Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2024, Vol. 11 Issue (2) : 303-313    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2023502
Characteristics of soil quality attributes under different agroecosystems and its implications for agriculture in the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia
Demeku MESFIN1,2(), Engdawork ASSEFA1, Belay SIMANE1
1. College of Development Studies, Center for Environment and Development, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa 1000, Ethiopia
2. College of Social Science and Humanities, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wolaita Sodo University, Wolaita Sodo 4620, Ethiopia
 Download: PDF(1576 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

● Soil properties varied within coefficients of variation ranging from 7% to 169%.

● High variation in available phosphorus was caused by different management practices.

● Midland plains are dominated by Vertisol and Nitosols more suitable for agriculture.

● Lowland and mountainous highland area of the watershed are neither fertile nor suitable for agriculture.

● Lime application and organic fertilizer are fundamental to reversing soil acidity.

Awareness of how soil properties vary over agroecosystems (AES) is essential for understanding soil potentials and improving site-specific agricultural management strategies for a sustainable ecosystem. This study examined the characteristics of soil quality attributes and implications for agriculture in the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia. Forty-seven composite soil samples (0–20 cm deep) were collected from lowland and valley fragmented (AES 1), midland plain with black soil (AES 2), midland plain with brown soil (AES 3), sloppy midland land (AES 4), and hilly and mountainous highlands (AES 5). Ten of 15 soil quality properties were significant (P < 0.05 or 0.01), including silt, exchangeable bases, cation exchange capacity, percent base saturation, pH, organic matter, total nitrogen and available phosphorous (P) across the five AES. However, all properties were variable with coefficients of variation from 7% (total porosity) to 169% (available P) across the AES. Although AES 2 and 3 are affected by waterlogging and acidity, these two have better prospects for agriculture, but AES 1, 4, and 5 are unsuitable for agriculture because of soil erosion. Therefore, appropriate and applicable soil management strategies, particularly lime application and organic fertilizer, are fundamental to reversing soil acidity and improving soil fertility.
Keywords Agroecosystem      Choke Mountain watershed      coefficients of variation      Ethiopia      soil quality indicator     
Corresponding Author(s): Demeku MESFIN   
Just Accepted Date: 05 May 2023   Online First Date: 31 May 2023    Issue Date: 13 June 2024
 Cite this article:   
Demeku MESFIN,Engdawork ASSEFA,Belay SIMANE. Characteristics of soil quality attributes under different agroecosystems and its implications for agriculture in the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2024, 11(2): 303-313.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2023502
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2024/V11/I2/303
AES Farming system Rainfall (mm)* Temperature (oC)* Elevation (masl) Major soil Major crop
Lowland and valley fragmented (AES 1) Fragmented sorghum-based, extensive < 900 21–27.5 800–1400 Leptosols Cambisols Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), teff (Eragrostis abyssinica, maize (Zea mays), haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
Midland plain with black soil (AES 2) Intensive teff-based 900–1200 11–15 1400–2300 Vertisols Teff (Eragrostis abyssinica), durum wheat (Triticum durum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), chickpea (Cicer arietinum)
Midland plain with brown soil (AES 3) Intensive maize–wheat based 900–1200 16–21 1400–2400 NitosolsAlisols Maize (Zea mays), wheat (Triticum spp.), teff (Eragrostis abyssinica)
Sloppy midland land (AES 4) Semi-intensive wheat/barley-based 1200–1400 11–15 2400–2800 LeptosolsNitosolsAlisols Wheat (Triticum spp.), teff (Eragrostis abyssinica), barley (Hordeum vulgare), engido (Avena spp.)
Hilly and mountainous highlands (AES 5) Barley/potato-based ≥1400 7.5–10 2800–3800 LeptosolsLuvisols Barley (Hordeum vulgare), potato (Solamum tuberosum), fava bean (Vicia fava), engido (Avena spp.)
Tab.1  Characteristics of study agroecosystems (AES) of Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia
Soil attribute Analytical method Reference
Particle size distribution Bouyoucos hydrometric method [21]
Soil pH 1:2.5 soil to water suspension [19]
Total N Kjeldahl method [22]
Soil carbon content Wet digestion method [23]
CEC Ammonium acetate method [24]
Ca and Mg Atomic absorption spectrophotometer [24]
Na and K Flame photometer [24]
Percent base saturation Divide the sum of base cations by the cation exchange capacity multiplied by 100 [20]
Available P Olsen’s extraction method [25]
Tab.2  Analytical method for the selected soil quality attributes
Item Clay (%) Silt (%) Sand (%) Texture BD (g·cm–3) Total porosity (%)
AES 1 58.2a 25.4a 16.4b Clay 1.02 61.8a
AES 2 53.7a 25.0a 21.3a Clay 1.11 58.2a
AES 3 60.8ab 21.0ab 18.2c Clay loam 1.01 62.0a
AES 4 52.8a 26.7a 20.6a Clay 0.98 63.7b
AES 5 43.0ac 30.3ac 26.7d Clay 1.00 62.3a
F 2.17 2.93 1.68 NS 1.27
P 0.089 0.031 0.173 0.335 0.301
CV% 29.1 31.6 40.2 12.6 7.8
SE 2.23 1.20 1.25 0.02 0.78
Tab.3  Textural and physical characteristics of soil in agroecosystems (AES) of the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia
Item Ca (cmol·kg−1) Mg (cmol·kg−1) ENa (cmol·kg−1) EK (cmol·kg−1) CEC (meq·(100g)−1) PBS (%)
AES 1 31.8a 7.84a 0.07a 0.61a 41.0a 94.5a
AES 2 33.0a 13.6b 0.14b 0.87a 50.8b 92.5a
AES 3 1.78b 3.04c 0.03a 1.06b 27.1c 21.8b
AES 4 9.62b 4.76c 0.03a 0.96a 38.9a 37.1b
AES 5 13.0c 5.23ac 0.05a 0.45c 39.3a 46.6b
F 13.00 15.10 7.06 1.31 12.00 15.20
P 0 0 0 0.282 0 0
CV% 104 69.2 101 83.5 25.4 72.4
SE 2.40 0.66 0.01 0.10 1.45 5.63
Tab.4  Exchangeable base, CEC and PBS of the soil in agroecosystems (AES) of the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia
Item pH (H2O) OM (%) TN (%) Pav (mg·kg–1)
AES 1 6.97a 2.59a 0.15a 12.00a
AES 2 6.59a 3.72a 0.22a 4.83a
AES 3 5.30b 3.82a 0.23a 3.96a
AES 4 5.53b 5.01ab 0.29a 16.00a
AES 5 5.59b 6.32b 0.35b 5.61a
F 28.60 4.33 3.18 2.99
P 0 0.005 0.023 0.029
CV% 14.1 62.7 58.3 170
SE 0.12 0.42 0.02 2.10
Tab.5  variability of soil pH, organic matter, total nitrogen, and available phosphorus in the soil in agroecosystems (AES) of the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia
Clay Silt Sand BD Porosity Ca Mg ENa EK CEC PBS pH (H2O) OM TN Pav
Clay (%) 1
Silt (%) –0.905** 1
Sand (%) –0.913** 0.651** 1
BD (g·cm–3) 0.366* –0.331* –0.331* 1
Porosity (%) –0.371* 0.336* 0.335* –0.998** 1
Ca (cmol·kg–1) –0.004 –0.005 0.011 0.203 –0.2 1
Mg (cmol·kg–1) 0.07 –0.098 –0.031 0.319 –0.319 0.814** 1
ENa (cmol·kg–1) –0.01 0.069 –0.049 0.059 –0.066 0.373** 0.535** 1
EK (cmol·kg-1) 0.075 –0.12 –0.019 –0.245 0.258 0.247 0.276 0.008 1
CEC (meq·(100g) –1) –0.336* 0.297* 0.314* –0.018 0.018 0.762** 0.725** 0.485** 0.086 1
PBS (%) 0.051 –0.041 –0.051 0.206 –0.2 0.948** 0.835** 0.327* 0.310* 0.615** 1
pH (H2O) 0.077 –0.071 –0.069 0.215 –0.206 0.891** 0.735** 0.277 0.267 0.522** 0.940** 1
OM (%) –0.705** 0.624** 0.656** –0.677** 0.679** –0.108 –0.201 0.158 0.109 0.306* –0.217 –0.312* 1
TN (%) –0.656** 0.566** 0.625** –0.693** 0.693** –0.121 –0.216 0.166 0.078 0.284 –0.238 –0.325* 0.977** 1
Pav (mg·kg–1) 0.041 –0.003 –0.071 –0.209 0.223 0.227 0.255 –0.074 0.698** 0.136 0.318* 0.298* 0.073 0.05 1
Tab.6  Correlations between soil properties in agroecosystems of the Choke Mountain watershed in Ethiopia
1 A, Sánchez-Navarro J M, Gil-Vázquez M J, Delgado-Iniesta P, Marín-Sanleandro A, Blanco-Bernardeau R Ortiz-Silla . Establishing an index and identification of limiting parameters for characterizing soil quality in Mediterranean ecosystems. Catena, 2015, 131: 35–45
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.02.023
2 N K Fageria . Soil quality vs. environmentally-based agricultural management practices. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2002, 33(13−14): 2301−2329
3 G, Zhao X, Mu Z, Wen F, Wang P Gao . Soil erosion, conservation, and eco-environment changes in the Loess Plateau of China. Land Degradation & Development, 2013, 24(5): 499–510
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2246
4 M A, Alwani O, Nafia A, Al-shaye A A Meklef . Studying the fertility status of the soil in some areas of agricultural expansion within western desert from Iraq. Plant Archives, 2019, 19(2): 2343–2350
5 E, Elias G K, Biratu E M A Smaling . Vertisols in the Ethiopian Highlands: interaction between land use systems, soil properties, and different types of fertilizer applied to teff and wheat. Sustainability, 2022, 14(12): 7370
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127370
6 H, Hurni W A, Berhe P, Chadhokar D, Daniel Z, Gete M, Grunder G Kassaye . Soil and water conservation in Ethiopia: guidlines for development agents. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Bern Open Publishing (BOP), 2016
7 T, Yirgu Y, Yihunie A Asele . Agro-ecological assessment of physico-chemical properties of soils in Kulfo Watershed, South Western Ethiopia. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2020, 14(1): 6–14
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2019.2771
8 K, Ebabu A, Tsunekawa N, Haregeweyn E, Adgo D T, Meshesha D, Aklog T, Masunaga M, Tsubo D, Sultan A A, Fenta M Yibeltal . Exploring the variability of soil properties as influenced by land use and management practices: a case study in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Soil & Tillage Research, 2020, 200: 104614
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104614
9 B, Simane B F, Zaitchik D Mesfin . Building climate resilience in the Blue Nile/Abay Highlands: a framework for action. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2012, 9(2): 610–631
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9020610
10 T, Negasa H, Ketema A, Legesse M, Sisay H Temesgen . Variation in soil properties under different land use types managed by smallholder farmers along the toposequence in southern Ethiopia. Geoderma, 2017, 290: 40–50
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.021
11 K, Abate M, Mohammed K Kibret . Soil fertility assessment and mapping of spatial variability at Amareganda-Abajarso Sub-Watershed, North-Eastern Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences, 2016, 10(1): 1–14
12 W, Bewket L Stroosnijder . Effects of agroecological land use succession on soil properties in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Geoderma, 2003, 111(1−2): 85−98
13 E, Teferi W, Bewket B Simane . Effects of land use and land cover on selected soil quality indicators in the headwater area of the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2016, 188(2): 83
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-5086-1
14 Markos University (DMU) Debre . Potentials of the Choke Mountain watershed threats of Choke watershed. DMU, 2020. Available at DMU website on April 20, 2020
15 B F, Zaitchik B, Simane S, Habib M C, Anderson M, Ozdogan J D Foltz . Building climate resilience in the Blue Nile/Abay Highlands: a role for earth system sciences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2012, 9(2): 435–461
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9020435
16 B, Simane B F, Zaitchik M Ozdogan . Agroecosystem analysis of the choke mountain watersheds, Ethiopia. Sustainability, 2013, 5(2): 592–616
https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020592
17 T, Alemneh B F, Zaitchik B, Simane A Ambelu . Changing patterns of tree cover in a tropical highland region and implications for food, energy, and water resources. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2019, 7: 7
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00001
18 D, Mesfin E, Assefa B Simane . Variability of soil quality indicators along with the different landscape positions of Choke Mountain agroecosystem, upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Heliyon, 2022, 8(7): e09850
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09850
19 S, Sertsu T Bekele . Procedures for soil and plant analysis. Ethiopia: National Soil Research Center, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, 2000
20 J R Landon . Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. London: Routledge, 1991
21 G J Bouyoucos . Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agronomy Journal, 1962, 54(5): 464–465
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1962.00021962005400050028x
22 M L Jackson . Soil chemical analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1958, 22(3): 272
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1958.03615995002200030025x
23 A, Walkley I A Black . An examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 1934, 37(1): 29–38
https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
24 C A Black . Method of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Wiley, 2016
25 S R, Olsen C V, Cole F S, Watanabe L A Dean . Estimation of Available P in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1954
26 P O Phil-Eze . Variability of soil properties related to vegetation cover in a tropical rainforest landscape. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 2010, 3(7): 177–184
27 S H, Schoenholtz H V, Miegroet J A Burger . A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management, 2000, 138(1−3): 335−356
28 W, Negassa H Gebrekidan . The impact of different land use systems on soil quality of western Ethiopia Alfisols. Berlin: International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management, and Rural Poverty Reduction through Research for Development and Transformation, 2004, 5–7
29 E M, Fetene M Y Amera . The effects of land use types and soil depth on soil properties of Agedit watershed, Northwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science and Technology, 2018, 11(1): 39–56
https://doi.org/10.4314/ejst.v11i1.4
30 A, Aprisal B, Istijono , Juniarti M Harianti . Soil quality index analysis under horticultural farming in Sumani upper watershed. International Journal of GEOMATE, 2019, 16(56): 191–196
https://doi.org/10.21660/2019.56.8212
31 T, Buraka A Lelago . Physico-chemical properties and agricultural potentials of soils of Tembaro Woreda, Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Chemistry and Materials Research, 2016, 8(7): 64–75
32 and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Food . Soil and Plant Testing and Analysis. FAO, 1980
33 T L Jensen . Soil pH and the availability of plant nutrients. Plant Nutrition Today, 2010: 2
34 T, Tadesse L, Haque E A Aduayi . Soil, Plant, Water, Fertilizer, Animal Manure and Compost Analysis Manual. Ethiopia: International Livestock Center for Africa, 1991
35 N, Abate K Kibret . Effects of land use, soil depth and topography on soil physicochemical properties along the Toposequence at the Wadla Delanta Massif, Northcentral Highlands of Ethiopia. Environment and Pollution, 2016, 5(2): 57–71
https://doi.org/10.5539/ep.v5n2p57
36 D, Guteta A Abegaz . Dynamics of selected soil properties under four land uses in Arsamma watershed, Southwestern Ethiopian Highlands. Physical Geography, 2017, 38(1): 83–102
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.2016.1251734
37 J W, Doran D C, Coleman D F, Bezdicek B A Stewart . Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 1994
38 J, Somasundaram R K, Singh A K, Parandiyal S, Ali V, Chauhan N K, Sinha B L, Lakaria R, Saha R S, Chaudhary M V, Coumar R K, Singh R R Simaiya . Soil properties under different land use systems in parts of Chambal region of Rajasthan. Journal of Agricultural Physics, 2013, 13(2): 139–147
39 B O, Adebo A O, Aweto K Ogedengbe . Assessment of soil quality under different agricultural land use systems: a case study of the Ibadan farm settlement. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 2020, 32(4): 89–104
https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2020/v32i430275
40 D, Mesfin E, Assefa B Simane . Soil quality index under different land-use types : the case of Choke Mountain agroecosystems, upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 2023: cjss-2022-0053
41 K, Chakraborty B Mistri . Soil fertility and its’ impact on agricultural productivity: a study in Sapar Mouza, Burdwan-I C.D. Block, West Bengal. International Journal of Humanities & Social Science Studies, 2015, 2(3): 196–206
[1] Lianhai WU. SEQUESTERING ORGANIC CARBON IN SOILS THROUGH LAND USE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: A REVIEW[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2023, 10(2): 210-225.
[2] Xia LIANG, Helen SUTER, Shu Kee LAM, Charlie WALKER, Roya KHALIL, Deli CHEN. SUSTAINABLE NITROGEN MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIAN AGROECOSYSTEMS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(3): 366-372.
[3] Hao YANG, Weiping ZHANG, Long LI. INTERCROPPING: FEED MORE PEOPLE AND BUILD MORE SUSTAINABLE AGROECOSYSTEMS[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 373-386.
[4] Luis GARCIA-BARRIOS, Yanus A. DECHNIK-VAZQUEZ. HOW MULTISPECIES INTERCROP ADVANTAGE RESPONDS TO WATER STRESS: A YIELD-COMPONENT ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 416-431.
[5] Gerba LETA, Steffen SCHULZ, Girum GETACHEW ALEMU. Agricultural extension approach: evidence from an Integrated Soil Fertility Management Project in Ethiopia[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(4): 427-439.
[6] Jizheng HE, Zhenzhen YAN, Qinglin CHEN. Transmission of antibiotic resistance genes in agroecosystems: an overview[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(3): 329-332.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed