Ambo University

School of Graduate Studies

Department Of Biology, Environmental Science M.Sc. Program
Final Thesis

Fig. Impact of gravel mining on the Physico-Chemical Degradation of Soil along Agricultural field Tokey
Kutay Woreda, West Shoa Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

i
 EFFECT OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL DEGRADATION OF SOIL ALONG AGRICULTURAL FIELD
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO GRAVEL MINING ON GORFO- MOUNTAIN TOKEY KUTAY-
WOREDA, WEST SHOA ZONE, ETHIOPIA

Buzunesh Achalu, P. Natarajan and Niguse Bekele*

Department of Biology
*Department of Natural Resources Management
Ambo University, Post Bag No: 019, West Shoa, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT
Inappropriate gravel mining activity and unsuitable utilization of natural resources are among the major driving
forces behind the current land degradation in Melka Nega Dembi Kebele. The study was undertaken to investigate
the effect of improper mining activity on the physical and chemical properties of soils. Field observations and soil
survey were carried out to select agricultural land adjacent to mining area and far from mining area. Both selected
sites had Teff cultivated crop and different land management history. Representative top soils with different depth
(0-10cm, 10-20cm, 20-30cm) were collected from farmland adjacent to mining area and far from mining area.
Laboratory analysis was done for soil samples collected from three depths of both sites to compare the bulk
density, moisture content, pH, CEC, EC, soil organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, found in the
soils of each fields. The study also involved growing maize crop for three months in plastic pots to compare the soil
productivity of both fields. Parameters such as days to emergence, plant height, leaf numbers per plant, dry and
fresh weight of root and shoot were evaluated. Socio- economic survey needs to examine the awareness of local
people on the impact of gravel mining near to crop land. The study revealed that, bulk density, organic matter, total
nitrogen, CEC, EC, available phosphorus, exchangeable cations were highly affected by the overburden material of
mining on farm land adjacent to the mining area . The results clearly indicated that there was impact of soil
degradation on agriculture product due to mining activity nearby. The green house experiment result showed that
the soil productivity of farm land adjacent to mining area was lower as compared to the soil of farm land far from
mining. Growth parameters such as date of emergence, height of plant, number of leaf, fresh and dry root weight
and fresh and dry shoot weight of maize planting on soil adjacent to mining area were less than far from mining
area. The socio- economic survey also indicated that, many of the farmers in the study area were not willing to
conserve their crop land from the impact of soil degradation due to lack of attentiveness and ineffective research
linkage. Therefore, the impacts of soil degradation on agricultural land as well as crop yield due to gravel mining
activity on the sloppy area of Melka Nega Dembi kebele need more attention to control, rehabilitate and renovate
the area.
Keywords: Land use type, soil fertility, soil productivity, soil erosi.

ii
 INTRODUCTION

Soil is the earth’s fragile skin that anchors all life on Earth. The thin layer of the top soil supports rich and wide
diversity of terrestrial life (Pimentel, 2004). The top soil rich in nutrients support plant and animal life. Land
degradation due to soil erosion is an important issue because it affects agricultural productivity, thereby food
security, economic security and health security. Human activities have often led to degradation of the world’s land
resources, which are the basis for sustained food security. Because of intense human intervention to nature, the soil
loses its texture and composition and this in turn lead to the reduction in yields (UNEP, 2010). Soil erosion has
consequences on agricultural productivity. Its impacts include compaction, loss of soil structure, nutrient
degradation, and soil salinity. If the risk is serious, the land may be unsuitable for any agricultural use, or suitable
only for a type less conducive to soil erosion.Throughout the world, the land area subjected to human induced soil
degradation is estimated at about 2 billion ha. Of this, the land area affected by soil degradation due to erosion is
estimated at 1100Mha by water and 550Mha by wind erosion (Lal, 1998).. Soil degradation may also be viewed as
any change or disturbance to the soil perceived to be deleterious or undesirable. Soil degradation is the inability of
soil to support the growth of crops and it may involve the disappearance of the climax vegetation and decrease in
animal habitat, thus leading to a biodiversity loss and animal extinction (Ref). Soil erosion contributes changes in
topography and decreasing the productive capacity of land by removing top soil nutrients ( Ref).
Mining in high land areas for the exploitation of mineral resources has also been reported to cause soil erosion
which ultimately reduces soil fertility, soil texture and alter the chemical composition of soils to a larger extent.
Improper and illegal mining activities pose severe problems to land degradation. The large impacts of mining
activities are like soil erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, flood, drought, and change of
geophysical property of land, loss of land productivity and contamination of soil and degradation of groundwater.
The mined soil usually contain low concentration of soil organic matter, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, high
soil bulk density and rock fragmentation, unfavorable soil pH, poor land structure, low porosity and water holding
capacity and low vegetation coverage. Topsoil can be transported by wind or water into streams and other
waterways. The part of topsoil on an average 30cm can be removed during mining operation, and it decreases the
soil fertility and increases water movement through the soil and landscape (Roberts, 1988). Girma (2000) indicated
that, Ethiopia annually looses over 1.5 million tons of top soil from high lands by erosion. This could have added
about 1-1.5 million tons of grain to the country’s harvest. The soil formation rate for Ethiopia is less than 2 t/ha
which was very low compared to soil erosion rates (Hurni, 1988). During dry season, wind erosion is severe in arid
and semiarid regions. In the rainy season, water and tillage erosion removes soil layers and carries them away from
the farmer’s fields to bodies of water or other land which results in the loss of valuable nutrients that are necessary
for crops to grow (Girma, 2000).Thus it is clear that, areas subjected to soil erosion in Ethiopia have to be identified,
and detailed scientific studies have to be carried out to understand their impacts on ecosystem especially with regard
to production and productivity of the system concerned.

iii
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the study area

The area selected for the study was Melka Nega Dembi kebele, which is found in Tokey Kutaye Woreda, of East
Shoa Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. The Woreda is located 129 km away from the national capital city, Addis
Ababa, and 16 km away from the capital city of East Shoa zone Ambo. The total land area of this Kebele is 1980
km2. Melka Nega Dembi Kebele is bordered by Lalu Haro and Kolba Hancabi kebeles in the south and north
respectively, and Guder town in the Western and Kolbaf Hancabi in the Eastern part of Tokey Kutaye Woreda. The
major river in this kebele is Guder River.

Map of the study Area

Climate:The kebele has a bimodal rainfall distribution, with low rainfall during Belg (autumn) season and long
rainfall during Kiremt (summer) season. Heavy rain is observed from July to the end of August. The annual
temperature of the district ranges between 16 0C to 220C. Highest temperature was observed from January to June
and the lowest in the months of October, November and December.
Soil type: Soils in the kebele are clay loam and black soil type. The clay loam soil has the spatial coverage of 25%
and black soil accounted for 27% which are suitable for agriculture. The soil fertility status in large tracts of land is
ranging from low to medium. The soils in the kebele are reddish and black in color.

iv
Population and socio-economic features: Cultivated land is the dominant land use type (1350 ha), followed by
grazing land (150 ha), degraded land (300 ha), forest land and wood land (200 ha). Crop production and animal
husbandry are the two agricultural practices in the district. Teff, wheat, sorghum, bean, soybean, maize and barley
are the major crop produced in Melka Nega dembi kebele. The farm practised a mechanized farming system during
main rainy season, with high level of fertilizer inputs (Di-Ammonium Phosphate and urea).

METHODOLOGY

Extent of Degradation: For understanding the extent of damage of the area of the Gorfo Mountain, GPS (Global
Positioning System), and input the recorded numbers for extraction of boundary from Google Earth Satellite
Imagery were used. The data collected was analyzed on Arc GIS software.

Soil sampling and sample preparation: Representative top soil samples were collected started from December
27/2013 to January 10/2014, from the depths of 0-10cm, 10-20cm, and 20-30cm from agriculture field adjacent to
mining area and far from mining area along 5km; the plots were designed on both fields. The distance between each
plot was 100m. The area of each plot was 10m by 10m, and the sample was taken from the corner of each plot and
center of the plot using auger, shovel and core sampler.18 samples taken was kept in polyethylene sheet. The
collected samples from each corner and center of a single plot were merge together according to their depth, and the
various soil physico-chemical parameters including total nitrogen, available phosphorus, soil organic matter content,
soil moisture content, soil pH, cation exchange capacity, electrical conductivity and soil bulk density were analyzed.
The whole soil samples were air dried and ground by mortar and piston except for bulk density and passed through
2 mm sieve for laboratory analyses except for samples of organic matter which was sieved through 0.5mm sieve.
For green house experiment, soil samples were collected after harvesting from each field to investigate the
productive capacity of the soil .

Soil texture: Particle size distribution (soil texture) was determined in the laboratory by the modified
Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1962) using sodium hexa-meta phosphate as dispersing agent.
Soil textural class names were assigned based on the relative contents of the percent sand, silt and clay separates
using the soil textural triangle of the USDA.

Bulk density: Soil samples were collected from undisturbed land surface using core sampler (2.5 cm radius and
height 5cm) after clearing the vegetation from the area of sampling. The corer is then driven to the ground to extract
soil samples, and the collected samples were kept in plastic bags to avoid moisture loss (Grossman and Reinsch,
2002). For laboratory analyses, soil samples were weighed and kept in oven at 105 0c for 24 hrs to obtain oven dry
(OD) soil. The oven dry soil is then weighed, and moisture content was calculated by the volume of water (cm 3)
divided by the total volume of soil (cm3). Bulk density was calculated by the mass of OD soil (g) divided by the
total volume of soil (cm3).

v
Soil moisture: Moisture content of soil was determined initially by weighing the field samples and drying it at
105oC for 24 hours, and weight was taken again according to (Sertsu and Bekele, 2000). The weight difference of
field and oven dried soils divided by the weight of oven-dried soil alone multiplied by 100 gave the percentage of
water content. %mc= (fw-ow)*100

ow

Soil pH: Soil pH was determined at a soil, water suspension ratio of 1:2 using a conventional glass electrode meter
(Jackson, 1973). This method was based on the measurement of potential developed across an indicator or glass
electrode on account of the difference in activity of H + ions in and out of electrode.

Soil organic Carbon: Soil organic carbon (SOC) was determined by dichromate oxidation (Walkley and Black,
1934). In this method, the soil organic matter was oxidized under standard conditions by potassium dichromate
(K2Cr2O7) and sulfuric acid (H 2SO4) solution. A measured amount of K 2Cr2O7 was used in excess of that needed to
oxidize the organic matter, and the excess was determined by back titration with ferrous ammonium sulfate solution,
using a diphenylamine indicator to detect the first appearance of un-oxidized ferrous iron. Then, the percent of
organic carbon (%) was determined using the following equation:
%C = N (V1-V2) 0.39mcf--------------------------------------------------Equation (1)

S
Where: N = Normality of ferrous sulfate solution (from blank titration)
V1 = Volumes (ml) of ferrous sulfate solution used for the blank
V2 = Volumes (ml) of ferrous sulfate solution used for the sample
S = Weight of air-dried sample (g)
mcf = Moisture correction factor.

Therefore, after the total organic carbon was obtained, percentage organic matter (%) was computed as % OM =
%C X 1.724.

vi
Total nitrogen: Total soil nitrogen was analyzed by Kjeldahl method (Bremner and Mulvaney, 1982). Organic
matter was oxidized by treating soil with concentrated sulfuric acid, by which nitrogen in the organic nitrogenous
compounds were converted to ammonium sulfate ((NH 4)2SO4) during oxidation. The acid traps ammonium ion
(NH4+), and ions are liberated by distilling with Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). The liberated NH 4+ was absorbed in
boric acid (H3BO4) and back titrated with standard Sulfuric acid (H2SO4).

Available phosphorus: Available phosphorus (P) in soil was determined by extracting samples with 0.5 M
NaHCO3, and P was determined calorimetrically using molybdate according to Olsen et al. (1954).

Cation exchange capacity: Cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined by ammonium acetate extracting
method and distillation of ammonium according to Schollenberger and Simon (1945).

Exchangeable Base:Exchangeable Ca and Mg in the ammonium acetate leach ate are measured by the EDTA Na 2
titrimetric method and Exchangeable K and Na by flame Photometer (Sertsu and Bekele, 2000).

Electrical conductivity: Electrical conductivity (EC) was determined by using a conductivity bridge (Jackson,
1973).

Soil productivity assessment (Fig. 1):Representative soil samples from near to mining area and far from mining
area of harvested farms were thoroughly mixed and filled in five liter pots. The pots were then arranged and labeled
in factorial set in Completely Randomized Block Design with three parameters of plant growth (shoot, root and
height of plant) and two fertilizer input rates. The factors were two land use types (near to mining area and far from
mining area). The fertilizer rates applied were 0 for controlled and 30 kg/ha urea and 60 kg/ha DAP fertilizers
together were used for growing maize for three months as is the practice of farmers in the field. Urea was used as
the source of nitrogen (N) and DAP for phosphorus (P).

Fig.1: Planting maize seed in pots green house

vii
The experimental protocol is as follows:

Pot 1: Pot filled with soil taken from crop field Near to mining + 30g and 60g of NP fertilizer
Pot 2: Pot filled with soil taken from Agriculture field Near to mining + no fertilizer
Pot 3: Pot filled with soil from Agriculture field far from mining + no fertilizer.
Pot 4: Pot filled with soil from crop field far from mining + 30g and 60g of NP fertilizer

The maize seed variety BH-660 were planted and kept in green house for three months from 8/01/2014 to
10/03/2014 and watered once per day. There after parameters such as days of seed germination was observed at the
time of seed emergence, whereas plant height, leaf numbers per plants, fresh and dry weights of shoots, fresh and
dry weights of roots were recorded at growing stages. The fresh shoot and root weights were measured using digital
balance and the dry shoot and root weights were measured after the oven dry of 24 hr at 105 0C, the height of the
plants was measured in meter.

Socio economic survey:Primary data was collected through various Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA) tools
(visual observation, short discussion and interviewing). Information about the total number of the population and
total number of households of the study area was obtained from the available secondary sources, such as Kebele
Administrative Office, Agricultural and Rural Development Office and Development Agents. Based on this data,
the numbers of sample households were determined using the formula developed by Kothari (2004). An open
questionnaire containing information about household characteristics, land management system, soil fertility
concept, agricultural activity and access to agricultural media was used to collect data from the respondents.The
interview was translated into Afan Oromo to make easy communication. Apart from farmers, government officials
and other beneficiaries were also included in interviewing to explore their attitude on the impact of mining activity
near to agriculture field.

Z2 p q N
n= 2 2 ................................................................... (Eq.3)
e ( N−1 ) + Z p q

Where: n= sample size

Z= 95% confidence limit (interval) under normal curve that is 1.96
P= 0.1 (proportion of the population to be included in the sample i.e. 10 %)
q= none occurrence of event =1-0.1 that is (0.9)
N= Total number of households (N=162)
n= Selected sample size (75)
e= margin of error or degree of accuracy (acceptable error term) (0.05)
viii
Data Analysis: The extent of degradation was analyzed by GPS and Arc GIS 10, and the quantitative data
generated from soil testing laboratory and green house experiments were analyzed using SPSS statistical Software
16.0 version compare mean by T-test value and one way ANOVA. Descriptive statistics was used to assess the
socio economic survey data. Means of the different treatments were compared using Tukey test to detect the
presence of significant difference at α = 0.05. The qualitative data was generated through interview and informal
discussion with respect to the level of land management. The sigma plot software version 10.0 is used to draw the
graph and other softwares such as Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Extent of Degradation on Gorfo Mountain (Fig: 2): GPS reading and Remo Sensing analysis showed that gravel
mining activity on Gorfo Mountain was very high and the part of degradation area was 7835.6099 m 2. Land
degradation on Gorfo Mountain was the result of high extent of gravel mining activity for the construction of road
from Addis Ababa to Wolega. As Gorfo Mountain is nearer to the road, extraction and transportation of mining
materials was easy and hence intensive mining activity was carried out. Mining activity without proper protection
and renovation has caused environmental degradation and declined the agricultural productivity at the foot hills.

Figure 2: The degradation part of Gorfo Mountain

Mountain

ix
Bulk density (Fig. 3): Results showed that, the bulk density (BD) of soils was significantly influenced by the
presence of gravel mining activity near to the agriculture field (P = 0.0001). The mean value of bulk density of soil
taken from agriculture field adjacent to the mining was 2.09 gm/cm3, and it was 1.14 gm/cm3, in field far from the
mining area.The variation in the bulk density might be related to variation in the difference of soil texture which
composed mainly of clay soils, the porosity is highly variable as the soil alternately swells, shrinks,
aggregates, disperses, compacts and cracks (Brady and Weil, 2004; Indian Society of Soil Science, 2002).
Agriculture field adjacent to the mining area had clay soil due to the deposition of gravel stone for a long period of
time. The lowest bulk density of agriculture field far from mining area was due to the absence of mining debris.
Low bulk density is an indicator of high soil porosity and low soil compaction which may influence better root
growth and good movement of air and water through the soil.
2.5

2.09
2
Bulk density (gm/cm3)

1.5

1.14
Ag.Fm
1 Ag.Nm

0.5

0
Agriculture land type

Fig. 3: Mean value of Bulk density of both fields

Soil moisture Content (Table 7)

Laboratory analysis showed that the soil moisture content was significantly influenced by soil taken from different
land types (P = 0.0001). The percentage mean values of moisture content for soil taken from farm land adjacent to
mining area according to the depths 0-10cm, 10-20cm, 20-30cm were 7.15%, 7.19% and 6.7% respectively, while
moisture content from farm land far from mining area were 7.53 %, 6.08 %, 7.50 % respectively . The highest
moisture content of soil obtained from agriculture field far from mining area might be due to the accumulation of
controlled sediments on the soil surface.

Agriculture field adjacent to the mining area had very low water retention due to the topography of the land. Since
mountain slopes are steep, water retention capacity in the slopes is reduced leading to runoff to lower area of the
mountain. At the same time, there were no hedges to allow more time for water to infiltrate into the soil. But the
x
fields existed far from mining area had less soil erosion as the land is more or less flat and is under the control of
farmers who will protect the land from

erosion Land use types Depth Mean values of during

soil moisture content
Agriculture field adjacent to 0-10cm 7.15
mining area 10-20cm 7.19
20-30cm 6.08
0-10cm 7.53
Agriculture field far from
10-20cm 6.75
mining area
20-30cm 7.5
precipitation. The higher moisture content in crop field far from mining area was due to the decreased water
velocity and increased infiltration during the rainy season. Another reason is high content of organic matter in crop
field far from mining area, and the proportional soil texture could be contributed for the good moisture content in
crop field far from the mining area according to Brady and Weil (2004).

Soil Texture (Table 8): The results showed that soil texture was significantly influenced by location of agriculture
land near to mining (P=0.0001). To compare the mean values between the same depths, both fields were considered.
The soil surface of the field was changed by the overburden of mining debris. The percent of clay soil texture was
high in the field close to the mining area, which indicates that, the accumulation of mined unwanted products and
the breakdown of gravel stones were there for a long time. Clays had in nature low permeability and infiltration
rates, retain much water in available as well as in unavailable forms, because of high bulk density, and poor
draining capacity. Therefore fields adjacent to the mining area suffer to increase the length of root and plant growth
due clay soil texture according to Jurcova and Zrubec (1989).

Table 8: The Mean value of Soil Texture

Soil Texture (%)

Types of sample Depth
Sand clay Silt Class
Agr. land Near to mining 0-10cm 30 50 20 Sandy clay
Agr. land Near to mining 10-20cm 25 45 30 Clay loam
Agr. Land Near to mining 20-30cm 12.5 50 37.5 Clay silt

xi
 Agr. land Far from mining 0-10cm 35 25 40 Silt clay loam
Agr. land Far from mining 10-20cm 25 42.5 32.5 Clay silt loam
Agr. land Far from mining 20-30cm 32 30 37.5 Silt clay loam

Soil organic matter content (Fig. 4)

Results showed that, the percentage of soil organic matter content was significantly influenced by agricultural site in
the field (P = 0.000). The mean organic matter for soils taken from both crop land according to the depths 0-10cm
was 2.29%, 10-20cm was 1.95% and 20-30 was 1.70% of farm land far from mining area .In the same way, the
organic matter of farm land near to mining area was 1.85%, 1.22% and 1.04% respectively . The percentage soil
organic matter in crop land far from mining area was significantly higher as compared to that of the crop field near
to the mining area.

The lower organic matter content of the soil was due to the over load of mining debris on the top soil of the field
near to the mining area. This mining debris was formed during excavation and at the time of sizing the gravels.
Topsoil is the most fertile portion of soil, and the most valuable organic matter content, however, when depth of the
soil increases, organic matter content would decrease (Lal, 2001). At the time of mining, soil mixes and leads to
decreasing organic matter content, and the remaining mined product overburden the field by erosion. Another
reason for the lower organic matter content of soil from crop field near to the mining area could probably be due to
the high slope of land structure which enhances top soil erosion during rainy reason. If organic matter present, then
the soil can absorb water better and prevent top water erosion.

2.50%
2.29%

2.00% 1.95%
1.85%
1.70% Ag.Fm.(0-10cm)
Organic matter Content(%)

1.50% Ag.Fm.(10-20cm)
1.22% Ag.Fm.(20-30cm)
1.04%
1.00% Ag.Nm.(0-10cm)
Ag.Nm.(10-20cm)
Ag.Nm.(20-30cm)
0.50%

0.00%
Agriculture Land type

Fig. 4: Soil Organic matter content of both fields

(Ag.Fm : Agriculture field far from mining area and Ag.Nm : agriculture field near to
xii
 mining area.)

According to Sahlemedhin (1999), organic matter, total N and available P decreases significantly with increasing
soil depth. The decrease in total N and available P with soil depth is apparently due to the decrease in the
total OM content downwards in the soil. The C: N ratio of the soil layers, however, decreases due to the decrease in
microbial biomass and mineralization process; and low organic matter content was due to the accumulation of
debris and other over burden materials adjacent to the mining area. These results are in agreement with the
observation of Sahlemedhin (1999) who reported decreased N and P content in humus along with the decrease in
organic matter content. Therefore the mined trash had low OM content, total N and available P during extraction of
gravel mining.

Total nitrogen (Fig. 5): Results showed that, total nitrogen (TN) was significantly influenced by mining activity
(P=0.016). The mean percentages of total nitrogen of soil from Agriculture field adjacent to the mining area and
Agriculture field far from mining area according to their depths( 0-10cm, 10-20cm, 20 -30cm) were 0.052%, 0.06%,
0.09% respectively for field near to the mining area; and 0.23%, 0.049%,0.131% with same depth for Agriculture
field far from mining area. The low level of total nitrogen in soil taken from crop field adjacent to mining area could
be attributed to the decreasing SOM, covered by mining debris and eroded fertile top soil during high precipitation.
When mining area faces the disturbance of soil profile and the mining debris control top soil of the field, un mined
area is stable as microorganisms play a role in mineralization process and provide nitrogenous and mineral
compounds needed for the plant growth. As Mujale (2003) reported that organic matter is the major source of total
nitrogen. Unless organic matter increases, total nitrogen cannot increase and soil fertility will become very low.
Therefore plants cannot grow properly up to the harvesting stage, and the yields will reduce considerably because
nitrogen is an essential element for crop yield.

0.250
0.229

Fig. 5: Total 0.200 Nitrogen of

soil for both fields
Ag.Nm (0-10)
0.150
Total Nitrogen (%)

0.131 Ag.Nm(10-20)
Ag.Nm(20-30)
0.100 0.088 Ag.Fmp1(0-10)
Ag.Fmp2(10-20)
0.061
0.052 0.049 Ag.Fmp3(20-30)
0.050

0.000
xiii
Agriculture Land type
Available phosphorus (Fig.6): Available phosphorus was considerably affected in soils taken from different
location of agriculture field (P=0.0001). The available phosphorus in agricultural soil far from mining area was
significantly higher when compared to the soil from the field adjacent to the mining area. Horizontal land structure
minimizes the intensity of runoff, and the higher available phosphorous might be related to low soil erosion due to
less runoff. The agriculture field adjacent to the mining area was sloppy, so it was easily affected by water erosion
and the field had no hedges to control sediment and hence erosion can significantly reduce the total phosphorus. The
other reason of the variation of the available phosphorous might be related to pH of the soil sample. The maximum
availability of phosphorus generally occurs in a pH ranges between 6.0 and 7.0 according to Tisdale et al.
( 1995).Thus the results of the finding support the availability of the phosphorous in soil agriculture field far from
mining area which was higher due to better pH value for the soil.According to Wiederholt and Johnson
(2005), phosphorus was almost entirely related with soil particle size, when runoff has sufficient power to cause soil
erosion, the amount of phosphorus lost from the field increases dramatically. In the same way the fields near to the
mining site face such a kind of problem.

3.5
3.0
3.0

2.5
Ag.Fm(0-10cm
Available Phosphorus(ppm)

2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 Ag.Fm(10-20cm)

1.8
1.7
Ag.Fm(20-30cm)
1.5
Ag.Nm(0-10cm)

1.0 Ag.Nm(10-20cm)
Ag. Nm(20-30cm)
0.5

0.0
Agriculture land Type

Fig. 6: Available Phosphorus

Exchangeable Base (Fig. 7 & 8): Available potassium was significantly influenced by soils taken from different
location of agriculture land (P=0.002). The mean values of available potassium for soils from agriculture field
adjacent to the mining area within depths of 0-10cm, 10-20cm and 20-30cm were 0.49cmol/kg , 1.5cmol/kg and
1.8cmol/kg respectively, and far from mining area, the values were 2.9cmol/kg, 2.5cmol/kg and 0.5cmol/kg
respectively. Available potassium in soils of far from mining area was significantly higher as compared to soils of
close to the mining area. The higher available potassium might be related to soil moisture contents.

The higher soil moisture indicates greater availability of potassium and sodium cations. Increasing soil moisture
content indicates the increased movement of potassium and sodium ions to plant roots, and enhances their
xiv
availability since the crop fields far from mining areas retain more moisture content than the fields adjacent to the
mining area as reported by Rehm and Schmitt (2002). Available potassium and sodium decreases in soil from
agriculture field near to the mining area with an increase in depth of extracted mined debris overload on the field,
the tendency of K to move downwards in the soil profile along with the infiltrating water due to the high rate
of mobility of K.

The other reason for the higher available potassium was related to the cation exchangeable capacity of the soil. Plant
uses the available soil potassium in the ionic (electrically charged) form. Cations are attracted to, and held by
negatively charged colloids (primarily clay and organic matter) that make up the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of
the soil. The larger the CEC, the more potassium held by the soil since the soil from the crop land far from mining
area has higher CEC than the soil obtained from the crop land near to the mining area. Available sodium also the
same with potassium, the higher value from both fields was on crop field far from mining area.

3.50

3.00 2.9
2.81
Exchangeable Na+ and K+ (cmol/kg)

2.5
2.50

2.00 1.8
1.5 1.55
1.50
Available Sodium
Available Potasium
1.00
0.48 0.5 0.47 0.52 0.52
0.50 0.5

0.00
Ag.Nm(0- Ag.Nm(10- Ag.Nm.(20- Ag.Fm.(0- Ag.Fm.(10- Ag.Fm(20-
10cm) 20cm) 30cm) 10cm) 20cm) 30cm)
Agriculture land type

Fig. 7: Exchangeable Potassium and Sodium for both fields

xv
Available calcium and magnesium of analyzed soil were significantly influenced by soils taken from different
location of agriculture land (P=0.002 and P=0.007).The mean values of available calcium for soils from agriculture
field adjacent to mining area within depths of 0-10cm, 10-20cm and 20-30cm were 45.5meq/100g, 49.1meq/100g
and 58.9meq/100g respectively, and far from mining areas the values were 83.8meq/100g, 88.5meq/100g and
105.8meq/100g;

For exchangeable magnesium, the values were 169.3meq/100g, 32.6meq/100g, 70.4meq/100g adjacent to mining
area, and for, farm land far from mining area, the values were 76.7meq/100g, 71.3meq/100g,70.9meq/100g
respectively. Available calcium and magnesium in soil taken from fields far from mining area was significantly
higher as compared to the soils close to the mining area. According to Smith et al. (1995), the land having less
calcium and magnesium content would be acidic and it was true on the farm land adjacent to the mining area.

180.0 169.3
160.0

140.0

120.0
Avai. Ca and Mg (meq/100g)

105.8
100.0
83.8 88.5
80.0 70.4
70.9 Available Calcium
71.3 58.9
60.0 76.7 Available Magnesium
45.5 49.1
40.0
32.6
20.0

0.0
Ag.Fm(0- Ag.Fm(10- Ag.Fm(20- Ag.Nm(0- Ag.Nm(10- Ag.Nm(20-
10) 20) 30) 10) 20) 30)
Land Use Type

Fig. 8: Available calcium and magnesium

xvi
Soil pH (Table 9): Laboratory results showed that soil pH was significantly influenced by soils of different
agriculture land sites (P = 0.000). The mean value of soil pH of crop field far from mining area and near to mining
area based on their depths of 0-10cm, 10-20cm, 20-30cm were 7.1, 7.0, 7.1 and 5.3, 7.1, 6.2, respectively. The pH
of soil of crop field far from mining area was significantly higher as compared to the soils of crop field adjacent to
the mining site. The low pH value of soil from agriculture field adjacent to mining area might be related to rainfall,
water passing through the soil due to runoff infiltrates, and lack basic nutrients such as calcium and magnesium
from the soil, and these basic nutrients are replaced by acidic elements such as aluminum and iron. According to
Okon and Babalola (2005), the chemical properties of the field discovered that soil pH, organic matter and total
nitrogen were generally higher in correspondent agriculture field far from mining area. Therefore the results showed
that, farm land adjacent to the mining area showed less acidic values.

Table 9: Mean value of pH for both fields

Types of Agriculture land Depth Mean Value of pH

Agriculture land Near to mining 0-10 5.3

Agriculture land Near to mining 10-20 7.1

Agriculture land Near to mining 20-30 6.2

Agriculture land Far from mining 0-10 7.1

Agriculture land Far from mining 10-20 7.0

Agriculture land Far from mining 20-30 7.1

xvii
Electrical conductivity (Fig.9):Results showed that electrical conductivity (EC) was influenced by different
location of agriculture land (P = 0.002). The mean values for soils from crop field far from mining area with their
depth of 0-10cm, 10-20cm, and 20-30cm were 127.2µs/cm; 116.3µs/cm,104.7µs/cm and crop field adjacent to
mining area with their depth of 0-10cm, 10-20cm, and 20-30cm were 59.27µs/cm, 43.6µs/cm,51.4µs/cm
respectively. The higher electrical conductivity might be related to soil porosity. The greater the soil porosity, the
more easily the electricity is conducted, the water content also affects the electrical conductivity that can be
concluded as dry soil is much lower in conductivity, than moist soil since the soil taken from the crop field far from
mining site had high soil moisture content and high soil porosity (Grisso et al., 2009). The electrical conductivity
of soils also varies depending on the amount of moisture held by the soil particles. The soils far from mining area
had high soil moisture contents and hence electrical conductivity was high than the soil from near to mining area.
140
127.2
120 116.333333333333
104.7
Electric conductivity(µs/cm)

100

80 Ag.Fm.(0-10cm)
Ag.Fm.(10-20cm)
59.266666666666 Ag.Fm.(20-30cm)
60 51.4333333333333 Ag.Nm.(0-10cm)
43.6 Ag.Nm.(10-20cm)
40 Ag.Nm.(20-30cm)

20

0
Agriculture Land type

Fig. 9: Electric conductivity of both fields

Cation exchangeable capacity (Fig. 10): Results showed that cation exchangeable capacity of soil sample taken
was significantly affected by different existence of agriculture land sites (P = 0.001). The Mean values of cation
exchangeable capacity for soils from fields far from mining site according to their depth of 0-10cm, 10-20cm, 20-
30cm were 30.6 meq/100 gm 23.2 meq/100gm,26.9meq/100gm respectively and 15.6 meq/100 gm,15.7meq/100gm,
16.2meq/100gm respectively for fields adjacent to mining site.The higher cation exchangeable capacity of the soil
far from mining area might be related to the higher content of soil organic matter. According to Benti (2011), soil
with high organic matter and clay has more exchange sites, and a decline in the organic matter content substantially
decreased the cation exchangeable capacity. Camberato (2001) also stated that primary factor determining cation
exchangeable capacity is the clay and organic matter content of the soil, and higher quantities of clay and organic
matter results in higher Cation exchangeable capacity. Since soil from crop field far from mining area had high
organic matter than that of the adjacent to mining area and their result support the current finding.

xviii
 35.0
30.6
30.0
26.9
25.0 23.2
Cation Exchange Capacity(meq/100g)
20.0 Ag.Nm.(0-10cm)
16.2 Ag.Nm.(10-20cm)
15.6 15.7 Ag.Nm.(20-30cm)
15.0
Ag.Fm.(0-10cm)
Ag.Fm.(10-20cm)
10.0 Ag.Fm.(20-30cm)

5.0

0.0
Agriculture Land Type

Fig. 10: The Cation Exchangeable Capacity of both fields

Assessment of soil productivity under different agriculture land sites

Results showed that a day to emergence was significantly influenced by soils taken from different agriculture land
sites (P < 0.001). Mean values of days to emergence of maize crop grown in sample of agriculture land adjacent to
mining area was 9 days, and 8 days for soil sample of agriculture field far from mining area and there was
significantly influenced by fertilizer application on days to emergence of maize crop with 30g and 60g rate of Urea
and DAP respectively on both fields by (P<0.045 and P<0.04).

The difference in emergence might be associated with difference in the extent of soil compaction between the land
use types. Soil from adjacent to mining area was compacted (high bulk density) than soil sample far from mining
area. High bulk density does not allow oxygen movement since oxygen is one of the limiting factors for seed
germination. This observation is in line with the observation of Nivedita (1992) who reported significant decrease
in percentage germination with increasing bulk density.

xix
Plant height and leaf number per plant (Fig. 11 & 12):The results showed that, the plant height and leaf number
of the maize crop grown in soil sample far from mining area was significantly higher(P < 0.026 and P < 0.002,
respectively) as compared to the maize crop grown in soil adjacent to the mining area. The shorter plant height and
reduced number of leaves in the fields adjacent to the mining area was due to the deficiency of nutrients. According
to soil analysis results, the plant height and leaf number of maize crop grown with no fertilizer application was
significantly lower as compared to that of the maize crop grown with the application of 30g nitrogen and 60g
phosphorus fertilizer rates (P<0.03 and P< 0.033) respectively. The shorter height and reduced number of leaf at
zero NP rates might be related to the deficiency of the nutrients. The data also indicate that plant height and leaf
number increases as the level of nitrogen and phosphorous application increases from zero to 30g of urea and 60g of
DAP fertilizer application.

Fig. 11: Maize crop growth in green house

The results of the soil analysis showed that, the nutrient in soil adjacent to the mining site was lower as compared to
the soil of fields far from mining area especially; higher organic matter of the soil, total nitrogen, and available
phosphorous and available potassium of field far from mining area had more contribution on grown maize length
and number of leaf. Plants suffering from phosphorus and nitrogen deficiency inhibited leaf growth, and becomes
small and stunted due to reduced growth rate. Fredeen et al. (1989) reported that phosphorus deficiency results in
the restricted delivery of water to leaves due to poor root hydraulic conductance which in turn will limit the growth
of leaf and plant. As Awan et al. (2011) stated that the plant height increases with the increasing level of nitrogen
application all of which have the same opinion with the present results.

xx
 12
1.4

1.190000000000021.19000000000002 10
1.2 10
9

1 8
Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(30g) 8 Ag.Fm.(0g) Ag.Fm.(30g)
7
0.75000000000001
Height of Maize in (m)

0.8 0.78 1
6

Number of leaf per plant

Ag.Nm(0g) Ag.Nm(30g) Ag.Nm.(0g) Ag.Nm.(30g)
0.6
4
0.4
2
0.2

0
0
Soil type used for maize growth
soil type used for maize growth

Fig.12: Maize Heights and number of leaf for both fields

xxi
Fresh and dry shoot weight of maize (Fig. 13): Results showed that fresh and dry shoot weight of maize crop
grown were less significantly influenced by different agricultural sites (P < 0 .022 and P < 0.045, respectively).
Between site groups, fresh and dry shoot weights of maize crop grown in soil sample far from mining site were
significantly higher as compared to the maize crop grown in soil sample adjacent to the mining area; and within site
groups also there was favorable effect of fertilizer application on fresh and dry shoot weight of maize crop grown in
both fields. Maize crop grown with no fertilizer application was significantly lower as compared to that of the maize
crop with the application of 30g and 60g Urea and Dap rates respectively (P < 0.032 and P< 0.016). The lower shoot
fresh and dry weight at zero NP rate was related to the nutrient deficiency as it is evident from the soil laboratory
results.The lower shoot weight of the maize crop grown in soil taken from fields adjacent to the mining area was
due to lower nutrient content in soil. Das and Sen (1981) reported that, dry weight and fresh weight of the plant was
reduced due to nitrogen deficiency. This supports the present results because the nitrogen content in the fields near
to the mining area was lower which resulted in the lower fresh and dry weight of shoots.

0.035 0.6
0.031
0.03 0.5
0.5
0.025
0.025 0.4
0.4 Ag.Nm(30g&60g) Ag.Nm(0g)
Weight of dry shoot (gm)

0.021 Ag.Nm.(30g&60g) Ag.Nm(0g)

0.02 0.343 0.31000000000000
Weight of fesh shoot (gm)

0.02
2
0.3
0.015 Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(30g&60g)
Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm.(30g&60g)
0.2
0.01

0.005 0.1

0
0
soil type for maize growth Soil type used for miaze growth

Fig. 13: Maize fresh and dry shoot weight for both fields

(Ag.Fm means Agriculture field far from mining area and Ag.Nm
Mean that agriculture field near to mining area.)

xxii
 Fresh and dry root weight of maize (Fig. 14): Result showed that, fresh and dry root weights of the maize crop
grown in different agriculture sites were less significantly influenced by location of mining activity (P < 0.023 and P
< 0.050, respectively). Fresh root weight of the maize crop grown in the soil far from mining area was significantly
higher than that of the maize crop grown adjacent to the mining area soil. The lower dry and fresh root weight for
maize grown in soil taken from agriculture field far from mining area might be related to soil condition and plant
nutrient status. The results indicated that there was effect of fertilizer application on fresh and dry root weight of the
maize crop grown on both fields. Maize crop grown with no fertilizer application was significantly lower as
compared to that of the maize crop with the application of 30g and 60g Urea and Dap rates respectively (P < 0.015
and P< 0.001). The lower fresh and dry root weight might be related to the deficiency of nutrients. Harris (1992)
stated that when phosphorus is applied to plants, it stimulates root growth and the root mass will increase.
According to Drew and Goss (1973), low availability of oxygen in soil generally reduces normal root development
of the plant, and when the supply of plant nutrient is less it decreases total root mass. Mohr (1978) also reported that
different rooting density coincides with the air pore space volume of the soil. He suggested that the air pore space
volume is a limiting factor in root growth since pore volume, in turn, depends on soil bulk density of the soils.
Hence the statement is in contract with the current results.

0.035 0.6
0.031
0.03 0.5
0.5
0.025
0.025 0.4
0.4 Ag.Nm.(30g&60g) Ag.Nm(0g)
0.021 Ag.Nm(30g&60g) Ag.Nm(0g)
Weight of dry shoot (gm)

0.02 0.34 0.31000000000000

Weight of fesh shoot (gm)

0.02
2
0.3
Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm.(30g&60g)
0.015
Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm.(30g&60g)
0.2
0.01

0.005 0.1

0
0
soil type for maize growth Soil type used for miaze growth

Fig. 14: Weight of Fresh and Dry Root for both Fields

xxiii
Socio- economic survey

A total of 47 households were included in this socioeconomic study (Table 10). The results showed that
the smallest family member per household was one, whereas the highest family members per household
were 11 with the average family size of 5 per households. Overall, about 42.6 % of the total surveyed
households (75) were less than five persons, whereas about 57.4 % of households were greater than 5
personnel. These large household members need more resources from the environment for their
livelihoods, and therefore not willing to involve in conservation activity.

Table 10: Distribution of family size of the study area

No. Family Size Frequency Percent (%)

1 <5 20 42.6
2 >5 27 57.4
Total 47 100

Percentage of the total population with the age of less than 40 years accounted for 63.8%, whereas the
older population greater than 40 years accounted for 36.2%. The older populations were formed soil
degradation owing to gravel mining for the past years and the younger followed their family occupational
status. The gender distribution of the population is 68.1% Males and 31.9% Females. Males have more
capacity than females to extract gravel stone, and are involved in gravel mining from Gorfo Mountain to
earn their daily income (Table 11).

Table 11: Age distribution of human population in the study areas

No. Age distribution Respondents number Percent

1 Less than 40 30 63.8

2 Greater than 40 17 36.2
Total 47
100
Levels of education of farmers (Table 12) varied from illiterate to literate; out of the respondents 36.2%
are illiterate and the rest are educated. Both educated and uneducated persons had contributed on gravel
mining activity on Gorfo Mountain. The reason was that they have no other occupation other than
agricultural activity, and the others have no farm land. Since the majority of the populations have small
hectare farm land, and it is not sufficient for them to lead their livelihood, they need additional work to
generate income through extraction of gravel mining. However, these activities have caused land
degradation on Gorfo Mountain near to the agriculture lands.

24
 Table 12: Education level of the respondents

No. Education level Respondents number Percent

1 Illiterate 17 36.2
2 1-4 grade 5 10.6
3 5-10 grade 14 29.8
4 >11 11 23.4
Total 47 100
Gravel mining activity and soil degradation (Table 13)

Population income generation and Causes of soil degradation

Gravel mining on Gorfo Mountain leads to physical degradation of the land. Erosion is the most common
and severe problem on most of the agriculture lands located in the sloppy area. About 46.8% of the
respondent’s farm land is located at adjacent to the mining area which is very steep slope, whereas, 53.2%
of the respondent’s farm land is located at distant from mining area and is flat and gentle slope. Because
of this heave topography, 100% of the respondents were conscious the problem of soil erosion. According
to the respondents, the main cause of erosion in the study area is due to heavy rains, followed by
deforestation, improper gravel mining activity and rock quarrying.

Erosion affected 75.5% of cultivated land, 10% of grazing land, and 15.5% other land uses (forest areas
and home lands). Farmers also believe that, their annual crop harvest decreased over time as a result of
severe soil erosion. However, they continue to cultivate on steep slopes because of land shortage than
ignorance about the consequences of soil erosion. As Okoba and Graaff (2004), stated that, farmers aware
of the steep and very steep slopes as landscape segments with high risks of soil erosion and low levels of
soil fertility. Due to economical reasons, 53.2% of the local populations, both male and female continue
agricultural operations in slopes and quarrying of gravel stones.

Table 13: Income generation of local people

No. Occupational status Respondents number Percent

1 Agricultural activity 17 36.2
2 Mining activity 5 10.6
3 Both 25 53.2
4 Other - -
Total 47 100

25
Farmers had general understanding about causes and effects of soil erosion. However, with all constraints
like yield reduction, loss of soil fertility, land degradation and increased run off due to soil erosion, they
are continuing agricultural activity in areas adjacent to the mining area. Farmers owning crop land near
to mining area are taking few soil protection methods such as planting Eucalyptus tree near to their farm
land and making soil buds. The population percentage that took soil protection measures are 23.4 %, for
planting Eucalyptus tree, and 76.6 %, for soil buds.

Farmers perception on impact of mining activity near to farm lands

The local farmers aware that the farm land near to Gorfo Mountain is suffer soil degradation due to the
over burden of mining material. They are also aware that there is soil fertility problem and low crop
productivity due to mining. The outcome of interview also showed that, no one considered his/her farm as
highly fertile. The respondents were also able to describe soil fertility decline by referring reduction of
yield per hectare, increased input demands and loss of soil color change. About 46.8% crop yield
decreased by the reason of overloading of mining debris on their farm land and loss of soil fertility by
erosion. Additionally, they also indicated that, their farm land is affected due to deposition of eroded soil,
falling of small particles, sands and debris from the steep slopes of mining area to the bottom of the land
and cultivated land areas. Overall findings from this socio -economic survey confirmed that, farmers are
aware of the negative impact of soil erosion on their farm lands, but they still cannot apply effective
protection measures. The farmers’ perceptions are in some way in agreement with erosion problem on
land with high rainfall, steep slopes and lack of vegetation (Okoba and Graaff, 2004).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCLUSION

Gravel mining activity on Gorfo Mountain led to high extent of land degradation, deforestation and
destruction of biodiversity. The change in physical structure of the land is evidenced through soil
degradation. The top layer of productive soil was removed by water and wind, and the mining debris
overload the farmland close to the mining site which caused adverse effect on the productive capacity of
the field. The difference of soil texture between both fields showed the impact of gravel mining debris.
The texture of soil from farm land near to the mining area was sandy clay and far from mining area was
silt- clay- loam suitable for plant growth. The color change of soil from farmland adjacent to the mining
area is an indicative of the influence of mining debris. The light brownish gray and light gray color
existed in soils near to the mining area, while it was dark reddish and brown color in soils far from mining
area.

26
The soil physicochemical properties of farm land near to the mining area are degraded as compared to
farm land far from mining area. The moisture content of soil from near to the mining area was lower than
moisture content of soil far from mining area. Organic matter content of soil adjacent to mining area is
less than soil distant from mining area. The total nitrogen content of soil sample near to the mining area
was lower than the soil sample far from mining area. Available phosphorus of soil sample from near to
mining area was lower as compare with soil far from mining area. Exchangeable bases of soil near to
mining area were lower than soils of farm land far from mining area. The pH value of soil sample from
farm land close to the mining site was lower than the soils of farm land far from mining area indicating
the acidic nature of soil near to the mining area. Electric conductivity of soil sample adjacent to mining
field was less than soil sample far from mining area. Soil cation Exchange capacity of farm land near to
the mining area was lower than the farm land far from mining area. The different result of soil physico-
chemical analysis reveal that, the extraction of gravel mining from the core of land, and the change in
topography of the land, led to the physico-chemical degradation on agricultural land.

The green house experiment results also indicated that, the productive capacity of soil sample far from
mining area was better than soil taken from farmland adjacent to mining area. The growth of maize crop
on soil sample far from mining area had higher weight of fresh and dry root and shoot. The lower height
and less number of leaves is the character of maize growth on soil taken from farmland close to mining
area. The date of emergence of maize growth was not significantly different between soil samples close to
the mining and far from mining while input of NP fertilizer makes a change on the date of emergence.
Application of NP fertilizers enhanced soil productivity in both the fields, and promoted plant growth
through increased height, leaf number, fresh and dry shoot weight, fresh and dry root weight of maize.

The socio economic data indicated that, there is high population in the area, and higher percentage of
illiterate people living in the district is in need of more livelihoods. As agriculture alone is not meeting the
need of the people, the local people are resorting to exploit other environmental resources. Through it is
an unsustainable utilization and cause environmental degradation, gravel mining activity in Gorfo
Mountain is rampant illegally. Based on farmer’s perception, soil degradation is the reason for declining
yield and farmland near to the mining area.

The economical status of higher percentage of local farmers depends on both mining and farming activity;
therefore the extent of gravel mining on Gorfo Mountain degraded lands close to the mining area and
agricultural fields within a short period of time. Farmers owning farmlands near to mining area are
applied very less mitigation measure to conserve their field from severe degradation. Between local

27
farmers and related sectors lack collaboration to work together on the rehabilitation and renovation of
degraded area. Ethiopian EIA has rules and regulations to utilize environmental resource sustainably, but
the policy is less applicable, and this study revealed that there is imperative need to rehabilitate and
protect the land through public participation and also through the support of Government.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 As the occupational status of 53.2% of local population depends on both agricultural activity and
gravel mining to progress their food security; there is absolute need to conserve the Gorfo
Mountain Region as well as the agricultural lands close by through restoration of degraded areas
and by protecting the pant biodiversity in the mountain.

 Farmers should be concern about their crop land protection through construction of barriers for
maintaining the soil fertility and to increase their annual agricultural yield, and reduce short/ long
term adverse effects of the poor land management in the area.

 A good linkage has to be established between governmental staff and local population on
environmental resources management, conservation and protection.

 Land less laborers may be given an opportunity to rehabilitate the degraded land areas to make it
productive with the support of government; and the existing farmers in the area can extent
technical support in the farming practices.

 Further research is needed to locate possible land sites that would improve production and
productivity. Eco-friendly farming practices have to be followed for maintaining the
sustainability of the land.

 Environmental Protection Authority of the country should effectively control land degradation
through mining, and take appropriate measures to conserve the resources for future generation.
 Participatory Management Practices may be followed through NGO and local farmers to initiate
rehabilitation of the area.

28
 REFERENCES

Ahmed Hussein (2002). Assessment of spatial variability of some physico-chemical properties

of soils under different elevations and land use systems in the western slopes of Mount
Chilalo, Arsi. MSc. Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya
University, Ethiopia. 111p.and Agricultural Chemistry, Indian Agricultural Institute, New
Delhi.

Awan T. H., Ali R. I., Manzoor Z., Ahmad M. and Akhtar M. (2011). Effect of Different
Nitrogen Levels and Row Spacing on The Performance of Newly Evolved Medium Grain
Rice Variety, Ksk-133. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 21(2): 2011, 231-234

Barber, R. (1984). An assessment of the dominant soil degradation processes in Battlefield

Park Mission Statement Plaque. Fort Harrison Headquarters. Richmond, Battlefield Park VA.
Official Map and Guide.

Benti F. (2011). Effects of land use types on soil quality and productivity of Miessa micro
watershed, Ambo University. Thesis submitted to School Graduated Studies.

Berhanu Debele (1985). The Vertisols of Ethiopia, their properties, classification and
management. 5th Meeting of the Eastern African Soil Correlation and Land Evaluation Sub-
Committee, 4-10 December 1983, Wad Medani Sudan. World Soil Resources Report, 56.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome. 31-54.

Bohn, H.L., McNeal, B.L. and. O'Connor, G.A. (2001). Soil Chemistry, pp.62-65. (3rd) ed.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.237p.

Bouyoucous, G.J. (1962). Hydrometer method improvement for making particle size analysis
of soils. Agron. J. 54: 464-468.

Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. (2004). The nature and properties of soil. (13th) ed. Person
Education Ltd, USA. 621p

Bremner P.C. and Mulvaney V. (1982). Nitrogen and phosphorus balances of Kindo Koisha
farms in southern Ethiopia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 71:93–113

29
 J. (2001), Cation Exchange Capacity, Clemson University, Crop and Soil Environmental
Science.

Das, B. K. and Sen S. P. (1981). Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium deficiency on
the uptake and mobilization of ions in Bengal gram. Journal of. Bioscience, 3 (3): 249-258.

Datnoff, W.H. Elmer, and D.M. Huber (eds.). Mineral nutrition and plant disease St.
Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Society.

Desta Beyene( 1986). The response of pulse crops to N and P fertilizers. Proc.Workshop on
Review of Soil Science Research in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 11-14.

Drew,M.C. and Goss, M.J.(1973). Effects of soil physical factors on root growth. Chem. and
Ind., 14: 679-684.

Eylachew Zewdie (1996). Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on bread wheat
grain yield on three soil types in Ethiopia. In: Tanner, D. G. T. Payne and O.S. Abdalla
(eds.). Proceeding of the Ninth Regional Wheat Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern
Africa, CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

FAO (Food and Agriculture, Organization)( 2004). FAO Agricultural Database. FAO,
Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) ( 2006). Guidelines for soil description. FAO,
Rome, Italy.

Finck, A and Venkateswarlu, J.(1982). Chemical properties and management of Vertisols. pp.
61-79. In: Vertisols and rice soils of the tropics. Twelfth International Congress of Soil
Science New Delhi, India, 8-16 February 1982. Indian Society of Soil Science, New
Delhi, India.

Fitsum Hagos, Pender J. and Nega Gebreselassie ( 1999). Land degradation in the highlands
of Tigray and strategies for sustainable land management. Socio-economic and Policy
Research Working Paper 25. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. 80 p.

30
Foth, H.D. (1990). Fundamentals of Soil Science. (8th ed). John Wiley and Sons, Inc;
New York, USA.

Foth, H.D. and Ellis, B.G. (1997). Soil Fertility. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Canada.

Fredeen. A.L., Rao, I.M. and Terry, N. (1989). Influence of phosphorus nutrition on growth
and carbon partitioning of Glycine max. Plant Phyiol., 9:225-230.

Gioacchini, P., Nastri, A., Marzadori,C., Giovannini, C..Antisare, L.V. and Gessa, C.
(2002). Influence of urease and nitrification inhibitors on N losses from soils fertilized
with urea. Biol. Fertil. Soils., 36: 129–135.

Girma( 2000). Soil erosion and soil; and water conservation in the highlands of Ethiopia.
Conclusion and recommendation of SCRP database. Unpublished compilation.

Gregorich, E.G., Turchenek, L.W., Carter, M.R. and Angews, D.A.( 2001.) Soil and
Environmental Science Dictionary. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 577p.

Grisso. R. Alley. M, Wysor, W.G., Holshouser, D. Thomason, W .(2009). Soil Electrical

Conductivity, Virginia cooperative extension, 442-508 pp.

Grossman, R.B. and Reinsch, T.G.(2002). Methods of Soil Analysis Ch2, Dane J.H, Clarke
Topp G. (Ed.) Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA 2002.

Harris R. W. (1992) Root to shoot ratios. Journal of Arboriculture, 18(1)

Hodges. S. C. (2000). Soil fertility basics, Soil Science Extension. North Carolina State
University, Chapter 1.

Hubble, G.D. ( 1984). The cracking clay soils: definition, distribution, nature, genesis and use.
pp. 3-13. In: J.W. McGarity, H.E. Hoult and H.B So (eds.). The properties and
utilization of cracking clay soils. Reviews in Rural Science No. 5. University of New
England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.

Huber, D.M. and . Thompson, I.A. (2007). Nitrogen and plant disease. pp. 31-44. In:
L.E.

31
Hudson N. (1981). Soil conservation . B.T. Batsford Limited, London, UK. 324 p.

Hurni H. (1988). Degradation and conservation of the resources in the Ethiopian highlands.
Mountain Research and Development, 8 (2/3):123–130.

ICM-(Integrated Crop Management) (2002). Soil erosion: effect on soil productivity page
163 of the – August 19, 2002 issue. Journal in 08/ 2002.

Indian Society of Soil Science( 2002). Fundamentals of Soil Science. Division of Soil Science

Jackson, W.A. (1973). Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency of
nitrogen utilization. Agronomy Journal, 74:562-564.

Jurcova, O. and Zrubec, F.(1989). Formation and productiveness of the plant root system and
its relation to the soil physical properties. Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute,
Bratislava, Research report.

Kappel, R. (1996). Economic analysis of soil conservation in Ethiopia: Issues and research
perspectives. University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland, in association with the Ministry of
Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 29 p.

Kothari,C.R. (2004). Research Methodology , New Age International P. Ltd, publishers.

Jaipur (India).

Lal ( 1998). Impacts of land degradation on crop yields; impacts on environmental

degradation on yield and area. series-Rapid response assessments, 1998-08-10.

Lal, R. (1994). Methods and guidelines for assessing sustainable use of soil and water
resources in the tropics. Soil management support services technical monograph No. 21, 1- 78

Lal, R.( 2001). World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon. Adv. Agron.

Landon, J.R.( 1991). Booker Tropical Soil Manual: a handbook for soil survey and
agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
New York.

32
Lowery, B. and Grossman, B. (1996). Physical Tests for Monitoring Soil Quality.In:J.W.
Doran, A.J. Jones (editors). Methods for assessing soil quality. Madison, WI. 123-41.

Mahdi Al-Kaisi ( 2007). Department of Agronomy, and Mark Hanna, Extension Agricultural
Engineer, Department of Agriculture and Bios stem Engineering, Gerald Miller, College of
Agriculture; and Michael Tidman.

Malpas, J.( 1992). Serpentine and the geology of serpentinized rocks. In: Roberts, B.A. and J
Proctor (eds). The ecology of areas with serpentinized rocks. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Netherlands.

Mengel, K. and Kirby, E.A. (1996). Principles of plant nutrition. Panima Publishing
Corporation, New Delhi, India.

Miller, R. W. and Danahue, R. L. (1995). Soils in our Environment (7th ed.); Prentice-Hall of
India Private limited, New Delhi.

Miller, R. W. and Danahue, R. L. (1995). Soils in our Environment (7th ed.); Prentice-Hall of
India Private limited, New Delhi.

Mohr, H.D. (1978). Soil penetrations by roots in relation to important soil characteristics.
Kali- Breife (Buntehof). 14(2): 103- 113.

Morgan R.P.C. (1986).Soil erosion and conservation. Longman Scientific and Technical
Publication, New York, USA. 298 p.

Mujale.A. E .(2003). Impacts of land use/ land cover changes on soil degradation and
biodiversity on the slopes of mount Kilimanjaro, institute of resource assessment of Darees
salaam, IRLI, LUCID working paper 26.

NEC (Netherlands Engineering Consultants). (1997). Tekeze River Basin Integrated

Development Master Plan Project (TRBIDMPP): Land degradation and soil conservation.
Second Phase Report, Volume-ENV1. Consultant’s report to the Commission for Sustainable
Agriculture and Environmental Rehabilitation for Amhara Region (CoSAERAR), Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia. 101 p.

33
Nivedita. M. (1992). Effects of moisture status and bulk density on germination and
emergence of pearl Millet, sorghum and groundnut on an alfisol, department of soil science
and agricultural chemistry college of agriculture, Rajendranagar Andhra Pradesh Agricultural
University.

Okoba. B. O. and Graaff. J. D. E. (2004). Farmers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Soil

Erosion and Conservation Measures in The Central Highlands, Kenya. Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute, Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation Group, Department of
Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University

Okon. P. B. and Babalola.O. (2005). General variability of soils under vetiver grass strips:
focus on combating land and environmental degradation, Department of Soil Science,
University of Calabar, Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1, 5-10

Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and. Dean, L.A. (1954). Estimation of available
phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular: 939:19p.

Picolo, A., and Huluka, G.(1985). Phosphorus Status of some Ethiopian soils. Trop. Agr.
Trinidad, 63:2

Pimentel Berger, D., Filberto, D., Newton, M. (2004). Water Resources: Agricultural and
Environmental Issues. Bioscience, 54 (10): 909–918.

Prasad, R., James F. and Power (1997). Soil Fertility management for sustainable Agriculture.
Lewis Publisher. Boca Raton, New York Printed-Hall Inc. U.S.A. 392p.

Raun, W.R. and Johnson. G.V. (1999). Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal
production. Agronomy J., 91:357-363.

Rehm .G. and Schmitt. M. (2002). Potassium for crop production, university of Minnesota.

Roberts, B.A. and.Proctor J. (1988). The ecology of areas with serpentinized rocks.
Malpas, J., 1992. Serpentine and the geology of serpentinized rocks. In: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Netherlands.

Sahlemedhin Sertsu( 1999). Draft guideline for regional soil testing laboratories. NFIA, Addis
Ababa Ethiopia.

34
Saikh, H., Varadachari, C. and Ghosh, K.(1998). Effects of deforestation and cultivation
on soil CEC and contents of exchangeable bases. A case study in Simplipal National Park.
India. Plant Soil, 204: 67-75

Sanchez, P.A., Shepherd, K.D. Soule, M.J., Place F.M., Buresh (1997). Soil fertility
replenishment in Africa: an investment in natural resource capital, pp.168.

Schollenberger, C. J. and Simon, H. R. (1994). Determination of exchange capacity and

exchangeable bases in soils-ammonium acetate method. Soil Science, 59: 13-24.

Sertsu, S and Bekele, T. (2000). Cation exchangeable capacity, pp. 49-50. In: Procedures for
soil and plant analysis. Ethiopian Agricultural research organization, National Soil Research
Centre Addis Ababa.

Shiferaw.B and Holden, T.S. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation
technologies in the case of Ethiopian high lands: A case study in Andit Tid North Shewa,
Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Economics and Social Sciences.

Smith, C.J., Goh, G.M Bond, W.J. and Freney, J.R. (1995). Effects of organic and
inorganic calcium compounds on soil solution pH and Al concentration. European J.
Soil Sci., 46:53-63.

Southavilay. B., Nanseki. T., Takeuchi. S. (2012). Farmers’ Perception and Socio-Economic
Determinants on Land Degradation in Northern Lao PDR: A Case Study of Maize Farming.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 28(4).

Stocking, M. and Murangham, N. (2001). Land degradation assessment. Earthscan Publication

Ltd. UK.

Tamirat Tsegaye (1992).Vertisols of central highlands of Ethiopia: Characterization and

evaluation of the phosphorus status. M.Sc., Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate
Studies, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia, 144 p.

Tekalign Mamo and Haque, I.(1987). Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils. I.
Sorption characteristics. Plant and Soil, 102:261-266.

35
Tekalign Mamo, Haque , I. and . Kamara, C.S. (1988). Phosphorus status of some
Ethiopian highland Vertisols. Soils and Plant Nutrition Section, International Livestock
Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tesfaye Ertebo and Sahlemedhin Sertsu (2002). Influence of crop residues on nitrogen
mineralization in an acidic Nit soil. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources, 4(2): 165-178

Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., Beaton, J.D. and. Havlin, J.L (1995). Soil fertility and fertilizer,
(5th) ed. Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 684p.

Tucker, (1999). Nitrogen nutrient essential for plant growth, Fertilize enhance soil
productivity, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute, Bratislava, Research report.

UNEP(United Nations Environment Programme) (2010). International Resource Panel (2010).

Priority products and materials: assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and
production. Retrieved, 2010-05-07.

USDA (2003). Natural Resources Conservation Service: Pastureland Sheet1

Virmani, S.M.,Sahrawat, K.L. and . Burford, J.R. (1982). Physical and chemical properties
of Vertisols and their management. pp. 80-93. In: Vertisols and rice soils of the tropics.
Twelfth International Congress of Soil Science, New Delhi, India, 8-16 February 1982.
Indian Society of Soil Science, New Delhi, India.

Wakene Negassa( 2001). Assessment of important physicochemical properties of

Dystric Udalf (Dystric Nitosols) under different management systems in Bako area,
western Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya
University, Ethiopia. 93p

Walkley, A. and. Black, A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining
soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method.
Soil Sci., 37: 29-38.

Wiederholt and Johnson (2005). Phosphorus Behavior in the Environment, data base accessed

on 12/11/2013

36
Workneh Negatu, and. Mwangi, W. (1992). An economic analysis of the response of
durum wheat to fertilizer: Implications for sustainable wheat production in the central
highlands of Ethiopia. pp. 177-185. In: Tanner, D .G. (ed.). The Eighth Regional Wheat
Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa. CIMMYT.

Yihenew Gebreselassie( 2002). Selected chemical and physical characteristics of soils. Adet
Research Center and its Testing Sites in North-Western Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Natural Resources, 4(2): 199-215.

37
 Appendices

Annex: 1 -T-test for soil texture

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of
Variable
Mean the Difference
t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Sandy soil
texture 8.201 5 .000 26.58333 18.2509 34.9157

Clay soil texture 9.395 5 .000 40.41667 29.3581 51.4752

Silt soil texture 11.019 5 .000 32.91667 25.2377 40.5956

Annex 2-T-test for available phosphorous

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent Variable 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean the Difference
t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Available
9.509 5 .0001 2.00733 1.4647 2.5500
Phosphorus

Annex 3-T-test for available potassium

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent variable 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Available
7.494 4 .002 2.26200 1.4239 3.1001
Potassium

38
Annex 4-T-test for soil moisture content

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent Variable 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean the Difference
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Soil moisture
27.704 4 .000 6.93000 6.2355 7.6245
content

Annex 5-T-test for cation exchangeable capacity

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of the
variable
Sig. (2- Difference
T df tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
CEC 7.927 5 .001 21.50333 14.5300 28.4767

Annex 6-T-test for electrical conductivity

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent Variable 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean the Difference
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Electric
5.628 5 .002 83.75500 45.4998 122.0102
conductivity

Annex 7-T-test for total nitrogen

39
 T-test for Equality of Means
Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of
Variable
Mean the Difference
T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Total
3.573 5 .016 .10200 .0286 .1754
Nitrogen

Annex 8-T-test for bulk density

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of
Variable
Mean the Difference
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Bulk
8.863 5 .000 1.56500 1.1111 2.0189
density

Annex 9-T-test for PH

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of
variable
Mean the Difference
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
PH value 21.896 5 .000 6.63333 5.8546 7.4121

40
Annex 10-T-test for soil organic matter

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of
Variable
Mean the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Soil Organic
8.766 5 .000 1.67500 1.1838 2.1662
matter

Annex11-T-test for available Sodium

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent 95% Confidence Interval of
Variable
Mean the Difference
t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Available
57.194 4 .000 .49200 .4681 .5159
Sodium

Annex 12-T-test for available Calcium

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent Variable 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Available of
7.338 4 .002 65.14600 40.4986 89.7934
Calcium

41
Annex 13-T- test for available Magnesium

T-test for Equality of Means

Dependent Variable 95% Confidence Interval of
Mean the Difference
t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Available
4.383 5 .007 81.85167 33.8515 129.8519
Magnesium

Annex 14-ANOVA of Plant Height

ANOVA

Source of
Sum of
variation
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .429 3 .143 9.778
Within Groups .058 4 .015 .026
Total .487 7

Annex 15-ANOVA of fresh shoot weight

Source of variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .026 3 .009 4.558
Within Groups .006 3 .002 .022
Total .031 6

42
Annex 16-ANOVA of root fresh weight

Source of
Sum of
variation
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
.026 3 .009 2.577
Groups
.023
Within Groups .010 3 .003
Total .036 6

Annex 17-ANOVA of shoot dry weight

Source of Sum of
variation Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
.000 3 .000 4.333 .045
Groups
Within Groups .000 4 .000
Total .000 7

43
Annex 18-ANOVA of root dry weight

Source of Sum of
variation Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
.000 3 .000 .940 .050
Groups
Within Groups .000 4 .000
Total .000 7

Annex 19-ANOVA of height of maize

Source of Sum of
variation Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
.429 3 .143 9.778 .026
Groups
Within Groups .058 4 .015
Total .487 7

Annex 20-ANOVA of number of leaf

ANOVA
Sum of
Number of leaf
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
2.250 1 2.250 1.800 .002
Groups
Within Groups 2.500 2 1.250
Total 4.750 3

44
Annex 21-T-test of days of emergency

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
Source of 95% Confidence Interval of
emergency
Mean the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Date of
26.000 2 .001 8.66667 7.2324 10.1009
emergency

Annex: 22: The graphs of root length of maize

18 17.1

16

14

12
Root length of maize (cm)

10 9.5
Ag.Nm(30g)
8 7.5 Ag.Nm(0g)
7 Ag.Fm(0g)
6 Ag.Fm(30g)

0
Soil types used for maize growth

Annex 23: The graph of fresh and dry root weight

45
 0.025 0.4

0.021 0.35 0.34

0.02
0.018 0.3

Weight of fresh root (gm)

Weight of dry root (gm)

0.25
0.015 0.014 0.22 0.22
0.012 Ag.Nm(30g) 0.2 Ag.Nm(30g)
0.2
Ag.Nm(0g) Ag.Nm(0g)
0.01 Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(0g)
0.15
Ag.Fm(30g) Ag.Fm(30g)
0.1
0.005
0.05

0 0
Soil type for maize growth soil types for maize growth

Annex 24: The graph of fresh and dry shoot weight

0.035 0.6
0.031
0.03 0.5
0.5
0.025
0.025 0.4
Weight of dry shoot (gm)

0.4 Ag.Nm(30g) Ag.Nm(0g)

0.021 Ag.Nm(30g) Ag.Nm(0g)
Weight of fesh shoot (gm)

0.02 0.343 0.31000000000000

0.02
2
0.3
0.015 Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(30g)
Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(30g)
0.2
0.01

0.005 0.1

0
0
soil type for maize growth Soil type used for miaze growth

Annex 25: The graph of number of leaf

12

10
10
9
8
8
7
Number of leaf

Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(30g)
6

Ag.Nm(0g) Ag.Nm(30g)
4

0
Soil type used for maize growth

46
Annex 26: The graph of Height of maize
1.4

1.190000000000021.19000000000002
1.2

1
Height of Maize in (m)

0.75000000000000
0.8 0.78 8 Ag.Fm(0g) Ag.Fm(30g)

0.6
Ag.Nm(0g) Ag.Nm(30g)

0.4

0.2

0
Agriculture land type

Annex 27 : The graph of soil physico chemical analysis

2.50% 8.0
7.1 7.1 7.0 7.1
2.29% 7.0
1.95% 6.2
2.00% Ag.Fm.(0-10cm) Ag.Fm.(10-20cm)
Organic matter Content(%)

6.0
Soil PH value

5.3 Ag.Nm (0-10) Ag.Nm(10-20)

1.85%
5.0
1.50%
1.70%
Ag.Fm.(20-30cm) Ag.Nm.(0-10cm) 4.0
1.22% Ag.Nm(20-30) Ag.Fm(0-10)
1.00% 3.0
1.04%
2.0
0.50% Ag.Nm.(10-20cm) Ag.Nm.(20-30cm) Ag.Fm(10-20) Ag.Fm(20-30)
1.0

0.00% 0.0
Land use type Land use Type

47
 8.00 7.53 7.50
7.15 7.19
Soil Moisture Content(%)

7.00 6.70
6.08 Ag.Nm (0-10) Ag.Nm(10-20)
6.00

5.00
Ag.Nm(20-30) Ag.Fm(0-10)
4.00

3.00

2.00 Ag.Fm(10-20) Ag.Fm(20-30)

1.00

0.00
Land use type

2.5

2.093333
2
Bulk density (gm/cm3)

1.5

1.13999999999998
Ag.Fm
1 Ag.Nm

0.5

0
Land use type

140
127.2
120 116.333333333333
Electric conductivity(µs/cm)

104.7
100

80 Ag.Fm.(0-10cm)
Ag.Fm.(10-20cm)
59.266666666666 Ag.Fm.(20-30cm)
60
51.4333333333333 Ag.Nm.(0-10cm)
43.6 Ag.Nm.(10-20cm)
40 Ag.Nm.(20-30cm)

20

0
Land Use type

48
 60%

50% 50%
50%
45%
43%
Soil Texture (%)

40%
40% 38% 38%
35%
33% 32%
30% 30% 30%
30%
25% 25% 25% sand
20% clay
20%
silt
13%
10%

0%
Ag.Nm (0-10) Ag.Nm(10- Ag.Nm(20- Ag.Fm(0-10) Ag.Fm(10- Ag.Fm(20-
20) 30) 20) 30)
Land use type

3.50

3.00 2.93
2.81
Available Sodium and
Potasium(cmol/kg)

2.49
2.50

2.00 1.78
1.55 1.54
1.50
Available Sodium
Available Potassium
1.00
0.48 0.47 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.52
0.50

0.00
Ag.Nm(0- Ag.Nm(10- Ag.Nm. Ag.Fm.(0- Ag.Fm. Ag.Fm(20-
10cm) 20cm) (20-30cm) 10cm) (10-20cm) 30cm)

Land use Type

49
 180.0 169.3
Available Calcium and Magnesium (meq/100g)
160.0

140.0

120.0
105.8
100.0 88.5
83.8
80.0 76.7
71.3 70.9 70.4
Available Calcium
58.9
60.0 49.1 Available Magnesium
45.5
40.0 32.6

20.0

0.0
Ag.Fm(0- Ag.Fm(10- Ag.Fm(20- Ag.Nm(0- Ag.Nm(10- Ag.Nm(20-
10) 20) 30) 10) 20) 30)
Land Use Type

35.0
30.6
30.0
26.9
Cation Exchange Capacity(meq/100g)

25.0 23.2

20.0 16.2 Ag.Nm.(0-10cm)

Ag.Nm.(10-20cm)
15.7 Ag.Nm.(20-30cm)
15.0
Ag.Fm.(0-10cm)
15.6
Ag.Fm.(10-20cm)
10.0 Ag.Fm.(20-30cm)

5.0

0.0
Agriculture Land Type

0.250
0.23

0.200

0.150
Total Nitrogen (%)

0.13 Ag.Nm (0-10)

Ag.Nm(10-20)
Ag.Nm(20-30)
0.100 0.09 Ag.Fmp1(0-10)
Ag.Fmp2(10-20)
0.06 Ag.Fmp3(20-30)
0.05
0.050 0.052

0.000
Land Use type

50
 3.5
3.0
3.0
Available Phosphorus(ppm)

2.5

2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9

1.8 Ag.Fm(0-10cm
1.7
Ag.Fm(10-20cm)
1.5 Ag.Fm(20-30cm)
Ag.Nm(0-10cm)
1.0 Ag.Nm(10-20cm)
Ag. Nm(20-30cm)
0.5

0.0
1
Land Use Type

3.50

3.00 2.9
2.81
2.5
2.50
Available Na+ and K+ (cmol/kg)

2.00 1.8
1.5 1.55
1.50
Available Sodium
Available Potasium
1.00
0.48 0.5 0.47 0.52 0.520.5
0.50

0.00
Ag.Nm(0- Ag.Nm(10- Ag.Nm.(20- Ag.Fm.(0- Ag.Fm.(10- Ag.Fm(20-
10cm) 20cm) 30cm) 10cm) 20cm) 30cm)
Agriculture land type

51
52