Advertisement

Site suitability assessment and mapping for rice cultivation using multi-criteria decision analysis based on fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS approaches under semihumid ecological condition in delta plain

  • Barış Özkan
  • Orhan DengizEmail author
  • İnci Demirağ Turan
Article

Abstract

Many areas in Turkey are ecologically suitable for paddy cultivation, and their yield per hectare is above the world average. Despite this fact, the amount of production cannot supply the amount of consumption. This situation causes Turkey to be a country that imports rice. This study was carried out within a 1266.7 ha area in the Bafra alluvial delta plain, which is located in Samsun, which is one of the most important paddy cultivation areas of Turkey. The purpose of the study is to determine the areas that are suitable for paddy (Oryza sativa) cultivation among the soils that have various physicochemical characteristics, which are formed on the alluvial deposits that were carried by the Kızılırmak River, with the help of multi-criteria decision analysis and geographic information system. In the study, nine different soil criteria were used as texture, drainage, pH, EC, CaCO3, TN, AvP, AvK and AvZn. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process was used for determining the levels of importance of the criteria and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution methods were used for ranking the study areas. According to the obtained results, about 64.1% of the area is highly suitable and suitable for paddy cultivation and 15.2% of the area is less suitable. Also, 20.8% of the total area constitutes currently and permanently unsuitable areas.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision Fuzzy-AHP Rice cultivation Bafra delta plain 

References

  1. Akay H, Sezer İ, Mut Z, Dengiz O (2017) Yield and quality performance of some paddy cultivars grown in left bank of Bafra Plain. KSU J Nat Sci 20:297–302Google Scholar
  2. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17(3):233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaudhury J, Mandal UK, Sharma HL, Ghosh H, Mandal B (2005) Assessing soil quality under long-term rice-based cropping system. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 36:1141–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dağdeviren M (2007) Bulanik analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ile personel seçimi ve bir uygulama. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 22(4):791–799Google Scholar
  6. Deng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. In: 1999 IEEE international fuzzy systems conference proceedings, vol 2, pp 726–731Google Scholar
  7. Dengiz O (2013) Land suitability assessment for rice cultivation based on GIS modeling. Turk J Agric For 37:326–334Google Scholar
  8. Dengiz O, Özyazıcı MA (2018) Çeltik tarımına uygun alanların belirlenmesinde çok kriterli arazi değerlendirme. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi 6(1):19–28Google Scholar
  9. Dengiz O, Sezer İ, Özdemir N, Göl C, Yakupoğlu T, Öztürk E, Sirat A, Şahin M (2010) Aplication of GIS model in physical land evaluation suitability for rice cultivation. Anadolu J Agric Sci 25(3):184–191Google Scholar
  10. Dengiz O, Özyazıcı MA, Sağlam M (2015) Multi-criteria assessment and geostatistical approach for determination of rice growing suitability sites in Gokirmak catchment. Paddy Water Environ 13:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dou F, Soriano J, Tabien RE, Chen K (2016) Soil texture and cultivar effects on rice (Oryza sativa, L.) grain yield, yield components and water productivity in three water regimes. PloS One 11(3):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eraslan N, Gümüş N (2012) Tosya çeltik tarımının değerlendirmesi. In: Kastamonu’nun Doğal Zenginlikleri Sempozyumu, pp 111–113Google Scholar
  13. FAO (1976) A framework for land evaluation: soils bulletin 32. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (1983) Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. FAO Soils Bull 52Google Scholar
  15. FAO (1985) Guidelines: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. FAO Soils Bull 55Google Scholar
  16. FAO (1993) Guidelines for land-use planning. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2002) Global IPM facility. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed 5 Aug 2007
  18. FAO (2003) Rice irrigation in the near East: current situation and prospects for improvement. FAO Regional Office for the Near East, CairoGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (2005) Food and Agricultural Organization of The United Nations. Agrostat Database, FAO, RavaGoogle Scholar
  20. Gençtan T (2009) Türkiye’de çeltik üretimi ve sorunları. I. Ulusal Çeltik Sempozyumu, TekirdagGoogle Scholar
  21. Gupta PC, Toole JC (1986) Upland rice: a global perspective. IRRI, Los BanosGoogle Scholar
  22. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manag 16(6):382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ruan D (2004) Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey. Int J Prod Econ 87(2):171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin JH, Leonard WH, Stamp DL (1976) Principles of field crop production, 3rd edn. MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Mongkolsawat C, Thirangoon P, Kuptawutinan P (2002) A physical evaluation of land suitability for rice: a methodological study using GIS. Computer Centre, Khon Kaen University, Thailand, Khon KaenGoogle Scholar
  27. Olson DL (2004) Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Math Comput Model 40(7–8):721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Özcan H (2004) Çinko uygulamasının bazı çeltik çeşitlerinde verim ile tanede çinko, fosfor ve fitin asidi konsantrasyonuna etkisi. Ph.D., Ankara University, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  30. Qi Y, Darilek JL, Huang B, Zhao Y, Sun W, Gu Z (2009) Evaluating soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China. Geoderma 149(3–4):325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 37–85Google Scholar
  32. Saglam M, Dengiz O, Saygın F (2015) Assessment of horizontal and vertical variabilities of soil quality using multivariate statistics and geostatistical methods. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 46:1677–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Şahin M, Sezer İ, Dengiz O, Öner F, Akay H, Sirat A (2016) Determination of the yield performances of some rice varieties under Osmancık conditions. Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi 25:1–5Google Scholar
  34. Samanta S, Pal B, Pal Kumar D (2011) Land suitability analysis for rice cultivation based on multi-criteria decision approach through GIS. Int J Sci Emerg Technol 2(1):12–20Google Scholar
  35. Saygın F, Dengiz O (2013a) Classification and determination of different soils distribution on fener village and its near vicinity located in left side of Bafra Plain. Soil Water J 2:63–72Google Scholar
  36. Saygın F, Dengiz O (2013b) Coğrafi bilgi sistem modellemesi ile çeltik arazi uygunluk sınıflarının belirlenmesi. III. Ulusal Toprak ve Su Kaynakları Kongresi, Tokat, pp 569–576Google Scholar
  37. Shahram MS, Hanafi MM, Karbalaei MT, Khayambashi B (2013) Qualitative land suitability evaluation for the growth of rice and off-seasons crops as rice based cropping system on paddy fields of central Guilan, Iran. Indian J Sci Technol 6:5395–5403Google Scholar
  38. Soil Science Division Staff (2017) Soil Survey Manual. Natural drainage class. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No 18, pp 213–215, USDAGoogle Scholar
  39. Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil taxonomy. A basic of soil classification for making and interpreting soil survey. USDA Handbook No: 436, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. Sürek H (2001) Rice cultural practice in Turkey. In: Chataigner J (ed) The new development in rice agronomy and its effects on yield and quality in Mediterranean areas. CIHEAM, Montpellier, Available. (Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes; n. 58). Workshop on the New Development in Rice Agronomy and its Effects on Yield and Quality in Mediterranean Areas, 13–15 Sep 2000, Edirne, Turkey. http://om.ciheam.org/om/pdf/c58/03400067.pdf
  41. Sürek H (2002) Çeltik Tarımı. Hasat Yayıncılık Ltd., İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  42. Sys C, Ranst V, Debaveye J, Beernaert F (1993) Land evaluation. Part III, crop requirements. Agricultural Publications No. 7, p. 191Google Scholar
  43. Taşlıgil N, Şahin G (2011) Türkiye’de çeltik (Oryza sativa L.) yetiştiriciliği ve coğrafi dağilimi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 4(6):182–203Google Scholar
  44. Temür G (2016) Bazı Çeltik (Oryza sativa L.) Çeşitlerinde silisyumun verim, verim öğeleri ve kaliteye etkilerinin belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ordu Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, OrduGoogle Scholar
  45. Turan M, Dengiz O, Demirağ İT (2018) Samsun ilinin newhall modeline göre toprak sıcaklık ve nem rejimlerinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi 5(2):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11(1–3):229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Wambeke AR (2000) The Newhall simulation model for estimating soil moisture and temperature regimes. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  48. Wienhold BJ, Andrews SS, Karlen DL (2004) Soil quality: a review of the science and experiences in the USA. J Environ Geochem Health 26:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industry Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringOndokuz Mayıs UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of AgricultureOndokuz Mayıs UniversitySamsunTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts and SciencesGiresun UniversityGiresunTurkey

Personalised recommendations