SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3

Environmental Mitigation Through Irrigation Management in Sugar Beet Production

Ramazan TOPRAK
Mehmet Akif KALENDER
Pages
207–213
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 analyse of pollution in this study led to very important findings: more environment-friendly irrigation and fertilization practices by using less water and nitrogen have a considerable potential for environmental mitigation in sugar beet production.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study assesses the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions of sugar beet production under different irrigation and nitrogen fertilizing strategies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the nine treatments based on three different irrigations (full irrigation, conventional deficit irrigation, partial root drying irrigation) and three nitrogen fertilization strategies (full nitrogen, partial deficit nitrogen, moderate deficit nitrogen) were assessed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The analyse of pollution in this study led to very important findings: more environment-friendly irrigation and fertilization practices by using less water and nitrogen have a considerable potential for environmental mitigation in sugar beet production.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

This study assesses the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions of sugar beet production under different irrigation and nitrogen fertilizing strategies. This manuscript is an evaluation of the production inputs used in a research carried previous on sugar beet and its conversion into GHG emissions equivalent. This paper evaluates the potential for environmental mitigation, including the reduction of total GHG emissions from agricultural inputs in sugar beet production by managing irrigation and nitrogen fertilizing. In this context, the nine treatments based on three different irrigations (full irrigation, conventional deficit irrigation, partial root drying irrigation) and three nitrogen fertilization strategies (full nitrogen, partial deficit nitrogen, moderate deficit nitrogen) were assessed. The results of evaluation showed that DI-N1 strategy can reduce irrigation water and nitrogen use up to 25% compared to control treatment (FIN). In addition, this strategy saved 25% of electricity consumption use for irrigation. The analyse of pollution in this study led to very important findings: more environment-friendly irrigation and fertilization practices by using less water and nitrogen have a considerable potential for environmental mitigation in sugar beet production.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPRAK, R., KALENDER, M. A. (2020). Environmental Mitigation Through Irrigation Management in Sugar Beet Production. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3, 207–213. https://ajindex.com/articles/340172

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Acaroğlu M, Aksoy AŞ (2005). The cultivation and energy balance of Miscanthus×giganteus production in Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(1): 42– 48. ASAE (1999). ASAE Standarts. D497.4 MAr99. Agriculture Machinery Data. pp. 350-357, ASAE 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, MI, 49085-9659,
  2. USA. Bai B, Li X, Liu Y, Zhang Y (2006). Preliminary study on CO2 industrial point sources and their distribution in China. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 25(1):2918–2923.
  3. Barker, T., Bashmakov, I., Bernstein, L., Bogner, J.E., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., 2009. Technical Summary: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge Univ. Press Ch. 3. Bolinder MA, Janzen HH, Gregorich EG, Angers DA, Vanden Bygaart AJ (2007). An approach for estimating net primary productivity and annual carbon inputs to soil for common agricultural crops in Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118: 29-42.
  4. Chen S, Lu F, Wang X (2015). Estimation of greenhouse emission factors of China's nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizers. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35: 1–19.
  5. Devi R, Sing V, Dahiya, RP, Kumar A (2009). Energy consumption pattern of a dezentralized community in northern Haryana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(1).194-200.
  6. Dulkadiroğlu H (2018). Türkiye’de elektrik üretiminin sera gazi emisyonlari açisindan incelenmesi. ÖHÜ Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1):67-74.
  7. Dyer JA, Desjardins RL (2003). The impact of farm machinery management on the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22:59 – 74. Dyer JA, Desjardins RL (2006). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm machinery in Canada. Biosystems Engineering, 93(1): 107–118.
  8. Epstein E, Bloom A (2005). Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. 2nd Edition,
  9. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates, USA. Göçmez G, Isçioglu A (2004). Variations in groundwater levels in Konya Closed Basin. In: Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Groundwater, General Directorate of Rural Services. Konya, Turkey; 23-24 December 2004.
  10. Haciseferogullari H, Acaroglu M (2015). Energy Balance on Pumpkin Seed Production. Journal of Agricultural Science and Applications, 1(2): 49-53.
  11. Handa D, Frazier RS, Taghvaeian S, Warren JG (2019). The Efficiencies, environmental ımpacts and economics of energy consumption for groundwater-based ırrigation in Oklahoma. Agriculture, 9 (2): 27. Jimenez-Bello MA,