Main Article Content
Lakes are considered to be among the most important ecosystems in the world due to their natural functions and economic values. The importance of lakes comes from being one of the main reservoirs of biological diversity and an important source of fresh water in addition to their use in irrigating agricultural lands. The fisheries and aquaculture sectors are a source of income for millions of people, especially for low-income families, and contribute directly and indirectly to their food security. Today, lakes face irreparable damage due to global warming, on one hand, the population increases, and food and growing production needs on the other hand. Therefore, studying the effects of these factors on lakes has been of great importance to decision-makers in local governments. In this paper, we study the changes in Işıklı Lake over seven years using high-resolution Sentinel-2 images. Işıklı Lake is of great importance not only because of its economic value but also because it is an ecological and natural resource. However, the lake faces many challenges due to climatic and human activities, especially in the last decade. But since changes to this lake are slow and time-consuming, the resulting damage may go unnoticed. Therefore, long historical data such as aerial photographs or satellite images of the area is fundamental to monitor the changes that occur and preventing further change. The results indicate that the lake lost 40% of its surface area in just seven years, which is considered a short period compared to this amount of change. Consequently, the proportion of aquatic vegetation also decreased by 49%. At the same time, there was a decrease in the area of agricultural land by 24 percent and forest lands by 40%. In contrast, there was an increase in dry agricultural land, pasture lands, and built-up areas by 44%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. These findings indicate that the change process is proceeding at a rapid pace and may lead to irreparable damage to the lake if the local government and decision-makers do not take serious steps to address the problem.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (1993). Wetlands. 2nd EditionJohn Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York, NY.
Nicholls, R. J. (2004). Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 69-86.
Fickas, K. C., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z. J. W. e., & management. (2016). Landsat-based monitoring of annual wetland change in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, USA from 1972 to 2012. 24(1), 73-92.
Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Borchardt, D., & Lorang, M. S. J. F. B. (2010). Multiple stressors in coupled river–floodplain ecosystems. 55, 135-151.
Sülük, K., Nural, S., & Tosun, İ. (2013). Sulak alanlarda halkın çevre bilincinin değerlendirilmesi: Işıklı Gölü örneği. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 1(1), 7-11.
Funkenberg, T., Binh, T. T., Moder, F., & Dech, S. (2014). The Ha Tien Plain–wetland monitoring using remote-sensing techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 35(8), 2893-2909.
Ramsar, P. (2013). The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) Ramsar Convention Secretariat. In: Gland.
Iza, A. (2004). Developments under the Ramsar Convention: allocation of water for river and wetland ecosystems. Rev. Eur. Comp. & Int'l Envtl. L., 13, 40
Schmidt, K. S., & Skidmore, A. K. (2003). Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in a coastal wetland. Remote sensing of Environment, 85(1), 92-108.
Park, N. W., Chi, K. H., & Kwon, B. D. (2003). Geostatistical integration of spectral and spatial information for land-cover mapping using remote sensing data. Geosciences Journal, 7(4), 335-341.
Klemas, V. (2011). Remote sensing of wetlands: case studies comparing practical techniques. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 418-427.
Adam, E., Mutanga, O., Rugege, D. J. W. E., & Management. (2010). Multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing for identification and mapping of wetland vegetation: a review. 18(3), 281-296.
Aygen, C., & Balik, S. (2005). Işıklı Gölü ve Kaynaklarının (Çivril-Denizli) Crustacea Faunası. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 22(3), 371-375.
Akbaba, G., & Boyacı, Y. Ö. (2015). Işıklı Gölü (Denizli) makrobentik faunasının mevsimsel değişimi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Eğirdir Su Ürünleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 8-19.
Song, C., Woodcock, C. E., Seto, K. C., Lenney, M. P., & Macomber, S. A. (2001). Classification and change detection using Landsat TM data: when and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote sensing of Environment, 75(2), 230-244.
Bolstad, P., & Lillesand, T. M. (1991). Rapid maximum likelihood classification. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 57(1), 67-74.
Conese, C., & Maselli, F. (1992). Use of error matrices to improve area estimates with maximum likelihood classification procedures. Remote sensing of Environment, 40(2), 113-124.
Coppin, P., Jonckheere, I., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B., & Lambin, E. (2004). Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(9), 1565-1596.