IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iwt/conppr/h042517.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lessons from upstream soil conservation measures to mitigate soil erosion and its impact on upstream and downstream users of the Nile River

Author

Listed:
  • Gebreselassie, Y.
  • Amdemariam, T.
  • Haile, M.
  • Yamoah, C.

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of soil bunds stabilized with vetiver grass (V. zizanioides) and tree lucerne (C. palmensis) on selected soil physical and chemical properties, bund height, inter-terrace slope and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) yield in Absela site, Banja Shikudad District, Awi administrative Zone of the Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) located in the Blue Nile Basin. The experiment had five treatments that included non-conserved land (control), a 9-year old soil bund stabilized with tree lucerne, a 9-year old soil bund stabilized with vetiver grass, a 9-year old sole soil bund, and a 6-year old soil bund stabilized with tree lucerne. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and mean values for the treatments were separated using the Duncan Multiple Range Test. Results of the experiment indicated that organic carbon (OC), total nitrogen (N), bulk density, infiltration rate, bund height, and inter-terrace slope are significantly (p?0.05) affected by soil conservation measures. The non-conserved fields had significantly lower OC, total N, and infiltration rate; whereas higher bulk density as compared to the conserved fields with different conservation measures. However, no significant differences in bulk density were observed among the conservation methods. The field treated with 9-year old soil bund stabilized with tree lucerne or sole soil bund had significantly higher OC content than all other treatments. Fields having 6-year old soil bunds had lower OC and total N when compared to fields having 9-year old soil bunds irrespective of their method of stabilization. Fields with soil bunds stabilized with vetiver grass had the highest bund height and the lowest inter-terrace slope than fields with the remaining conservation measures. Barley grain and straw yields were significantly (P<0.05) greater in both the soil accumulation and loss zones of the conserved fields than the non-conserved (control) ones. In the accumulation zone, fields with the 9-year old soil bund stabilized with tree lucerne and those with the 9-year old sole soil bund gave higher grain yields (1878.5 kg ha-1 and 1712.5 kg ha-1, respectively) than fields having 9-year old soil bund stabilized with vetiver grass (1187 kg ha-1) and 6-year old soil bund stabilized with tree lucerne (1284.25 kg ha-1). When we compare the accumulation and the loss zones, the average grain yield obtained from the accumulation zones (averaged over all the Lessons from Upstream Soil Conservation Measures to Mitigate Soil Erosion and its Impact on Upstream and Downstream Users of the Nile River.Length: pp.170-183

Suggested Citation

  • Gebreselassie, Y. & Amdemariam, T. & Haile, M. & Yamoah, C., 2009. "Lessons from upstream soil conservation measures to mitigate soil erosion and its impact on upstream and downstream users of the Nile River," Conference Papers h042517, International Water Management Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:iwt:conppr:h042517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H042517.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mulat Guadie & Eyayu Molla & Mulatie Mekonnen & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Effects of Soil Bund and Stone-Faced Soil Bund on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield Under Rain-Fed Conditions of Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Erosion;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iwt:conppr:h042517. 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: Chandima Gunadasa (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwmiclk.html .

    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.