Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
Ad
va
nces
in Applied Sciences (IJ
A
AS)
V
o
l.
2, N
o
. 1
,
Mar
c
h
20
13
,
pp
. 1
~
8
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
1
4
1
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJAAS
Charact
eri
zation
of
S
o
il Qualit
y i
n
Erosion Prone
Environment of Ukpor,
Nnewi-South L.G.A.
of Anam
bra St
at
e, Nigeri
a
U
b
uo
h E.
A
1
, Akhi
onb
a
re W. N
2
, Oweremadu
E
3
, Onifade O. A
1
1
Department of Environmenta
l Management Technolog
y
,
Feder
a
l
Co
lleg
e
of
Land Resources
Technolog
y
,
P.M.B. 1518,
Owerri, Imo State, Nig
e
ria
2
Department of Project
Ma
nag
e
ment, Fed
e
ral U
n
iversity
of
Te
chnolog
y
,
P. M.B
.
1526, Owerri, Nigeria
3
Department
of
Soil Scien
c
e and
Tec
hnolog
y
,
Federal University
of Tec
hnolog
y
,
P.M.
B.1526
, o
w
erri, Nigeria
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received
J
u
l 15, 2012
Rev
i
sed
D
ec 23
, 20
12
Accepte
d Ja
n
4, 2013
The stud
y
was
conducted at N
n
ewi –Sout
h of Anambra State, Nigeria to
characterize soil in erosion pron
e ar
ea in
order
to know nutritio
n
al values of
the s
o
il
to en
ab
le farm
ers
em
plo
y
appropria
te
m
eas
ures
to con
s
erving th
e
soils for high productivity
. Soil
auger studies
were made at three locations
where tr
averse
was cut.Three p
r
ofile p
its desig
n
ated
ECH/UK/ 01 (upper
slope) ,
ECH/UK/ 02 (middle slope ) an
d
ECH/UK/ 03 (lower s
l
ope) wer
e
sited and samples of soils were taken
to test for
ph
y
s
ico-
chemical properties
of the s
o
ils
. The
res
u
lts
reveal
ed
that the s
o
ils
ar
e deep, well dr
ained , dark
reddish brown to reddish brown, and
y
e
llowish red of the M
unsell colo
r
notation
.
Th
e soil tex
t
ure
in the
three
pedons hav
e
coarse
tex
t
ure
that r
a
nged
from
s
a
nd
y
cl
a
y
loam
to
s
a
nd
y l
o
am
, w
ith h
i
gh
percen
tag
e
of sand which
is
the refl
ec
tion o
f
the paren
t
m
a
ter
i
al. The bulk densit
y
r
a
nged between
between 1.50 – 1.80 g/cm
3,
, soil pH (3.33 –
4.09) indicating
ver
y
stron
g
acid
i
ty
status,
O.C.(0.28 –
0.8
9
%),
O.M (0
.48
-
1.54%), total
N ( 0.042 –
0.98%), Availab
l
e P ( 2.80 – 11
.00 mg.kg-
1
), Na
+
( 0.113 – 270cmol.kg-
1
),
K
+
(0.036 – 0.08
7 cmol.kg-
1
), Mg
++
(0.80-5.60 cmol.kg-
1
), Ca++(0.42 – 10
.40
cmol.kg-
1
), EA (
0
.24 -1.28 cmol.kg-
1
) CEC(
3.1
04 – 16.966
cmo
l
.kg-
1
), and
BS ( 80.28 – 96.06%) indic
a
ting
low fertilit
y r
a
t
e
of the soil due to hea
v
y
lea
c
hing
and int
e
nsive agr
i
cu
ltur
a
l a
c
tiv
iti
es tha
t
leads
to erosion
of the soi
l
to devastating
stage, which
could be
restor
ed b
y
r
e
forestation
programme,
integr
ated Nutrient Management Opti
ons, and Eff
ective public enlightenment
campaign
about the adv
a
ntag
es
of soil
conservation
for env
i
ronmental
susta
i
na
bility
.
Keyword:
So
il d
e
grad
ation
So
il qu
ality
Soi
l
m
a
nagem
e
nt
st
rat
e
gi
es
En
vi
ro
nm
ent
Copyright ©
201
3 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
U
buo
h E. A,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of
En
vi
ro
nm
ent
a
l
M
a
na
gem
e
nt
Tech
nol
ogy
,
Fede
ral
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
o
f
La
nd
R
e
so
urces
Tec
h
n
o
l
o
gy
,
P.M
.
B.
1
5
1
8
,
Owe
rri,
Im
o St
ate, Nige
ria
.
Em
a
il: at
tah
u
b
u
oh@g
m
ail.co
m
1.
INTRODUCTION
Th
e so
il to
g
e
t
h
er with
water
an
d
air co
n
s
titu
tes th
e m
o
st
i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
n
a
tural reso
urces.
It is essen
tial
t
o
wi
sel
y
use t
h
i
s
res
o
u
r
ce f
o
r sust
ai
na
bl
e d
e
vel
o
pm
ent
and fee
d
i
n
g t
h
e e
v
er
gr
o
w
i
n
g w
o
rl
d p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n [
1
]
.
So
il d
e
g
r
ad
atio
n
du
e to
land
m
i
s
m
an
ag
emen
t is a
major conce
r
n t
h
at threatens
econom
i
c and rural
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t, esp
ecially in
t
h
ird
-
world
co
un
tries [2
].
So
il
q
u
a
lity is o
n
e
o
f
th
e m
o
st i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
factors i
n
sust
ai
ni
n
g
t
h
e
gl
o
b
al
bi
os
phe
re an
d
de
vel
o
p
i
ng a
g
ri
c
u
l
t
u
ra
l
pract
i
ce [
3
]
.
Acco
r
d
i
n
g t
o
T
u
l
u
(2
0
0
2
)
,
t
h
e
gl
o
b
al
st
ore o
f
ara
b
l
e
and g
r
azi
n
g
l
a
nd co
nt
i
n
u
e
s t
o
decl
i
n
e
t
h
ro
u
gh
ur
ba
ni
zat
i
on,
u
n
su
st
ai
nabl
e ag
ri
cul
t
u
ral
pract
i
ces an
d d
e
fo
rest
at
i
on
[4
]
.
An u
n
d
erst
a
ndi
ng
of t
h
e
b
a
si
c soi
l
pro
p
e
r
t
i
e
s i
s
essent
i
a
l
for
devel
opi
ng s
o
i
l
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
14
IJA
A
S
Vol
.
2
,
N
o
.
1,
M
a
rc
h
20
1
3
:
1
–
8
2
man
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
practices th
at
will
m
a
in
tain
th
e produ
ctiv
e
po
ten
tial of a so
il. Th
is is
p
a
rticu
l
ar tru
e
of th
e
trop
ical so
ils with
in
h
e
ren
t
pro
p
e
rties o
f
low catio
n
ex
c
h
ange capacity, low orga
nic
m
a
tt
er con
t
en
t, low water
h
o
l
d
i
ng
cap
acity an
d stru
ctural in
stab
ility whic
h
m
a
k
e
th
em
v
u
l
n
e
rab
l
e to so
il ero
s
ion
.
The subject of soil erosion a
nd its associat
ed m
e
nace have becom
e
a
matter of concern in Nige
ria
today. It has
undoubte
d
ly becom
e
known a
s
a potential envi
ronm
ental hazar
d to alm
o
st every com
m
unities
in Nige
ria. This
m
e
nace affects soil prope
r
ties and th
e potential of s
o
il resource
in many comm
unities all
ove
r t
h
e
fe
dera
t
i
on ar
e bei
n
g
dest
r
o
y
e
d.
T
h
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
of
t
h
e soi
l
a
n
d
l
a
nd
use
capaci
t
i
es i
s
t
h
e
bed
r
o
c
k
of
any m
odernization
process
in agricultu
re.
Hence the asses
s
m
e
nt of the
s
o
il properties
and classifications
i
n
Um
uoham
a
com
m
uni
t
y
, Ukp
o
r
,
Nne
w
i
So
ut
h
-
East
Local
Go
ver
n
m
e
nt
i
n
sout
her
n
pa
rt
of A
n
am
bra t
h
at
farm
l
a
nds, val
u
abl
e
cr
o
p
s,
h
o
m
e
s have bee
n
l
o
st
d
u
e t
o
s
h
eet
an
d g
u
l
l
y
erosi
o
n
.
Thi
s
st
udy
t
h
e
n
f
o
c
u
ses o
n
knowing the character
of s
o
il in or
de
r to suggest possibl
e rem
e
dies
to minimize soil
erosi
on m
e
nace to
en
h
a
n
ce agricultu
ral produ
ctiv
ity.
2.
MATE
RIAL
S AND METHODS
2
.
1
T
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
Nne
w
i
S
out
h i
s
a Local
G
ove
rnm
e
nt
Area i
n
An
am
bra
State, sou
t
h-cen
t
ral Nig
e
ria. Its
po
pu
latio
n is
ap
pro
x
i
m
a
tel
y
1
m
illio
n
.
Ukp
o
r is t
h
e
h
e
ad
qu
arters
o
f
Nn
ewi
Sou
t
h.
Oth
e
r t
o
wn
s th
at
m
a
k
e
up
t
h
e lo
cal
go
ve
rnm
e
nt
i
n
cl
u
d
e E
k
w
u
l
u
m
i
l
i
,
A
m
i
c
hi, Azi
g
b
o
,
Un
ubi
,
Os
um
enyi
and
Ut
u
h
.
Ot
he
rs are E
z
i
n
i
f
i
t
e
,
Akwaih
ed
i,
Og
bod
i and
Eb
en
ator. Latitud
e
o
f
Nn
ewi:
Latitu
d
e
of Nn
ewi: 6
1
'
0
.
01
2
"
N, an
d
Lon
g
i
tu
d
e
o
f
65
5'
0.
01
2"E.
2
.
2
F
i
e
l
d
S
t
u
d
y
The fi
el
d wo
r
k
was
c
o
nd
uct
e
d
f
o
r 3 day
bet
w
een
2
2
– 2
4
th
Ju
ly 201
0 w
i
t
h
reconn
aissance sur
v
ey
fo
r
fam
i
liarizatio
n
with
th
e terrain
o
f
th
e stud
y area. Profile
pi
t
s
were si
t
e
d
based o
n
avai
l
a
bl
e l
a
nd use
of t
h
e
area, t
h
e t
o
po
g
r
ap
hy
an
d soi
l
di
st
ri
b
u
t
i
on
wh
i
c
h was det
e
rm
i
n
ed by
au
g
u
ri
ng al
o
n
g
t
h
e t
o
po
-se
que
nce. T
h
ree
p
r
o
f
ile
p
its were sited
al
on
g th
e tran
sv
erse to
i
n
cl
u
d
e
t
h
e de
si
g
n
at
i
on :
EC
H/
U
K
/
0
1 (
U
ppe
r
sl
ope
),
EC
H/
U
K
/
0
2 (
M
i
ddl
e sl
o
p
e)
,
and EC
H/
U
K
/
0
3 (L
o
w
er
slo
p
e
). So
il sa
m
p
les were
co
llected
fo
r
rou
tin
e
an
alysis. So
il sa
m
p
les were co
llected
fro
m
th
e three typ
e
s
of s
o
i
l
s
cat
eg
o
r
i
zed acc
or
di
n
g
t
o
de
pt
h.
s
o
i
l
dep
t
h
cat
ego
r
y
of
01
:
0 - 25,
25
–
43,
4
3
– 6
7
,
6
7
–
10
0,
10
0 –
13
6, a
nd
13
6
– 1
90 cm
;
02:
0 -2
0,
20
– 4
2
,
42
–
6
4
, 64
–
8
9
,
89
– 115
cm
an
d
03
:
0
-
1
6
,
1
6
–
4
8
, 48
–
8
1
, 81
–
116
,
116
– 177
cm
. Th
e so
il sam
p
les w
e
r
e
bag
g
e
d
i
n
3
5
0
cc sam
p
l
i
ng bag
,
l
a
bel
e
d a
nd t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d to
th
e lab
o
r
at
o
r
y fo
r an
alysis. So
il sam
p
le
s were
co
llected
fro
m
th
e
p
r
o
f
ile
p
its at d
i
fferen
t
horizon
s startin
g
fro
m
th
e bo
ttom
to
av
o
i
d co
nta
m
in
atio
n
from
th
e
to
p
so
il at d
i
fferen
t
d
e
p
t
h
s
. Sam
p
les so
il well lab
e
led
were
sen
t
to
so
il scien
ce labo
rato
ry, Fed
e
ral Co
lleg
e
o
f
Land
Reso
ur
ces Techno
log
y
,
Owe
rri,
Im
o St
ate, Nige
ria.
2.
3
L
a
b
o
ra
tor
y
An
al
ysi
s
of
s
a
mpl
e
d
soi
l
s
Mecha
n
ical analysis of sa
m
p
led soils
were
pe
r
f
o
r
m
e
d by
d
r
y
si
evi
n
g [
5
]
.
The
part
i
c
l
e
si
ze
di
st
ri
b
u
t
i
on
wa
s det
e
rm
i
n
ed b
y
t
h
e hy
dr
om
et
er
m
e
t
hod i
n
whi
c
h 5
0
g
of
si
eved ai
r d
r
i
e
d soi
l
was
we
i
ghe
d
in
to
25
0
m
l
b
eak
er
an
d
100
m
l
o
f
calg
on ad
d
e
d
and
allo
w
e
d
to
so
ak
f
o
r
30
min
.
I
t
w
a
s tr
an
sf
erred
to
a
di
spe
r
si
n
g
c
u
p
an
d t
h
e s
u
s
p
e
n
si
o
n
st
i
r
red
f
o
r
3 m
i
n wi
t
h
mechanical stirre
r. T
h
e s
u
s
p
e
n
sion
was tra
n
sferred
to
a sed
i
m
e
n
t
atio
n
cylin
d
e
r an
d
filled
to
the
m
a
rk
with
d
i
stilled
water. A p
l
ung
er was in
serted
and
u
s
ed
to
m
i
x t
h
e cont
en
t
t
hor
ou
g
h
l
y
. The st
i
rri
ng
w
a
s st
op
ped a
n
d
t
h
e t
i
m
e
recor
d
ed
. The s
o
i
l
p
H
was
det
e
rm
ined i
n
wat
e
r usi
ng a
gl
ass el
ect
rod
e
pH m
e
t
e
r.
Or
ga
ni
c carb
o
n
was
det
e
rm
ined
by
oxi
di
zi
ng s
o
i
l
sam
p
l
e
wi
t
h
d
i
chro
m
a
te so
lu
tio
n
and
later titrated
with
ferro
u
s su
l
p
h
a
t
e
so
lu
tion
[6
].
Th
e to
tal n
itrog
en
was
d
e
termin
ed
usi
n
g m
i
cro-k
j
el
dahl
m
e
t
hod
and t
h
e avai
l
a
b
l
e ph
osp
h
o
r
u
s
col
o
ri
m
e
t
r
i
cal
ly
by
t
h
e
m
o
l
y
bden
u
m
bl
ue m
e
t
h
o
d
[7]. T
h
e exc
h
a
ngea
b
le cations were e
x
tracte
d
by leachi
ng
5 g
of s
o
il with 50 m
l
of a
m
m
oniu
m
acetate at pH
7. The
potas
sium and sodium
in
the
leachate were determ
ined
with a colum
n
m
odel 2
1
flam
e
spectrophotometer while t
h
e calcium
and m
a
gnesium
were
d
e
termin
ed
with
at
o
m
ic ab
so
rp
tion
spect
r
o
p
h
o
t
o
m
e
t
e
r. The exc
h
angea
b
l
e
aci
di
t
y
was det
e
rm
ined
by
addi
ng
bari
um
chl
o
ri
de b
u
f
f
er s
o
l
u
t
i
on t
o
so
il sam
p
le an
d
titrated
ag
ainst 0
.
1
N HCl.
Abov
e all , Percen
tag
e
b
a
se satu
ration
(% B
S
) was calcu
lated
b
y
expressi
ng
the excha
n
geable
Na
a
n
d
K
as
pe
rcent
a
ge
of C
E
C
.
Thi
s
i
s
ex
p
r
essed a
s
:
=
S
u
m
of
e
x
ch
an
gea
b
l
e
b
a
se
x
1
0
0
………
…
…
(1)
Cation
exch
an
ge c
a
p
a
cit
y
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
AA
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
1
4
C
har
act
e
ri
zat
i
on
of
S
o
i
l
Q
ual
i
t
y
i
n
Ero
si
o
n
Pro
ne E
n
vi
ro
n
m
ent
of
Ukp
o
r
,
N
n
ew
i
-
So
ut
h
L.G
.
A. (
U
b
u
o
h
E. A)
3
3.
RESULTS
A
N
D
DI
SC
US
S
I
ON
The res
u
lts of
the physical and chem
ical
p
r
op
erties o
f
th
e so
ils stu
d
i
ed
are prese
n
ted in Table 2, 3,
and
4
a
n
d
are
e
x
p
r
esse
d as
p
e
do
ns
EC
H/
UK
/
O
1 t
h
r
o
ug
h
E
C
H/
UK/
0
2
a
n
d
EC
H/
U
K
/
0
3.
An
d
Fi
g.
1:
Fi
g
.
2,
an
d
Fi
g. 3 s
h
ow
Vari
at
i
o
ns o
f
Phy
s
i
c
o
-
chem
ical
Pro
p
ert
i
e
s
i
n
vari
ou
s De
pt
hs
of S
o
i
l
Pro
f
i
l
e
(EC
H
/
U
K/
0
1
)
,
(
E
CH
/
U
K
/
0
2
)
,
an
d
(ECH
/UK
/
03
). Fig4
: sh
ow
s
v
a
r
i
ations o
f
Mean
V
a
l
u
es of
Ph
ysico-
ch
em
ical Pr
o
p
e
r
ties
i
n
Di
ffe
rent
T
o
pos
eq
ue
nce.
T
a
bl
e 1. Ch
ar
acteri
s
t
i
c
s of
the study
area
Cha
r
a
c
teristics
Descri
ptio
n
M
ean annual r
a
infall (
m
m
)
1850
Rainfall r
a
nge (m
m
)
1700 -
2000
m
a
xim
u
m
Max
.
Te
m
p
era
t
u
r
e (
0
C)
3
5
Bio
c
li
m
a
te
Rain
f
o
rest
So
il typ
e
Sed
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
o
r
ig
in
with
san
d
s
to
n
e
Geo
lo
g
y
Fin
e co
ars
e
san
d
s
to
n
e
Far
m
in
g
S
y
ste
m
Mix
e
d
f
a
r
m
in
g
T
opogr
aphy
Flat to gr
eatly r
o
lling landscape
T
a
bl
e
2. P
h
y
s
i
c
o-c
h
emi
c
al
P
r
oper
ties of
So
il Profile (E
CH/UK/01
)
Soil Properti
e
s
Soil Profile
(c
m
)
Mean
0-
25
25-
43
43-
67
67-
100
100-
13
6
136-
190
Sand(%
)
75.
74
75.
74
75.
74
69.
74
69.
74
67.
74
72.
40
Silt (%)
6.
00
4.
00
10.
00
2.
00
2.
00
2.
00
5.
2
Clay(
%)
18.
26
20.
20
14.
26
28.
26
30.
26
30.
26
23.
58
BulkDensity(g/c
m
3
)
1.
50
1.
50
1.
65
1.
65
1.
65
1.
65
1.
6
Texture
S.L
S.C.L
.
S.L.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L
pH(
W
ater)
4.
41
4.
86
4.
99
4.
69
5.
11
5.
13
4.
87
pH
(K
c
l
)
3.
70
4.
04
4.
10
3.
80
4.
28
4.
36
4.
05
Organic C
(
%
)
0.
61
0.
53
0.
48
0.
43
0.
32
0.
28
15.
6
O
r
ganic
M (%
)
1.
06
0.
92
0.
83
0.
74
0.
55
0.
48
27.
48
Tot
a
l N
(%
)
0.
084
0.
056
0.
056
0.
042
0.
028
0.
042
0.
05
Available P(m
g
.
k
g
-1
)
8.
60
6.
00
5.
50
2.
28
3.
60
6.
20
5.
36
Na
+
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
0.
183
0.
174
0.
210
0.
200
0.
131
0.
191
6.
53
K
+
(c
mo
l
.
k
g
-1
)
0.
067
0.
046
0.
056
0.
046
0.
046
0.
061
0.
05
Mg
++
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
4.
80
1.
20
2.
00
5.
60
1.
60
2.
40
2.
93
Ca
++
(cm
o
l.k
g
-1
)
10.
00
2.
00
2.
80
10.
40
2.
40
3.
20
5.
13
EA
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
1.
00
0.
84
0.
72
0.
72
0.
28
0.
24
0.
63
CEC
(c
m
o
l.
k
g
-1
)
16.
05
4.
26
5.
79
16.
97
4.
46
6.
09
8.
94
BS(%
)
93.
77
80.
28
87.
56
95.
76
93.
72
96.
06
31.
63
Source
: Fieldwork,
2010
Fi
g. 1:
V
a
ri
a
t
i
o
ns o
f
Phy
s
ico-chemica
l
Properties in va
rio
u
s Depths of
So
il
Pro
f
ile (ECH/UK/01
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
VALUES
Physico
‐
chem
ical
Properties
of
the
Soil
0
‐
25
25
‐
43
43
‐
67
67
‐
100
100
‐
136
136
‐
190
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
14
IJA
A
S
Vol
.
2
,
N
o
.
1,
M
a
rc
h
20
1
3
:
1
–
8
4
T
a
bl
e 3
:
Ph
ys
i
c
o-chemi
c
al
Proper
ti
es of Soi
l
Pr
ofi
l
e
(E
CH/
U
K/
0
2
)
Soil Properti
e
s
Soil Profile
Dep
th (c
m
)
Mean
0-
20
20-
42
42-
64
64-
89
89-
115
Sand(%
)
75.
74
65.
74
65.
74
63.
74
63.
74
66.
94
Silt (%)
8.
00
10.
0
8.
00
8.
00
6.
00
8.
00
Clay(
%)
16.
26
24.
26
26.
26
28.
26
30.
26
25.
06
Bulk Densi
ty(g/cm
3
)
1.
68
1.
81
1.
74
1.
68
1.
60
1.
70
Texture
S.L.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L
.
S.C.L.
pH(
W
ater)
4.
37
4.
71
4.
84
4.
69
5.
15
4.
75
pH
(K
c
l
)
3.
68
3.
99
3.
96
3.
33
4.
90
3.
97
Organic C
(
%
)
0.
68
0.
56
0.
51
0.
40
0.
28
0.
49
Organic M(%)
1.
08
0.
97
0.
87
0.
69
0.
48
0.
82
Tot
a
l N
(%
)
0.
070
0.
084
0.
056
0.
056
0.
42
0,
13
Available P(m
g
.
k
g
-
)
6.
40
8.
10
6.
60
6.
80
3.
80
6.
34
Na
+
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-
)
0.
148
0.
148
0.
270
0.
113
0.
210
0.
18
K
+
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
0.
087
0.
051
0.
046
0.
041
0.
051
0.
056
Mg
++
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
1.
60
1.
20
2.
40
1.
20
1.
60
1.
6
Ca
++
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
2.
80
2.
40
2.
40
2.
80
3.
20
2.
72
EA
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
1.
28
0.
40
1.
04
0.
96
0.
32
0.
8
CEC (c
m
o
l
.
k
g
-1
)
5.
915
4.
199
6.
156
5.
114
5.
381
5.
353
BS(%
)
78.
36
90.
47
83.
11
81.
23
94.
05
85.
444
Source
: Fieldwork,
2010
Fi
g 2: V
a
ri
a
t
i
o
ns o
f
Ph
ysi
c
o
-
chemi
c
al
Pro
p
erti
e
s at
v
a
ri
ous Dep
t
hs
of
Soi
l
Pr
ofi
l
e
(
E
CH/
U
K/
0
2
)
T
a
bl
e 4
:
Ph
ys
i
c
o-chemi
c
al
Proper
ti
es of Soi
l
Pr
ofi
l
e
(E
CH/
U
K/
0
3
)
Soil Properti
e
s
Soil Profile
Dep
th (c
m
)
Mean
0-
16
16-
48
48-
81
81-
116
116-
17
7
Sand(%
)
75.
75
75.
74
73.
74
75.
74
69.
74
74.
142
Silt (%)
10.
00
8.
00
10.
00
6.
00
8.
00
8.
4
Clay(
%)
14.
26
16.
26
16.
26
18.
26
22.
26
17.
46
Bulk Densi
ty(g/cm
3
)
1.
50
1.
50
1.
62
1.
62
1.
60
1.
568
Texture
S.L.
S.L.
S.L.
S.L.
S.L.
S.L.
pH(
W
ater)
4.
44
4.
63
4.
80
4.
90
5.
28
4.
81
pH
(K
c
l
)
3.
84
3.
68
3.
68
4.
00
4.
50
3.
90
Organic C
(
%
)
0.
89
0.
83
0.
77
0.
43
0.
35
0.
654
Organic M(%)
1.
54
1.
43
1.
33
0.
74
0.
60
1.
128
Tot
a
l N
(%
)
0.
098
0.
084
0.
098
0.
042
0.
042
0.
073
Available P(m
g
.
k
g
-1
)
10.
40
8.
60
11.
0
5.
80
5.
80
8.
32
Na
+
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
0.
191
0.
240
0.
174
0.
183
0.
157
0.
189
K
+
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
0.
067
0.
056
0.
046
0.
041
0.
036
0.
049
Mg
++
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
1.
60
1.
60
1.
20
0.
80
2.
00
1.
44
Ca
++
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
2.
80
2.
40
3.
20
1.
60
2.
40
2.
48
EA
(c
mo
l.
k
g
-1
)
0.
88
0.
36
0.
80
0.
48
0.
24
0.
56
CEC (c
m
o
l
.
k
g
-1
)
5.
538
4.
626
5.
421
3.
104
4.
833
4.
704
BS(%
)
84.
11
92.
22
85.
24
85.
54
95.
03
88.
428
Source
: Fieldwork,
2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Values
Physico
‐
chem
ical
Properties
of
the
Soil
0
‐
20
20
‐
42
42
‐
64
64
‐
89
89
‐
115
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
AA
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
1
4
C
har
act
e
ri
zat
i
on
of
S
o
i
l
Q
ual
i
t
y
i
n
Ero
si
o
n
Pro
ne E
n
vi
ro
n
m
ent
of
Ukp
o
r
,
N
n
ew
i
-
So
ut
h
L.G
.
A. (
U
b
u
o
h
E. A)
5
Fi
g. 3:
V
a
ri
a
t
i
o
ns o
f
Ph
ysi
c
o
-
chemica
l
Properties o
f
So
il
Pro
f
ile
in
t
h
e
Lo
we
r
s
l
o
p
e (EC
H
/UK
/
03
)
Fig
.
4
:
Va
riat
io
ns of
M
e
an V
a
lues
of
Physico
-
che
m
ical Proper
ties
in Differe
nt
Toposeque
nce
3.
1
S
o
i
l
Ph
ys
i
c
al
Pro
p
erti
e
s
3
.
1
.
1
S
o
i
l
T
e
x
t
u
r
e
Th
is is t
h
e
relativ
e propo
rtion of the
v
a
ri
o
u
s
so
il se
p
a
rates
sand
, silt, and
clay th
at m
a
k
e
up
t
h
e so
il
classes [8]. F
r
om
the results, the sa
nd
co
nt
ent
o
f
al
l
t
h
e
s
a
m
p
l
e
s are
ge
neral
l
y
ve
ry
hi
gh
ra
ngi
n
g
b
e
t
w
een
63
.7
4
–
7
5
.
7
4
%
,
wi
t
h
EC
H/
U
K
/
0
1
an
d E
C
H/
UK/
0
3
ha
vi
n
g
t
h
e
hi
g
h
e
s
t
val
u
e
o
f
7
6
%
an
d t
h
e l
o
w
e
st
bei
n
g
ECH/UK/ 0
2
with
64
% .Th
e
silt co
n
t
en
ts in
all
th
e p
r
o
f
iles are lo
w rang
i
n
g
b
e
tween
2
– 1
0
% th
at flu
c
tu
ates
am
ong
t
h
e
de
p
t
hs
of
al
l
t
h
e
p
e
do
ns
.
The
cl
ay
cont
e
n
t
s
ran
g
ed
bet
w
ee
n
1
4
.
2
6
–
30
.2
6
% w
h
i
c
h
s
h
o
w
s l
o
w t
o
m
e
di
um
. The hi
g
h
est
val
u
e
was rec
o
rde
d
i
n
U
K
0
1
a
n
d U
K
03
, b
u
t
sho
w
s
n
o
de
f
i
ni
t
e
t
r
end i
n
ped
o
n
EC
H/
U
K
/
U
K0
1.
Thi
s
i
s
as t
h
e res
u
l
t
o
f
t
h
e
m
ovem
e
nt
of
c
l
ay
and
ot
her
f
i
ner m
a
t
e
ri
al
s from
t
h
e t
o
p s
o
i
l
s by
an o
v
erl
a
nd fl
o
w
. Thi
s
res
u
l
t
was su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
by
Akam
i
gbo
and
Asad
u (
1
9
8
6
)
an
d A
d
eka
y
ode an
d A
k
o
m
ol
afe
(2
0
1
1
)
[
9
]
,
[
1
0]
. The
p
r
obl
em
coul
d
be rem
e
di
ed
by
pl
ant
i
n
g t
r
ees
t
o
pr
ot
e
c
t
t
h
e soi
l
fr
om
bei
n
g e
r
o
d
e
d
easi
l
y
[1
1]
,[
1
2
]
.
3.
1.
2 B
u
l
k
De
nsi
t
y
Th
is is th
e dry
m
a
ss (weigh
t) o
f
so
il p
e
r
o
f
b
u
l
k
vo
lu
m
e
[8
]. Fro
m
th
e resu
lts, th
e bu
l
k
d
e
n
s
ity o
f
soi
l
sam
p
l
e
s are gen
e
ral
l
y
m
o
derat
e
,
ra
ngi
ng
bet
w
ee
n
1.
50
– 1
.
8
0
g/
cm
3
.
Mo
stly, th
e bu
l
k
d
e
n
s
ities in
creased
wi
t
h
dept
h. T
h
i
s
m
a
y
be du
e t
o
rece
nt
weat
h
e
ri
n
g
an
d
de
po
si
t
i
on o
f
e
r
o
d
e
d
m
a
t
e
ri
al
s i
n
ped
o
n
EC
H/
U
K
/
0
1
.
Bu
lk
d
e
nsities
abo
v
e
1
.
75
g.c
m
-3
for sa
n
d
s
are
qu
ot
ed
b
y
de Ge
us
(
1
97
3
)
as ca
usi
n
g
hi
n
d
ra
nce t
o
r
o
ot
p
e
n
e
t
r
atio
n in
t
h
e so
il.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Values
Physico
‐
ch
emical
Properties
of
the
Soil
0
‐
16
16
‐
48
48
‐
81
81
‐
116
116
‐
177
0
50
100
150
200
250
Mean
Values
Physico
‐
ch
emical
Properties
of
Soils
Profile
03
Profile
02
Profile
01
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
14
IJA
A
S
Vol
.
2
,
N
o
.
1,
M
a
rc
h
20
1
3
:
1
–
8
6
4.
SOIL CHE
M
I
CAL PR
OPE
R
TIES
4.
1 S
o
i
l
pH
The soi
l
s
are g
e
neral
l
y
st
ro
ng
l
y
aci
di
c for p
H
i
n
Kcl
.
The
pH
of t
h
e soi
l
s
range
d bet
w
ee
n 3.
3 – 4
.
5
,
in
d
i
cating
ex
t
r
e
m
e acid
ity, e
x
cep
t i
n
on
e
ho
rizo
n
wh
ich
falls with
in
th
e
rang
e
o
f
4
.
9
in p
e
don
EC
H/UK/O2
wh
ich
ind
i
cates v
e
ry strong
acid
ic reaction
.
In
m
o
st cas
es, the
pH values
increase
d
wi
t
h
dept
h.T
h
e
res
u
l
t
s
a
r
e
in
tu
ned
w
ith
t
h
e f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s of
A
k
am
ig
b
o
and I
g
w
e
(
199
0)
who observed that
low
aci
dity values a
r
e re
corde
d
i
n
h
u
m
i
d soi
l
s
due
s
o
i
l
er
osi
o
n
whi
c
h i
s
res
p
o
n
si
bl
e f
o
r
l
o
w
t
o
hi
g
h
cal
ci
um
and m
a
gnesi
um
co
nt
en
t
of
t
h
e
so
ils [9
].
4.
2 S
o
i
l
or
g
a
ni
c carb
on
(
O
C
)
an
d S
o
i
l
Or
g
a
ni
c
Ma
tter
(
O
M
)
So
il fertility is
clo
s
ely lin
k
e
d to
so
il organ
i
c m
a
tter, wh
ose statu
s
d
e
pend
s
on
b
i
o
m
ass in
pu
t and
managem
e
nt, mineralization,
leaching an e
r
osi
on [13],[14]. It is
well recognized t
h
at soil orga
nic matter
in
creases stru
ctu
r
e stab
ility, resistan
ce t
o
rain
fall im
p
act, rate
o
f
infiltratio
n
and
fauna activ
ities [13
]
. In
EC
K/
U
K
/
0
1,
OC
ra
nge
d
be
t
w
een
0.
28
– 0
.
6
1
%
,
OM
ran
g
e
d
bet
w
een 0
.
4
8
-
1
.
0
6
% res
p
ect
i
v
el
y
.
In
EC
K/
U
K
/
0
2 O
C
ran
g
e
d
bet
w
een
0.
28
–
0.
6
3
% ,
OM
ran
g
ed
bet
w
een
0
.
4
8
-
1.
0
8
% a
nd
EC
K/
UK/
0
3
,
OC
ran
g
e
d
bet
w
ee
n 0.
35 – 0.
9
8
%
,
an
d OM
ra
nge
d bet
w
ee
n 0.
60
– 1.
5
4
% r
e
spect
i
v
el
y
.
T
h
e
res
u
l
t
s
are
c
o
nsi
s
t
e
nt
wi
t
h
t
h
e
fi
n
d
i
n
g
of M
o
r
g
a
n
(
1
98
1
)
w
h
o
rep
o
r
t
e
d t
h
at
t
h
e
or
gani
c
o
r
ga
ni
c
m
a
t
t
e
r and
or
g
a
ni
c car
b
o
n
i
n
hum
i
d
soils are
gene
rally low due
to leaching
and seve
re
sheet erosion,
burial of
top soils by tillage and
m
i
neral
i
zat
i
on
of
o
r
ga
ni
c m
a
t
t
er
by
hi
gh
t
e
m
p
erat
ure
[
14]
.
4
.
3
T
o
t
a
l
N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
Th
e t
o
tal n
itrog
en statu
s
o
f
an
y so
il is cl
osely
associated with t
h
e s
o
il
or
ga
ni
c m
a
tt
er [1
5]
. T
h
e
resu
lts of To
tal n
itro
g
e
n
in
th
e th
ree p
e
don
s ECK/UK/01
,
0
2
an
d 03 i
n
di
c
a
t
e
d t
h
at
t
h
e val
u
es ran
g
e
d
bet
w
ee
n
0.
04
2 -
0
.
0
84
%
,
0.
0
42
– 0
.
0
7
0
% an
d
0.
04
2
-0
.0
9
2
% res
p
e
c
t
i
v
el
y
.
The v
a
l
u
es o
f
Ni
t
r
o
g
en
of t
h
e s
o
i
l
s
were
fo
u
nd t
o
dec
r
e
a
se wi
t
h
a
n
i
n
creased
de
pt
hs
, w
h
i
c
h
was
o
b
ser
v
e
d
t
o
be
due t
o
er
osi
o
n
of
ni
t
r
at
es
on
t
h
e t
o
p
so
ils. Th
is result is co
n
s
isten
t
with
th
e
find
ing
of
Gr
a
h
am
(20
1
0
) i
n
t
h
e sa
van
n
a
h
zo
ne
o
f
Ni
geri
a [
1
5]
.
An
d
th
e To
tal Nitrog
en
i
n
th
e so
ils was also
as
v
e
ry lo
w co
m
p
ar
ed
to
th
e
r
a
tings o
f
Esu
(
199
1)
[1
6
]
. Th
e r
e
du
ced
micro
b
i
al activities cau
sed
b
y
lo
w
pH can
affect
Nitrog
en
av
ailab
ility in
the so
il [17
]
.
4.
4
Av
ai
l
a
bl
e
Phos
ph
orus
The avai
l
a
bl
e ph
os
ph
o
r
us c
o
nt
ent
o
f
t
h
e pe
do
ns
vari
e
d
bet
w
een l
o
w t
o
m
e
di
um
, wi
t
h
va
l
u
es ra
ngi
ng
bet
w
ee
n 2
.
8
0
-1
1.
0
0
cmol.kg
-1
, wi
t
h
pe
d
on
0
1
ha
vi
n
g
val
u
es t
h
at
va
r
i
ed bet
w
e
e
n
2.
80
–
8.
60
cmo
l.
kg
-1
,
ped
o
n
02
v
a
ri
ed bet
w
ee
n 3.
8
0
– 8.
10
cm
ol.kg
-1
and
p
e
d
on 03
v
a
r
i
ed b
e
t
w
een 5.80
–1
1.0
0
cmol.kg
-1
. Loss of
ph
os
ph
o
r
us
are
us
ual
l
y
due t
o
t
h
e rem
oval
b
y
cro
p
s [
1
9]
. I
n
aci
di
c s
o
i
l
s
,
m
u
ch of t
h
e
P
becom
e
fi
xed
up
by
reactio
n with iro
n
(Fe
3+
), al
um
i
num
(Al
3+
),
an
d m
a
ngane
se t
o
fo
rm
i
n
sol
u
b
l
e com
pou
nd
s.
4.
5
E
x
ch
an
ge
abl
e
B
a
ses
(E
B
)
Ex
ch
ang
e
ab
le b
a
ses in th
e so
ils in
clud
e Na
+
, K
+
, M
g
++
a
nd C
a
++
.T
he val
u
es of
so
di
um
(Na
+
) i
n
ped
o
n
01 ra
ng
ed
b
e
t
w
ee
n
0
.
1
31 – 0.
1
91
cm
ol
.k
g
-1
, potassium
(K
+
) ra
n
g
e
d
b
e
t
w
ee
n 0
.
0
46
–
0.
0
67
cm
ol
.k
g
-
1
,
m
a
gnesi
um
(M
g
+
) ra
n
g
ed
bet
w
een
0.
80
– 5
.
6
0
cm
ol
.kg
-1
,
an
d
Calciu
m
(Ca
++
)
ran
g
ed b
e
t
w
een 1.
60 –
10
.4
0
cm
ol
.kg
-1
. T
h
e
resul
t
s
s
h
owe
d
t
h
at
t
h
e
val
u
ed o
f
e
x
c
h
an
g
eabl
e
base
d
ra
nge
d
bet
w
ee
n
l
o
w t
o
m
e
di
um
val
u
es
i
n
al
l
t
h
e pedon [
1
6]
. The r
e
sul
t
s
of al
l
t
h
e excha
ngea
b
l
e
bases i
ndi
ce
s such as sodi
um
, pot
assi
um
,
m
a
gnesi
um
and cal
ci
um
decreased
wi
t
h
d
e
pt
hs
. The res
u
lts are in
co
nsisten
t
with
th
e fin
d
i
ng
of Ak
am
ig
b
o
(1
9
8
3
)
w
h
o
ob
serve
d
l
o
w C
a
/
M
g
rat
i
o
i
n
t
h
e s
o
i
l
s
of
U
k
po
r.
Al
so
, e
x
c
h
an
gea
b
l
e
base
s ha
ve b
een
o
b
s
erv
e
d
as i
nher
e
nt
l
y
l
o
w
on t
h
e ero
d
ed s
o
i
l
s
of s
o
ut
h east
e
r
n
Ni
geri
a [
1
8]
. The
l
o
w exc
h
a
nge
abl
e
bases i
n
t
h
e soi
l
s
show hea
v
y
leaching of
s
o
il nut
rients.
Acc
o
rding
to
Enwezor (1981) pointed out
t
h
at leaching
of cal
cium
an
d m
a
g
n
e
sium
are larg
ely
respon
sib
l
e
for th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t of aci
d
ity in
th
e so
il du
e
to
h
i
g
h
rai
n
fall
with
po
r
ous
nat
u
re
of
t
h
e s
o
i
l
t
e
xt
ure
an
d t
h
e
par
e
nt
m
a
t
e
ri
al
s [18]
.
Thi
s
was
s
u
p
p
o
rt
e
d
by
M
b
ag
w
u
(1
9
8
6
)
[1
9]
.
4.
6
E
x
ch
an
ge
abl
e
Aci
d
i
t
y(
E
A
)
Exc
h
an
gea
b
l
e
aci
di
t
.
y
i
s
a
m
easure
of t
h
e a
m
ount
of a soi
l
'
s
cat
i
on exch
ange ca
paci
t
y
(C
EC
) t
h
at
i
s
occupied
by acidic cations
. By acid
i
c ca
ti
o
n
s
, it
is g
e
n
e
rally
mean
H
+
and
Al
3+
, but it can also include Fe
an
d
Mn
cations. Alu
m
in
u
m
a
n
d
iro
n
cation
s
will co
m
b
in
e with
OH
-
i
ons
and t
a
ke i
t
out
of s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n, f
o
r
m
i
ng
an i
n
s
o
l
u
bl
e com
pou
nd
.
Fr
o
m
t
h
e resul
t
s
, i
t
i
s
obser
ved t
h
at
exch
an
gea
b
l
e
aci
di
t
y
ranged
bet
w
ee
n l
o
w a
n
d
m
e
di
um
( 0.2
4
- 1.
28 cm
ol
.kg
-1
), wi
t
h
hi
ghe
r
val
u
e rec
o
r
d
e
d
i
n
pe
do
n EC
H/
U
K
/
0
1 an
d 02
, an
d 0
3
ha
v
i
ng t
h
e
lo
west v
a
lu
e.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
AA
S I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
1
4
C
har
act
e
ri
zat
i
on
of
S
o
i
l
Q
ual
i
t
y
i
n
Ero
s
i
o
n
Pro
n
e E
n
vi
ro
n
m
ent
of
Ukp
o
r
,
N
n
ew
i
-
So
ut
h
L.G
.
A. (
U
b
u
o
h
E. A)
7
4.
7
Ca
ti
o
n
E
x
chan
ge
abl
e
C
a
p
a
ci
t
y
(
C
E
C
)
Fro
m
th
e resu
lts, th
e v
a
lu
es o
f
CEC rang
ed fro
m
lo
w to
med
i
u
m
, with
v
a
lu
es b
e
tween
3.10
–
16.97
cm
ol
.kg
-1
. T
h
e
hi
g
h
est
val
u
e
was f
o
un
d i
n
p
e
do
n EC
H/
U
K
/
01,
w
h
i
l
e
pe
d
o
n
EC
H/
UK/
0
3
rec
o
rde
d
t
h
e
l
o
west
v
a
lu
e. Th
e low CEC is su
sp
ected
to
du
e t
h
e t
y
p
e
of clay m
i
n
e
ral
p
r
esen
t i
n
th
e so
il.
4.
8 B
a
se S
a
tur
a
ti
on
(B
S)
The res
u
l
t
s
sh
ows
t
h
at
t
h
e v
a
l
u
es of
B
S
w
e
re very
hi
g
h
ran
g
i
n
g bet
w
e
e
n 78
.3
6 – 9
6
.
0
6
%, wi
t
h
p
e
don
EC
H/UK/01
record
ed th
e h
i
gh
est v
a
lu
e
in
th
e
l
o
west
ho
rizo
n, wh
i
l
e
th
e
lowest valu
e was foun
d
in
t
h
e
up
pe
r h
o
ri
z
o
n
of
pe
do
n EC
H/
U
K
/
0
2. T
h
e
s
e res
u
l
t
s
coul
d be
d
u
e t
o
p
r
o
p
ert
i
e
s i
n
he
r
i
t
e
d fr
om
t
h
e pare
nt
materials d
u
e
to
so
il erosion
b
y
rainwater.
Th
is was
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
e
d by
Akam
i
g
b
o
an
d Asa
d
u (
1
9
8
6
) w
h
o r
e
po
rt
ed
th
at p
a
ren
t
m
a
t
e
rials h
a
v
e
a strong
influ
e
n
ce
o
n
to
tal exch
ang
eab
le
b
a
ses an
d to
tal acid
ity of so
ils [9
].
5.
SUMMARY
Fr
o
m
th
e stu
dy o
f
so
il q
u
a
li
ty in
er
o
s
ion
pr
on
e en
v
i
ron
m
en
t, Th
e so
il tex
t
ur
es ar
e sandy-
clay lo
a
m
to
sand
y lo
am
.
Clay an
d
silt
co
n
t
en
ts are low wh
ile sa
n
d
co
n
t
en
ts are v
e
ry h
i
gh
, and
the b
u
l
k
d
e
n
s
ities are
g
e
n
e
r
a
lly
m
o
d
e
r
a
te. Th
e
p
H
, ex
ch
an
g
e
ab
le b
a
ses, CEC,
o
r
g
a
n
i
c car
bon an
d
org
a
n
i
c
matter
co
n
t
en
ts o
f
th
e
soils are
ve
ry low due to leaching a
nd i
n
tensive agricultural activities that
leads to e
r
oding
of t
h
e soil. Also
fr
om
t
h
e
m
ean val
u
es
o
f
t
h
e
phy
si
c
o
-c
hem
i
cal
pr
ope
rt
i
e
s
i
n
di
f
f
ere
n
t
t
o
po
-se
que
nce,
i
t
was o
b
se
rve
d
t
h
at
co
n
c
en
tration
o
f
t
h
e so
il p
r
op
erties were
fo
und
in
t
h
e lower sl
o
p
e
th
an th
e upp
er and
m
i
d
d
l
e d
u
e
to
so
il
erosi
o
n
.
Lan
d
uses pat
t
e
r
n
s a
nd
ot
he
r l
a
nd
u
s
e pract
i
ces l
i
k
e ara
b
l
e
farm
i
ng, cl
ea
n wee
d
i
n
g, h
o
u
si
n
g
,
roa
d
co
nstr
u
c
tion
s
,
b
u
s
h bu
rn
ing
,
tr
ee f
eeli
n
g, sand
an
d ston
e
quar
r
y
ing
an
d th
e to
pog
r
a
ph
y of th
e ar
ea
w
e
r
e
f
oun
d
to be
the m
a
jor factors
of s
o
il erosi
o
n in t
h
e s
t
udy a
r
ea.
6.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
It is th
en
co
n
c
lu
d
e
d
th
at th
e so
ils o
f
Nn
ewi-
So
ut
h Local
Go
ve
rnm
e
nt
Ar
ea of Anam
bra State
are
p
r
edo
m
in
an
tly
sand
y l
o
am
y
in
tex
t
u
r
e with lo
w lev
e
ls of
so
il nu
tritional v
a
lu
es
su
ch
as org
a
n
i
c
matter,
orga
nic carbon, total N, a
v
ailable P a
n
d e
x
changea
b
le
cat
ion a
n
d CEC t
h
at we
re lost be leaching.
The soils
were als
o
strongly acidic due
to co
n
s
tan
t
wearing
away o
f
th
e
to
p
so
ils
by sh
eet ero
s
ion wh
ich
later resu
lted
to gully that are accelerated
by anthropogeni
c
activ
ities. Ba
sed on the results of
the study
, the following soil
m
a
nagem
e
nt
st
rat
e
gi
es a
r
e
rec
o
m
m
e
nded
.
7
.
R
E
COM
M
EN
DA
TION
S
7.
1
Re
fores
t
a
ti
on
Pro
g
r
a
m
m
e
A
refo
restation p
r
og
ramm
e with
th
e
p
l
an
ting
o
f
ex
otic trees like e
u
calyptus, aca
cia,
cashe
w and
g
m
el
in
a for so
il reh
a
b
ilitatio
n
are reco
mm
e
n
d
e
d
for th
e
reserv
e as th
e tree stan
d
s
wo
u
l
d serv
e t
o
p
r
o
t
ect th
e
lan
d
d
e
grad
ati
o
n and
also
en
rich
th
e
so
il
with
av
ailab
l
e
n
itrog
en
.
7.2 Inte
grated
Nutrient Management Op
tions
(INMO)
Int
e
grat
ed
N
u
t
r
i
e
nt
M
a
na
ge
m
e
nt
Opt
i
o
ns
C
r
op
resi
d
u
e
m
a
nagem
e
nt and see
d
be
d p
r
epa
r
at
i
o
n
m
e
t
hods ca
n pl
ay
an im
port
a
n
t
rol
e
i
n
s
u
st
ai
ni
n
g
t
h
e
pr
od
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
of t
h
ese
soi
l
s
fo
r cr
o
p
pr
o
duct
i
o
n. T
h
i
s
can
b
e
ach
i
ev
ed
i
n
red
u
c
ed
tillage syste
m
s th
rou
g
h
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
cro
p
resi
d
u
e
m
u
lch
e
s, in
sit
u
m
u
l
c
hes fr
o
m
cover
cro
p
s, a
n
d/
o
r
h
e
dge
r
o
w
pr
u
n
i
ng
fr
om
al
l
e
y
farm
i
ng. M
u
l
c
h al
so
pr
ot
ect
s
t
h
e soi
l
agai
n
s
t
hi
g
h
t
e
m
p
erat
ures,
so
il ero
s
ion
,
and
run
-
off, th
ereb
y prev
en
ting
t
h
e
b
r
eakd
own
o
f
so
il stru
cture and
th
e resu
lt
an
t so
il co
m
p
actio
n
an
d
d
ecreased
p
e
rm
eab
ility.
Fu
rt
h
e
rm
o
r
e,
m
u
lch
i
n
g
in
creases so
il
m
o
istu
re reten
tion
an
d
redu
ces runo
ff and
soi
l
er
osi
o
n
[2
0]
,[
21]
.
7.3 Effecti
v
e public
enlighte
n
ment campaign
Effectiv
e pub
lic en
ligh
t
en
m
e
n
t
ca
m
p
aig
n
abou
t th
e adv
a
n
t
ages of so
il con
s
erv
a
tion
.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Andrew, S.S., Karlen, D. L
.,
& Mitvhell, J.P. “A Co
mpariso
n
of So
il Quality
Index
i
ng methods for Vegetable
Production S
y
s
t
ems in Northern
California
Agriculture”,
Ecosystem and Environment,
Vol. 90. Pp.
25 – 45
, 2002
.
[2]
El –Swaif
y
,
S.A. “Problems of Land De
grad
ation
in humid
and S
ub-humid region
s”. Pp 24
– 33
. I
n
L.S. Bhushan
et
a
l
(e
d
.
) 8
th
Int.
S
o
il Cons
er
va
tion
Confer
en
ce
, N
e
w Delhi
,
Ind
i
a
4
-
8 December, 19
94.
[3]
Wang, X. & Gong. Z. “Asse
ssment and Analy
s
is of
Soil Quality
Ch
a
nges after
y
ears of Reclamation in Sub-
tropic
a
l”
,
Ch
ina. Soil and Tillage Research
, Vol.
48. Pp. 339 -335
, 1998
.
[4]
Tulu,
T
.
Soil an
d Water Conser
vation
for Sustainable
Agriculture,
C
T
A/Mega Publishing En
terp
rise: Addis Abab
a,
2002.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
14
IJA
A
S
Vol
.
2
,
N
o
.
1,
M
a
rc
h
20
1
3
:
1
–
8
8
[5]
Klute, A
.
Metho
d
s of Soil Ana
l
ysis, Part 1.
Physical and Min
e
ralogical
Properties
, A
m
. S
o
c. A
g
ron., M
a
d
i
s
on,
Wisconsins, 1986.
[6]
Walkey
, A. &
Black
, I. A. “An Ex
amination
of the Dejtjarelt Method fo
r Determining Soil
Organic Matter
and
Proposed Modification of
the Chr
o
mic Acid
Titration Method
”,
So
il S
c
ien
c
e
,
Vol.
37. Pp. 29 -38
,
1
934.
[7]
Bray
R.H.,
& K
u
rtz
L.T. “Deter
mi
nation of
total organic and
av
aila
ble forms of p
hosphorus in soil”,
Soil Sci.,
Vol.
59. Pp. 39–45, 1
945.
[8]
M
i
chae
l, J
.
S
., & D
onald, N
.M
.
Soil: An Introduction
, 3
rd
Ed. Prentice- Hall Inc. A Si
mon and Schuster Compan
y
,
Macm
illan
Publi
s
hing Com
p
an
y
,
New Jers
y
.
Pp.
1 -34, 1996.
[9]
Akamigbo, F. O
.,
& Igwe, C. A
.
“Phy
si
cal and
Chemical Ch
aracter
i
stics of
f
our
Gully
Soil
Locations in
Anambra
St
a
t
e,
Ni
ge
ri
a”
,
Agric
u
ltural J
o
urnal,
Vol. 7. Pp.
33 – 48
, 1990
.
[10]
Adekay
ode ,F.
O., & Akomolafe, D.
T.
“
C
rea
ting a soil da
ta
base in a re
con
n
aissance soil f
e
rtil
it
y stud
y of
an
encroa
ched for
e
s
t
res
e
rve
in No
rthern
Nig
e
ria f
o
r a refor
e
statio
n programme”,
African
Journal of En
vironmental
Scien
c
e and Technology,
Vol/Issue: 5(9)
. Pp. 748
-754, 2011
.
[11]
M
o
ffat AJ
, & Bos
w
ell R. C. “
E
ffect of tre
e
s
p
ecies
a
nd species mixtures on soil pr
operties
at Gisburn For
e
st,
Yorks
h
ire”,
Soil Use
Manage
, Vol/Issue: 6(1)
. Pp. 46-51, 1990.
[12]
Medugu, N.I
,
Rafee, M.
M., Johar F, &Ch
o
ji I
.
D. "Th
e
r
o
le of
affores
t
ation
progr
amme in combating
desertif
ica
tion
in
Nigeri
a",
Int. J.
Climate Change
Strat. Manag
e
,
Vol/Issue: 2(1)
.
Pp. 3–47, 2010.
[13]
Roose, E. & Bar
t
hes, B. “Organic
Matter Manag
e
ment for Soil Conservation
and
Productivity
Res
t
oration in Africa:
A Contribution f
r
om Francophone Research
”,
Nut
r
ient
C
ycl
ing in Agr
o
ecos
y
s
t
ems
, Vol. 61
. Pp. 15
9 – 170
, 2001
.
[14]
Mo
r
g
a
n
,
R.
P.
C.
Tropics in App
l
ied Geography
: S
o
il
Erosion Long
man Group Ltd
.
London. Pp. 39
– 41, 1981.
[15]
Graham
, W
.
B.R
.
“
C
haract
eris
ti
c
s
of the S
o
ils
of Ga
y
i
, North wes
t
ern Nigeri
a”
,
Nigerian Journal of Scien
ce an
d
Technology,
Vol/Issue: 6(1). Pp
1 -14, 2010.
[16]
Esu, I.
E.
D
e
tailed Survey of NIHORT Farm at Bunkure
,
Kano State,
Nigeria.
IAR/
ABU,
Zaria.
Enwezor, W.
O.
(1986),
Sulphur
Deficiencies in
S
o
ils
of South
eas
t
ern Geoderma
,
Vol. 15
. Pp. 401
– 411, 1991.
[17]
London, J
.
R.
Bo
oker Tropical So
il Manua
l,
Long
man Scientific and
Technical
Essex, 1991
.
[18]
Enwezor, W.O
.
“Predicting Res
ponses to Phosp
h
at
e Application
for Soil of South eastern Niger
i
a”,
Soil S
c
ien
c
e
,
Vol. 123
. Pp. 11
0 – 116
, 1987
.
[19]
Mbagwu, J. S.C. “Effect of Soil
Erosion on Productivity
of Agricultur
e”,
Soil S
c
ience
Amer. Jour
nal,
Vol.
48.
Pp.
828 – 833
, 1986
.
[20]
Lal
,
R.
Ro
le of
mulching techniques in
tropical
soils and water management
. T
e
chnic
a
l Bul
l
et
in
I. Ibadan
, Niger
i
a:
IITA, 1974
.
[21]
Kang, B.T. & Ju
o, A.S.R.
Effec
t
of fore
st c
l
e
a
ring on soil c
h
emical properties an
d crop performance.
Pp. 383-39
4,
1986. In
: Lal, R. Sanchez, P.A., Cummings,
R.W. (eds.). Land clearing and develo
pm
ent in the tropics., Rot
t
erdam
,
Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.