IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pkp/criasc/v4y2017i4p96-102id104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Physical and Chemical Properties of Three Contrasting Soils Under Different Land Use Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Denton O.A
  • Alemeru M. S
  • Fademi I.O
  • Uthman A. C. O
  • Oyedele A. O

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate the physical and chemical properties of three contrasting soils under four land use systems. The soil types considered were Vertic Cambisol, Haplic Lixisol and Ferric Luvisol while the land use types studied are cocoa plantation (CP), grazing land (GL), fallow land (FL) and cultivated land (CL). Soil samples were collected at 0-15cm and 15-30cm depths respectively from each of the locations. The soil samples were air dried and passed through a 2mm sieve and taken to the laboratory for analysis. The result of the study showed a higher sand content being recorded in Haplic Lixisol (CL) and Ferric Luvisol 2 (FL) followed by that of Vertic Cambisol (CP) and Ferric Luvisol 1 (GL) in the upper 0 to15 cm depth and lower 15-30 cm. The soil pH within the soil types and depths could be categorized as slightly acidic to moderately alkaline. The organic carbon content of the soils was generally low; it varied from 0.18% to 1.29 % for 0 to 15 cm depth with Vertic Cambisol (CP) having the highest value. The mean available P content was not significantly (P≤0.05) different among the soil and land use types. The total nitrogen recorded was generally low 1.006 - 1.304% at 0-15cm while at the lower depth it ranged between 0.566 – 0.768%. The exchangeable bases also decreased following cultivation. The result of the study shows that continuous cultivation without adequate management practices causes a decline in the physical and chemical properties of the soil.

Suggested Citation

  • Denton O.A & Alemeru M. S & Fademi I.O & Uthman A. C. O & Oyedele A. O, 2017. "Assessment of the Physical and Chemical Properties of Three Contrasting Soils Under Different Land Use Systems," Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, Conscientia Beam, vol. 4(4), pages 96-102.
  • Handle: RePEc:pkp:criasc:v:4:y:2017:i:4:p:96-102:id:104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/68/article/view/104/132
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/68/article/view/104/2520
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pkp:criasc:v:4:y:2017:i:4:p:96-102:id:104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dim Michael (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/68/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.