3 sonuçlar
Arama Sonuçları
Listeleniyor 1 - 3 / 3
Yayın An auxiliary tool for landscape evaluation: Ecological risk analysis based on analytic hierarchy process(Parlar Scientific Publications (P S P), 2017) Aksu, Gül Aslı; Musaoğlu, Nebiye; Uzun, AdnanEcological Risk Analysis may be used as an auxiliary method in making landscape planning and management decisions. However, both choosing the subject criteria of the analysis, and assigning values to such criteria are all left to the discretion of the decision-maker. Ecological Risk Analysis is therefore ranked as a qualitative mode of assessment. What was intended herein was to rule the Ecological Risk Analysis, which may significantly contribute to the assessment of a landscape, out of being a qualitative mode, and to turn it into a semi quantitative means of assessment. In order to turn the Ecological Risk Analysis into a semi-quantitative mode of assessment, Analytic Hierarchy Process was resorted. Main criteria (vegetation, soil, water, and bioclimatic comfort) to determine the "Ecological Value", and the sub-criteria to set forth these criteria were decided upon. These criteria were then overlaid by means of matrices within the scope of the Analytical Hierarchy Method, weight ratios thereof were determined, and the consistency ratios thereof were calculated. Risk maps of the main criteria further superimposed according to the weight ratios, which had been calculated to be consistent, the Ecological Risk Map was thereby attained. Areas with high ecological risk value are located at the west and northeast part of the research area. Regions were discussed in the frame of landscape planning and sustainability depending on risk levels.Yayın Culture and silviculture: origins and evolution of silviculture in Southeast Europe(Commonwealth Forestry Assoc, 2018-03) O'Hara, Kevin L.; Bončína, Andrej; Diaci, Jurij; Anić, Igor D.; Boydak, Melih; Čurović, Milić; Govedar, Zoran V.; Grigoriadis, Nikolaos; Ivojevic, S.; Keren, Srđan; Kola, H.; Kostov, G.; Medarević, Milan J.; Metaj, M.; Nicolescu, N. V.; Raifailov, G.; Stăncioiu, Petru Tudor; Velkovski, NikolcoSilvicultural practices are generally developed to meet societal objectives given the constraints of the site. This simple premise is a foundation of modern silviculture. However, silviculture may vary for other reasons related to cultural factors. This paper reviews the differences in silviculture in the twelve countries that comprise southeastern Europe, an area that includes a variety of cultures, and a complex history. The silviculture generally follows three models: coppice systems that are largely unregulated, even-aged stands that include former coppice stands and other reforested sites, and systems to develop and maintain complex stand structures. Plantation management is not common. Cultural and historic drivers have affected the development of silviculture in this region. Additional drivers include forest access, the importance of wood for fuel, and proximity to central Europe. It is anticipated that European Union membership of countries in the region will lead to greater regional and international exchange and cooperation in the future.Yayın ISSR genotyping of Phoenix theophrasti natural populations in Turkey and Crete (Greece) and P. Dactylifera(John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2021-10) Boydak, Melih; Teker, Tuğba; Gazdağlı, Aylin; Thanos, Costas A.; Çalışkan, Servet; Kaltsis, Apostolis; Çalikoğlu Tozlu, Emine; Fournaraki, Christini; Albayrak, GülruhIntraspecific and interspecific diversity between Phoenix theophrasti individuals (92 from Turkey and 70 from Crete, Greece) and P. dactylifera specimens (28 from Turkey) were investigated by inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) analysis. A total of 45 polymorphic fragments, 360–3454 bps long, were produced. Intraspecific diversity for P. dactylifera was 26.63% and similarities ranged between 0.5 and 1. In the constructed dendrogram, P. dactylifera specimens clustered together in the first main group, outside branches consisting of P. theophrasti samples that generated the second main group. The intraspecific diversity for Turkish P. theophrasti populations was found to be 18.60% and for Cretan populations 13.45%. Antalya–Kumluca–Karaöz samples were grouped outside the branches of the remaining P. theophrasti samples. All three Cretan populations formed their own, separate branch. Datça–Eksera Stream samples together with two Datça–Hurmalıbük specimens constituted a group excluding Datça–Hurmalıbük and Bodrum–Gölköy specimens. Five Bodrum–Gölköy genotypes were clustered separately. Gene flow (Nm) values among populations were estimated from 0.157 to 59.615. AMOVA analysis revealed the percentages of variance among and within Phoenix populations: 73% and 27%, respectively. The first three principal coordinate components accounted for 37.60, 29.32 and 20.04%, respectively, thus the total variance obtained from the first three principal coordinate components was 86.96%. A positive correlation between geographic and genetic distances of populations was detected by Mantel tests (Rx,y = 0.44, p = 0.04). The populations were classified into four clusters by STRUCTURE analysis, supported the PCoA data. To conclude, ISSR results support that P. dactylifera and P. theophrasti are different species. Moreover, the findings not only revealed relationships between natural Phoenix theophrasti populations but also supported the identification of the P. theophrasti individuals that are phenotypically differentiated in the divided Bodrum–Gölköy population (P. theophrasti subsp. golkoyana).
