SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

Determination of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in the Production of Different Aromatic Plants in Turkey

Türkiye’de Farklı Aromatik Bitkilerin Üretilmesinde Sera Gazı Emisyonlarının (GHG) Belirlenmesi

ÖMER EREN
OSMAN GÖKDOĞAN
MEHMET FIRAT BARAN
Pages
90–96
DOI
—
🏛️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 indicated that total GHG emissions for four different aromatic plants production (guar, lavender, sesame and tobacco) production were computed as 1488.50 kgCO2-eqha–1, 494.81 kgCO2-eqha–1, 907.13 kgCO2-eqha–1, 6604.58 kgCO2-eqha–1 respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The release of greenhouse gas emissions is a source of great concern for Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results indicated that total GHG emissions for four different aromatic plants production (guar, lavender, sesame and tobacco) production were computed as 1488.50 kgCO2-eqha–1, 494.81 kgCO2-eqha–1, 907.13 kgCO2-eqha–1, 6604.58 kgCO2-eqha–1 respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The GHG ratios were computed as 0.65 kgCO2-eqkg–1, 0.10 kgCO2-eqkg–1, 1.88 kgCO2-eqkg–1, 6.29 kgCO2-eqkg–1 respectively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:GHG emisyonları · GHG oranı · aromatik bitkiler

Abstract

The release of greenhouse gas emissions is a source of great concern for Turkey. However, agriculture is among the key actors in terms of environmental impact in Turkey, as agriculture not only consumes energy but it also produces it and it can have both positive and negative effects on the environment. This study was conducted in order to determine GHG emissions for four different medical, aromatic and pleasure plants production (guar, lavender, sesame and tobacco) in the different provinces of Turkey. For this purpose, the first data was collected from references. The results indicated that total GHG emissions for four different aromatic plants production (guar, lavender, sesame and tobacco) production were computed as 1488.50 kgCO2-eqha–1, 494.81 kgCO2-eqha–1, 907.13 kgCO2-eqha–1, 6604.58 kgCO2-eqha–1 respectively. The GHG ratios were computed as 0.65 kgCO2-eqkg–1, 0.10 kgCO2-eqkg–1, 1.88 kgCO2-eqkg–1, 6.29 kgCO2-eqkg–1 respectively.

Özet

Sera gazı emisyonlarının salınması, Türkiye için büyük bir endişe kaynağıdır. Ancak, sadece enerji tüketmekle kalmayıp aynı zamanda çevre üzerinde hem olumlu hem de olumsuz etkileri olabileceği için Türkiye'de tarım çevresel etkilerin en önemli aktörleri arasında yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin farklı illerinde dört farklı tıbbi, aromatik ve keyif bitkisinin (guar, lavanta, susam ve tütün) üretimi sırasında oluşan sera gazı emisyonlarının belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla ilk veriler referanslardan toplanmıştır. Sonuçta, dört farklı aromatik bitkinin (guar, lavanta, susam ve tütün) üretimi sırasında oluşan toplam sera gazı emisyonları sırasıyla 1488.50 kgCO2-eşha–1, 494.81 kgCO2-eşha–1, 907.13 kgCO2-eşha–1 ve 6604.58 kgCO2-eşha–1 olarak, GHG oranları ise sırasıyla 0.65 kgCO2-eşkg–1, 0.10 kgCO2-eşkg–1, 1.88 kgCO2-eşkg–1 ve 6.29 kgCO2-eşkg–1 olarak hesaplanmıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

EREN, Ö., GÖKDOĞAN, O., BARAN, M. F. (2019). Determination of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in the Production of Different Aromatic Plants in Turkey. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 90–96. https://ajindex.com/articles/330436

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Baran, M.F., Gökdoğan, O. 2015. Determination of energy input-output of Tobacco production in Turkey. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 15 (7): 1346-1350.
  2. Baran, M.F., Gökdoğan, O. 2017. Determination of energy use efficiency of Sesame production. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 14 (3): 73-79. BioGrace-II, 2015. Harmonised Calculations of Biofuel Greenhouse Gas Emissions inEurope. BioGrace, Utrecht, The Netherlands. http://www.biograce.net.
  3. Clark, S., Khoshnevisan, B., Sefeedpari, P. 2016. Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions during transition to organic and reduced-input practices: Student farm case study. Ecological Engineering, 88; 186-194.
  4. Garnett, T. 2006. Fruit and Vegetables & UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Exploring the Relationship. Working paper produced as part of the work of the food climate research network. Gökdoğan, O. 2016. Determination of input-output energy and economic analysis of lavender production in Turkey. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 9 (3): 154-161.
  5. Gökdoğan, O., Seydosoğlu, S., Kökten, K., Bengü, A.Ş., Baran, M. F. 2017. Energy input-output analysis of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) and lupin (Lupinus albus L.) production in Turkey Legume Research, 40(3): 526-531.
  6. Gresta, F., De Luca, A.I., Strano, A., Falcone, G., Santonoceto, C., Anastasi, U., Gulisano, G. 2014. Economic and environmental sustainability analysis of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.) farming process in a Mediterranean area: two case studies. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 9(1): 20-24.
  7. Houshyar, E., Dalgaard, T., Tarazgar, M.H., Jorgensen, U. 2015. Energy input for tomato production what economy says, and what is good for the environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 89: 99-109.
  8. Hughes, D.J., West, J.S., Atkins, S.D., Gladders, P., Jeger, M.J., Fitt, B.D. 2011. Effects of disease control by fungicides on greenhouse gas emissions by U.K. arable crop production. Pest Manag Sci, 67: 1082-1092.
  9. Khoshnevisan, B., Shariati, H. M., Rafiee, S., Mousazadeh, H. 2014. Comparison of energy consumption and GHG emissions of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29: 316-324.
  10. Lal, R. 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International, 30: 981-990.
  11. Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G., Maroulis, J., Chen, G. 2010. An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the Australian vegetables industry. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 45(6): 578-588.
  12. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Abdi, R