Advances in ISSN: 2373-6402APAR

Plants & Agriculture Research
Research Article
Volume 2 Issue 3 - 2015
Soil Quality Variation under Enset based Conservation Tillage and Cereal based Conventional Tillage System in Southern Highlands of Ethiopia
Haile Ketema1*, Mulushewa Fita2 and Amare Bantider3
1Department of Natural Resource Management, Dilla University, Ethiopia
2Department of Geography, Dilla Teachers Training College, Ethiopia
3Department of Geography, Addis Ababa Universities, Ethiopia
Received:November 18, 2014 | Published: April 27, 2015
*Corresponding author: Haile Ketema, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, Department of Natural Resource Management, Dilla University, P.O. Box: 419, Dilla, Ethiopia, Email: @
Citation: Ketema H, Fita M, Bantider A (2015) Soil Quality Variation under Enset based Conservation Tillage and Cereal based Conventional Tillage System in Southern Highlands of Ethiopia. Adv Plants Agric Res 2(3): 00048. DOI: 10.15406/apar.2015.02.00048

Abstract

With the objectives of assessing the variation of soil quality indicators; two land use types: Enset based conservation tillage system (EBCSTS) and Cereal based conventional tillage system (CBCVTS) were selected in Gedeo zone, Bule woreda, Southern Ethiopia. A total of 48 composite and undisturbed (for bulk density determination) soil samples (2 land use types_4 blocks_3 replication_2 soil depth: 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm) were collected for laboratory analysis. The result showed that soil textural fractions (sand, p<0.001; silt, p = 0.003 and clay = p = 0.001) and soil pH (p<0.001) significantly varied with land use types. Moreover, soil moisture content (p<0.001), bulk density (p = 0.016, p = 0.002), SOC (p<0.001), TN (p<0.001) and CEC (p<0.001, p = 0.001) have shown significant variation with land use types and soil depth respectively. Sand and clay were higher in EBCSTS and CBCVTS, respectively. Higher amount of sand fraction was observed under 0-15 cm on EBCSTS and 15-30 cm on CBCVTS land use types. Lower soil bulk density (g cm-3) and higher amount of SOC (%), TN (%), soil pH, CEC (meq/100g soil) and SMC (%) were observed at 0–15 cm soil layer under the EBCSTS. Soil bulk density (g cm-3), soil pH and SMC (%) increased while SOC (%), CEC (meq/100g soil) and TN (%) decreased with soil depth in both land use types. Improvement in the soil quality under EBCSTS was due to the presence of less soil disturbance coupled with higher addition of organic matter (SOM) in the soil. Thus, through implementing EBCSTS, it is possible to protect and maintain soil qualities for sustainable soil management and cropping practices in the area.
Keywords: Land use types; Conventional tillage; Soil quality; Enset

Abbreviations

EBCSTS: Enset Based Conservation Tillage System; CBCVTS: Cereal Based Conventional Tillage System; SMC: Soil Moisture Content; SOC: Soil Organic Carbon; TN: Total Nitrogen; CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity; SOM: Soil Organic Matter; ASL: Above Sea Level; RCBD: Randomized Complete Block Design; GLM: General Linear Model; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; LU: Land Use; SD: Soil Depth; BD: Bulk Density; ACLU: Annual Crop Land Use; AGFLU: Agroforestry Land Use

Introduction

Soil quality can be recognized as the capacity of a soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem to sustain plants and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality and finally support human health [1]. Soil quality could be understood through biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil and it is a function of soil management practices [1,2]. The spatio-temporal variation in soil quality would be as a result of differences in soil management practice which itself becomes the cultural manifestation of the people residing in certain districts. However, the spatio-temporal variation in soil quality should not only take into account the inherent human soil management practices, but the field location and topography themselves influence and become the source of variation in soil quality. Soil tillage is one of soil management practices [2] that could be subjected to variation based on bio-physical arrangements of the environment and become the influencing factor for soil quality. Spatial variation in soil quality as a result of tillage practice has been commonly observed [3] at watershed scale. Understanding of soil quality variation at watershed level would play an important role in locating homogenous sites that requires an immediate, careful and sustainable soil management practices. From those relatively local homogenous site, cereal based conventional tillage and enset based conservation tillage are the common land use types in the southern highlands of Ethiopia.

Tillage affects the soil natural system and ecological processes leading to a remarkable change in soil properties [2,4]. Cereal based conventional tillage system deprives soil’s capacity to hold water, deteriorates structure stability, nutrient supply and storage as well as its biological life [5,6]. It is widely recognized as a factor for decline in soil productivity. Frequent cultivation in general increases the potential for soil erosion to deteriorate soil quality indicators [3]. This is due to the breakdown of soil aggregate and reduction of soil cohesion and further this compel the soil to reduce its nutrient content [7,8]. Moreover, cereal based conventional tillage system (CBCVTS) promote soil organic carbon loss through exposing/inverting micro-aggregate organic carbon to microbial decomposition [9,10]. The continual process of soil inversion using traditional Maresha could mostly lead to a degradation of soil structures which further results compacted soil with low levels of SOM [11]. Previous study in Ethiopia around Butajira highland area on cereal based conventionally tilled soil has shown lower soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, , lower pH and higher bulk density compared to enset based conservation tillage system. Similar findings were observed by Moges et al., Yimer F and Abdelkadir, Yimer F et al., Lemenih, Alemayehu and Sheleme [1,10,12-14]. For instance, Yimer F [12] has compared croplands (i.e. cereal based conventionally tilled soil) with other land use system and found that significant changes on selected physical and chemical soil properties in the Southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Another study conducted by Alemayehu and Sheleme [14] also found lower OC, TN, pH and EC under cereal based land use system as compared to enset and grassland land use system in Southern Ethiopia.

On the other hand, enset based conservation tillage system which is the common practice of the study area, has a capacity to improve the soil qualities relative to that of cereal based conventional tillage system [14]. This improvement in soil properties relative to conventionally tilled land use systems was as a result of organic matter addition from the enset based conservation tillage system [6,15,16].

Apart from an initial investigation [17] and recent report on characterization of the study area soil [18] and Bamboo related study [19], there has been no study conducted so far addressing soil quality variation in the study area. This has become an area of particular concern due to the presence of high population pressure and expansion of CBCVTS on the expense of EBCST practice. This study, therefore, intended to investigate the soil quality variations along land use types in southern highlands of Ethiopia.

Materials and Methods

Description of the study area

The study was undertaken in Bule wereda, Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Figure 1). Geographically, it extends from 6° 04’ 16” to 6° 23’ 50” N latitude and from 38° 16’ 20” to 38° 26’ 11” E longitudes. The altitude ranges from 1700m to 3000m above sea level. The area is characterized by a bimodal rainfall distribution (Figure 2). The mean annual rainfall and temperature of the study area ranges from 1200mm to 1800mm and from 15.10 °C-22.5°C, respectively.

Figure 1: Map of the study area.
Figure 2: Average monthly rainfall (mm) and temperature of the study area (From the year 1988 to 2012).

The dominant soil type of the study area is Nitisols [19]. Its surface horizon is characterized by a granular to crumb structure, porous and well aerated with good internal drainage potentials that can be suitable for a wide range of agricultural uses. The land use system of the study area is a mixture of crop farming and agroforestry system (Table 1). Cereal crops such as Barley and Wheat are the dominant crops in the area. In addition, Beans, Pease and haricot beans are grown. Moreover, tree species like Aningeria attissima (Kerero), Erythrina Abbyssnica (Korch) and Eucalyptus globules are dominantly grown in the area. In addition to cereal based land use system, agroforestry practices such as Enset based were also used commonly by the local people. In the study area, the soil under cereal based conventional tillage was commonly manipulated using a traditional farm tool known as Maresha. Off course, maresha is a simple and common tool (Figure 3) dated traditional farm implement almost common to all farmers in Ethiopia for cereal crop production. The tool is commonly drafted by two oxen [20] with average shallow tilling depth of 10 - 15cm.

 Land Use Types
Area Coverage (ha)
 Percent (%)
Permanent Crop Land
12,355.48
41.7
Annual Crop Land
13,497
45.5
Forest Land
1,904
6.4
Grazing Land
496.95
1.7
Others
1,403.75
4.7
Total Area in ha
29,657.18
100%

Table 1: Major land use allocation of Bule Wereda.

Source: Bule Wereda Agricultural Development Office (2008/09)

Figure 3: Traditional Maresha and its neck Yoke.
Soil sampling and laboratory analyses

Two land uses [Enset based conservation tillage system (EBCSTS) and Cereal based conventional tillage system (CBCVTS), hereafter referred to as “land use types”) were selected. The land use types were contiguous and have similar environmental conditions (e.g. in soil conditions and slope) except their differences in the land use management practices. Experimental design employed for this research was Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) and layouts was performed by using a transect line [21]. Long transact lines were laid along the longest side of the individual land use type. Five meter away from the transact line, each sampling point (pit) was marked at every 10-15m interval (Figure 4). This was done just to avoid biasness during the time of soil sampling. Accordingly, a total of 48 soil samples [2 treatments _ 3 replications _ 4 blocks1 _ 2 soil depth layers: 0-15cm, 15-30cm] were collected for laboratory analyses. Prior to laboratory analysis, the soil samples were air-dried at room temperature, crashed and passed through a 2mm diameter sieve. Undisturbed soil samples were also collected separately using core sampler from each soil depth for the determination of soil bulk density.

Figure 4: Soil sampling points.

The soil textural fractions were determined following the hydrometer method after the soil was dispersed using sodium hexametaphosphate solution [22]. Soil bulk density was determined after the soil was oven dried at 105°C for 24hrs [23]. The gravimetric soil moisture content (SMC %) was calculated following the method described by Cuenca [24]. Soil organic carbon (SOC %) was determined according to the Walkley and Black method [25]. The pH of the soil samples was measured in water and potassium chloride suspension in a 1: 2.5 (soil: water ratio) potentiometrically using a glass- calomel combination electrode [26]. Total Nitrogen (TN %) was determined using the Kjeldahi method [27]. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil samples was also determined after extracting the soil samples by ammonium acetate (1N NH4OAC) at pH 7.

Laboratory results were analyzed using General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SPSS version 16.0 for windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the degree of variations. Tukey’s Honest Significance Difference (HSD) test was also used when the mean separation showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

Results and Discussion

Soil physical properties

Soil textural fractions (%), bulk density (g cm-3) and soil moisture content (SMC %): Soil textural fractions of sand, silt and clay significantly varied with land use types (p<0.001, p = 0.003 and p= 0.001, respectively, Table 2). Except silt, the other soil textural fractions (sand, p = 0.041 and clay, p = 0.002) showed significant variation with soil depth in the study area (Table 2). The combined effect of land use type and soil depth on sand and clay textural fractions were also significant (p = 0.012, p = 0.02, respectively, Table 2). Sand fraction was higher in EBCSTS (Table 3) than in CBCVTS land use types. Clay and silt fraction were also higher in CBCVTS (Table 3) than in EBCSTS. Considering soil depth, higher amount of sand fraction was observed under 0-15 cm of EBCSTS and 15-30 cm of CBCVTS, while higher clay takes 0-15 cm of CBCVTS and 15-30 cm of EBCSTS land use types, respectively. The higher clay at 0-15 cm soil depth on CBCVTS might be due to intensive and continuous cultivation which may reduces downward movement of clay particles within the soil profile. This finding is in agreement with findings of Jaiyeoba [28]. The higher sand fraction on CBCTS was due to selective removal of clay fraction by erosion [29-34]. Since the area is endowed with higher amount of rain fall, surface erosion is common. Similarly, higher amount of sand fraction under EBCSTS land use types was due to removal of clay fraction through leaching from the soil surface [2]. The tendency of increase in clay fractions with soil depth under the EBCSTS could also be related with the abundance of root channels (macro-pores) favoring the downward migration of fine clay fractions below 15 cm [2]. While the clay fraction moves downward (15-30 cm), the sand content remains high at the surface (0-15cm) under EBCSTS of land use types.

Source of Variation
df
SMC
BD
SOC
Sand
Silt
Clay
TN
pH
CEC
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
MS
P
LU
1
343.68
<0.001
0.04
0.016
7.6
<0.001
1386.75
<0.001
252.1
0.003
456.33
0.001
0.05
<0.001
6.48
<0.001
143.66
<0.001
SD
1
49.13
<0.001
0.553
0.002
6.63
<0.001
310.1
0.041
10.1
0.53
432
0.002
0.05
<0.001
0.05
0.74
56.3
0.001
LU*SD
1
20.67
0.661
0.88
<0.001
3.24
0.12
420.1
0.02
18.75
0.39
261.33
0.012
0.76
0.001
0.05
0.75
19.63
0.45
Error
44
105.82
0.006
1.63
69.74
24.66
37.86
0.01
0.46
33.44
Total
48

Table 2: Summary of ANOVA for SMC (%), BD (g/cm3), SOC (%), soil textural fractions (Sand, Silt and Clay, %), Total Nitrogen (%), Soil reaction (pH) and Cation Exchangeable Capacity (CEC) (pmm).

LU: Land Use; SD: Soil Depth; SMC: Soil Moisture Content; BD: Bulk Density; SOC: Soil Organic Carbon; TN: Total Nitrogen; pH: Soil Reaction; CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity

Land Use Types

Soil Depth (cm)

Soil Textural Fractions

Bd (g/cm3)

SMC (%)

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

CBCVTS

0-15

42.8(±2.10)a

27.2(±1.49)a

30.0(±1.29)b

0.84(±0.02)a

11.7(±2.31)a

15-30

45.7(±1.77)b

27.0(±1.60)a

27.3(±1.49)a

1.40(±0.03)b

15.0(±2.92)b

Overall

44.25(±1.94)A

27.1(±1.55)B

28.65(±1.39)B

1.12(±0.03)A

13.4(±2.62)A

EBCSTS

0-15

61.5(±2.36)a

22.3(±1.45)b

16.2(±1.17)c

0.79(±0.02)b

18.4(±3.23)a

15-30

50.5(±3.18)c

22.7(±1.16)b

26.8(±2.71)a

1.10(±0.02)a

21.1(±3.32)b

Overall

56.0(±2.77)B

22.5(±1.31)A

21.5(±1.94)A

0.95(±0.02)B

19.75(±3.28)B

Table 3: Soil textural fractions (%), bulk density (BD cm-3) and Soil Moisture Content (SMC %) in relation to land use types and soil depth (cm) (Mean±SE).

The overall means followed by the same letter (s) across columns and rows are not significantly different (P<0.05) with respect to land uses types and soil depths.
CBCVTS: Cereal Based Conventional Tillage System; EBCSTS: Enset Based Conservation Tillage System

Soil bulk density has shown significant variation with land use type (p =0.016, Table 2) and soil depth (p = 0.002, Table 2). The combined effect of land use types and soil depth has also shown a significant interaction effect on soil bulk density (p < 0.001, Table 2). Bulk density was lower in soil under the EBCSTS than in CBCVTS (Table 3). This was due to continuous addition of soil organic residues on the surface soil layer [2,6,35,36]. In CBCVTS, the continuous tillage operation and thereby lowering of soil organic carbon (SOC) might have contributed for increased soil bulk density [6,13,29,31,37-40]. With respect to soil depth, the weight of overlying soil and the availability of less soil aggregates have increased the soil bulk density on both land use types [13,29,41,42].

Gravimetric SMC (%) also showed significant variations with land use types (p<0.001, Table 2) and soil depth (p<0.001, Table 2). A higher SMC (%) was observed under EBCSTS than CBCVTS land use types. This was due to the presence of higher SOC (%) and hence formation of stable soil aggregate in EBCSTS [4,6,29,36,43]. Concurrently, higher SMC (%) was observed at 15-30 cm across land use types (Table 3). Moreover, since there are perennial and annual crops in the EBCSTS land use type, litter fall and some residues always protect the soil from direct sun light and hence this reduces moisture evaporation from the soil [40,34,2,44].

Soil chemical properties

Soil reaction (pH, H2O) and cation exchange capacity (CEC meq/100g soil): Soil pH value showed highly significant (p< 0.001, Table 2) variation among land use types. Considering land use types, relatively higher soil pH values were recorded under EBCSTS. The higher soil pH values were probably due to the presence of higher values of exchangeable bases in EBCSTS land use types. Exchangeable bases like Ca2+ and Mg2+ could accumulate due to household refuses, wood or biomass ash and animal manures usage. Moreover, by-products from enset processing might also be a contributing factor for the higher soil pH values as it burned inside EBCSTS farms. Enset is the common type of food item in the study area and has some by-products after its preparation in the farm. For the purpose of clearing their farm, farmers sometimes set fire and burn this by-product and create some sort of ash. Misra et al. [45] reported that household refuses and wood ash provides considerable amount of Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+ and enhances the pH values of the soil. The lowest value of pH under the CBCVTS (12.5% reduced, Table 4) might be due to depletion of basic cations either by plant root extraction [46] or leaching [47] coupled with crop biomass removal by farmers. Moreover the presence of run-off erosion, long term effect of chemical fertilizer application and the higher microbial oxidation in CBCVTS could also contributed to the lower values of soil pH. This in turn partly enhances the amount of Al3+ and H+ in soil solutions [46-48]. Generally, the pH values observed in the study area are within the ranges of acidic (5.34 and 6.1 for CBCVTS and for EBCSTS, respectively) as indicated by Tekalign [49]. This result agrees with the studies of Alemayehu and Sheleme [14] who reported that highest pH values under enset land than cereal land uses in Central and Southern Ethiopia, respectively. Similar results were also reported by Amusan et al. [50] from Nigeria that, a significant lower soil pH was recorded from frequently tilled cropping land as compared to other land use types. Though differences were not significant (p<0.05, Table 2), soil pH showed tendency of increasing with soil depth (Table 4).

Land Use Types

Soil Depth (cm)

Soil pH (1:2.5)

CEC (meq/100g of Soil)

TN (%)

SOC (%)

CBCVTS

0-15

5.24(±0.15)b

39.1(±1.23)b

0.55(±0.02)b

1.46(±0.33)c

15-30

5.34(±0.15)b

35.7(±2.69)a

0.35(±0.02)a

1.04(±0.25)d

Overall

5.29(±0.15)A

37.4(±1.96)A

0.45(±0.02)A

1.25(±0.02)A

EBCSTS

0-15

6.03(±0.22)a

41.3(±1.17)a

0.94(±0.03)b

2.88(±0.30)a

15-30

6.16(±0.24)a

40.4(±1.1.02)b

0.40(±0.01)a

1.62(±0.53)b

Overall

6.1(±0.23)B

40.9(±1.10)B

0.67(±0.02)B

2.25(±0.33)B

Table 4: Soil pH (1:2.5), CEC (meq/100g of soil), TN (%) and SOC (%) in relation to land use types and soil depth (cm) of the study area (Mean±SE).

The overall means followed by the same letter(s) across columns and rows are not significantly different (P<0.05) with respect to land uses and soil depths. ACLU: Annual Crop Land Use; AGFLU: Agroforestry Land Use

Cation exchange capacity has shown a significant variation along land use types (p < 0.001) and soil depth (p = 0.001, Table 2). Considering land use types, relatively higher (15.31%) CEC values (Table 4) were recorded on EBCSTS than CBCVTS land use type. This was probably due to the presence of higher soil organic carbon within EBCSTS. In addition, clay fraction also contributes for the presence of higher CEC in EBCSTS. Clay is a negatively charged particles that commonly absorb and hold positively charged ions and provides protection against depletion of nutrients through its colloidal aggregates [1,14,48]. On the other hand, the presence of higher clay content in CBCVTS would not guarantee higher CEC [51]. Boke [52] showed long-term continuous tillage practices could also contribute for the lower values of CEC in CBCVTS. These results were in agreement with pervious findings of Negassa, Boke [51,52].

CEC (meq/100g soil) tended to decrease along soil depth on both land use types. The highest CEC was recorded at 0-15 cm soil depth on both land use types. On CBCVTS, CEC at 0-15 cm was 9.5% higher than CEC at 15-30 cm soil depth. Similarly on EBCSTS, CEC at 0-15 cm was 2.23% higher than 15-30 cm soil depth. The main reason for higher CEC at 0-15 cm soil depth was the addition of some organic matter inputs like dead plant roots, litter fall and remains of crops after harvesting [2]. Since clay textural fractions were higher on CBCVTS land use types, sealing of soil pores and compaction is highly expected and thus, nutrients responsible for the higher CEC are unable to move down to 15-30 cm soil depth. Concerning the degree of variability between soil depths, higher variability was recorded on CBCVTS (9.5%). Only 2.23% variability was recorded on EBCSTS land use types. The minimum variability of CEC on EBCSTS was partly attributed due to conservation tillage practices which allows minimum soil disturbance. This is in agreement with the results of Habarurema and Steimer [53].

Soil organic carbon (SOC %) and total nitrogen (TN, %): SOC significantly varied with land use types (p < 0.001) and soil depth (p < 0.001, Table 2). SOC was higher in soil under EBCSTS (80 %) than in CBCVTS (Table 4, Figure 5). The higher SOC was due to the presence of lower organic carbon turnover rate as a result of minimum soil disturbance, less water erosion occurrence and accumulation of higher amounts of organic matter on the top soil surface [54-56]. The lowest SOC in CBCVTS could be due to low organic matter inputs coupled with reduced physical protection (due to high soil disturbance) by the soil. This result is in agreement with the findings of Tilahun & Assefa. The practice of removing crop residues from CBCVTS land use types for either animal feed or fuel wood reduced SOC. Variation in SOC content with soil depth was observed under both land use types. Based on the overall mean, SOC decreased with soil depth on both land use types (Table 4, Figure 5). Many researchers He et al., Grigorich et al., Abera et al. [40,57,58] reported reduction of SOC with soil depth. The variation observed was very wide on CBCVTS land use types under both soil depths (0-15 and 15-30 cm). The upper 0-15 cm depth of CBCVTS was 49.31% lower in SOC than EBCSTS of similar depth. Similarly, the lower soil depth (15-30 cm) under CBCVTS has shown a 58% reduction in SOC (%) as compared to EBCSTS land use types.

Figure 5: Soil Organic Carbon (SOC %) trend along soil depth and land use types.

Similar to SOC, there was a significant variation in total nitrogen (TN %) among land use type (p<0.001) and soil depths (p<0.001, Tables 2). Higher (48.9%) TN (%) was recorded on EBCSTS land use types (Table 4, Figure 6). The higher TN (%) was attributed partly to higher addition on organic matter in the form of litter from the agroforestry system. Moreover, house waste disposal as well as manure has also contributed for the highest value of TN. There was also significant positive correlation (r=0.92**) and (r=0.60*) between organic carbon and total nitrogen at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm depth (Figure 6), respectively. This shows that the contribution of OC to total N is high [59-61]. This research strongly agreed with the findings of Boke [52] who obtained relatively higher content of total nitrogen from EBCSTS land use types.

Figure 6: Soil total nitrogen (TN %) trend along soil depth and land use types.

Considering soil depth, higher amount of TN was recorded on the top surface of both land use types (0-15 cm Table 4, Figure 6). Higher TN (70.91%) was observed on EBCSTS at 0-15 cm than 0-15 cm of CBCVTS land use types. Similarly, at 15-30 cm soil depth, 14.29% higher TN was recorded on EBCSTS than CBCVTS land use types (Table 4, Figure 6). This result agrees with studies by Yifru &Taye, Lalisa et al., Yimer & Abdelkadir [58,60,61] who found a decreasing trend of TN content with increasing soil depths in Central Highlands of Ethiopia. The higher TN at the soil surface (0-15 cm) directly related with the SOC addition on the soil surface.

Conclusion

Soil management through adoption of either enset based conservation tillage (EBCSTS) or cereal based conventional tillage system (CBCVTS) was the principal anthropogenic factor that causes variations in soil qualities. Understanding the effect of these land use types on soil property changes is quite important for the prediction of soil behavior and its response to different management options. On the bases of land use types, there were markedly differences in soil quality between EBCSTS and CBCVTS. The possible explanation for the difference includes the effect of tillage or the combined effect of tillage and crop on the soil properties. The result of this study implies that EBCST land use type has potential to improve soil quality. The observed improvements were most likely due to addition of organic matter from enset crop and presence of less soil disturbance in the agroforestry system. Therefore, EBCSTS is a good management option for rehabilitation and improvement of soil qualities as compared to CBCVTS in the study area. Finally, further research work should be conducted through comparing the soil data generated from agroforestry based conservation tillage and cereal based conventional tillage with that of natural system and making the crops subjected to both tillage types.

References

  1. Moges A, Dagnachew M, Yimer F (2013) Land use effects on soil quality indicators: A Case Study of Abo-Wonsho Southern Ethiopia. Applied and Environmental Soil Science 2013: 9.
  2. Ketema H, Yimer F (2014) Soil property variation under agroforestry based conservation tillage and maize based conventional tillage in Southern Ethiopia. Soil Till Res 141: 25-31.
  3. Tesfahunegn GB, Tamene L, Vlek PLG (2011) Catchment-scale spatial variability of soil properties and implications on site specific soil management in northern Ethiopia. Soil & Tillage Research 117: 124-139.
  4. Oguike PC, Mbagwu SC (2009) Variations in some physical properties and organic matter content of soils of coastal plain sand under different land use types. World J Agric Sci 5(1): 63-69.
  5. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on Global climate change and food security. Soil Sci 304(5677): 1623-1627.
  6. Marcela Q (2009) The effects of conservation tillage in soil carbon sequestration and net revenues of potato-based rotations in the Colombian Andes. University of Florida, USA, pp. 1-103.
  7. Iqbal J, Thomasson JA, Jenkins JN, Owens PR, Whisler FD (2005) Spatial variability analysis of soil physical properties of alluvial soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69(4): 1338-1350.
  8. Zhang S, Zhang X, Huffman T, Liu X, Yang J (2011) Influence of topography and land management on soil nutrient variability in Northeast China. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 89(3): 427-438.
  9. Wairiu M, Lal R (2003) Soil organic carbon in relation to cultivation and topsoil removal on sloping lands of kolombangara. Soil and Tillage Research 70(1): 19-27.
  10. Yimer F, Abdelkadir A (2010) Soil property changes following conversion of acacia Woodland into grazing and farmlands in the rift valley Area of Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development 22(4): 425-431.
  11. Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 103(1): 1-25.
  12. Yimer F, Ledin S, Abdelkadir A (2007) Changes in soil organic carbon and total nitrogen contents in three adjacent land use types in the Bale Mountains, Southeastern highlands of Ethiopia. Forest Ecol Manage 242(2-3): 337-342.
  13. Lemenih M (2004) Effects of land use changes on soil quality and native flora degradation and restoration in the highlands of Ethiopia. Implication for sustainable land management. Ph.D. Thesis presented to Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 1-64.
  14. Alemayehu K, Sheleme B (2013) Effects of different land use systems on selected soil properties in South Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Environ Manage 4(5): 100-107.
  15. Lal R (2007) Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rational for no-till farming. Soil & Tillage Res 93(1): 1-12.
  16. Yao MK, Angui PKT, Souleymane K, Yao T, Tondoh JE, et al. (2010) Effects of land use types on soil organic carbon and Nitrogen dynamics in Mid-west Coted IVoire. European Journal of scientific Research 40(2): 211-222.
  17. Kippie TK (2002) Five Thousand Years of Sustainability. A case study on Gedeo Land Use (Southern Ethiopia). Treemail Publishers, (Ph.D thesis) Heelsum, The Netherland, pp. 295.
  18. Wendmeneh D (2011) Characterization and classification of soils of upper Sala watershed in Dilla Zuriya district, Gedeo zone, Southern Ethiopia. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis: Haramaya University, Department of Natural Resource Management and Environmental Science, Ethiopia.
  19. Tarekegn F (2008) The contribution of highland Bamboo (Yushania alpina) to rural livelihood and status of its domestication at Bule District, Gedeo Zone, SNNPR, M.SC. Thesis (unpublished) submitted to Wondo Genet College of Forestry, Hawasa University, Ethiopia.
  20. Gebregziabher S, Mouazen AM, Hendrik VB, Ramon H, Nyssen J, et al. (2006) Animal drawn tillage, the Ethiopian ard plough, Maresha: a review. Soil Till Res 89(2): 129-143.
  21. Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1993) Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility. A Handbook of Methods, (2nd edn), Wallingford, Oxfordshire, CAB International, UK, pp. 221.
  22. USDA (1972) Soil Survey laboratory methods and procedures for collecting soil samples. Soil survey investigating report no.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA.
  23. Hillel D (2004) Introduction to soil environmental physics. University of Massachusetts, Elesivier acadamic press, New York, USA.
  24. Cuenca HR (1989) Irrigation system design- An engeneering approach. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersy, USA.
  25. Schnitzer M (1982) Total carbon, organic matter and carbon. In: Page AL, et al. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, (2nd edn), No. 9, American Society of Agronomy, pp. 539-577.
  26. Van Reeuwijk LP (1992) Procedures for soil analysis. (6th edn), International soil reference center (ISRIC), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  27. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen-Total. In: Page AL, et al. (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbial Properties (2nd edn), Agronomy No. 9. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 595-624.
  28. Jaiyeoba IA (2001) Soil rehabilitation through afforestation: Evaluation of the performance of eucalyptus and pine plantations in a Nigerian savanna environment. Land degradation and development 12(2): 183-194.
  29. Mosaddeghi MR, Hajabbasi MA, Hemmat A, Afyuni M (2000) Soil compactibility as affected by soil moisture content and farmyard manure in central Iran. Soil Till Res 55(1-2): 87-97.
  30. Brye KR (2003) Long-term effects of cultivation on particle size and water-retention characteristics determined using wetting curves. Soil Sci 168(7): 459-468.
  31. Igue AM (2004) Impact of land use effects on chemical and physical soil characteristics in the Colline department of Benin (West Africa). In: Proceedings on the International Conference on Land degradation (ICLD4) at Madrid, Spain, pp. 1-10.
  32. Gami SK, Duxbury JM, Lauren JG (2006) Influence of Soil Texture and Management Practices on Soil Organic Carbon Stocks. Cornell University, Crop and Soil Sciences Dept, Ithaca, New York 14853, pp. 138-172.
  33. Yimer F, Messing I, Ledin S, Abdelkadir A (2008) Effects of different land use types on infiltration capacity in a catchment in the highlands of Ethiopia. Soil Use Manage 24(4): 344-349.
  34. Rajeswari APM, Seca G, Osumanu HA, Nik M (2009) Effect of different ages of a rehabilitated forest on selected physico-chemical properties. Am J Appl Sci 6(6): 1043-1046.
  35. Murphy CA, Foster BL, Ramspott ME, Price KP (2006) Effects of cultivation history and current grassland management on soil quality in northeastern Kansas. J Soil Water Conserv Soc 61(2): 75-84.
  36. Oicha T, Cornelis WM, Verplancke H, Nyssen J, Deckers J, et al. (2010) Short-term effects of conservation agriculture on Vertisols under teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)) in the northern Ethiopian highlands. Soil Till Res 106(2): 294-302.
  37. Igwe CA (2005) Soil physical properties under different management systems and organic matter effects on soil moisture along soil catena in southeastern Nigeria. Trop Subtrop Agro-ecosyst 5: 57-66.
  38. Oorts K (2006) Effect of Tillage Systems on Soil Organic Matter Stocks, C and N Fluxes on a Silt Loam Soil in Northern France. (Ph.D. thesis) Katholieke University of Leuven, France, Paris, pp. 198.
  39. Strudley MW, Green TR, Ascough IIJC (2008) Tillage effects on soil hydraulic properties in space and time. Soil Till Res 99(1): 4-48.
  40. He J, Kuhn NJ, Zhang XM, Zhang XR, Li HW (2009) Effects of 10 years of conservation tillage on soil properties and productivity in the farming- pastoral ecotone of Inner Mongolia, China. Soil use & management 25(2): 201-209.
  41. Arvidsson J, Rydberg T, Feiza V (2000) Early sowing-a system for reduced seedbed preparation in Sweden. Soil Till Res 53(2): 145-155.
  42. Temesgen ML (2007) Conservation Tillage Systems and Water Productivity Implications for Smallholder Farmers in Semi-arid Ethiopia. (Ph.D. thesis) Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, pp. 132.
  43. Romaneckas K, Romaneckien R, Sarauskis E, Pilipaviius V, Sakalauskas A (2009) The effect of conservation primary and zero tillage on soil bulk density, water content, sugar beet growth and weed infestation. Agron Res 7(1): 73-86.
  44. Tripathi OP, Pandey HN, Tripathi RS (2009) Litter production, decomposition and physico-chemical properties of soil in 3 developed agroforestry systems of Meghalaya, Northeast India. Afr J Plant Sci 3(8): 160-167.
  45. Misra KM, Ragland WK, Baker JA (1993) Wood ash composition as a function of furnace temperature. Bio-mass and Bio-energy 4(2): 103-116.
  46. Haile G, Lemenhi M, Itanna F, Senbeta F (2014) Impacts of Land Uses Changes on Soil Fertility, Carbon and Nitrogen Stock under Smallholder Farmers in Central Highlands of Ethiopia: Implication for Sustainable Agricultural Landscape Management Around Butajira Area. New York Science Journal 7(2).
  47. Emiru N (2006) Land use changes and their effects on soil physical and chemical properties in Senbat sub- watershed, Western Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis submitted to School of Graduate studies, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
  48. Tilahun G (2007) Soil fertility status as influenced by different land uses in Maybar areas of Southern Wello Zone, Northern Ethiopia. M.SC. Thesis submitted to the faculty of Plant Science, Haramaya university, Ethiopia.
  49. Tadese T, Haque I, Aduayi EA (1991) Soil, Plant, Water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis. ILCA
  50. Amusan AA, Shitu AK, Makinde WO, Orewole O (2006) Assessment Of Changes In Selected Soil Properties Under Different Land Use In Obafemi Awolowo University Community, Ile- Ife, Nigeria. Electron J Environ Agric Food Chem 5(1): 1178-1184.
  51. Negassa W (2001) Assessment of Important Physicochemical Properties of Nitosols under Different Management Systems in Bako Area, Western Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University, Alemaya, pp. 109.
  52. Boke S (2004) Soil phosphorus fractions as influenced by different cropping systems in Andosols and Nitosols in Kembata-Tembaro and Wolayta Zones, SNNPRS. MSc Thesis. Alemaya University, Ethiopia, pp. 131.
  53. Habarurema E, Steimer GK (1997) Soil suitability classification by farmers in southern Rwanda. Geoderma 75(1-2): 75-87.
  54. Post WM, Kwon KC (2000) Soil carbon sequestration and land use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biol 6: 317-328.
  55. Burayu W, Sombat C, Rungsit S, Thongchai M, Sunanta J (2006) Conser- vation tillage and crop rotation: win-win option for sustainable maize production in the Dryland, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Kamphaengsaen Acad J 4(1): 48-60
  56. Sithambaranathan P (2009) Cause and Effects of Soil Structure Decline and Its Implication to Agricultural Practices. Bukisa, Culture and Society.
  57. Gregorich EG, Ellert BH, Monreal CM (1995) Trends in wheat yields and soil organic carbon in the permanent rotation trial at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Soth Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 35(7): 857-864.
  58. Yifru A, Taye B (2011) Effects of land use on soil organic carbon and nitrogen in soils of bale, southeastern Ethiopia. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 14(1): 229-235.
  59. Urioste AM, Hevia a GG, Hepper EN, Anton LE, Bono AA, et al. (2006) Cultivation effects on the distribution of organic carbon, total nitrogen and phosphorus in soils of the semiarid region of Argentinian Pampas. Geoderma 136(3-4): 621-630.
  60. Lalisa A, Herbert H, Monika S (2010) Effects of Land Use Types on Soil Chemical Properties in Smallholder Farmers of Central Highland Ethiopia. Ekológia (Bratislava) 29(1): 1-14.
  61. Yimer F, Abdelkadir A (2011) Soil property changes following conversion of Acacia Woodland into Grazing and Farmlands in the Rift Valley Area of Ethiopia. Land Degrad Develop 22(4): 425-431.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy