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse-Based Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) Seedling Production

Sera Koşullarında Lavanta (Lavandula angustifolia) Fide Üretiminin Karbon Ayak İzi

Meryem Şahin(BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0009-9460-7391
Gülçin Akgören Palabıyık(BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5354-2346
Pages
301–311
Publication Date
2026-05-31
🏛️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 results showed that water consumption and electricity use were the dominant contributors to total emissions, whereas agricultural inputs and transportation had relatively minor impacts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Lavender ( Lavandula angustifolia ) is widely recognized as a low-input and environmentally adaptable plant; however, the environmental impacts associated with greenhouse-based seedling production remain insufficiently quantified.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The system boundary was limited to operational processes within a single production cycle, and emissions were calculated using activity data and emission factors derived from the IDEMAT 2025 database.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that water consumption and electricity use were the dominant contributors to total emissions, whereas agricultural inputs and transportation had relatively minor impacts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Karbon ayak izi · Lavanta · Sera üretimi

Abstract

Lavender ( Lavandula angustifolia ) is widely recognized as a low-input and environmentally adaptable plant; however, the environmental impacts associated with greenhouse-based seedling production remain insufficiently quantified. This study aimed to evaluate the carbon footprint of lavender seedling production under greenhouse conditions using a life cycle-based approach. This study provides a focused assessment of the seedling production stage, which is often overlooked in life cycle-based evaluations of agricultural systems. The system boundary was limited to operational processes within a single production cycle, and emissions were calculated using activity data and emission factors derived from the IDEMAT 2025 database. Primary data were collected from a 200 m 2 greenhouse facility, including water consumption, electricity use, agricultural inputs, transportation, and waste management processes. Emission calculations were performed using relevant emission factors to estimate total greenhouse gas emissions in CO 2 -equivalent terms. The total carbon footprint was calculated as 265.32 kg CO 2 -eq per production cycle, corresponding to 0.03 kg CO 2 -eq per seedling. The results showed that water consumption and electricity use were the dominant contributors to total emissions, whereas agricultural inputs and transportation had relatively minor impacts. Negative emission values associated with waste management and end-of-life processes reflect emission savings (avoided emissions) achieved through recovery and recycling processes within the system. These findings demonstrate that emission intensity in greenhouse-based lavender seedling production is highly dependent on resource use, particularly water and energy. Improving irrigation efficiency and optimizing energy use are critical for reducing carbon emissions. These approaches also support the development of sustainable and resource-efficient agricultural production systems.

Özet

Lavanta (Lavandula angustifolia), düşük girdi gereksinimi ve çevresel koşullara yüksek uyum kapasitesi nedeniyle sürdürülebilir tarım sistemlerinde önemli bir bitki olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bununla birlikte, sera koşullarında gerçekleştirilen fide üretiminin çevresel etkileri yeterince ortaya konulmamıştır. Bu çalışmada, sera koşullarında lavanta fide üretiminin karbon ayak izi, yaşam döngüsü temelli bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışma, tarımsal üretim sistemlerinde yeterince ele alınmayan fide üretim aşamasına odaklanmaktadır. Sistem sınırları, tek bir üretim döngüsü boyunca gerçekleşen operasyonel süreçlerle sınırlandırılmış olup, emisyonlar faaliyet verileri ve IDEMAT 2025 veri tabanından elde edilen emisyon faktörleri kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan birincil veriler, 200 m 2 büyüklüğündeki bir serada gerçekleştirilen üretim sürecine ait su tüketimi, elektrik kullanımı, tarımsal girdiler, taşımacılık ve atık yönetimi süreçlerini kapsamaktadır. Toplam karbon ayak izi, üretim döngüsü başına 265.32 kg CO 2 -eşd. olarak hesaplanmış olup, fide başına düşen değer 0.03 kg CO 2 -eşd. olarak belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, toplam emisyonlar içerisinde su tüketimi ve elektrik kullanımının baskın olduğunu, buna karşılık tarımsal girdiler ve taşımacılığın sınırlı katkı sağladığını göstermektedir. Atık yönetimi ve yaşam sonu süreçlerine ilişkin negatif emisyon değerleri, sistem içinde geri kazanım ve yeniden kullanım yoluyla sağlanan emisyon azaltımlarını (kaçınılan emisyonları) ifade etmektedir Elde edilen bulgular, sera koşullarında lavanta fidanı üretiminde emisyon yoğunluğunun, özellikle su ve enerji olmak üzere kaynak kullanımına büyük ölçüde bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Sulama verimliliğinin artırılması ve enerji kullanımının optimize edilmesi, karbon emisyonlarının azaltılması için kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu yaklaşımlar ayrıca sürdürülebilir ve kaynak etkin tarımsal üretim sistemlerinin geliştirilmesini de desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahin, M., Palabıyık, G. A. (2026). Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse-Based Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) Seedling Production. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.35193/bseufbd.1913120

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (27)

  1. IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
  2. Kazemian, S., Zaman, R., Iranmanesh, M., & Sanusi, Z. M. (2025). Assessing the carbon footprint of the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry of Australia. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 16(5), 1243-1268.
  3. Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In C.C. Pertsova (Ed.), Ecological economics research trends (pp. 1-11). Nova Science Publishers.
  4. Miao, Z., Zhao, Z., Long, T., & Chen, X. (2023). Carbon footprint in agriculture sector: a literature review. Carbon Footprints, 2(3).
  5. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20260–20264.
  6. Alhajj Ali, S., Tedone, L., Verdini, L., & De Mastro, G. (2017). Effect of different crop management systems on rainfed durum wheat greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint under Mediterranean conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 608–621.
  7. Xiao, C., Zhang, F., Li, Y., Fan, J., Ji, Q., Jiang, F., & He, Z. (2024). Optimizing drip irrigation and nitrogen fertilization regimes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint in saline cotton fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 366, 108912.
  8. Novak, J., & Blüthner, W.D. (eds) (2020) Medicinal, aromatic and stimulant plants. Springer, Berlin.
  9. Kuzma, S., Bierkens, M. F., Lakshman, S., Luo, T., Saccoccia, L., Sutanudjaja, E. H., & Van Beek, R. (2023). Aqueduct 4.0: Updated decision-relevant global water risk indicators. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute.
  10. World Resources Institute (WRI). (2019). Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas. https://www.wri.org/aqueduct
  11. Guinée, J. B. (2002). Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  12. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1-21.
  13. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, 100-112.
  14. Hess, T., Martin, H., Gage, E., & Falagán, N. (2026). How green are my apples? The greenhouse gas emissions and blue water scarcity footprint of fresh apple supply chain. Agricultural Water Management, 323, 110070.
  15. Kayahan, N., & Çarman, K. (2023). Determination of waste potential and emissions in crop and animal production in Konya Province. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 11(7), 1215-1221.
  16. Platis, D. P., Menexes, G. C., Anagnostopoulos, C. D., Tsaboula, A. D., Kalburtji, K. L., & Mamolos, A. P. (2025). Assessing agricultural sustainability: analysis of energy use, carbon and water footprint to maintain ecosystem services in Larissa, Greece. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 10(5), 607-622.
  17. Delft University of Technology. (2025). IDEMAT database (Version 2025). Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. https://www.ecocostsvalue.com.
  18. ISO (2006). Environmental management -Life cycle assessment- Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
  19. Abdo, A. I., Tian, M., Shi, Z., Sun, D., Abdel-Fattah, M. K., Zhang, J., Wei, H., & Abdeen, M. A. (2024). Carbon footprint of global rice production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 474, 143560.
  20. Porkka, M., Gerte,n D., Schaphoff, S., Siebert, S., Kummu, M. (2016) Causes and trends of water scarcity in food production. Environmental Research Letters, 11(1): 015001.
  21. Qin, J., Duan, W., Zou, S., Chen, Y., Huang, W., & Rosa, L. (2024). Global energy use and carbon emissions from irrigated agriculture. Nature Communications, 15(1), 3084.
  22. Liu, S., Cui, S., Adamowski, J. F., Wu, N., Wu, M., Zhang, P., & Cao, X. (2024). Assessing the impact of various irrigation technologies on agricultural production: A water-energy carbon nexus perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 954, 176809.
  23. Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Angulo-Meza, L., Iriarte, A., & González-Araya, M. C. (2017). Joint carbon footprint assessment and data envelopment analysis for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture production. Science of the Total Environment, 593–594, 36–46.
  24. Avramidou, G., Platis, D.P., Menexes, G.C., Anagnostopoulos,.CD., Tsaboula, A.D., Kalburtji, K.L., Mamolos, A.P. (2024) Evaluation and selection of aromatic plants based on agri-environmental indicators. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
  25. Balbay, Ş. (2022). AB Yeşil Mutabakatı’nda sıfır atık projesi ve döngüsel ekonomi modeli nerede? T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı, Ankara.
  26. Akgören Palabıyık, G (2023) Tarımda sürdürülebilirlik: Konvansiyonel tarıma sürdürülebilir yaklaşımlar. In: Endüstriyel sürdürülebilirlik ve döngüsel ekonomi uygulamaları. 31-42. Detay Yayıncılık.
  27. Avramidou, G., Platis, D.P., Menexes, G.C., Anagnostopoulos,.CD., Tsaboula, A.D., Kalburtji, K.L., Mamolos, A.P. (2024) Evaluation and selection of aromatic plants based on agri-environmental indicators. Environment, Development and Sustainability.