IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v15y2025i16p1762-d1726125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Assessment of Fractional and Erosion Plot Methods for Quantifying Soil Erosion and Nutrient Loss Under Vetiver Grass Technology on Two Contrasting Slopes in Rainforest Agroecology

Author

Listed:
  • Suarau O. Oshunsanya

    (Agricultural Clean Watershed Research Group, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Haidian District, Beijing 100081, China
    Department of Soil Resources Management, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200284, Nigeria)

  • Hanqing Yu

    (Agricultural Clean Watershed Research Group, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Haidian District, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Ayodeji M. Odebode

    (Department of Soil Resources Management, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200284, Nigeria)

  • Ini D. Edem

    (Department of Soil Science and Land Management, University of Uyo, Uyo 520003, Nigeria)

  • Tunde S. Oluwatuyi

    (Department of Soil Resources Management, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200284, Nigeria)

  • Esther E. Imasuen

    (Department of Soil Science and Land Management, University of Benin, Benin 300283, Nigeria)

  • Dorcas E. Odeyinka

    (Department of Soil Resources Management, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200284, Nigeria)

Abstract

The erosion plot method (EPM) is the most accurate method for measuring total runoff and soil loss in the field, but it is expensive, time-consuming, and tedious to use, thereby limiting the scope of soil erosion research. Alternatively, the fractional method (FM) involves measuring a portion of total runoff and soil loss to estimate the total erosion. Although the FM may be easier to use in rainforest agroecology, it has not been evaluated under vetiver grass technology (VGT). Thus, a 2-year field study was conducted to verify the efficacy of the FM under VGT by comparing soil nutrient erosion between the FM and the EPM on two slopes (5% and 10%). Three piped drums (left, central, and right) were used to collect total runoff under the EPM, while only a central piped drum was used under the FM (usual practice). The FM’s runoff and soil loss values were similar to those under the EPM (R 2 = 0.98–0.99; p < 0.001). Runoff nutrients (R 2 = 0.90; p < 0.001) and eroded nutrients (R 2 = 0.97; p < 0.001) from the FM were highly similar to those of the EPM on the 5% slope. Similarly, runoff nutrients (R 2 = 0.86; p < 0.001) and eroded nutrients (R 2 = 0.95; p < 0.001) from the FM were strongly similar to those of the EPM on a 10% slope. The FM accounted for 92% of the total nutrient erosion measured by the EPM under VGT management. Thus, the FM will make research more efficient, cost-effective, and attractive, particularly in large-scale water erosion studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Suarau O. Oshunsanya & Hanqing Yu & Ayodeji M. Odebode & Ini D. Edem & Tunde S. Oluwatuyi & Esther E. Imasuen & Dorcas E. Odeyinka, 2025. "Comparative Assessment of Fractional and Erosion Plot Methods for Quantifying Soil Erosion and Nutrient Loss Under Vetiver Grass Technology on Two Contrasting Slopes in Rainforest Agroecology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-17, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:16:p:1762-:d:1726125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/16/1762/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/16/1762/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:16:p:1762-:d:1726125. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.