KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

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

Nohut Üretiminde Ekim Yöntemlerinin Enerji Verimliliği, Sera Gazı Emisyonları ve Biyokütlede Depolanan Karbondioksit Miktarı Üzerine Etkileri

Effects of Sowing Methods on Energy Efficiency Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Amount of Carbon Dioxide Stored in Biomass in Chickpea Production

Ergün Çıtıl(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2023-9409
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Genel olarak sonuçlar, PCPS yönteminin verim, enerji kullanım etkinliği ve çevresel performansı önemli ölçüde artırdığını ortaya koymakta; bu yöntemin nohut üretiminde sürdürülebilir bir mekanizasyon stratejisi olarak yüksek potansiyele sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin İç Anadolu Bölgesi’nde yer alan Konya ilinde (38°05'42"K, 32°36'16"D) yürütülmüştür.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araştırmada, sulu ve kuru koşullarda nohut üretiminde farklı ekim yöntemlerinin tane verimi, enerji etkinliği, sera gazı (GHG) emisyonları ve biyokütle kaynaklı CO₂ eşdeğeri depolama üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Genel olarak sonuçlar, PCPS yönteminin verim, enerji kullanım etkinliği ve çevresel performansı önemli ölçüde artırdığını ortaya koymakta; bu yöntemin nohut üretiminde sürdürülebilir bir mekanizasyon stratejisi olarak yüksek potansiyele sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Deneysel Tarla Denemesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Nohut tane verimi · enerji etkinliği · sera gazı emisyonları

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin İç Anadolu Bölgesi’nde yer alan Konya ilinde (38°05'42"K, 32°36'16"D) yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada, sulu ve kuru koşullarda nohut üretiminde farklı ekim yöntemlerinin tane verimi, enerji etkinliği, sera gazı (GHG) emisyonları ve biyokütle kaynaklı CO₂ eşdeğeri depolama üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Birleştirilmiş tane ekim yöntemi (CGS) ile pnömatik hassas çift sıralı çapraz ekim yöntemi (PCPS), iki faktörlü tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre karşılaştırılmıştır. Sulu koşullarda tane verimi, PCPS yönteminde 1756 kg ha⁻¹, CGS yönteminde ise 1193 kg ha⁻¹ olarak belirlenirken; kuru koşullarda PCPS yöntemi 1150 kg ha⁻¹ verim sağlamıştır. Toplam enerji girdisi, sulama için gereken enerji nedeniyle sulu koşullarda daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Bununla birlikte, sulu koşullarda PCPS yöntemi, sırasıyla 32001.24 MJ ha⁻¹ enerji çıktısı ve 21782.49 MJ ha⁻¹ net enerji verimliliği ile en yüksek değerlere ulaşmıştır. En yüksek çıktı/girdi oranı (3.13) ve enerji etkinliği (0.17 kg MJ⁻¹) yine sulu koşullarda PCPS yönteminde elde edilirken, birim ürün başına gereken en düşük enerji değeri de aynı yöntemde 5.82 MJ kg⁻¹ olarak belirlenmiştir. Toplam sera gazı emisyonları, sulu koşullarda CGS yöntemi için 1844.92 kg CO₂ ha⁻¹, PCPS yöntemi için ise 1838.93 kg CO₂ ha⁻¹ olarak hesaplanmıştır. En yüksek biyokütle kaynaklı depolanmış CO₂ eşdeğeri miktarı, sulu koşullarda uygulanan PCPS yönteminde 5761.59 kg CO₂ ha⁻¹ olarak saptanmıştır. Genel olarak sonuçlar, PCPS yönteminin verim, enerji kullanım etkinliği ve çevresel performansı önemli ölçüde artırdığını ortaya koymakta; bu yöntemin nohut üretiminde sürdürülebilir bir mekanizasyon stratejisi olarak yüksek potansiyele sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Abstract

This study was conducted in Konya, a city in the Central Anatolia region of Türkiye (38°05'42"N, 32°36'16"E). The study evaluated the effects of different sowing methods on grain yield, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and biomass-based CO₂ equivalent storage in chickpea production under irrigated and dry conditions. The combined grain sowing method (CGS) and the pneumatic precision double-row cross-sowing method (PCPS) were compared using a two-factor random block design. Under irrigated conditions, grain yield reached 1756 kg ha⁻¹ with PCPS and 1193 kg ha⁻¹ with CGS, while under dry conditions, PCPS yielded 1150 kg ha⁻¹. Total energy input was higher under irrigated conditions due to irrigation energy. However, under irrigated conditions, PCPS provided the highest energy output and net energy efficiency of 32001.24 MJ ha⁻¹ and 21782.49 MJ ha⁻¹, respectively. The highest output/input ratio of 3.13 and energy efficiency of 0.17 kg MJ⁻¹ were achieved with PCPS under irrigated conditions, while the lowest energy required per unit crop was recorded at 5.82 MJ kg⁻¹ with the same sowing method. Total greenhouse gas emissions were obtained as 1844.92 kg CO₂ ha⁻¹ for CGS and 1838.93 kg CO₂ ha⁻¹ for PCPS under irrigated conditions. The highest biomass-stored CO₂ equivalent was observed in irrigated PCPS at 5761.59 kg CO₂ ha⁻¹. Overall, the results show that PCPS significantly improves yield, energy use efficiency and environmental performance, highlighting its potential as a sustainable mechanization strategy for chickpea production.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Çıtıl, E. (2026). Nohut Üretiminde Ekim Yöntemlerinin Enerji Verimliliği, Sera Gazı Emisyonları ve Biyokütlede Depolanan Karbondioksit Miktarı Üzerine Etkileri. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 41. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.1946028

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (46)

  1. Arıkan, M., 2011. Energy use in rapeseed production in Adana Province. MSc Thesis, Çukurova University, Institute of Science, Department of Agricultural Machinery, Adana, Turkey (in Turkish).
  2. Baran, M.F., Gökdoğan, O., 2017. Energy balance in production of chickpea in Turkey: a study performed in Adıyaman Province. Agronomy Research 15(1), 25–32.
  3. Baran, M. F., Karağaç, H. A., Bolat, A., Çil, A., Çil, A. N. 2018. Determination of energy use efficiency in peanut production (Adana province example). European Journal of Science and Technology, (15), 103-111.(İn Turkish)
  4. Barut, Z.B., Ertekin, C., Karaağaç, H.A., 2011. Tillage effects on energy use for corn silage in Mediterranean coastal of Turkey. Energy 36(9), 5466–5475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.07.035
  5. Bojaca, C. R., Schrevens, E. 2010. Energy assessment of peri-urban horticulture and its uncertainty: Case study for Bogota, Colombia. Energy, 35(5), 2109-2118.
  6. Bihari, B., Kushwaha, H.S., Vaidya, M.S., 1992. Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to irrigation and fertilization. Indian Journal of Agronomy 37, 110–111.
  7. BioGrace-II, 2015. Harmonised calculations of biofuel greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. BioGrace, Utrecht. Available at: http://www.biograce.net
  8. Brown, P. H., Welch, R.M., Cary, E. E., Checkai. R. T., Micronutrients: beneficial effects of nickel on plant growth. Journal of plant nutrition, 1987; 10(9-16), 2125-2135.
  9. Burgess, A.J., Cano, M.E.C., Parkes, B., 2022. The deployment of intercropping and agroforestry as adaptation to climate change. Crop and Environment 1(2), 145–160.
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.12.036
  11. Çalışır, S., 2007. The evaluation of performance and energy usage in submersible deep well irrigation pumping plants. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 38(1), 9–17.
  12. Çelen, İ.H., 2016. An evaluation of energy use in agricultural practices. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges (in Turkish).
  13. Doering, O.C., 1980. Accounting for energy in farm machinery and buildings. In: Pimentel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 9–14.
  14. Eren, Ö., 2011. Life cycle energy and environmental impact analysis of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) production in Çukurova Region. PhD Thesis, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey (in Turkish).
  15. Eren, Ö., Gökdoğan, O., Baran, M.F., 2019. Determination of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of different plants in Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 28(2), 1158–1166.
  16. Epstein, E., 1965. Mineral metabolism. In: Bonner, J., Varner, J.E. (Eds.), Plant Biochemistry. Academic Press, London, pp. 438–466.
  17. Ferrago, D.O., 2003. Energy cost/use in pesticide production. In: Encyclopedia of Pest Management. CRC Press, New York.
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.022
  19. Hughes, D.J., West, J.S., Atkins, S.D., Gladders, P., Jeger, M.J., Fitt, B.D.L., 2011. Effects of disease control by fungicides on greenhouse gas emissions by UK arable crop production. Pest Management Science 67, 1082–1092.https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2151
  20. Hutchinson, J.J., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., 2007. Some perspectives on carbon sequestration in agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 142(2–4), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.03.030
  21. Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G.A., 1997. Nachwachsende Energieträger: Grundlagen, Verfahren, ökologische Bilanzierung. Vieweg, Braunschweig.
  22. Karaagaç, H.A., Baran, M.F., Mart, D., Bolat, A., Eren, Ö., 2019. Determination of energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions in chickpea production (Adana province example). European Journal of Science and Technology 16, 41–50 (in Turkish). https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.523080
  23. Khoshnevisan, B., Shariati, H.M., Rafiee, S., Mousazadeh, H., 2014. Comparison of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 29, 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.098
  24. Kızılaslan, H., 2009. Input–output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat Province of Turkey. Applied Energy 86(7–8), 1354–1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.07.009
  25. Krouma, A., 2010. Plant water relations and photosynthetic activity in three Tunisian chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes subjected to drought. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 34(3), 257–264.
  26. Kumar, R., Mishra, J.S., Rao, K.K., et al., 2020. Crop rotation and tillage management options for sustainable intensification of rice-fallow agro-ecosystem in eastern India. Scientific Reports 10, 11146.
  27. Lal, R., 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International 30(7), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.005
  28. Mandal, K.G., Saha, K.P., Ghosh, P.K., Hati, K.M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., 2002. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass and Bioenergy 23, 337–345. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00058-2
  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2010.493497
  30. Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Mohammadi, A., 2011. Optimization of energy consumption for soybean production using data envelopment analysis approach. Applied Energy 88, 3765–3772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.021
  31. Nelson, R.G., Hellwinckel, C.M., Brandt, C.C., West, T.O., De La Torre Ugarte, D.G., Marland, G., 2009. Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions from cropland production in the United States, 1990–2004. Journal of Environmental Quality 38(2), 418–425. https://doi. org/10.2134/jeq2008.0262
  32. Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E., 2012. System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugarcane bioenergy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production. Applied Energy 89, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.023
  33. NOAA, 2025. NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, R/GML, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html. access date: 16.06.2026
  34. Öztürk, H.H., 2011. Energy management in plant production. Hasad Publishing, Ankara (in Turkish).
  35. Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Sefeedpari, P., Ghahderijani, M., 2012. Exploring energy consumption and CO₂ emissions of cotton production in Iran. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 4, 033114. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4727906
  36. Reinhardt, G.A., 1993. Energie- und CO₂-Bilanzierung nachwachsender Rohstoffe, 2nd ed. Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden.
  37. Sabah, M., 2010. Energy use in second crop oil sunflower production in Söke Plain. MSc Thesis, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey (in Turkish).
  38. Saxena, M.C., Silim, S.N., Singh, K.B., 1990. Effect of supplementary irrigation during reproductive growth on winter and spring chickpea in a Mediterranean environment. Journal of Agricultural Science 114, 285–293.
  39. Saeed, Q., Zhang, A., Mustafa, A., Sun, B., Zhang, S., Yang, X., 2022. Effect of long-term fertilization on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprints in northwest China: A field scale investigation using wheat-maize-fallow rotation cycles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 332, 130075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130075
  40. Strapatsa, A.V., Nanos, G.D., Tsatsarelis, C.A., 2006. Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 116, 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.003
  41. Tabatabaeefar, A., Emamzadeh, H., Varnamkhasti, M.G., Rahimizadeh, R., Karimi, M., 2009. Comparison of energy of tillage systems in wheat production. Energy 34, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.09.023
  42. Togay, N., Togay, Y., Erman, M., et al., 2005. Effects of different plant densities in dry and irrigated conditions on yield and yield components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11(4), 417–421 (in Turkish).
  43. Yaldız, O., Öztürk, H.H., Zeren, Y., Başçetinçelik, A., 1990. Energy use in field crop production in Turkey. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University 3(1–2), 51–62 (in Turkish).
  44. Yaldız, O., Öztürk, H.H., Zeren, Y., Başçetinçelik, A., 1993. Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey. In: 5th International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, 11–14 October 1993, Kuşadası, Turkey, pp. 527–536 (in Turkish).
  45. Zangeneh, M., Omid, M., Akram, A.A., 2010. Comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 35, 2927–2933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.024
  46. Nelson, R.G., Hellwinckel, C.M., Brandt, C.C., West, T.O., De La Torre Ugarte, D.G., Marland, G., 2009. Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions from cropland production in the United States, 1990–2004. Journal of Environmental Quality 38(2), 418–425. https://doi. org/10.2134/jeq2008.0262