Journals / International Journal of Life Sciences and Biotechnology / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Encroachment of the Rangelands by Invasive Plant Species in Humid Mezotermal Climate Zone: The Case of Dırazlar Rangeland

Nemli Mezotermal İklim Kuşağındaki Meraların İstilacı Bitki Türleri Tarafından İstilası: Dırazlar Merası Örneği

Ferat Uzun(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversity, Agricultural Faculty, Field Crop Department, Forage and rangeland)0000-0001-7389-5835
Bengisu Acar(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0005-3997-9177
Pages
124–133
Publication Date
2026-08-17
🏛️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)

If this cannot be achieved, the vegetation of this rangeland, which has lost 62.25% of its quality plants and is projected to continue to do so, should be completely renewed to utilize the area's full potential.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study was to obtain the necessary data for studies to increase the productivity of the Dırazlar village rangeland.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It was determined that 46.50% of the plant species in the rangeland were shrubs and trees, and 15.75% were herbaceous invaders.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:If this cannot be achieved, the vegetation of this rangeland, which has lost 62.25% of its quality plants and is projected to continue to do so, should be completely renewed to utilize the area's full potential.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mera durumu · meralarda bozulma · mera ıslahı

Abstract

The aim of the study was to obtain the necessary data for studies to increase the productivity of the Dırazlar village rangeland. It was determined that 46.50% of the plant species in the rangeland were shrubs and trees, and 15.75% were herbaceous invaders. The ratios of decreaser and increaser plant species observed in the vegetation were 13.75% and 24.00%, respectively. Only cattle breeding was carried out in the village, the majority of which is Simmental breed. In its current state, the rangeland had lost more than half of its ability to provide grazing animals with a forage source. It can be argued that the abandonment of raising other livestock species, particularly goats, in the village has led to grazing pressure being directed solely at certain herbaceous plant species, driven by the natural preferences of cattle, creating a competitive advantage in the vegetation for invasive species. The obtained study data, information obtained from village residents regarding the rangeland's history, and the literature reviewed indicate that to maximize the current and sustainable use of the rangeland, it is necessary to also raise other animal species, at least goats, in the village if possible. This is the most economical and ecological method to prevent woody plant species from invading the rangeland. If this cannot be achieved, the vegetation of this rangeland, which has lost 62.25% of its quality plants and is projected to continue to do so, should be completely renewed to utilize the area's full potential.

Özet

Çalışma ile Dırazlar köyü merasının verimliliğinin artırılmasına yönelik çalışmalar için gerekli verilerin elde edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Meradaki bitki türlerinin %46.50’si çalı-ağaç, %15.75’i ise otsu istilacılardan oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Vejetasyonda gözlenen azalıcı ve çoğalıcı bitki türlerinin oranları ise sırasıyla %13.75 ve %24.00’tür. Köyde, büyük çoğunluğu Simental ırk olmak üzere yalnızca büyükbaş hayvan yetiştiriciliği yapılmaktadır. Bu haliyle çalışılan mera, kaba yem kaynağı olarak otlayan hayvanlara fayda sağlayabilme kabiliyetinin yarısından daha fazlasını kaybetmiştir. Köyde başta keçi olmak üzere diğer hayvan türlerinin yetiştiriciliğinin terkedilmesine bağlı olarak otlatma baskısının sadece sığırların fıtri tercihlerine bağlı olarak belli otsu bitki türleri üzerine yönlenmesi, istilacı türlerin lehine vejetasyonda rekabet avantajı sağladığı söylenilebilir. Elde edilen çalışma verileri, meranın geçmişine yönelik köy sakinlerinden elde edilen bilgiler ve incelenen literatürler, meradan mevcut haliyle maksimum faydanın sağlanması ve bunun sürdürülebilirliği için köyde mümkünse diğer hayvan türlerinin de, en azından keçi yetiştiriciliğinin sağlanması gerekliliğini işaret etmektedir. Özellikle odunsu bitki türlerinin meraları istila etmelerinin engellenmesinin en ekonomik ve ekolojik yöntemi budur. Eğer bu sağlanamazsa kaliteli bitkilerinin % 62.25’ini kaybetmiş ve kaybetmeye de devam edeceği öngörülen bu meradaki bitki örtüsü tamamen yenilenerek verim ve kalite bakımından alanın tüm potansiyelinden faydalanma amacıyla yapay mera kurulması yoluna gidilmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uzun, F., Acar, B. (2026). Encroachment of the Rangelands by Invasive Plant Species in Humid Mezotermal Climate Zone: The Case of Dırazlar Rangeland. International Journal of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.38001/ijlsb.1786600

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. References 1. Ünal, S., ve ark., Interpretations of vegetation changes of some villages rangelands in Çankırı province of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 2011. 16(1): 39-47.
  2. Koç, A. ve S. Kadioglu, Some characteristics of an upland rangeland’s vegetation in the Eastern Anatolia. The 9th European Dry Grassland Meeting. 2012: Greece. p. 19-23.
  3. Alay, F., ve ark., Uzun süreli serbest otlatmanın doğal meralar üzerine etkileri (Effects of long-term free grazing on rangelands). Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2016. 33(1): 116-124. https://doi.org/10.13002/jafag929.
  4. İspirli, K., ve ark., Doğal meralardaki vejetasyon örtüsü ve yapısı üzerine otlatma ve topoğrafyanın etkisi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2016. 3: 14-22. https://doi.org/10.19159/tutad.76350.
  5. Şahinoğlu, O. ve F. Uzun, Taban mera ıslahında farklı metotların etkinliği: I. Agronomik özellikler. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 2016. 31(3), 423-432. doi:org/10.7161/omuanajas.269997.
  6. Uzun, F., F. Alay, ve K. İspirli, Bartın ili meralarının bazı özellikleri. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2016. 3(2): 174-183. doi:10.19159/tutad.54652.
  7. Yıldız, A. ve M.A. Özyazıcı, Karasal iklim kuşağında bulunan bir meranın farklı yöneylerinde botanik kompozisyonun, ot verimi ve ot kalitesinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2017. 4(3): 218-231. doi:org/10.19159/tutad.292549
  8. Palta, Ş. ve A. Genç Lermi, Mera ıslahı uygulamasının değişim seyrinin belirlenmesi: Bartın ili Serdar köyü örneği. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2019. 7 (2): 229–238. doi:10.33202/comuagri.567199.
  9. Uzun, F. ve N. Ocak, Some vegetation characteristics of rangelands subjected to different grazing pressures with single-or multispecies of animals for a long time (A case of Zonguldak province, Turkey). Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 2019. 34(3): 360-370. doi:10.7161/omuanajas.492494.
  10. Fuhlendorf, S.D., Ecological considerations for woody plant management. Rangelands, 1999. 2(1): 12-15.
  11. Archer, S.R., Rangeland conservation and shrub encroachment: New perspectives on an old problem, Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife While Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystems, J.T. Toit, R. Kock and J.C. Deutsch, Editors. 2010. John Wiley &Sons. Chichester, UK. P. 53–97. ISBN (Print): 9781405177856
  12. Conti, G. and Fagarazzi, L. Sustainable mountain development and the key-issue of abandonment of marginal rural areas. Planum, 2004. 11: 1-20.
  13. Preiss, E., Martin, J.L. ve M. Debussche, Rural depopulation and recent landscape changes in a Mediterranean region: consequences to the breeding avifauna. Landscape Ecology, 1997. 12: 51-61. doi.org/10.1007/BF02698207.
  14. Naito, A.T., and D.M. Cairns, Patterns and processes of global shrub expansion. Progress in Physical Geography, 2011. 35(4): 423–442. doi.org/10.1177/030913331140353.
  15. Uzun, F., A.V. Garipoğlu, ve H.B. Dönmez, Mera yabancı otlarının kontrolünde keçilerin kullanımı. Uluslararası Tarım ve Yaban Hayatı Bilimleri Dergisi, 2015. 1(1): 40-50.
  16. Archer, S., Woody plant encroachment into Southwestern grasslands and savannas: Rates, patterns and proximate causes. In Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west, M. Vavra, W. Laycock and R. Pieper, Editors. 1994, Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. p. 13-68. ISBN: 978-1-884930-00-3.
  17. Anonim, İllere Ait Mevsim Normalleri. Bartın (1991-2020). TC. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü. 2024. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=BARTIN (Erişim: 25.07.2025).
  18. Anadón, J.D., et al., Effect of woody-plant encroachment on livestock production in North and South America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014. 111(35): 12948-12953. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320585111.
  19. Tanaka, J.A., et. al., A social and economic assessment of rangeland conservation practices. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps, ed Briske DE (US Depatment of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington), 2011. p. 371–422. ISBN: 978-0-9849499-0-8.
  20. Anonim, Hayvan Ara. TC. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. 2024. https://hbsapp.tarbil.gov.tr./Modüles/TURKVET/Pages/ Animal/CM/BSearchAnimal.aspx (Erişim: 08.05.2025).
  21. Anonim, Hayvan Ara. TC. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. 2021. https://hbsapp.tarbil.gov.tr./Modüles/TURKVET/Pages/ Animal/CM/BSearchAnimal.aspx (Erişim: 08.05.2025).
  22. Anonim, Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü parsel sorgu uygulaması. 2025b. https:// parselsorgu.tkgm.gov.tr/#ara/idari/130907/102/8/1738070712694 (Erişim: 06.05.2025).
  23. Serin, Y., Türkiye’nin Çayır Mera Bitkileri. 2008, Ankara, T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı. Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü-In Turkish. ISBN: 9789944077613.
  24. Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel, Range Management: Principles and Practices (6th Edition). 2010, Amsterdam: Prentice Hall, one Lake Street, Upper Saddle River. ISBN: 9780137527915.
  25. Bölük, E., Thornthwaite İklim Sınıflandırmasına Göre Türkiye İklimi. Ankara, Araştırma Dairesi Başkanlığı Klimatoloji Şube Müdürlüğü. 2016. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/FILES/iklim/iklim_siniflandirmalari/koppen.pdf. (Erişim: 02.04.2025). doi.org/10.2307/210739.
  26. Palta, Ş., Genç Lermi, A. ve G. Alagöz Altıntaş, Bartın ili Çiftlik köyü doğal mera alanının bazı vejetasyon karakteristiklerinin belirlenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2021. 22(2): 170-182. doi:10.17474/artvinofd.915931.
  27. Lyons, R.K. and R.V. Machen, Livestock grazing distribution: considerations and management. Texas Farmer Collection. Agrilife Extension, 2002. https:/hdl.handle.net/1969.1/87089 (Access: 28.01.2025). https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/87089.
  28. Rahmann, G., Biotoppflege als neue Funktion und Leistung der Tierhaltung: dargestellt am Beispiel der Entbuschung von Kalkmagerrasen durch Ziegenbeweidung. Schriftenreihe Agraria: Studien zur Agrarökologie, 2000. 28, XVIII-384. ISSN: 0945-4888.
  29. Hart, S.P., Recent perspectives in using goats for vegetation management in the USA. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001. 84, E170-E176. doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70212-3.
  30. Scholtz, R., et al., Challenges of brush management treatment effectiveness in southern Great Plains, United States. Rangeland Ecology&Management, 2021. 77: 57-65. doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2021.03.007.
  31. İspirli, K., ve ark., Nemli-mezotermal iklim kuşağında yer alan ve ağır otlanılan Hasanlar köyü merasının bazı özellikleri, Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 2022. 37(3): 487-504. doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.1037905.
  32. Lacefield, G., et. al., Annual Ryegrass. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Lexington, and Kentucky State University, Frankfort. 2003. AGR 179. https://publications.ca.uky.edu/sites/publications.ca.uky.edu/files/agr179.pdf (Access: 10.08.2025).
  33. Çiğdem, İ. ve F. Uzun, Samsun ili taban alanlarında ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirilebilecek bazı silajlık sorgum ve mısır çeşitleri üzerine bir araştırma. OMÜ, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2006. 21(1): 14-19.
  34. Sanderson, M.A., et al., Grass–legume proportions in forage seed mixtures and effects on herbage yield and weed abundance. Agronomy Journal, 2013. 105(5): 1289-1297. doi: 10.2134/agronj2013.0131.
  35. Phelan, P., et. al., Forage legumes for grazing and conserving in ruminant production systems. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 2015. 34(1-3): 281-326. doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2014.898455.
  36. Aydin, I. ve F. Uzun, Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization of rangelands affects yield, forage quality and the botanical composition. European Journal of Agronomy, 2005. 23(1): 8-14. doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2004.08.001.
  37. Anonymous, Grazing Management and Foraging Behaviour. Scottish Forestry, 2021b. https://www.forestry. gov.scot/ woodland-grazing-toolbox/grazing-management/foraging/palatability -and-resilience-of-native-trees (Access: 08.08.2025).
  38. Stephen, F., et. al., Shade Options for Grazing Cattle. Kentucky State University Cooperative Extension Service. Lexington, 2024. KY 40506. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://publications.ca.uky.edu/sites/publications. ca.uky.edu/files /aen99.pdf (Access: 08.08.2025).
  39. Frost, W.E., McDougald, N.K. and M.W. Demment, Blue oak canopy effect on seasonal forage production and quality. University of California Cooperative Ext, 1991. https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/blue-oaks-forage-production-and-quality/ (Access: 28.01.2025).
  40. Aydın, F., ve F. Uzun, Çayır-Mera Amenajmanı ve Islahı. 2002, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Ders Kitabı No:9. Samsun. ISBN: 978605614132439.
  41. Gerrish, J.R., Peterson, P.R., Morrow, R.E. Distance cattle travel to water affects pasture utilization rate. Missouri University Extension Service, 2019. https://www.uvm.edu/d10-files/documents/2024-10/Gerrish_distance_to_water.pdf (Access: 08.07.2025).
  42. Higgins, S., Providing and Improving Drinking Water for Livestock. Kentucky State University, Extension Service. Lexington, 2024. KY 40506. https://publications.ca.uky.edu/files/aen99.pdf (Access: 08.07.2025).
  43. Koenig, R., M. Nelson, and J. Barnhill, Fertilizer Management for Grass and Grass-Legume Mixtures. Utah University Extension, 2002. AG-FG-003. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context =extension_histall (Access: 08.08.2025).
  44. Heckman, J., Soil Fertility Recommendations for Producing Grass Hay. Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet. FS1295. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, 2018. https://njaes.rutgers.edu/fs1295/#:~:text=The%20most%20commonly%20 grown%20species, ton%20of%20expected%20hay%20yield (Access: 08.07.2025).
  45. Kaiser, D.E., Fertilizing Hay and Pasture Grasses. University of Minnesota Extension. https://extension.umn.edu/crop-specific-needs/grasses-hay-pasture-fertilizer, 2023 (Access: 08.08.2025).
  46. Finch, B., Drescher, G. and T. Roberts, Estimating Nutrient Removal of Hay Production in Arkansas. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. Research & Extensıon, 2024. FSA2209. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article =1008 & context=extension_histall (Access: 10.08.2025).
  47. Brummer, J.E., J.G. Davis, and M.R. Booher, Fertilizing Cool Season Grass and Grass/Legume Mixtures. Colorado State University Extension. Crop Series/Soil, 2011. Fact Sheet No: 0522. https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Brummer%2C+J.E.%2C+J.G.+Davis%2C+and+M.R.+Booher%2C+Fertilizing+Cool+Season+Grasss+and+Grass%2FLegume+Mixtures.+Colorado+State+University+Extension.++&btnG= (Access: 08.08.2025).
  48. Anderson, B., J.D. Volesky, and C.A. Shapiro, Fertilizing Grass Pastures and Hayland. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2010. http://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ https://extensionpubs.unl.edu/ publication/ g1977/2009/pdf/view/g1977-2009.pdf (Access: 08.08.2025).