Introduction

Cherry, which has many varieties, is a rich type of fruit in this sense. Domestically consumed varieties began to come to the fore in cherry cultivation. For this reason, there are over 1500 cherry varieties in the world. In addition to the size of the fruit, bright dark colored, hard and sweet varieties are preferred by the consumers, regardless of the ripening period. New varieties are frequently introduced to the commercial market. In Turkey, which places first in the world in cherry production, approximately 50 cherry varieties are grown. According to FAO data, Turkey ranks first in the world’s cherry area and production amount with its 83,000 ha cherry planting area and approximately 725,000 tons of production in 2020. In the cherry planting area, Chile ranks second after Turkey with 40,000 ha, followed by the USA with 34,000 ha, and Syria in the fourth place with 30,000 ha. In cherry production, Turkey is followed by the USA with 295,000 tons, Chile with 255,000 tons in third place and Uzbekistan with 185,000 tons in fourth place (Anonym 2023).

Agriculture is a consumer of energy but also generates it. In agriculture, great amounts of locally actual non-trade energies are used. Then there are trade energies, whether direct or indirect, in the form of diesel, electric, fertiliser, plant protection, chemicals, water irrigation and machinery. Achieving higher yields could be possible by efficient use of energy. This consequently conduces to the economy as well as competitiveness and competitiveness of agriculture sustainability in rural living (Singh et al. 2002; Kizilaslan 2009). Intensive energy consumption causes important environmental issues such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as problems affecting human health. For this reason, the efficient use of inputs becomes important for sustainable agricultural production. GHG emissions that occur in agricultural production is due to the use of machinery, consumption of diesel, use of chemical fertiliser and consumption of power. As a natural consequence of this, GHG emission rise with the rise in energy input (Karaağaç et al. 2019).

Several studies performed on determining energy use efficiency (EUE) and GHG emissions of agricultural products. Some of the examples include sweet cherry (Demircan et al. 2006), cherry (Kizilaslan 2009), lavender (Gökdoğan 2016), plum (Baran et al. 2017a), organic grape (Baran et al. 2017b), vetch (Kokten et al. 2017), pomegranate (Ozalp et al. 2018), maize (Kokten et al. 2018), nectarine (Oğuz et al. 2019), cotton (Semerci et al. 2019), organic almond (Baran et al. 2020), almond (Yılmaz and Bayav 2022), vetch (Seydoşoğlu et al. 2023), garlic (Baran et al. 2023), etc. The aim of this study was to determine the EUE, energy input (EI), energy output (EO), specific energy (SE), energy productivity (EP), net energy (NE), energy inputs (EI) types, GHG emissions, GHG ratio and GHG emissions of cherry production in Kırklareli province in Turkey. It is clear that this study will contribute to the literature in this sense. This study has also suggested some suggestions on increasing EUE and RE, reducing NRE energy and decreasing GHG levels.

Materials and Methods

Kırklareli is located in the Thrace Region, covering the European part of Turkey. It is among the 41° 44′–42° 00′ northern latitudes and 26° 53′–41° 44′ eastern longitudes. Kırklareli has a land area of 6555 km2, with 48% of the land being mountainous, 35% undulating land and 17% is plains (Anonym 2022). This study was performed for the 2020–2021 production season in Kırklareli province of Turkey. The study was performed in agricultural farms that were determined on the basis of 2021 data provided by the Kırklareli Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry. The data was collected from 50 farms (reachable) and 2022 by using a face-to-face questionnaire and complete count method, as proposed by Karagölge and Peker (2002). According to survey data averages, average farm size of the surveyed farms was 0.45 ha. Flood irrigation was applied in the farms. Planting spacing of trees was 4 m × 4 m on average. Trees were ‘0900 Ziraat’ cherry variety.

Energy equals used in cherry production are given in Table 1. EUE, SE, EP and NE were calculated by using the following four formulas (Mandal et al. 2002; Mohammadi et al. 2008, 2010). Energy input types are classified as DE, IDE, RE and NRE (Mandal et al. 2002; Singh et al. 2003; Koctürk and Engindeniz 2009). GHG equals of inputs in production are given in Table 2. Energy balance (EB), EUE, DI, IDE, RE, NRE, GHG and GHG ratio calculations are given in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.

$$\text{Energy use efficiency }=\frac{\text{Energy output}\,\left(\frac{\mathrm{MJ}}{\mathrm{ha}}\right)}{\text{Energy input}\,\left(\frac{\mathrm{MJ}}{\mathrm{ha}}\right)}$$
(1)
$$\text{Specific energy }=\frac{\text{Energy input}\,\left(\frac{\mathrm{MJ}}{\mathrm{ha}}\right)}{\text{Product output}\,\left(\frac{\mathrm{kg}}{\mathrm{ha}}\right)}$$
(2)
$$\text{Energy productivity }=\frac{\text{Product output}\,\left(\frac{\mathrm{kg}}{\mathrm{ha}}\right)}{\text{Energy input}\,\left(\frac{\mathrm{MJ}}{\mathrm{ha}}\right)}$$
(3)
$$\text{Net energy}=\text{Energy output }(\mathrm{MJ}/\mathrm{ha})-\text{Energy input }(\mathrm{MJ}/\mathrm{ha})$$
(4)
Table 1 Energy equivalents in agricultural production
Full size table
Table 2 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission equivalents in agricultural production
Full size table
Table 3 Energy balance in cherry production
Full size table
Table 4 Calculations of energy in cherry production
Full size table
Table 5 Energy input types in cherry
Full size table
Table 6 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in cherry production
Full size table

The calculation results are given in Table 2. A greenhouse gas emission schedule has been created in production and the GHG emission rate calculation has been performed. The Eqs. 5 and 6, adapted by Hughes et al. (2011), were used to determine the GHG (Karaağaç et al. 2019). The GHG ratio has the index determined as the amount of GHG emissions per kg yield. In the calculation of GHG ratio, the following formula has been used, proposed by Houshyar et al. (2015) and Khoshnevisan et al. (2014), based on the recommendation of Karaağaç et al. (2019):

$$\mathrm{GHG}_{\mathrm{ha}}={\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}\mathrm{R}\left(\mathrm{i}\right)\mathrm{x}\mathrm{EF}\left(\mathrm{i}\right)$$
(5)
$$I_{\mathrm{GHG}}=\frac{\mathrm{GHG}_{\mathrm{ha}}}{\mathrm{Y}}$$
(6)

where R(i): amount of input I (unitinput/ha), EF(i): GHG equal of input i (kgCO2eq/unitinput) and Y: yield (kg/ha).

Results and Discussion

The cherry orchards yielded an average of 4858.25 kg/ha during the 2020–2021 production season. The EB is given in Table 3 and Fig. 1. EI and EO are calculated as 14,934.30 and 14,234.67 MJ/ha, respectively. With regards to the energy inputs: 10.30% consisted of human labor energy (1537.73 MJ/ha), 5.49% consisted of machinery energy (819.23 MJ/ha), 34.49% of the energy inputs consisted of chemical fertilisers energy (5149.70 MJ/ha), 0.33% consisted of chemicals energy (49.82 MJ/ha), 12.81% consisted of diesel fuel energy (1913.43 MJ/ha), 1.11% consisted of FYM energy (165.18 MJ/ha), 4.71% consisted of organic fertiliser energy (703.60 MJ/ha), 29.83% consisted of water irrigation energy (4454.34 MJ/ha) and 0.95% consisted of transportation energy (141.27 MJ/ha).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Energy balance in cherry production

Full size image

The contribution of chemical fertilisers has the highest among all energy inputs consumed (34.49%). Similar results have been achieved in other studies on cherry and agricultural production: Demircan et al. (2006) reported that chemical fertilisers were responsible for 45.35% of energy inputs in sweet cherry; Kizilaslan (2009) reported the chemical fertilisers’ energy use as 42% of the total EI in cherry; Ozalp et al. (2018) reported the chemical fertiliser energy use as 35.80% of the total EI in pomegranate; Oğuz et al. (2019) reported the chemical fertiliser energy use as 43.15% of the total EI in nectarine; and Gökduman et al. (2022) reported the chemical fertiliser energy use as 39.96% of the total EI in avocado production.

EUE, SE, EP and NE in cherry production were calculated as 0.95, 3.07 MJ/kg, 0.33 kg/MJ and −699.62 MJ/ha, respectively (Table 4). In other studies, Demircan et al. (2006) calculated EUE as 1.23 in sweet cherry, Kizilaslan (2009) calculated EUE as 0.96 in cherry, Oğuz et al. (2019) calculated EUE as 1.86 in nectarine, Gökduman et al. (2022) calculated EUE as 2.19 in avocado, and Yılmaz and Bayav (2022) calculated EUE between 0.38 and 1.22 in almond production, etc.

The dispersion of inputs used in cherry production in terms of DE, IDE, RE, and NRE types is shown in Table 5. Accordingly, consumed total energy input were classified as 52.94% DE, 47.06% IE, 45.94% RE and 54.06% NRE. In other studies related to production, Demircan et al. (2006) in sweet cherry, Kizilaslan (2009) in cherry, Baran et al. (2017a) in plum, Ekinci et al. (2020) in apple, Yılmaz and Bayav (2022) in almond, and Gökduman et al. (2022) in avocado calculated NRE energy ratio to be higher than RE.

The calculations of GHG are given in Table 6. Total GHG and GHG ratio were calculated as 295.48 kgCO2‑eq/ha and 0.06 for cherry production, respectively. GHG emission took place due to machinery 58.17 kgCO2‑eq/ha, nitrogen 66.27 kgCO2‑eq/ha, phosphorous 9.27 kgCO2‑eq/ha, potassium 8.06 kgCO2‑eq/ha, microelements 48.37 kgCO2‑eq/ha, chemicals 6.84 kgCO2‑eq/ha, diesel fuel 93.79 kgCO2‑eq/ha, and transportation 4.71 kgCO2‑eq/ha, respectively. Chemical fertilisers rank first by 44.66% inside all GHG.

In other studies, Taghavifar and Mardani (2015), Ozalp et al. (2018), Ekinci et al. (2020), Gökduman et al. (2022), and Seydoşoğlu et al. (2023) calculated the total GHG in apple as 1195.79 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in pomegranate as 1730 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in apple (organic and conventional) production as 1344.27 and 1464.07 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in avocado as 6145.31 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in vetch as 205.19 kgCO2‑eq/ha, respectively.

Conclusion

In this study, the EUE, GHG emissions and GHG ratio of cherry in the 2020–2021 production season were determined and are summarized below. EI and EO were reported as 14,934.30 MJ ha−1 and 14,234.67 MJ ha−1, respectively. EUE, SE, EP and NE were reported as 0.95, 3.07 MJ/kg, 0.33 kg/MJ and −699.62 MJ/ha, respectively. The used total energy input was classified as 52.94% DE, 47.06% IDE, 45.94% RE and 54.06% NRE. Total GHG and GHG ratio were calculated as 295.48 kgCO2‑eq ha−1 and 0.06, respectively. The presented results show that cherry production is not a beneficial activity in terms of energy usage (0.95). The use of RE is not high. Chemical fertilisers had the highest share by 34.49% among all inputs. Increasing the ratio of RE, such as using farmyard manure and organic manure rather than chemical fertilisers, is important to increase EUE and reduce GHG emission levels. In order to reduce emission quantities, it is necessary to increase the use of RE inputs. These proposals considered in cherry production can increase EUE and reduce GHG. Additionally, according to Demircan et al. (2006), correct fertilization management, frequency of fertilization (particularly nitrogen) (Kitani 1999), suitable tractor selection and management of machinery to reduce direct usage of diesel fuel (Isik and Sabanci 1991) are needed to save non-renewable energy sources without impairing the yield or profitability to develop the energy use efficiency of production. Similarly, these suggestions are considered in cherry production.