Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 204–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Short communication

Celery harvesting causes losses of soil: A case study in Turkey T

a,⁎ a b
Mehmet Parlak , Gıyasettin Çiçek , Humberto Blanco-Canqui
a
Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Lapseki Vocational School, Canakkale, Turkey
b
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soil loss due to crop harvesting (SLCH) could contribute to the total soil loss, but the extent of such losses could
Soil erosion vary among root crops. While many have studied SLCH with different crops, studies on SLCH for celery are
Soil loss due to crop harvesting unavailable. Thus, we quantified SLCH of celery (Apium graveolens L.) in northwest Turkey, a region with 19% of
Soil degradation celery production in Turkey. We also studied the factors influencing SLCH and the cost of nutrients lost with soil
Celery
due to celery harvesting. Soil loss due to manual celery harvest ranged from 1.41 to 8.52 Mg ha−1 harvest−1
Soil nutrient losses
with an average value of 4.00 Mg ha−1 harvest−1. Clay, lime, organic matter, and soil moisture content ex-
plained about 35% of the variation of SLCH. The estimated annual cost of nutrient lost with soil was US$ 6.18
per hectare. The significant soil loss due to celery harvesting should be taken into account when estimating total
soil erosion.

1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods

Soils provide numerous services including food production, reg-
ulation of water and air quality, C and nutrient cycling, and main-
tenance of biodiversity, among many others (Keesstra et al., 2016). Soil
erosion is one of the factors that can negatively affect the critical role of
soils in sustainable agriculture. Intensive agriculture is the leading an-
thropogenic process that causes soil erosion. Soil loss due to harvesting
of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.), carrot
(Daucus carota L.), radish (Raphanus sativus L.) and celery can be im-
portant components of total soil erosion. During the harvesting of tuber
and root crops, soil adhering to the roots along loose soil or clods is
exported. Soil loss due to crop harvesting (SLCH) is far from negligible
(Ruysschaert et al., 2004; Parlak et al., 2016; Poesen, 2018). The SLCH
rates vary significantly in space and time depending on a range of
factors (i.e. soil properties, crop type and characteristics, agronomic
practices, harvesting techniques, and post-harvest treatments
(Ruysschaert et al., 2004)).
While many have studied SLCH with different crops, information on
SLCH for celery is limited. Celery roots and leaf stalks are consumed as
vegetable. Celery is poor in carbohydrate and low in protein but is rich
in vitamin A, B, C, and minerals, which are essential to human nutrition
and health (Vural et al., 2000). In 2016, 18,981 Mg of celery were
produced in Turkey from 8,828 ha of land area (TUIK, 2017). The
present study was conducted to determine: 1) soil loss due to the har-
vest of celery, 2) factors affecting soil loss with celery harvest, and 3)
cost of nutrients lost with soil due to celery harvesting.
2.1. Description of the study area
This study was conducted in Geyve town, which is located south of
Sakarya province on east of Marmara Region (northern west Turkey;
Fig. 1). The study site is located between 40° 30′- 40° 45′ north latitudes
and 30° 13′–30° 29′ east longitudes. According to the Geyve meteor-
ological station (1950-2005), the mean annual precipition is 640.3 mm
and mean annual temperature is 13.9 °C (DMI, 2005). Agricultural
practices in the study region mostly include viticulture, fruit culture
(Malus communis L., Cydonia oblonga L., Prunus persica L., and Prunus
avium L.), vegetable culture (mostly celery) and cereals (Aktas, 2011).
In 2016, about 19% of root celery production of the country was in
Geyve town of Sakarya (TUIK, 2017). Celery seedlings are planted be-
tween April and July. Row spacing is 50–60 cm and on-row plant spa-
cing is 30-40 cm. Harvest is performed between November and Feb-
ruary either through manual pull-out or with knives to cut the plants.
Tiny roots and unmarketable old leaves are removed from the harvested
plants. According to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources, soils
in the study region were classified as Calcaric Fluvisol (Jones et al.,
2005) with various textural classes including silty clay, silty clay loam,
clay loam, and silty loam.
2.2. Sampling methodology
Soil and celery plants were sampled manually from the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mehmetparlak06@hotmail.com (M. Parlak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.03.011
Received 11 January 2018; Received in revised form 6 March 2018; Accepted 14 March 2018
Available online 22 March 2018
0167-1987/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Parlak et al. Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 204–209

Fig. 1. Map showing the study area located in northwest Turkey.

Fig. 2. A. Manual celery harvest B. Celery wash up C. Celeries waiting for wash up in trailer D. Soils left and accumulated in washing facility after manual celery harvest.

205
M. Parlak et al. Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 204–209

Table 1 SLCHcrop (Mg ha−1harvest−1) (4)

Descriptive statistics of the SLCH parameters, soil properties, plant density, root mass,
and celery yield.a
2.4. Laboratory analysis
Measured variable Manual harvest

Number of samples 27 Soil attached to the harvested celery was collected. Celery roots
SLCHspec (kg kg−1) 0.2035 (0.0646-0.5107) were 20 cm deep. The celery samples were oven-dried for 24 h at 105 °C
SLCHspec/p (g root−1) 0.0303 (0.0092-0.0817) to determine gravimetric soil moisture content (g g−1). A fraction of
SLCHcrop (Mg ha−1 harvest-1) 4.00 (1.41-8.52)
soil sample was air-dried and sieved to 2 mm. Particle-size distribution
Gravimetric water content (g g−1) 0.256 (0.170-0.330)
Fine sand (%) 8.30 (2.28-17.26) was determined by the Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Gee and
Coarse sand (%) 5.15 (0.26-12.94) Bauder, 1986). Soil samples for bulk density were collected using a
Clay (%) 41.70 (22.92-58.70) hand probe to a depth of 20 cm. Bulk density was computed based on
Silt (%) 44.85 (30.43-58.33)
the oven-dry weight and total volume of the soil by the core method
Bulk density (g cm−3) 1.26 (1.02-1.46)
CaCO3 (%) 16.95 (14.49-20.94)
(Blake and Hartge, 1986). A fraction of soil sample was air-dried and
Organic matter (%) 2.46 (1.02-5.15) sieved to 2 mm. Lime content of the soils was determined with
Plant density (roots ha−1) 66 630 (7 000-105 000) “Scheibler Calcimeter” (Nelson,1982). Soil organic matter was de-
Root mass (g) 291.00 (156.30-466.70) termined using the Smith–Weldon method (Nelson and Sommers,
Celery yield (Mg ha−1 harvest -1) 20.75 (11.14-33.27)
1982), total nitrogen by Kjeldahl method (Bremner and Mulvaney,
a
Mean (min-max). 1982), plant-available phosphorus by Olsen method (Olsen and
Sommers, 1982), and potassium ammonium acetate extraction method
experimental site in November 2016 (Fig. 2A). Celery was harvested (Kenudsen et al., 1982) respectively.
manually. Use of machinery is not common in celery harvest due to
small production areas and high expense of celery harvesters. Experi- 2.5. Statistical analysis
ments were conducted in three villages (Safibey Village, Bozoren Vil-
lage, and Umurbey Village) with the greatest celery cultivation in the Analysis of multiple regressions and correlations was performed
study region. Celery fields were irrigated with drip irrigation two days using PROC CORR and PROC REG and STEPWISE in SAS (SAS Institute
before harvest to facilitate celery extraction as well as plant and soil Inc, 1999). Spearman correlation coefficients and significance levels
separation. Irrigating celery fields prior to harvest is a common practice were studied.
in the study area. A total of 27 samples (3 villages x 3 celery fields x 3
plots = 27) were collected. Plot size was 2 m by 2 m. All plants in each 3. Results and discussion
plot were harvested, and 7 to 11 celery samples per plot were randomly
taken from the piles. The plant density (roots ha−1) was determined 3.1. Soil loss due to celery harvesting
from the total number of celery roots for each plot. The mass of wet soil
adhering to roots was measured in the field immediately after harvest Basic statistics for each variable for celery harvest are provided in
by weighing gross root mass (root mass + soil mass), washing the roots Table 1. Average SLCHspec (kg kg−1), SLCHspec/p (g root−1), and
in a bucket, and weighing the individual clean root (net crop mass or SLCHcrop (Mg ha−1 harvest−1) values for manual celery harvest were
Mcrop/p). The crop yield (Mcy) in Mg ha−1 was calculated from the 0.20, 0.03 and 4.00, respectively.
average root mass and plant density (Li et al., 2006). The SLCH values for celery harvest in this study were higher than
those for sweet potato in Nigeria, cassava in Uganda, and sugar beet in
2.3. Terminology for the characterization of soil loss due to crop harvesting China, but they lower than the values for garlic in Iran, carrot in
(SLCH) Turkey, and onion in Tanzania (Table 2). Such differences in soil losses
are attributed to differences in soil properties, crop characteristics,
The SLCH can either be expressed as mass of oven-dry soil per unit agricultural practices, and harvest techniques. The SLCHcrop values for
of net crop mass or on an area-unit basis. Ruysschaert et al. (2004) manual harvest in different crops were between 0.05 and 6.27 Mg ha−1
distinguished between mass specific SLCH (SLCHspec) and crop-specific harvest-1 (Table 2). This average SLCH (4.0 Mg ha-1) was 1.57 times
SLCH (SLCHcrop) as follows: lower than the value for garlic in Iran, 1.4 times lower than the value
for carrot in Turkey, 1.12 times lower than the value for onion in
a Mass-specific SLCH Tanzania, but 80 times higher than the value for sweet potato in Ni-
geria, and 4 times higher than the value for sugar beet in China
Mds + Mrf
SLCH spec (kg /kg) = (Table 2).
Mcrop (1) Soil losses due to machine potato harvesting in Belgium and Turkey
where Mds is the mass of oven-dry soil (Mg), Mrf is the mass of rock were calculated as 3.20 and 1.81 Mg ha−1 harvest−1, respectively,
fragments (Mg), and Mcrop is the net mass of celery roots (Mg).Since while soil loss due to machine carrot harvesting in Turkey was calcu-
rock fragments are left in the field during the manual harvesting, Mrf lated as 3.50 Mg ha-1 harvest−1. Soil loss due to manual celery harvest
is ignored in Eq. (1). in this study was higher than the values for mechanically harvested
b Plant-specific SLCH sugar beet in Iran, potato in Belgium and Turkey, and carrot in Turkey
(Table 2). Cilek (2013) used PESERA (Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk
SLCHspec Mds + Mrf Assessment) model and calculated annual erosion over Sakarya Basin as
(g/ root) =
p Npl (2) 1.58 Mg ha−1. Our SLCH value (4.0 Mg ha−1) determined is higher than
where Npl are numbers of roots in the sample. that reported by Cilek (2013) but below the soil loss tolerable (T) level
c Crop-specific SLCH of 11.2 Mg ha-1 harvest−1 (Schertz and Nearing, 2002).
While the rate of soil loss in this study was below the T value, it still
SLCHcrop (Mg ha−1 harvest−1)=SLCHspec x Mcy (3) indicates that SLCH for celery can significantly contribute to total
−1 −1 erosion in this region. The significant loss should be a concern not only
where Mcy is the net crop yield (Mg ha harvest ).
for nutrient loss and crop production but also for processes leading to
−1 −1
Nutrient loss (kg ha harvest )= Nutrient content (g kg−1soil) x soil profile truncation. Stockmann et al. (2014) estimated global soil

206
M. Parlak et al. Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 204–209

Table 2
Comparison of SLCHcrop data between manual and mechanical harvesting (Mean ± standart deviation).

System Crop type Country SLCHcrop(Mg ha−1 harvest-1) Source

Manual harvesting Sweet potato Nigeria 0.05 ± n.a. Oshunsanya (2016a)

Garlic Iran 6.27 ± n.a. Faraji et al. (2017)
Carrot Turkey 5.60 ± 5.21 Parlak et al. (2016)
Cassava Uganda 3.44 ± n.a. Isabirye et al. (2007)
Onion Tanzania 4.50 ± n.a. Mwango et al. (2015)
Sugar beet China 1.00 ± 0.60 Li et al. (2006)
Celery Turkey 4.00 ± 1.91 This study
Mechanical harvesting Sugar beet Iran 2.26 ± n.a. Faraji et al. (2017)
Potato Belgium 3.20 ± 3.70 Ruysschaert et al. (2006)
Potato Turkey 1.81 ± 1.69 Parlak and Blanco-Canqui (2015)
Carrot Turkey 3.50 ± 1.76 Parlak et al. (2016)

n.a.: not available.

Table 3
Spearman correlation coefficients among SLCH variables for manually harvested celery, gravimetric moisture content (GMC), soil texture, bulk density, lime, organic matter content,
plant density (PD), avarage root mass (Mcrop/p), and crop yield (Mcy).

SLCHspec SLCHspec/p SLCHcrop GMC(g g−1) Fine sand Coarse Clay(%) Silt(%) Bulk density CaCO3(%) Organic PD(roots Mcrop/p
(%) sand(%) (g cm−3) matter(%) ha−1)

SLCHspec/p 0.98a
SLCHcrop 0.80a 0.75a
GMC(g g−1) −0.29 −0.38 −0.16
Fine sand(%) 0.43a 0.48a 0.23 −0.50a
Coarse sand 0.05 0.01 0.12 −0.04 −0.17
(%)
Clay(%) −0.45a −0.50a −0.37 0.72a −0.68a −0.15
Silt(%) 0.34 0.38 0.33 −0.66a 0.39a −0.04 −0.90a
Bulk density(g 0.43a 0.44a 0.52a −0.54a 0.50a −0.08 −0.70a 0.69a
cm−3)
Lime(%) 0.02 0.08 −0.03 −0.49a 0.05 −0.08 −0.53a 0.73a 0.40a
Organic matter −0.20 −0.24 −0.29 0.65a −0.55 −0.07 0.77a −0.70a −0.63 −0.46a
(%)
PD(roots ha−1) −0.17 −0.26 −0.04 0.18 −0.06 0.30 0.09 −0.17 0.22 −0.04 −0.12
Mcrop/p −0.06 −0.03 0.44a −0.12 −0.08 −0.01 −0.03 0.09 0.28 −0.07 −0.27 −0.11
Mcy −0.06 −0.03 0.44a −0.12 −0.08 −0.01 −0.03 0.10 0.28 −0.07 −0.27 −0.11 1.00a

a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4
Multiple regression equations between SLCHspec/p parameters for celery and soil properties (n = 27).

No Predictive Equation R2 p

1 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0663-0.00128(clay) + 0.00703(organic matter) 0.29 0.016

2 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.121 − 0.00177(clay) − 0.000757(silt) + 0.00688(organic matter) 0.32 0.031
3 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0132 + 0.00187(fine sand)+0.00065(organic matter) 0.23 0.045
4 SLCHspec/p(g/root)=-0.0437 + 0.00187(fine sand)+0.00658(organic matter)+0.000943(silt) 0.32 0.031
5 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.118-0.00106(clay)-0.00256(lime) 0.29 0.016
6 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.115-0.00145(clay)-0.0023(lime) + 0.00645(organic matter) 0.33 0.024
7 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.130-0.00131(clay)-0.00258(lime) + 0.00720(organic matter)-0.075(GMC) 0.35 0.046
8 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0391-0.0810(GMC) + 0.00145(fine sand) 0.25 0.030
9 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0685-0.000835(clay)-0.00161(crop yield) 0.25 0.033
10 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0444 + 0.000985(fine sand)-0.000533(clay) 0.28 0.019
11 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0679-0.021(GMC)-0.00075(clay) 0.25 0.034
12 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0313 + 0.00156(silt)-0.00417(lime) 0.22 0.049
13 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0685-0.000012(avarage root mass)-0.000835(clay) 0.25 0.033
14 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0150 + 0.00180(fine sand)+0.000015(crop yield) 0.23 0.045
15 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0062 + 0.00055(lime)+0.00179(fine sand) 0.23 0.043
16 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0762-0.0008(clay)-0.000000(plant density) 0.29 0.016
17 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0291 + 0.00175(fine sand)-0.000000(plant density) 0.28 0.020
18 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0557 + 0.000979(fine sand)-0.000503(clay)- 0.000000(plant density) 0.33 0.026
19 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.103 + 0.00057(fine sand)-0.000791(clay)- 0.000000(plant density)-0.00187(lime) 0.35 0.045
20 SLCHspec/p(g/root) = 0.0062 + 0.00179(fine sand) + 0.00055(lime) 0.23 0.043

formation rate as 0.11 mm year−1. Faraji et al. (2017) reported denu-
dation rate in five crops harvests (radish, beetroot, garlic, potato, and
sugar beet) in Iran as 0.3 mm year−1; Poesen et al. (2001) reported
denudation rate in sugar beet and chicory harvest in Belgium as
0.33 mm year−1. In the present study, denudation rate in celery harvest
was calculated as 3.17 mm year-1 and this value was 29 times higher
than the global soil formation rate. Such finding reveals that the rate of
soil loss due to celery harvesting is faster than the soil formation rate.
Also, the SLCH results in loss of both soil and nutrients from the upper
layers. Isabirye et al. (2007) reported soil nutrient losses of 1.71 of N,

207
M. Parlak et al.
Table 5
Cost of nutrient losses with soil loss due to celery harvesting.
Nutrient Amount Mean ± SD (g kg−1) Losses (kg ha−1 harvest−1)
N 1.25 ± 0.45 5.02
P2O5 0.05 ± 0.02 0.22
K2O 0.37 ± 0.08 1.48
a
Unit price of fertilizer was calculated according to commercial sale value.
0.16 of P, and 1.08 kg ha−1 harvest−1 of K for cassava. The same study
reported nutrient losses of 0.14 of N, 0.01 of P, and 0.15 kg ha−1 har-
vest−1 of K for sweet potato. Soil nutrient loss due to harvesting of
celery in this study was higher than for cassava and sweet potato har-
vest reported by Isabirye et al. (2007). The difference could be ex-
plained partly by the difference in soil texture and structure.
Our results indicate that the SLCH can be as important as water
erosion. For example, soil erosion from vineyards where accelerated
erosion is common is estimated as between 4.2 and 7.7 Mg ha−1year−1
(Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2018). Our study indicated that soil loss
(4.00 Mg ha−1year−1) due to celery harvest can be nearly as high as the
accelerated erosion from vineyards.
Another factor that deserves consideration is sedimentation and
water pollution under SLCH. Following the harvest, celery is washed at
cleaning sites (Fig. 2B–D) before sending the produce to consumption
centers. The removed soil at the cleaning sites in the study region often
flows into the greatest river in northwest Turkey, Sakarya River, in-
creasing risks of water pollution. One of the strategies to reduce soil loss
due to celery harvest can be the use of organic farming. Organic
farming is considered to improve soil quality and positively influence
carbon sequestration (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2017; Keesstra et al., 2018).
Indeed, Auerswald et al. (2006) reported that soil loss due to potato
harvesting was 8 Mg ha−1 harvest-1 in conventional farming and
3 Mg ha−1 harvest-1 in organic farming system in Germany. The lower
soil loss from organic farming can be attributed to the incorporation of
organic amendments, which reduce soil erodibility (Blanco-Canqui
et al., 2017).
3.2. Relationships of soil loss due to celery harvest with soil and crop
parameters
Correlation coefficients among all variables of manual celery har-
vest are provided in Table 3. The SLCHspec and SLCHspec/p were sig-
nificantly correlated with fine sand, clay, and bulk density. The
SLCHspec and SLCHspec/p increased as fine sand content and bulk density
increased and clay content decreased. The low correlation of SLCH with
the soil texture suggests that other factors likely influenced SLCH. One
of the additional factors can be the root morphology. Soil is easily at-
tached to rough, kinked, and branched roots (Oshunsanya, 2016b). The
SLCHcrop was positively correlated with bulk density, average root
mass, and crop yield, increasing with an increase in average root mass
and crop yield. Our findings were similar to those of Li et al. (2006)
who reported significant correlations between SLCHspec/p and soil sand-
clay content.
Multiple regression equations indicating relationships of SLCHspec/p
parameter with some soil characteristics and other parameters are re-
ported in Table 4. Clay, lime, organic matter, and soil moisture at
harvest time were identified as the most significant variables to predict
soil loss due to manual celery harvest. These results indicate the posi-
tive role of organic matter in reducing SLCH. This suggests that man-
agement practices that add C to soil could reduce soil loss during
manual celery harvest. Organic soil amendments such as animal
manure, crop residues, and compost could be incorporated into the soils
to reduce SLCH. A similar study by Parlak et al. (2016) identified that
fine sand content, clay content, plant density, and lime content as
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 204–209
Fertility equivalents Unit costa (US$ Mg−1) Total cost (US$ ha harvest−1)
10.90 kg urea (46%) 326 3.55
0.48 kg diammonium phosphate (46%) 462 0.22
2.96 kg K2SO4 (50%) 815 2.41
Total 6.18
sensitive predictors, which explained 89% of variation in SLCH for
manual carrot harvest.
3.3. Cost of nutrient losses
Table 5 shows annual soil and plant nutrient losses by celery har-
vest. Estimated annual costs of these losses are over US$ 6 in terms of
fertilizer use. Other researchers also calculated cost of nutrient losses
for different plants. Parlak et al. (2008) estimated the total exported soil
from the farms under sugar beet in Ankara province as 47,866 Mg. They
estimated the cost of the fertilizer equivalents for the lost N, P, and K in
Ankara province as 204,158 US$. Similarly, Parlak and Blanco-Canqui
(2015) calculated annual cost of nutrient losses in potato harvest as 3
US$ ha−1, while Faraji et al. (2017) calculated annual costs of N, P, K
lost due to garlic harvest as 8.61 US$ ha−1.
4. Conclusions
Soil loss due to manual celery harvesting in northwest Turkey, a
region with significant celery production in the country, was 4 Mg ha−1
harvest−1. This finding indicates that SLCH from celery can be sig-
nificant and suggests that soil loss due to manual celery harvest can be a
threat to sustainable celery production in this and similar regions
around the world. Clay, lime, organic matter, moisture, fine sand, and
plant density were important predictors of SLCH. Annual costs of re-
placing of nutrients lost with soil can be relatively low (6.18 US$ ha
harvest−1), but the soil loss (4 Mg ha-1 harvest−1) from a single harvest
is high. Results suggest that farmers, soil conservationists, and policy-
makers should be aware about the potential negative effects of celery
harvest on soil loss. The high losses of soil N and P due to crop har-
vesting can negatively influence quality of surface and groundwater
sources. Further research documenting soil loss due to celery harvesting
and economic implications is recommended for different soil and en-
vironmental conditions as well as different harvest techniques.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University The
Scientific Research Coordination Unit, Project number: FHD-2016-
1017.
References
Aktas, A., 2011. Sakarya Guide. Governorship of Sakarya 276 pp. (in Turkish).
Auerswald, K., Gerl, G., Kainz, M., 2006. Influnce of cropping system on harvest erosion
under potato. Soil Tillage Res. 89, 22–34.
Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 1, 2nd Ed. Agronomy Monograph, vol. 9. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 363–375.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Francis, C.A., Galusha, T.D., 2017. Does organic farming accumulate
carbon in deeper soil profiles in the long term? Geoderma 288, 213–221.
Bremner, J.M., Mulvaney, C.S., 1982. Nitrogen-total. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney,
D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological
Properties, 2nd ed. Agronomy No: 9, ASA,SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 539–579.
Cilek, A., 2013. Erosion Modelling in Turkey Using Locational Information System.
Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis145 pp. Cukurova University Institute of Natural and
Applied Sciences, Adana, Turkey (in Turkish).
DMI, 2005. Meteorological bulletin. Turkish State Meteorological Service (in Turkish).
Faraji, M., Chakan, A.A., Jafarizadeh, M., Behbahani, A.M., 2017. Soil and nutrient losses
208
M. Parlak et al.
due to root crops harvesting: a case study from southwestern Iran. Arch. Agron. Soil
Sci. 63 (11), 1523–1534.
Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle-size analysis. Klute, A., Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 1, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph, vol. 9. American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, 2018, Madison, WI, pp. 383–409.
Isabirye, M., Ruysschaert, G., Van linden, L., Poesen, J., Magunda, M.K., Deckers, J.,
2007. Soil losses due to cassava and sweet potato harvesting: a case study from low
input traditional agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 92, 96–103.
Jones, A., Montanarella, L., Jones, R., 2005. Soil Atlas of Europe. European Soil Bureau
Network. European Commision 128 p.
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., Cerda, A., 2018.
The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing
ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610, 997–1009.
Keesstra, S.D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerda, A., Montanarella, L.,
Quinton, J.N., Pachepsky, Y., van der Puten, W.H., Bardgett, R.D., Moolenaar, S.,
Mol, G., Jansen, B., Fresco, L.O., 2016. The significance of soils and soil science to-
wards the realization of the United Nations sustainable development goals. Soil 2,
111–128.
Kenudsen, D., Peterson, A., Pratt, P.F., 1982. Lithium, sodium, and potassium. In: Page,
A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and
Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. Agronomy No: 9, ASA,SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin
pp. 225–245.
Li, Y., Ruysschaert, G., Poesen, J., Zhang, Q.W., Bai, L.Y., Li, L., Sun, L.F., 2006. Soil losses
due to potato and sugar beet harvesting in NE China. Earth Surf. Processes Landforms
31, 1003–1016.
Mwango, S.B., Msanya, B.M., Mtakwa, P.W., Kimaro, D.N., Deckers, J., Poesen, J.,
Lilanga, S., Sanga, R., 2015. Soil loss due to crop harvesting in Usambara Mountains,
Tanzania: the case of carrot, onion and potato. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 4 (1), 18–28.
Nelson, R.E., 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R.
(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd
ed. Agronomy No: 9, ASA,SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin pp. 181–197.
Nelson, R.E., Sommers, L.E., 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In:
Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2,
Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. Agronomy No: 9, ASA,SSSA,
Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 539–580.
209
Soil & Tillage Research 180 (2018) 204–209
Olsen, S.R., Sommers, L.E., 1982. Phosphorus. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R.
(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd
ed. Agronomy No: 9, ASA,SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin pp. 403-427.
Oshunsanya, S.O., 2016a. Alternative method of reducing soil loss due to harvesting of
sweet potato: a case study of low input agriculture in Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res. 158,
49–56.
Oshunsanya, S.O., 2016b. Quantification of soil loss due to white cocoyam (Colocasia
esculentus) and red cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) harvesting in traditional
farming system. Catena 137, 134–143.
Parlak, M., Karaca, S., Turkmen, N., 2008. The cost of soil lost caused by sugar beet
harvest: a case study for Turkey. J. Agric. Sci. 14, 284–287.
Parlak, M., Blanco Canqui, H., 2015. Soil losses due to potato harvesting: a case study in
western Turkey. Soil Use Manage. 31, 525–527.
Parlak, M., Palta, C., Yokus, S., Blanco Canqui, H., Carkacı, D.A., 2016. Soil losses due to
carrot harvesting in south central Turkey. Catena 140, 24–30.
Poesen, J., 2018. Soil erosion in the Anthropocene: research needs. Earth Surf. Processes
Landforms 43, 64–84.
Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G., Soenens, R., Seynaeve, L., 2001. Soil losses due to harvesting
of chicory roots and sugar beet: an underrated geomorphic process? Catena 43,
35–47.
Rodrigo-Comino, J., Davis, J., Keesstra, S.D., Cerda, A., 2018. Updated measurements in
vineyards improves accuracy of soil erosion rates. Agron. J. 110, 411–417.
Ruysschaert, G., Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G., Govers, G., 2004. Soil loss due to crop har-
vesting: significance and determining factors. Prog. Phys. Geog. 28, 467–501.
Ruysschaert, G., Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G., Govers, G., 2006. Soil losses due to me-
chanized potato harvesting. Soil Tillage Res. 86, 52–72.
SAS Institute Inc, 1999. SAS/Entreprise Guide Version 2.0.0.417.
Schertz, D.L., Nearing, M.A., 2002. Erosion tolerance/soil loss tolerances. In: Lal, R. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Soil Science. Marcel Dekker Inc. New York, USA, pp. 448-451.
Stockmann, U., Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., 2014. How fast does soil grow? Geoderma
216, 48–61.
TUIK, 2017. Turkish Statistical Institute. Agricultural Data. (Accessed 30 March 2017) (in
Turkish). http://www.tuik.gov.tr.
Vural, H., Esiyok, D., Duman, I., 2000. Cultural Vegetables (Vegetable Culture). Press of
Ege University, Bornova, Izmir 440 p.(in Turkish).