Revista de Investigaciones Universidad del Quindío,

34(S5), 192-202; 2022.

ISSN: 1794-631X e-ISSN: 2500-5782

Esta obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional.

Determination of Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Lavender Production

Determinación del Uso de Energía y Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero en la Producción de Lavanda

Cihan Demir1*; Osman Gökdoğan2; Mehmet Firat Baran3.

1. Kırklareli University, Kırklareli, Turkey. cihan.demir@klu.edu.tr

2. Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Isparta, Turkey. osmangokdogan@gmail.com

3. Siirt University, Siirt, Turkey. mfb197272@gmail.com

*Corresponding author: Cihan Demir, e-mail: cihan.demir@klu.edu.tr

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to reveal the energy usage and greenhouse gas emission in lavender production. The study has been conducted in 2022 in Center district of Kırklareli province in Turkey and covers the 2021-2022 production seasons. Agricultural inputs and outputs were calculated to calculate the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in lavender production. According to the research results, the inputs are 5883.39 MJ ha-1 (59.30%) farmyard manure energy, 2425.51 MJ ha-1 (24.45%) diesel fuel energy, 732.02 MJ ha-1 (7.38%) chemical fertilizers energy, 421.89 MJ ha-1 (4.25%) machinery energy, 276.70 MJ ha-1 (2.79%) human labour energy, 97.31 MJ ha-1 (0.98%) transportation energy and 84.81 MJ ha-1 (0.85%), vermicompost energy, respectively. Total input and output energy were calculated as 9921.63 MJ ha-1 and 12859.77 MJ ha-1, respectively. Energy use efficiency (EUE), specific energy (SE), energy productivity (EP) and net energy (NE) were calculated as 1.30, 2.86 MJ kg-1, 0.35 kg MJ-1 and 2938.13 MJ ha-1, respectively. The total energy input can be classified as 27.24% direct, 72.76% indirect, 62.94% renewable and 37.06% non-renewable. GHG ratio value was calculated as 0.08 kg CO2-eqkg-1 in lavender production.

Keywords: Energy use efficiency; GHG ratio; Kırklareli; Lavender; Turkey.

Resumen

El propósito de este estudio es revelar el uso de energía y la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero en la producción de lavanda. El estudio se realizó en 2022 en el distrito central de la provincia de Kırklareli en Turquía y cubre las temporadas de producción 2021-2022. Se calcularon insumos y productos agrícolas para calcular el uso de energía y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en la producción de lavanda. Según los resultados de la investigación, los insumos son 5883,39 MJ ha-1 (59,30 %) energía de estiércol de corral, 2425,51 MJ ha-1 (24,45 %) energía de combustible diésel, 732,02 MJ ha-1 (7,38 %) energía de fertilizantes químicos, 421,89 MJ ha-1 (4,25%) energía maquinaria, 276,70 MJ ha-1 (2,79%) energía mano de obra humana, 97,31 MJ ha-1 (0,98%) energía transporte y 84,81 MJ ha-1 (0,85%) energía vermicompost, respectivamente. La energía total de entrada y salida se calculó como 9921,63 MJ ha-1 y 12859,77 MJ ha-1, respectivamente. La eficiencia del uso de energía (EUE), la energía específica (SE), la productividad energética (EP) y la energía neta (NE) se calcularon como 1,30, 2,86 MJ kg-1, 0,35 kg MJ-1 y 2938,13 MJ ha-1, respectivamente. El aporte total de energía se puede clasificar en 27,24% directo, 72,76% indirecto, 62,94% renovable y 37,06% no renovable. El valor de la proporción de GEI se calculó como 0,08 kg CO2-eqkg-1 en la producción de lavanda.

Palabras clave: Eficiencia en el uso de la energía; índice de GEI; Kırklareli; Lavanda; Turquía

Introduction

Some of both spontaneously growing plants and the cultivated ones have been used in the treatment of various diseases as well as in cosmetic products, nutrition and food industry from past to present. Lavender (Lavandula Sp.), one of these products, consists of 39 species that naturally grow in the Mediterranean Region, Arabian Peninsula, South West Asia and India (Lis-Balchin, 2002; Gök et al., 2022). Lavender (Lavandula spp.) is a valuable perennial essential oil plant in the semi-shrub form from the Lamiaceae family (Guenther, 1952; Kara and Baydar, 2011). Lavender contains much higher oil (between 3.5-6.0% on average) than other aromatic plants (Anonymous, 2008; Bozkıran and Giray, 2016).

Among all of the costs, energy is one that can be controlled at a larger scale. Therefore, there is a significant potential to energy the consumption levels of energy and consequently, the cost (Jekayinfa, 2006; Altuntas et al., 2020). Agricultural systems are identified and grouped based on energy consumption and this is done through the energy analyses conducted for agricultural production activities. Several studies have been conducted in recent years to assess agricultural productions. The focal points of these studies were sustainable agricultural principles, economy, energy and emission (environment). The need for energy is getting ever-higher in agricultural activities. The plans to renew tillage systems for better energy efficiency will consequently lead to lower usage of energy and better productivity (Altuntas et al., 2020).

The actions of producing, formulating, storing and distributing of agricultural inputs as well as the application of the inputs through mechanical equipment require the use of different forms of energy. These energy forms include diesel fuel, which emits GHG into atmosphere. As the main target is to reduce GHG emissions, a logical option to do this in agro ecosystems would be to take the amount of emissions from specific sources in production processes under control. Then the next step would be to reveal the most economically feasible options with reduced GHG emissions (Jones et al., 2012; Mondani et al., 2017). This requires to obtain data related to energy use in farms, and then converting them to their GHG equivalents. The achieved figures can then be used to express energy use in terms of GHG emission as kg carbon equivalent (Lal, 2004; Mondani et al., 2017).

There are a number of goals set forth in the development plans in Turkey and these goals shape the national agricultural policies. The 11th Development Plan (2019-2023) regulates that agricultural policies should be sustainable in environmental, social and economic terms; provide an adequate and balanced nutrition for the public; increase international competitiveness through a production system that addresses the supply-demand balance; overcome infrastructure problems based on an advanced technology; and be highly organized and productive (Bayav, 2022).

A number of studies have been conducted on energy usage and GHG of various agricultural productions. These include studies on lavender (Gökdoğan, 2016), field crops (Yaldız et al., 1993), dry bean (Sonmete and Demir, 2007), legume (Ertekin et al. 2010), tobacco (Moraditochaee 2012), black cumin (Yilmaz et al., 2021), mandarin (Ozkan et al., 2004), peanut (Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2013), apple (Taghavifar and Mardani, 2015a), watermelon (Mohammadi-Barsari et al., 2016), guar (Gökdoğan et al., 2017) almond (Yılmaz and Bayav, 2022), avocado (Gökduman et al., 2022), vegetable (Canakci et al., 2005), wheat (Tipi et al., 2009), oat (Rajaniemi et al., 2011), broiler (Atilgan and Koknaroglu 2006), milk (Oğuz and Yener Ogur, 2019) etc. The purpose of this study is to reveal the energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions in lavender production in Kırklareli province and it is a significant study as there were no previous comprehensive studies conducted in the region on this matter in the past.

Materials and Method

Kırklareli is located in the Thrace Region of Turkey on the European Continent. It lies between 41°44’ - 42°00’ north latitudes and 26°53’ - 41°44’ east longitudes. It has a land area of 6555 km2. It is surrounded by Bulgaria with a border length of 159 km from the north, the Black Sea with a coastal length of 58 km from the east, Edirne from the west, Istanbul from the southeast and Tekirdağ from the south. 48% of the land is mountainous, 35% is undulating land and 17% is plain (Anonymous, 2022a). Kırklareli has different climatic characteristics. In the center of Kırklareli, the continental climate is dominant. The Black Sea climate is seen in the north-facing parts of the Yıldız Mountains. Accordingly, summers are cool and winters are cold. Continental climate is observed in the interior parts far from the sea. Summers are hot, winters are cold and occasionally snowy (Anonymous, 2022b).

The study has been conducted in 2022 in Center district of Kırklareli province in Turkey and covers the 2021-2022 production seasons. The survey, observation and research studies have been done in agricultural farms of the Center district of Kırklareli. Farms have been determined on the basis of 2021 data provided by the Kırklareli Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry. The data provided by the study were reached from 12 lavender farms through face-to-face surveys and observations with full count method proposed by Karagölge and Peker (2002).

Tables 1 and 2 indicate the energy equivalents of the inputs and GHG equivalents in lavender production. The total energy inputs were calculated by multiplying the energy equivalents and input used per hectare of all inputs in MJ unit. EUE, SE, EP and NE were calculated by using the following formulae (Mandal et al., 2002; Mohammadi et al., 2008; Mohammadi et al. 2010) to calculate the energy balance in lavender production.

Energy use efficiency = Energy output (MJ ha-1) / Energy input (MJ ha-1) (1)

Specific energy = Energy input (MJ ha-1) / Product output (kg ha-1) (2)

Energy productivity = Product output (kg ha-1) / Energy input (MJ ha-1) (3)

Net energy = Energy output (MJ ha-1) - Energy input (MJ ha-1) (4)

Table 1. Energy equivalents in lavender production

Inputs	Unit	Energy equivalent (MJ unit-1)	References
Human labour	h	1.96	Mani et al., 2007; Karaağaç et al., 2011
Machinery	h	64.80	Singh, 2002; Kizilaslan, 2009
N	kg	60.60	Singh, 2002; Ozalp et al., 2018
Ca	kg	8.80	Pimentel, 1980; Zafiriou et al., 2012
Micro elements	kg	120	Mandal et al., 2002; Singh, 2002; Canakci and Akinci, 2006; Banaeian et al., 2011
Diesel fuel	L	56.31	Singh, 2002; Demircan et al., 2006
Farmyard manure	kg	0.30	Ertekin et al., 2011; Ozalp et al., 2018
Vermicompost	kg	1.20	Babu et al., 2016
Transportation	MJ (ton km)-1	4.50	Fluck and Baird, 1982; Kitani, 1999
Output	Unit	Energy equivalent (MJ uni-1)	Reference
Fresh stalked lavender flower	kg (18% dry matter)	20.61	Gökdoğan, 2016

Table 2. GHG emissions coefficients in lavender production

Inputs	Unit	GHG equivalent (kg CO2-equnit-1)	References
Machinery	MJ	0.071	Dyer and Desjardins, 2006; Ekinci et al., 2020
N	kg	1.300	Lal, 2004; Ozalp et al., 2018
Ca	kg	0.39	Hammond and Jones, 2008; Ekinci et al., 2020
Micro elements	kg	0.66	Macedo et al., 2008; Sami and Reyhani, 2018
Diesel fuel	L	2.760	Dyer and Desjardins, 2006; Ozalp et al., 2018
Farmyard manure	kg	0.005	Mohammadi et al., 2014; Ozalp, et al., 2018
Transportation	ton.km	0.150	Meisterling et al., 2009; Eren et al., 2019a

The GHG emissions (kgCO2-eqha–1) associated with the inputs to produce 1 ha of plant were calculated as follows, concerted by Hughes et al. (2011) (Eren et al., 2019b).

(5)

∑ where R(i) is the application ratio of input i (unitinputha-1) and EF(i) is the GHG emission coefficient of input i (kg CO2-equnitinput-1). An index is described to evaluate the amount of emitted kg CO2-eq per kg yield as following adapted Houshyar et al. (2015) and Khoshnevisan et al. (2014). Where IGHGGHG is GHG ratio and Y has the yield as kg per ha (Eren et al., 2019b).

(6)

The input energy is also categorized into direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable forms. The indirect energy consists of pesticide and fertilizer while the direct energy consists of human, animal power, diesel and electricity energy used in the production process. Non-renewable energy includes petrol, diesel, electricity, chemicals, fertilizers, machinery and renewable energy consists of human and animal labour (Mandal et al., 2002; Singh et al., 2003; Koctürk and Engindeniz, 2009). Energy usage, EUE calculations, EI types, GHG emissions of inputs related to lavender production are given in Tables 3 to 6, respectively.

Results and Discussion

The average amount of lavender produced per hectare during 2021-2022 production season was calculated as 3466.43 kg. The inputs in lavender production are 5883.39 MJ ha-1 (59.30%) farmyard manure energy, 2425.51 MJ ha-1 (24.45%) diesel fuel energy, 732.02 MJ ha-1 (7.38%) chemical fertilizers energy, 421.89 MJ ha-1 (4.25%) machinery energy, 276.70 MJ ha-1 (2.79%) human labour energy, 97.31 MJ ha-1 (0.98%) transportation energy and 84.81 MJ ha-1 (0.85%) vermicompost energy, respectively (Table 3).

In previous researches; Gökdoğan (2016) calculated that the fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 52.88% in lavender production; Ozbek et al. (2021) calculated that fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 60.43% in onion production; Ozalp et al. (2018) calculated that fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 35.80% in pomegranate production. Contrary to the studies above, in this study titled energy use in lavender production conducted in Kırklareli, a large part of the inputs, 5883.39 MJ ha-1 (59.30%), consists of farm manure. This is due to the low use of chemical fertilizers in the inputs and the high use of farmyard manure.

Table 3. Energy usage in lavender production

Inputs	Unit	Energy equivalent (MJ unit-1)	Input used per hectare (unit ha-1)	Energy value (MJ ha-1)	Ratio (%)
Human labour	h	1.96	141.17	276.70	2.79
Machinery	h	64.80	6.51	421.89	4.25
Chemical fertilizers	-	-	-	732.02	7.38
N	kg	60.60	10.33	626	6.31
Ca	kg	8.80	7.23	63.62	0.64
Micro elements	kg	120	0.35	42.40	0.43
Diesel fuel	L	56.31	43.07	2425.51	24.45
Farmyard manure	kg	0.30	19611.31	5883.39	59.30
Vermicompost	kg	1.20	70.67	84.81	0.85
Transportation*	MJ (ton km)-1	4.50	21.63	97.31	0.98
Total inputs	-	-	-	9921.63	100.00
Outputs	Unit	Energy equivalent (MJ / unit)	Output per hectare (unit ha-1)	Energy value (MJ ha-1)	Ratio (%)
Lavender flower	kg (18% dry matter)	20.61	3466.43	12859.77	100.00
Total output	-	-	-	12859.77	100.00

*Average trip distance (6.25 km *3.46 tons)

Fresh stalked lavender flower, EI, EO, EUE, SE, EP and NE in lavender production were calculated as 3466.43 kg ha-1, 9921.63 MJ ha-1, 12859.77 MJ ha-1, 1.30, 2.86 MJ kg-1, 0.35 kg MJ-1 and 2938.13 MJ ha-1, respectively (Table 4). In previous researches; Gökdoğan (2016) calculated (lavender) EUE as 2.77, Haciseferogullari et al. (2003) calculated (sugar beet) EUE as 19.15, Çelik et al. (2010) calculated (conventional black carrot) EUE as 1.30, Taghavifar and Mardani (2015b) calculated (wheat) EUE as 1.74, Semerci et al. (2019) calculated (cotton) EUE as 1.11 etc.

Table 4. EUE calculations in lavender production

Calculations	Unit	Values
Lavender flower	kg ha-1	3466.43
EI	MJ ha-1	9921.63
EO	MJ ha-1	12859.77
EUE	-	1.30
SE	MJ kg -1	2.86
EP	kg MJ-1	0.35
NE	MJ ha-1	2938.13

Energy inputs for lavender production have been categorized and calculated as direct (DE), indirect (IDE), renewable (RE) and non-renewable (NRE) energy groups (Table 5). The total energy input in lavender production can be classified as 27.24% (2702.21 MJ ha-1) DE, 72.76% (7219.42 MJ ha-1) IDE, 62.94% (6244.90 MJ ha-1) RE and 37.06% (3676.73 MJ ha-1) NRE. RE was higher than the ratio of NRE in energy inputs of lavender production. Achieving higher usage levels of renewable energy source is a desirable outcome. In previous studies on lavender (Gökdoğan, 2016), on cotton (Sami and Reyhani, 2018), on onion (Ozbek et al. 2021) etc., the ratio of NRE energy has been observed to be higher than the ratio of RE.

Table 5. Energy inputs forms of lavender production

Energy groups	Energy input (MJ ha-1)	Ratio (%)
DE	2702.21	27.24
IDE	7219.42	72.76
Total	9921.63	100.00
RE	6244.90	62.94
NRE	3676.73	37.06
Total	9921.63	100.00

The results of GHG emissions of lavender production are given in Table 6. The total GHG emissions were calculated as 266.62 kgCO2-eqha–1 (0.26 tonCO2-eqha–1). According to the results of the study, the input with the highest value is diesel fuel with 118.88 kgCO2-eqha-1 (44.59%). Diesel fuel is followed by farmyard manure with 98.06 kgCO2-eqha-1 (36.78%) and machinery energy with 29.95 kgCO2-eqha-1 (11.23%). The GHG ratio (per kg) was calculated as 0.08. In previous studies, Pishgar-Komleh et al. (2012) reported GHG emission in potato production as 992.88 kgCO2-eqha-1, Khoshnevisan et al. (2013) reported GHG emission in wheat production as 2711.58 kgCO2-eqha–1 Ozbek et al. (2021) reported the GHG emission in onion production as 2922.11 tonCO2-eqha-1.

Table 6. GHG emissions in lavender production

Inputs	Unit	GHG coefficient (kg CO2eq unit-1)	Input used per area (unit ha-1)	GHG emissions (kg CO2eq ha-1)	Ratio (%)
Machinery	MJ	0.071	421.89	29.95	11.23
N	kg	1.300	10.33	13.43	5.04
Ca	kg	0.39	7.23	2.82	1.06
Micro elements	kg	0.66	0.35	0.23	0.09
Diesel fuel	L	2.760	43.07	118.88	44.59
Farmyard manure	kg	0.005	19611.31	98.06	36.78
Transportation	ton.km	0.150	21.63	3.24	1.22
Total	-	-	-	266.62	100.00
GHG ratio (per kg)	-	-	-	0.08	-

Conclusion

Energy use, GHG emissions and rate in lavender production were calculated in this study. The study results can be summarized as follows.

Production inputs consist of 5883.39 MJ ha-1 (59.30%) farmyard manure energy, 2425.51 MJ ha-1 (24.45%) diesel fuel energy, 732.02 MJ ha-1 (7.38%) chemical fertilizers energy, 421.89 MJ ha-1 (4.25%) machinery energy, 276.70 MJ ha-1 (2.79%) human labour energy, 97.31 MJ ha-1 (0.98%) transportation energy and 84.81 MJ ha-1 (0.85%) vermicompost energy, respectively

EUE, SE, EP and NE in lavender production were calculated as 1.30, 2.86 MJ kg-1, 0.35 kg MJ-1 and 2938.13 MJ ha-1, respectively. These results suggest that lavender production is economically viable in terms of energy usage.

The highest energy input in lavender production was calculated for farmyard manure energy by 5883.39 MJ ha-1 (59.30%). It is a desired result that the use of renewable energy is high in agriculture. It is desirable to reduce non-renewable energy sources and reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.

The used total energy input was classified as 62.94% renewable and 37.06% non-renewable. In terms of energy use, higher use of renewable energy is a desired result.

Total GHG emission and GHG ratio have been respectively calculated as 266.62 kgCO2-eqha–1 (0.26 tonCO2-eqha–1) and 0.08. Based on the study results, the highest value was yielded by diesel fuel by 118.88 kgCO2-eqha–1 (44.59%).

Reducing diesel fuel consumption in lavender production in the region is one of the most important goals in terms of energy and GHG management.

Acknowledgement

This study was submitted as oral abstract in the III. International Conference on Global Practice of Multidisciplinary Scientific Studies at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

References

Altuntas, E., Ozgoz, E., Guzel, M., Ozgenlik, B. (2020). Effects of tillage systems on energy efficiency in safflower farming of Central Anatolia of Turkey. Turk J Agr Eng Res 1: 1-11.

Anonymous. (2008). İGEME, Dış Ticaret Bilgileri, İhracatı Geliştirme Merkezi, Ankara (in Turkish).

Anonymous. (2022a). T.C. Kırklereli İl Özel İdaresi. http://www.kirklareliilozelidaresi.gov.tr/cografi-konumu#:~:text=K%C4%B1rklareli%2C%20T%C3%BCrkiye%27nin%20Avrupa%20K%C4%B1tas%C4%B1,6.555%20km2%20toprak%20b%C3%BCy%C3%BCkl%C3%BC%C4%9F%C3%BCne%20 (Access date: 01 Nov 2022).

Anonymous. (2022b). T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kırklareli İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. https://kirklareli.ktb.gov.tr/TR-64281/cografya.html (Access date: 01 Nov 2022).

Atilgan, A., Koknaroglu, H. (2006). Cultural energy analysis on broilers reared in different capaticty poultry houses. Ital J Anim Sci 5: 393-400.

Babu, S., Singh, R., , Kavasthe, R., Yadav, G.S., Chettri, T.K., Rajkhowa, D.J. (2016). Productivity, profitability and energetics of buckwheat (Fagopyrum sp.) cultivars as influenced by varying levels of vermicompost in acidic soils of Sikkim Himalayas, India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 86 (7): 844–8.

Banaeian, N., Omid, M., Ahmadi, H. (2011). Energy and economic analysis of greenhouse strawberry production in Tehran province of Iran. Energy Convers Manag 52: 1020-1025.

Bayav, A. (2022). Does farm size affect technical efficiency in apple-producing farms? A case study from Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00750-2).

Bozkıran, S., Giray, F.H. (2016). Lavanta işletmelerinin yapısal analizi. XII. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi 1857-1864 (in Turkish).

Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I., Ozmerzi, A. (2005). Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: Case study for Antalya Region, Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 46: 655-666.

Canakci, M., Akinci, I. (2006). Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy 31: 1243-1256.

Çelik, Y., Peker, K., Oguz, C. (2010). Comparative analysis of energy efficiency in organic and conventional gardening systems: A case study of black carrot (Daucus carota L.) production in Turkey. Philipp Agric Scientist 93(2): 224-231.

Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H.M., Akbolat, D., Ekinci, C. (2006). Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study from Isparta province. Energy Convers Manag 47: 1761-1769.

Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L. (2006). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm machinery in Canada. Biosyst Eng 93(1): 107-118.

Ekinci, K., Demircan, V., Atasay, A., Karamursel, D., Sarica, D. (2020). Energy, economic and environmental analysis of organic and conventional apple production in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau 62: 1-12.

Eren, O., Baran, M.F., Gokdogan, O. (2019a). Determination of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the production of different fruits in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 28(1): 464-472.

Eren, O., Gokdogan, O., Baran, M.F. (2019b). Determination of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the production of different plants in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 28(2A): 1158-1166.

Ertekin, C., Canakci, M., Kulcu, R., Yaldiz, O. (2010). Energy use in legume cultivation in Turkey. XVIIth World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR). Québec, Canada, 13-17 June, 1-9.

Ertekin, C., Canakci, M., Kulcu, R., Yaldiz, O. (2011). Energy use pattern of some tuber plants cultivation over Turkey. XXXIV CIOSTA CIGR V Conference, Efficient and Safe Production Processes in Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Vienna.

Fluck, R.C., Baird, C.D. (1982). Agricultural Energetics. Connecticut: AVI.

Gök, M., Taşoğlu, E., Gök, Ş. (2022). Tokat’ta alternatif tarım ürünü olarak lavanta yetiştiriciliğine uygun sahaların analitik hiyerarşi süreci ile belirlenmesi. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education (IGGE) 46: 61-78 (in Turkish).

Gökdoğan, O. (2016). Determination of input-output energy and economic analysis of lavender production in Turkey. Int J Agric & Biol Eng 9(3): 154-161.

Gökdoğan, O., Seydosoğlu, S., Kökten, K., Bengu, A.S., Baran, M.F. (2017). Energy input-output analysis of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) and lupin (Lupinus albus L.) production in Turkey. Legume Research 40(3): 526-531.

Gökduman, M.E., Gökdoğan, O., Yılmaz, D. (2022). Determination of energy-economic balance and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of avocado (Persea americana Mill.) production in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 64: 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00742-2.

Guenther, E. (1952). The essential oils, R.E. Krieger Pub. Co. 5: 3-38.

Haciseferogullari, H., Acaroglu, M., Gezer, I. (2003). Determination of the energy balance of the sugar beet plant. Energy Sources 25(1): 15-22.

Hammond, G.P., Jones, C.I. (2008). Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Energy 161(2): 87-98.

Houshyar E, Dalgaard T, Tarazgar MH, 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

Hughes, D.J., West, J.S., Atkins, S.D., Gladders, P., Jeger, M.J., Fitt, B.D. (2011). Effects of disease control by fungicides on greenhouse gas emissions by UK arable crop production. Pest Management Science 67: 1082-1092.

Jones, C.D., Fraisse, C.W., Ozores-Hampton, M. (2012). Quantification of greenhouse gas emissions from open field-grown Florida tomato production. Agric. Syst. 113: 64-72.

Jekayinfa, S.O. (2006). Energy consumption pattern of selected mechanized farms in Southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal, Manuscript EE 06 001. Vol. VIII. April.

Kara, N., Baydar, H. (2011). Türkiye’de lavanta üretim merkezi olan Isparta ili Kuyucak yöresi lavantalarının (Lavandula x intermedia Emeric ex Loisel.) uçucu yağ özellikleri. Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 25(4): 42-46 (in Turkish).

Karaağaç, H.A., Aykanat, S., Çakır, B., Eren, Ö., Turgut, M.M., Barut, Z.B., Öztürk, H.H. (2011). Energy balance of wheat and maize crops production in Hacıali undertaking. 11th International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 21-23 September, 388-391.

Karagölge, C., Peker, K. (2002). Tarım ekonomisi araştırmalarında tabakalı örnekleme yönteminin kullanılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi. 33(3): 313-316 (in Turkish).

Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Yousefi, M., Movahedi, M. (2013). Modeling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks. Energy 52: 333-338.

Khoshnevisan, B., Shariati, H.M., Rafiee, S., Mousazadeh, H. (2014). Comparison of energy consumption and GHG emissions of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 29: 316-324.

Kitani O (1999) Energy for biological systems. In: The International Commission of Agricultural Engineering (ed) CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering: Energy and Biomass Engineering , vol V (J Ortiz-Ca˜navate and JL Hernanz) American Society of Agricultural Engineers 13-39.

Kizilaslan, H. (2009). Input-output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat province of Turkey. Appl Energy 86: 1354-1358.

Koctürk, O.M., Engindeniz, S. (2009). Energy and cost analysis of sultana grape growing: A case study of Manisa, west Turkey. Afr J Agric Res 4(10): 938-943.

Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ Int 30: 981-990.

Lis-Balchin, M. (2002). Lavender: The Genus Lavandula (1st Edition). Retrieved from (https://www.routledge.com/Lavender-The-GenusLavandula/Lis-Balchin/p/book/978.041.5284868).

Macedo, I.C., Seabra, J., J.E.A., Silva, J.E.A.R. (2008). Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass Bioenergy 32: 582-595.

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 Bioenergy 23: 337-345.

Mani, I., Kumar, P., Panwar, J.S., Kant, K. (2007). Variation in energy consumption in production of wheat-maize with varying altitudes in hill regions of Himachal Prades. India Energy 32: 2336-2339.

Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., Schweizer, V. (2009). Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 222-230.

Mohammadi, A., Tabatabaeefar, A., Shahin, S., Rafiee, S., Keyhani, A. (2008). Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Convers Manag 49: 3566-3570.

Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Mohtasebi, S.S., Rafiee, H. (2010). Energy inputs-yield relationship and cost analysis of kiwifruit production in Iran. Renew Energy 35: 1071-1075.

Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Keyhani, A., Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Nonhebel, S. (2014). Energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of farming systems in North Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 30: 724-733.

Mohammadi-Barsari, A., Firouzi, S., Aminpanah, H. (2016). Energy-use pattern and carbon footprint of rain-fed watermelon production in Iran. Information Processing in Agriculture 3: 69-75.

Mondani, F., Aleagha, S., Khoramivafa, M., Ghobadi, R. (2017). Evaluation of greenhouse gases emission based on energy consumption in wheat Agroecosystems. Energy Reports 3: 37-45.

Moraditochaee, M. (2012). Study energy indices of tobacco production in north of Iran. Agricultural and Biological Science 7(6): 462-465.

Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Abdi, R., Rafiee, S. (2013). Energy use pattern and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs and economical models for peanut production in Iran. Intl J Agri Crop Sci 5(19): 2193-2202.

Oğuz, C., Yener Ogur, A. (2019). The use of energy in milk production; a case study from Konya province of Turkey. Energy 183: 142-148.

Ozalp, A., Yilmaz, S., Ertekin, C., Yilmaz, I. (2018). Energy analysis and emissions of greenhouse gases of pomegranate production in Antalya province of Turkey. Erwerbs Obstbau 60(4): 321-329.

Ozbek, O., Gokdogan, O., Baran, M.F. (2021). Investigation on energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of onion cultivation. Fresenius Environ Bull. 30(2): 1125-1133.

Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., Karadeniz, F. (2004). Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 45: 1821-1830.

Pimentel, D. (1980). Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Ghahderijani, M., Sefeedpari, P. (2012). Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 33: 183-191.

Rajaniemi, M., Mikkola, H., Ahokas, J. (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions from oats, barley, wheat and rye production. Agronomy Research Biosystem Engineering Special Issue 1: 189-195.

Sami, M., Reyhani, H. (2018). Energy and greenhouse gases balances of cotton farming in Iran: A case study. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 66(1): 0101-0109.

Semerci A, Baran MF, Gokdogan O, Celik AD (2019) Determination of energy use efficiency of cotton production in Turkey: A case study from Hatay province. Fresenius Environ Bull 27(4): 1829-1835.

Singh, J.M. (2002). On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. International Institute of Management University of Flensburg. Sustainable Energy Systems and Management, Master of Science, Flensburg, Germany.

Singh, H, Mishra, D., Nahar, N.M., Ranjan, M. (2003). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in Arid Zone India (Part II). Energy Convers Manag 44: 1053-1067.

Sonmete, M.H., Demir, F. (2007). Fasulyenin hasat-harman mekanizasyonunda enerji tüketimleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 21(41): 109-117 (In Turkish)

Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A. (2015a). Prognostication of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of apple production in West Azerbayjan in Iran using artificial neural network. J Clean Prod 87: 159-167.

Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A. (2015b). Energy consumption analysis of wheat production in West Azarbayjan utilizing life cycle assessment (LCA). Renew Energy 74: 208-213.

Tipi, T., Çetin, B., Vardar, A. (2009). An analysis of energy use and input costs for wheat production in Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 7(2): 352-356.

Yaldız, O., Öztürk, H.H., Zeren, Y., Başçetinçelik, A. (1993). Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey. 5th International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, Kuşadası, Turkey, 11-14 October, 527-536 (in Turkish).

Yılmaz, A., Bayav, A. (2022). Determination of energy efficiency in almond production according to variety: A case study in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00728-0).

Yilmaz, H., Gokdogan, O., Ozer, S. (2021). Energy use efficiency and economic analysis of black cumin production in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 30(10): 11395-11401.

Zafiriou, P., Mamolos, A.P., Menexes, G.C., Siomos, A.S., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Kalburtji, K.L. (2012). Analysis of energy flow and greenhouse gas emissions in organic, integrated and conventional cultivation of white asparagus by PCA and HCA: cases in Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 29-30: 20-27.