Spatiotemporal Assessment and Source Contributions of Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution in Türkiye: Implications for Sustainable Management
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources and Processing
2.3. Calculation of Nutrient and Pollution Loads
2.4. Statistical and Spatial Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Pollution Derived from Livestock Production
3.2. Pollution Derived from Fertiliser Use
3.3. Pollution Derived from Cereal Production
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications of Pollution from Livestock Production
4.2. Implications of Pollution from Fertiliser Use
4.3. Implications of Pollution from Cereal Production
4.4. Limitations and Future Perspectives
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| TN | Total Nitrogen |
| TP | Total Phosphorus |
| COD | Chemical Oxygen Demand |
| NH3-N | Ammonia Nitrogen |
| ANPSP | Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution |
| NVZs | Nitrate Vulnerable Zones |
| MCLs | Maximum Contaminant Levels |
References
- Pingali, P.L. Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12302–12308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afzal, M.; Muhammad, S.; Tan, D.; Kaleem, S.; Khattak, A.A.; Wang, X.; Chen, X.; Ma, L.; Mo, J.; Muhammad, N.; et al. The effects of heavy metal pollution on soil nitrogen transformation and rice volatile organic compounds under different water management practices. Plants 2024, 13, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Filonchyk, M.; Peterson, M.P.; Zhang, L.; Hurynovich, V.; He, Y. Greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change: Examining the influence of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 935, 173359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birpinar, M.E.; Tuğaç, C. Impacts of climate change on water resources of Turkey. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Water Resources and Wetlands, Tulcea, Romania, 5–9 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
- General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI). Available online: https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/720# (accessed on 16 March 2026).
- Turkish Statistical Institute. Livestock Production Statistics. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hayvansal-%C3%9Cretim-%C4%B0statistikleri-2024-53935&dil=1 (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- National Geographic. Point Source and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. Available online: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/point-source-and-nonpoint-sources-pollution/ (accessed on 15 March 2026).
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/nps/basic-information-about-nonpoint-source-nps-pollution (accessed on 15 March 2026).
- Wu, Y.; Chen, J. Investigating the effects of point source and nonpoint source pollution on the water quality of the East River (Dongjiang) in South China. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 32, 294–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, M.; Liu, X.; Legesse, N.; Liu, Y.; Wu, S.; Han, F.X.; Ma, Y. Evaluation of agricultural non-point source pollution: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, F.; Ahmed, S.; Muhammad Zaigham Abbas Naqvi, S.; Awais, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Raghavan, V.; Zang, Y.; Zhao, G.; Hu, J. Agricultural non-point source pollution: Comprehensive analysis of sources and assessment methods. Agriculture 2025, 15, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, X. Assessment and analysis of agricultural non-point source pollution loads in China: 1978–2017. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plunge, S.; Gudas, M.; Povilaitis, A. Effectiveness of best management practices for non-point source agricultural water pollution control with changing climate–Lithuania’s case. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 267, 107635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, T.; Shen, J. Spatiotemporal evolution and driving factors of agricultural non-point source pollution in the context of economic green development. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 380, 124849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrese, A.; Campanale, M. Agricultural nitrate leaching into groundwater–case of study in Apulia Region. Ecol. Eng. Environ. Technol. 2024, 25, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, L.; Yuan, Y.; Ying, Z.; Lam, S.K.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H.; Gu, B. Decreasing farm number benefits the mitigation of agri-cultural non-point source pollution in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huan, J.; Fan, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, C.; Hu, Q.; Cai, W.; Ju, H.; Gu, S. Deep learning model based on coupled SWAT and interpretable methods for water quality prediction under the influence of non-point source pollution. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2025, 231, 109985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.; Naushad, M.; Lima, E.C.; Zhang, S.; Shaheen, S.M.; Rinklebe, J. Global soil pollution by toxic elements: Current status and future perspectives on the risk assessment and remediation strategies—A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alao, J.O. The factors influencing the landfill leachate plume contaminants in soils, surface and groundwater and associated health risks: A geophysical and geochemical view. Public Health Environ. 2025, 1, 20–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Available online: https://resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/07/20160723-2.htm (accessed on 17 October 2025).
- Haksevenler, B.H.G.; Ayaz, S. The effect of point and diffuse pollution sources on surface water quality, A case study for Alaşehir Aiver sub-basin. Gümüşhane Uni. J. Sci. Technol. 2021, 11, 1258–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaylı, B.; Kılıç, I. Determination of environmental distanced pollution load by poultry of Bursa region. Uludağ Uni. J. Fac. Engr. 2023, 28, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhammetoglu, A.; Akdegirmen, O.; Dugan, S.T.; Orhan, P. A modeling framework for control of nonpoint source pollution and evaluation of best management practices for identification of critical source areas. Environ. Earth Sci. 2025, 84, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Nitrates. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/nitrates_en?utm_source (accessed on 30 October 2025).
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations (accessed on 30 October 2025).
- Ransom, K.M.; Nolan, B.T.; Stackelberg, P.E.; Belitz, K.; Fram, M.S. Machine learning predictions of nitrate in groundwater used for drinking supply in the conterminous United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 151065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ongley, E.D.; Xiaolan, Z.; Tao, Y. Current status of agricultural and rural non-point source pollution assessment in China. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, W.; Fu, Y.; Ruan, B.; Ge, H.; Zhao, N. Agricultural non-point source pollution in the Yongding River Basin. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.; Lu, J.; Lu, T.; Yang, X.; Zhong, Z.; Feng, H.; Wang, M.; Yin, J. Agricultural non-point source pollution and rural trans-formation in a plain river network: Insights from Jiaxing city, China. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 333, 121953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, Y.; Zuo, D.; Song, Y.; Xu, Z.; Wang, J.; Peng, D.; Pang, B.; Sun, W.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Yang, H. The response of non-point source pollution to land use changes based on the SWAT and PLUS models in an agricultural river basin of Yangtze River, China. J. Hydrol. 2025, 663, 134331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koç, C. A study on the pollution and water quality modeling of the River Buyuk Menderes, Turkey. Clean–Soil Air Water 2010, 38, 1169–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayaz, S.Ç.; Aktaş, Ö.; Dağlı, S.; Aydöner, C.; Aytış, E.A.; Akça, L. Pollution loads and surface water quality in the Kızılırmak Basin, Turkey. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013, 51, 1533–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozdemir, S.; Celebi, A.; Dede, G.; Maghrebi, M.; Danandeh Mehr, A. Impact of Land Use Change on Lake Pollution Dynamics: A Case Study of Sapanca Lake, Turkey. Water 2025, 17, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Regulation on the Protection of Waters Against Agricultural Nitrate Pollution. Official Gazette No. 29779, 23 July 2016. Available online: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/07/20160723-2.htm (accessed on 15 March 2026).
- European Commission. ‘Farm to Fork’ Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Food System. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/farm-to-fork-strategy-for-a-fair-healthy-and-environmentally-friendly-food-system.html (accessed on 16 March 2026).
- Dönmez, A.A.; Yerli, S.V.; Pullaiah, T. Biodiversity in Turkey. In Global Biodiversity; Pullaiah, T., Ed.; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2019; Volume 2, pp. 397–442, Chapter 11. [Google Scholar]
- Turkish State Meteorological Service. Available online: https://mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?k=parametrelerinTurkiyeAnalizi (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- World Wide Fund for Nature. Available online: https://www.wwf.org.tr/kesfet/tatli_su/turkiyede_su_kaynaklarinin_guncel_durumu/ (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- Irvem, A.; Ozbuldu, M. Evaluation of satellite and reanalysis precipitation products using GIS for all basins in Turkey. Adv. Meteorol. 2019, 2019, 4820136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. National Basin Management Strategy (2014–2023). Available online: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- Turkish Statistical Institute. Crop Production Statistics. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Bitkisel-Uretim-Istatistikleri-2024-53447 (accessed on 10 November 2025).
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Türkiye. Plant Nutrition Statistics. Available online: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Konular/Bitkisel-Uretim/Bitki-Besleme-ve-Tarimsal-Teknolojiler/Bitki-Besleme-Istatistikleri?utm_source= (accessed on 11 November 2025).
- Tao, Y.; Liu, J.; Guan, X.; Chen, H.; Ren, X.; Wang, S.; Ji, M. Estimation of potential agricultural non-point source pollution for Baiyangdian Basin, China, under different environmental protection policies. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onyango, J.; Kitaka, N.; van Bruggen, J.J.A.; Irvine, K.; Simaika, J. Agricultural intensification in Lake Naivasha Catchment in Kenya and associated nutrients and pesticides pollution. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 18539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuruzzaman, M.; Bahar, M.M.; Naidu, R. Diffuse soil pollution from agriculture: Impacts and remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2025, 962, 178398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Ni, J.; Xie, D. Adoption behavior of cleaner production techniques to control agricultural non-point source pollution: A case study in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 897–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kılıç, F.N.; Sönmez, O. Pollutant Effects and Management of Animal Manure. Turk. J. Agric.-Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 12, 1467–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomes, M.; Ralph, T.J.; Humphries, M.S.; Graves, B.P.; Kobayashi, T.; Gore, D.B. Waterborne contaminants in high intensity agriculture and plant production: A review of on-site and downstream impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2025, 958, 178084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Z.H.; Li, S.X. Nitrate N loss by leaching and surface runoff in agricultural land: A global issue (a review). Adv. Agron. 2019, 156, 159–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoumans, O.F.; Chardon, W.J.; Bechmann, M.E.; Gascuel-Odoux, C.; Hofman, G.; Kronvang, B.; Rubæk, G.H.; Ulén, B.; Dorioz, J.M. Mitigation options to reduce phosphorus losses from the agricultural sector and improve surface water quality: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Symeon, G.K.; Akamati, K.; Dotas, V.; Karatosidi, D.; Bizelis, I.; Laliotis, G.P. Manure Management as a Potential Mitigation Tool to Eliminate Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Livestock Systems. Sustainability 2025, 17, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, X.Y.; Zhang, Q.W.; Zhang, H.; Hussain, H.A.; Shaaban, M.; Yang, Z.L. Pathways of nitrogen loss and optimized nitrogen management for a rice cropping system in arid irrigation region, northwest China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 268, 110702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandal, S.; Sarkar, B.; Bolan, N.; Novak, J.; Ok, Y.S.; Van Zwieten, L.; Singh, B.P.; Kirkham, M.B.; Choppala, G.; Spokas, K.; et al. Designing advanced biochar products for maximizing greenhouse gas mitigation potential. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46, 1367–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Xu, C.; Ridoutt, B.G.; Wang, X.; Ren, P. Nitrogen and phosphorus losses and eutrophication potential associated with fertilizer application to cropland in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Keitel, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wangeci, A.N.; Dijkstra, F.A. Global meta-analysis of nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency in rice, wheat and maize. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 338, 108089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yetis, R.; Atasoy, A.D.; Yetis, A.D.; Yesilnacar, M.I. Determination of nitrate and nitrite levels of water resources in Balikligol Basin. Cukurova Univ. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. 2018, 33, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Pollution Source | Equations | Major Pollution Index |
|---|---|---|
| Chemical fertilisers | Fk = usage of chemical fertiliser, ak: fertiliser utilization rate | TN, TP, NH3-N |
| Straw | Yj = Crop yield, Rsg,j = Straw–grain ratio, Cpi,I = production coefficient of pollution index, ns = comprehensive utilisation rate of straw | COD, TN, TP |
| Livestock and poultry breeding | Nl = numbers of livestock and poultry, Ci,l = production coefficient of pollution index, np,l = comprehensive utilisation rate of livestock and poultry breeding | COD, TN, TP, NH3-N |
| Livestock and Poultry Species | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollution Indicators | Small Ruminant | Cattle | Poultry | ||
| COD (kg head−1) | 8.89 | 712 | 0.99 | ||
| NH3-N (kg head−1) | 0.14 | 2.52 | 0.02 | ||
| TN (kg head−1) | 8.82 | 104.10 | 1.85 | ||
| TP (kg head−1) | 1.88 | 10.17 | 0.48 | ||
| Cereals crop | |||||
| Pollution indicators | Rice | Wheat | Corn | Millet | |
| Straw–grain ratio | 0.90 | 0.97 | 1.03 | 1.6 | |
| COD (kg Mg−1) | 5.63 | 6.39 | 11.23 | 5.63 | |
| TN (kg Mg−1) | 5.82 | 5.15 | 10.69 | 5.82 | |
| TP (kg Mg−1) | 0.42 | 0.90 | 2.39 | 0.42 | |
| Livestock Category | TN (Mt) | TP (Mt) | COD (Mt) | NH3-N (Mt) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cattle | 5.09 | 0.50 | 34.81 | 0.12 |
| Small Ruminant | 1.28 | 0.27 | 1.29 | 0.02 |
| Broiler | 1.31 | 0.34 | 0.70 | 0.01 |
| Laying Hen | 0.63 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.01 |
| Total | 8.31 | 1.27 | 37.14 | 0.16 |
| Parameter | Livestock Species | N | Mean (Tonnes) | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD | Laying Hens | 70 | 4.806 d | 3710 | 443 | 1.074 | 14.720 |
| Cattle | 70 | 497.267 a | 186.654 | 22.309 | 202.285 | 848.621 | |
| Small ruminant | 70 | 18.478 b | 9.125 | 1091 | 4.798 | 36.682 | |
| Broiler | 70 | 10.007 c | 8.134 | 972 | 190 | 26.715 | |
| NH3-N | Laying Hens | 70 | 97 d | 75 | 9 | 22 | 297 |
| Cattle | 70 | 1.760 a | 661 | 79 | 716 | 3.004 | |
| Small ruminant | 70 | 291 b | 144 | 17 | 76 | 578 | |
| Broiler | 70 | 202 c | 164 | 20 | 4 | 540 | |
| TN | Laying Hens | 70 | 8980 c | 6.934 | 829 | 2008 | 27.506 |
| Cattle | 70 | 72.704 a | 27.290 | 3.262 | 29.576 | 124.075 | |
| Small ruminant | 70 | 18.332 b | 9.053 | 1.082 | 4.760 | 36.393 | |
| Broiler | 70 | 18.700 b | 15.201 | 1.817 | 356 | 49.921 | |
| TP | Laying Hens | 70 | 2.330 d | 1.799 | 215 | 521 | 7.137 |
| Cattle | 70 | 7.103 a | 2.666 | 319 | 2.889 | 12.121 | |
| Small ruminant | 70 | 3.908 c | 1.930 | 231 | 1.015 | 7.757 | |
| Broiler | 70 | 4.852 b | 1.027 | 122.8 | 2.662 | 3.893 |
| Parameter | Best Model | Stationary R2 | RMSE | MAE | Ljung–Box (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | ARIMA (0, 1, 8) | 0.628 | 8679.348 | 5914.926 | <0.001 |
| TP | ARIMA (0, 0, 14) | 0.722 | 1096.014 | 566.281 | <0.001 |
| COD | ARIMA (1, 1, 14) | 0.628 | 1,305,933.443 | 135,768.54 | <0.001 |
| NH3-N | ARIMA (7, 1, 0) | 0.836 | 478.860 | 152.897 | 0.741 |
| Parameter | Year | N | Mean (Tonnes) | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | 2015 | 7 | 137.473 b | 64.279 | 24.295 | 29.278 | 223.57 |
| 2016 | 7 | 175.366 a | 87.408 | 33.037 | 38.518 | 305.684 | |
| 2017 | 7 | 163.162 a | 80.621 | 30.472 | 33.371 | 276.881 | |
| 2018 | 7 | 135.522 b | 64.682 | 24.447 | 32.495 | 229.507 | |
| 2019 | 7 | 145.941 b | 73.696 | 27.854 | 28.069 | 255.019 | |
| 2020 | 7 | 175.944 a | 91.392 | 34.543 | 34.018 | 321.439 | |
| 2021 | 7 | 153.201 ab | 75.076 | 28.376 | 34.857 | 237.088 | |
| 2022 | 7 | 135.376 b | 73.172 | 27.656 | 27.218 | 240.66 | |
| 2023 | 7 | 166.987 a | 87.901 | 33.223 | 40.115 | 303.844 | |
| 2024 | 7 | 164.312 a | 91.376 | 34.537 | 40.255 | 329.766 | |
| TP | 2015 | 7 | 23.585 b | 14.583 | 5.512 | 6.347 | 51.272 |
| 2016 | 7 | 31.962 a | 20.229 | 7.646 | 8.989 | 71.14 | |
| 2017 | 7 | 30.445 a | 18.661 | 7.053 | 9.35 | 66.656 | |
| 2018 | 7 | 20.173 c | 11.701 | 4.423 | 6.417 | 42.81 | |
| 2019 | 7 | 25.256 b | 16.11 | 6.089 | 6.561 | 55.302 | |
| 2020 | 7 | 28.564 ab | 17.842 | 6.744 | 8.457 | 59.525 | |
| 2021 | 7 | 23.699 b | 13.811 | 5.22 | 7 | 47.68 | |
| 2022 | 7 | 22.577 b | 14.959 | 5.654 | 6.229 | 51.228 | |
| 2023 | 7 | 27.525 ab | 18.959 | 7.166 | 8.809 | 65.746 | |
| 2024 | 7 | 27.411 ab | 19.031 | 7.193 | 9.126 | 66.577 |
| Parameter | Best Model | Stationary R2 | RMSE | MAE | Ljung-Box (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | ARIMA (0, 0, 1) | 0.281 | 16,060.119 | 12,462.312 | <0.001 |
| TP | ARIMA (0, 0, 0) | 0.000 | 64,714.622 | 52,534.491 | <0.001 |
| Parameter | Crop | N | Mean (kg ha−1) | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD | Wheat | 70 | 10.552 b | 3.254 | 0.389 | 5.31 | 20.89 |
| Maize | 70 | 28.228 a | 7.457 | 0.891 | 12.43 | 43.88 | |
| Rice | 70 | 4.688 c | 4.471 | 0.613 | 0 | 14.63 | |
| Millet | 70 | 1.170 d | 0.934 | 0.112 | 0.00 | 3.12 | |
| TN | Wheat | 70 | 8.505 b | 2.623 | 0.313 | 4.28 | 16.83 |
| Maize | 70 | 26.870 a | 7.099 | 0.848 | 11.83 | 41.77 | |
| Rice | 70 | 4.846 c | 4.656 | 0.556 | 0.00 | 15.13 | |
| Millet | 70 | 1.210 d | 0.966 | 0.115 | 0.00 | 3.23 | |
| TP | Wheat | 70 | 1.486 b | 0.458 | 0.055 | 0.75 | 2.94 |
| Maize | 70 | 6.008 a | 1.587 | 0.190 | 2.64 | 9.34 | |
| Rice | 70 | 0.350 c | 0.336 | 0.040 | 0.00 | 1.09 | |
| Millet | 70 | 0.087 d | 0.070 | 0.008 | 0.00 | 0.23 |
| Parameter | Best Model | Stationary R2 | RMSE | MAE | Ljung-Box (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | ARIMA (0, 0, 10) | 0.932 | 2.882 | 2.081 | <0.001 |
| TP | ARIMA (0, 0, 14) | 0.974 | 0.416 | 0.252 | <0.001 |
| COD | ARIMA (1, 0, 13) | 0.930 | 3.481 | 2.482 | <0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Yayli, B.; Kilic, I. Spatiotemporal Assessment and Source Contributions of Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution in Türkiye: Implications for Sustainable Management. Sustainability 2026, 18, 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073453
Yayli B, Kilic I. Spatiotemporal Assessment and Source Contributions of Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution in Türkiye: Implications for Sustainable Management. Sustainability. 2026; 18(7):3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073453
Chicago/Turabian StyleYayli, Busra, and Ilker Kilic. 2026. "Spatiotemporal Assessment and Source Contributions of Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution in Türkiye: Implications for Sustainable Management" Sustainability 18, no. 7: 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073453
APA StyleYayli, B., & Kilic, I. (2026). Spatiotemporal Assessment and Source Contributions of Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution in Türkiye: Implications for Sustainable Management. Sustainability, 18(7), 3453. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073453

