Evaluation of Groundwater Qality in the Upper Tigris Basin Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

711

Global warming, human activities and population increase cause especially the exploitation of water resources in the arid and semi-arid climatic regions and also lands become more sensitive to degradation. The aim of this study was to determine the groundwater quality (GWQ) in the Upper Tigris Basin located in a semi-arid climate region including the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and to map GWQ with geographic information systems. For this purpose, data evaluated for GWQ. Four parameters including water table level (static water level), chlorine content (Cl), sodium adsorption rate (SAR) and electrical conductivity (EC) of ground waters were used to determine the GWQ index. Each parameter was scored between 1.0 (the best) and 2.0 (the worst), the scores were weighted by using the AHP method and integrated into the quality index. The assessments showed that 97.02% of the study area had high GWQ and the remaining 2.98% had medium GWQ. Although the majority of the study area had a high GWQ, district where intensive agricultural production is taken place is not as good as the rest of the study area. According to the evaluation using by the AHP method based on expert opinions, the

712

contribution ratio of parameters to GWQ in the study area are as follow; EC 37%, SAR 28%, static water level 25% and chlorine content 10%. The findings indicated that the current status of GWQ in the Upper Tigris Basin has no significant negative impact on land degradation, but significant problems, especially in areas where agricultural production is intense, may arise if necessary measures are not taken.

Keywords: Tigris Basin, Ground water quality, AHP, land degradation

(Sheridan 1981). Oliver ve Florin

-3

2014b).

yon ark., 2007; Ismael, 2015; Jafari ve Bakhshandehmehr, 2016; Symeonakis ve ark., 2016;

713

: - - 0' (D)

kuyu verilerinin (110 kuyu) statik su seviyesi

714

- 2).

3).

tu

Negaresh ve ark., 2016; Budak ve ark., 2018). Tablo 1. Kaynak (m) 1 <1.5 2.0 Osborn ve ark., 1989 ve 2 1.5-4.5 1.8 3 4.5-9 1.6 4 9-15 1.5 5 15-22.5 1.3 6 22.5-30 1.2 7 >30 1.0 EC (dS/m) 1 >0.25 1 Sepehr ve ark., 2007; Symeonakis ve ark. 2016 2 0.25-0.75 1.2 3 0.75-2.25 1.5 4 2.25-5.0 1.7 5 >5.0 2.0 Cl (mg/lt) 1 <250 1 Sepehr ve ark., 2007; Symeonakis ve ark. 2016 2 250-500 1.2 3 500-1500 1.5 4 1500-3000 1.7 5 >3000 2.0 SAR 1 <3 1 Farajzadeh ve Egbal 2007 ve 2 3-6 1.3 3 6-10 1.6 4 10-14 1.8 5 >14 2.0 1 <1.4 Farajzadeh ve Egbal 2007 2 Orta Kalite 1.4-1.7 3 >1.7 Tablo 2. 1-1 3 Orta 5 7 edilmelidir. 9 2-4-6-8

715

2017; Vasu ve ark., 2017).

2.60 dS m-1

-2.25 dS m-1

-nin temel nedeni akiferlere, kirleticiler veya formasyonlardan akiferlere isten

Tablo 3.

Parametre Ortalama S.Sapma

1.00 2.00 1.22 0.26 0.25 EC 1.00 1.70 1.22 0.14 0.37 SAR 1.00 2.00 1.11 0.25 0.28 Cl 1.00 2.00 1.05 0.17 0.10

716

717

718

(1) su

(9552.96 km2 2_{) orta kaliteye sahiptir}

2_{) 1.00 -} (4530.35 km2_{) 1.10 - km}2_{) 1.20 -} (440.76 km2_{) 1.30} 2_{) 1.40} 2_{) ise 1.50 1.59} ablo 4). -1.59) Diyar Tablo 4.

Parametre Ortalama S.Sapma 1.00 1.59 1.17 0.10

Skor Toplam Alan

km2 Toplam Alan % 1 1.00-1.10 2312.36 23.48 1.10-1.20 4530.35 46.01 1.20-1.30 2269.49 23.05 1.30-1.40 440.76 4.48 2 Orta Kalite Orta Kalite 1 _{Orta Kalite 2} 1.40-1.50 _1.50-1.69 225.11 _69.22 2.29 _0.70

719

Kaynaklar 1.

2. Anonim, 2014b. Satellites Reveal Depletion of a Vital Middle East Water Supply.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/satellites-reveal-depletion-of-a-vital-middle-east-water-supply/

3. Arami, S. A., Ownagh M. 2017. Assessment of desertification hazard, risk and development of management plans. Desert, 22(1), 51-67.

720

4.

Ku 28.

5. Budak, M., Gunal H., Celik I., Yildiz H., Acir N., Acar M. 2018. Environmental sensitivity to desertification in northern Mesopotamia; application of modified MEDALS by using analytical hierarchy process. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 11 (17), 1-21

6.

-Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 19, 101-112.

7. Denton, O. A., Aduramigba-Modupe V. O., Ojo A. O., Adeoyolanu O. D., Are K. S., Adelana A. O., Oke A. O. 2017. Assessment of spatial variability and mapping of soil properties for sustainable agricultural production using geographic information system techniques (GIS). Cogent Food and Agriculture, 3(1): 1-12.

8. Farajzadeh M, Egbal M. 2007. Evaluation of MEDALUS model for desertification hazard zonation using GIS; study area: Iyzad Khast Plain, Iran. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 10: 2622 2630

9.

10. Ismael, H. 2015. Evaluation Of Present-Day Climate-Induced Desertification In El-Dakhla Oasis, Western Desert of Egypt, Based on Integration of MEDALUS Method, GIS And RS Techniques. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 9(2), 47-72.

11. Jafari, R., Bakhshandehmehr L. 2016. Quantitative mapping and assessment of environmentally sensitive areas to desertification in central Iran. Land Degradation & Development, 27(2), 108-119.

12. Mulla, D. J. ve McBratney A B., 2000. Soil Spatial Variability. Chapter 9. In:Sumner, M. E. (ed.), Handbooh of Soil Science. CRC Press, pp. A321-A352.

13. Negaresh, H., Rakhshani Z., Firoozi F., Alinia H. 2016. Desertification assessment using the analytic hierarchy process and gis in southeast iran. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 98(1), 1-14.

14. Osborn, H. B. Simanton, J. R. 1989i Gullies and sediment yield. Rangelands 11(2), 51-56. 15. Saaty, T. L. 1990. Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions

in a complex world. RWS publications

16. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83-98.

17. Sarparast, M., Ownegh M., Najafinejad A., Sepehr A. 2018. An applied statistical method to identify desertification indicators in northeastern Iran. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 5(1), 3.

18. Sepehr, A., Hassanli A. M., Ekhtesasi M. R., Jamali J. B. 2007. Quantitative assessment of desertification in south of Iran using MEDALUS method. Environmental monitoring and Assessment, 134(1), 243-254.

19. Sharma K. D. 1998. The hydrological indicators of desertification. Arid Environments 39,121-132

20. Sheridan, D. 1981. Desertification of the United States. Desertification of the United States. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. USA.

21. Symeonakis, E., Karathanasis N., Koukoulas S., Panagopoulos G. 2016. Monitoring sensitivity to land degradation and desertification with the environmentally sensitive area index: The case of lesvos island. Land Degradation & Development, Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2285

721

Sempozyumu 24-26 Ekim Konya, pp: 52-61

24. Vasu, D., Singh S. K., Sahu N., Tiwary P., Chandran P., Duraisami V. P., Ramamurthy V., Lalitha M., Kalaiselvi B. 2017. Assessment of spatial variability of soil properties using geospatial techniques for farm level nutrient management. Soil and Tillage Research, 169: 25-34.

25. Webster, R., Oliver M. A. 2007. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientisits. Wiley Statistic in Pratice. Second Edition. pp: 153-218