MODEL BASED PREDICTION OF SOIL LOSSES UNDER DIFFERENT LAND USES OF THE COASTAL PALIN SAND SOILS OF AKWA IBOM STATE, NIGERIA.

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00010036

No of Pages: 170

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $

                                                ABSTRACT

Two models, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Soil Loss Estimation Model of the Southern Africa Model (SLEMSA), were adopted to assess soil losses and identify the most effective land use for mitigating erosion. The land use systems considered were forest (FF), cassava plot (CP), grassland fallowed (GF), and oil palm plantation (OP).The experimental design was a Balanced Replicated Fixed Design (BRFD) under a two-factor factorial experiment where land use and soil depth were the factors involved. Four spots within a land use were randomly selected for sample collection. Within a spot, disturbed (auger) and undisturbed samples were randomly collected from four different points at two depths (0-15 and 15-30 cm) and replicated in four different locations for a good spread across the state.  A total of 256 sampling units were collected and taken to the laboratory. Standard procedures were followed for sample analysis, including rainfall, topography, erosion control measures, and vegetation data generation. Data obtained were inputted into the USLE and SLEMSA models for soil loss determination with analysis of variance for the BRFD used for data analysis. Least significant difference at a 5% probability level detected mean differences, while correlations, regressions, and Python programming established relationships between soil properties and soil loss. A T-test compared the two models, and principal component analysis (PCA) identified key soil properties influencing land use-specific soil loss. Soil under GF had the highest sand content (830.894 g/kg) but the lowest silt (66.792 g/kg) and clay (103.542 g/kg) contents whereas FF soil had the lowest sand content (743.683 g/kg) but the highest silt (86.075 g/kg) and clay (173.398 g/kg) contents. Textural classes of the area varied ranging from loamy sand to sandy loam. Soil organic matter (SOM) content in the area was generally high with the soil of the FF land use containing the highest. Consequently, other properties such as soil bulk density, total porosity, moisture characteristics and aggregate stability also varied. The USLE prediction ranged from 0.610 to 14.943 t/ha/yr while SLEMSA prediction was from 3.031 to 23.928 t/ha/yr. The two models indicated FF as the most effective in soil loss mitigation while PP was the least, with rankings as FF > GF > CP > OP. Soils higher in colloidal materials and with good vegetation cover had better stability and thus resulted to lower soil loss as seen in FF.  The USLE model predicted lower soil loss with higher precision and consistency than SLEMSA and thus more suited for the CPS soils of Akwa Ibom State. PCA indicated that sand, silt, coarse sand, SOM, available water content, field capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, pH, bulk density, and total porosity were the important components influencing soil losses. The study showed that FF and GF soils were the most effective in erosion control of the CPS soil, indicating the impact of land use on soil loss. Land use practices such as afforestation, plantation cropping and fallowing are recommended for enhancing soil stability and regeneration of CP, GF and OP soils.





TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                                                    ii

Declaration                                                                                                                 iii

Dedication                                                                                                                  iv

Certification                                                                                                                v

Acknowledgement                                                                                                      vi

Table of contents                                                                                                       viii

List of Tables                                                                                                              xii

List of Figures                                                                                                             xv

Abstract                                                                                                                     xvi

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION                                                                                1

 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                   7

2.1 Soils of Akwa Ibom State                                                                                      7

2.1.1. Common land use practices in Akwa Ibom State                                            7

2.2 Soil Erosion and Erodibility                                                                                 9

2.2.1. Mechanism of soil loss                                                                                     10

2.2.2. Soil erosion by water                                                                                        11

            a. Sheet erosion:                                                                                             12

            b. Rill erosion                                                                                                 12

            c. Gully erosion                                                                                              12

2.2.3. Soil erosion by wind                                                                                         13

            a. Suspension                                                                                                  13

            b. Saltation                                                                                                      13

            c. Surface creep                                                                                              14

2.2.4. Factors controlling the rate of soil erosion                                                       14

            a. Climate erosivity                                                                                         15

            b. Soil erodibility                                                                                            16

            c, Topography                                                             ­                                    17

            d. Conservation measures and cover practice                                                18

2.3. Parent Materials and Soil Loss                                                                            18

2.4. Erodibility and Selected Soil Properties                                                              21

2.4.1. Soil texture                                                                                                       21

2.4.2. Soil structure                                                                                                    23

2.4.3. Aggregate stability                                                                                           25

2.4.4 Soil bulk density and porosity                                                                           26

2.4.5. Soil biodiversity                                                                                               27

2.4.6. Soil moisture characteristics                                                                             28

2.4.6.1 Moisture constants                                                                                          29

            a. Saturation                                                                                                    30

            b. Field capacity                                                                                             30

            c. Permanent wilting point                                                                              30

            d. Available water content                                                                              30

2.4.6.2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)                                                         32

2.4.6.3 Permeability and infiltration rate                                                                    33

2.4.7 Organic matter content                                                                                      35

2.4.8 Soil pH                                                                                                               37

2.4.9 Exchange properties                                                                                          38

2.5. Soil Degradation by Water                                                                                  40

2.6. Erosion Prediction Models                                                                                  41

2.6.1. Universal soil loss equation (USLE)                                                                43

2.6.2 The revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE)                                         45

2.6.3. Water erosion prediction project (WEPP)                                                        46

2.6.4. The soil loss estimation model for Southern Africa   (SLEMSA) ­             47

2.7. Soil Loss Assessment in Different Land Use Types                                           48

 

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS                                                        52

3.1. Location and Biophysical Environment                                                              52

3.2 Soil Sampling and Preparations                                                                           54

3.3 Soil Analyses                                                                                                        56

3.3.1 Physical properties                                                                                            56

3.3.2 Chemical properties                                                                                           58

3.4. Selection of Models and Soil Erodibility Determination                                                59

3.4.1. The universal soil loss equation (USLE)                                                                                              59

3.4.2. The soil loss estimation model for Southern Africa (SLEMSA)                                                               61

3.5 Analysis of Data                                                                                                   63

 

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                                         64

 

4.1. Particle Size Distribution                                                                                    64

4.2 Moisture Retention Characteristics                                                                      71

4.3 Bulk Density, Total Porosity and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity                75

4.4. Aggregate Stability of the Soils                                                                           83

4.5. Organic Matter (SOM) and pH of the Soils                                                       87

4.6. Erodibility Factor of the Soils Studied Based on USLE (Ku) and SLEMSA

(Ks) Models                                                                                                                91

4.7. Soil Loss Prediction Using USLE (A) and SLEMSA (Z) Models                    93

4.8. Influence of Some Soil Properties on Soil Loss as Estimated by USLE (A)

and SLEMSA (Z) Models.                                                                                    96

4.9. Python-Based Models Relating Estimated Soil Losses of the USLE and SLEMSA in the Different Land Use Systems with Selected Soil Properties                             108

4.10. Soil Properties Influencing Soil Loss as Estimated by USLE and SLEMSA: A Principal Component Analysis                                                                       114

4.11. Comparison of the Soil Loss Predictions of the USLE and SLEMSA Models                                                                                                                                  124

4.11.1. Comparison of soil loss estimated by USLE and SLEMSA in the

different land use systems studied                                                                            124

4.11.2. Qualitative comparison of soil loss predictions of USLE and

            SLEMSA models                                                                                          127

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS                              129

REFERENCES                                                                                                         132

APPENDICES                                                                                                          154


 

 

 

 

 

                                                LIST OF TABLES

Values for selected Cover Conditions and Cultural Practices for West                       Africa adapted for both Models.                                       60

Structural Class Indices of Soils                                                           60

 Permeability Class Indices of Soils                                                      61

Slope Classifications values                                                                 62

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth on Textural Properties of the Soils

Studied.                                                               65

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth Interactions on Textural Properties of the Soils                                                  68

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth on SC, FC, AWC and PWP of the Soils

Studied                 72

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth Interactions on SC, FC, AWC and PWP of the Soils Studied                                       72

Effect of Land Use and Soil Depth on BD, TP and Ksat of the Soils Studied.           76

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth Interactions on BD, TP and Ksat of the Soils          78

Correlation of Soil Properties across the Different Land Use Systems                   80

Effect of Land Use and Soil Depth on MWD, %CFI and %DR of the Soils Studied.                                                                                                                                   84

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth Interactions on MWD, %CFI and %DR of the Soils                                                                                                                                   84

Effect of Land Use and Soil Depth on OM and pH of the Soils Studied                                                                                                    88

Effects of Land Use and Soil Depth Interactions on OM and pH of the Soils    90

Comparison of Erodibility Factors and Soil Loss Estimates of the USLE and SLEMSA Models for the Different Land Use Types                                                                  92

Principal Component Analysis of Properties that Mostly Affect A and Z in FF Soil                                                                                                                           115

Principal Component Analysis of Properties that Mostly Affect A and Z in CP Soil    118

Principal Component Analysis of Properties that Mostly Affect A and Z in GF Soil   120

Principal Component Analysis of Properties that Mostly Affect A and Z in OP Soil   122

Comparison of Soil Loss Values Estimated Using the USLE and SLEMSA Models Based on the Different Land Use Types.                                                                        124

Comparison of Soil Loss Estimations of USLE (A) and SLEMSA (Z) Models of Soils Using T-test                                                                                                                                         126

Qualitative Comparison of Soil Loss Estimates of USLE and SLEMSA Models of the Different Land Use Types in the Study Area.                                                                            128

Estimation of Annual Soil Loss Limits of Southern Nigeria                                          128

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                LIST OF FIGURES

Map showing the Study Areas and Locations of the Land Use Types                     53

Regression of Soil Loss as Predicted by the USLE and SLEMSA Models on Sand Contents of the Soil.                                                                                                 97

Regression of Soil Loss as Predicted by the USLE and SLEMSA Models on Silt Contents of the Soil.                                                                                                   99

Regression of Soil Loss as Predicted by the USLE and SLEMSA Models on Clay Contents of the Soil                                                                                                 100

Regression of Soil Loss as Predicted by the USLE and SLEMSA Models on C/sand Contents of the Soil                                                                                                         102

Regression of Soil Loss as Predicted by the USLE and SLEMSA Models on F/sand Contents of the Soil                                                                                                         104

Regression of Soil Loss as Predicted by the USLE and SLEMSA Models on SOM Contents of the Soil                                                                                               107

 

 

 


 

                                         CHAPTER 1

                                                INTRODUCTION

 

Soil erosion, recognized as a prominent catalyst for land degradation, stands out as a critical global ecological concern in the contemporary era. It consistently ranks among the primary mechanisms responsible for the deterioration of land quality (Oldeman et al., 1991).This challenge plays an essential role in the productivity of agroecosystems and remains fundamental to ensuring food security (Amundson et al., 2015). Okorafor et al. (2017) reported a significant reduction in the availability of farmlands for agricultural production and construction activities due to soil losses caused by erosion.

A rough calculation on a global scale of the current rates of soil degradation due to water erosion suggested that only about 60 years of topsoil is left (WEF, 2012). This implies that the current rate of soil loss as occasioned by water erosion would have completely degraded arable soils and reduced agricultural production within the next 50 years.

The type, rate and severity of soil erosion/loss in an area depend on different factors including precipitation, topography, soil characteristics, vegetation/land cover changes, cropping systems and land management practices (Lal, 2001; Szilassi et al., 2006 Mohammad and Adam, 2010; Amana et al., 2012; Yang, 2014). Szilassi et al. (2006) opined land use as the most important factor influencing soil erosion.

Land use alterations cause changes in soil properties and thus productivity overtime (Braimoh and Vlek, 2004). Land use change from one type such as deforestation, forest degradation, increase in croplands, plantation establishment, etc., to another often has adverse effects on soil characteristics such as soil texture, SOM, aggregate stability, permeability, and soil biodiversity (Bewket and Stroosnijder, 2003; Szilassi et al., 2006; Martinez-Mena et al., 2008; Emadi et al., 2009; Rutgers et al., 2009; Kalu et al., 2015).

Over the past decades, there has been an observed increase in the rate of land conversion from one land use type to another (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011; Chen et al., 2014). Reports showed that between 1980 and 2000, more than 55% of new agricultural lands across the tropics were developed by clearing the natural forests (Gibbs et al., 2010), an indication of a higher rate of land use change. This level of change has the capability to alter soil biogeochemical properties which will result in increased soil erosion, and overall reduction in soil health (Gochin and Asgan, 2008; Zhou et al. 2008; Mohammad and Adam 2010; Hairiah et al. 2011). This may arise as a result of the inability of the ecologically sensitive components of, especially the tropical soil, to buffer the effect of intensive agricultural practices (Islam and Weil, 2000) within the repetitive time of usage.  Studies conducted in Nigeria on the effect of land use on the environment showed that over 70% of the 17 specific ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and storage, oxygen production, soil formation and fertility, water regulation and filtration, nutrient cycling, pollination, habitat provision for wildlife, erosion control and slope stabilization, etc., has been lost due to the conversion of natural land into agricultural use in the region (Ejaro and Abdullahi, 2013; Jibril and Liman, 2014; Chukwuocha, 2015). MEA (2005) identified unwise land use choices and inappropriate crop and/or soil management practices as the major drivers of increasing soil erosion.

Land features, as well as inherent soil properties such as topography, texture, structure, organic matter content, permeability, soil cations, and soil biology among others, are known to influence soil loss in various dimensions in an area. (Toy and Terrence. 2002; Anon, 2004; Zhang et al., 2004; Mahmoodabadi and Rafahi, 2007; Hairiah et al., 2011; Kusumandari, 2014; Kalu et al., 2015; Oguike and Udo, 2016). These properties are intricately linked to the composition and characteristics of the parent materials on which the soil is formed, forming the foundation for the soil's physical and chemical attributes (Irmak et al., 2007; Ahukaemere et al., 2016). Therefore, the parent material on which a soil is formed confers on the soil specific characteristics and thus its ability to resist or succumb to soil loss. This is why the texture and mineralogy of coastal plain sands (CPS) bear the imprints of quartz arenite which is not rich in most plant growth nutrients, dominantly sandy and coarse textured (Chikezie et al., 2009). Studies on the influence of parent material on the soils of the coastal plain sand and sandstones in the southeastern Nigeria abound (Anderson, 1988; Osher and Buol 1998; Cerda, 2002; Yesilonis et al., 2008).

About one sixth of the land area in the world has been reported to be affected by soil degradation with about 55.6% of the affected area damaged by water erosion (Hurni et al., 2008). In Sub-Saharan Africa, soil erosion accounts for about 77% of land degradation and threatens about 22% of the arable land (Unah, 2020). In Nigeria, over 22.8% of the total land mass surface is affected by erosion (Fubara, 2012). In the southern states, about 25,000 hectares of land are lost annually to erosion menace (Abraham et al., 2019). Thus, soil erosion is a prevailing global problem that urgently needs to be solved (Cai et al., 2007; Li et al., 2016) else the food production system, environmental security and social life is under an imminent threat.

The challenge of accelerated land degradation due to soil loss has been acknowledged to be more acute in tropical Africa than in non-tropical areas (Sanchez et al., 1982; Lal, 1994; Lal, 2001; deGraffenried and Shepherd, 2009). This could be attributed to the high erosivity of rains commonly experienced in the tropical region (Lal, 1985). High intensity rains are particularly damaging especially when the vegetation cover is poor (Marc and Richard 2009; Wang et al., 2016). Other factors such as improper agricultural practices, high erosion-risk soils, over population, lack of appropriate policies and over reliance on subsistence crop farming (Sanchez et al., 2003)  as well as  lack of capacity to control and restore degraded soils (Ringius et al., 1996), commonly seen in sub Saharan Africa, could also add up to the challenge.

While rainfall and/or wind are considered the driving factors of soil erosion, the factor that significantly hinders soil displacement by rain or wind is land cover or vegetation cover (Wijitkosum, 2012). Therefore, the reduction in vegetation cover can increase soil erosion. This relationship is the reason why vegetation cover and land use have been widely included in soil erosion studies (Zhou et al. 2008; Solaimani et al. 2009; Su et al. 2010).

One of the common methods of predicting soil loss in an area is by the use of scientific models (Merritt et al., 2003; Morgan and Nearing, 2011; Nearing, 2013). Such models include the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Water Erosion Prediction Project erosion model (WEPP), The Soil Loss Estimation Model for Southern Africa (SLEMSA), etc. These models take into account various data sources such as rainfall intensity, soil type, vegetation cover, topography, soil structural properties (Pandey et al., 2021), etc., to generate a more accurate estimates (Anejionu et al., 2013). Scientific models can also be used to simulate different scenarios, such as changes in land use or management practices, and predict the potential impact on soil loss (Pandey et al., 2021).  This can be useful for developing conservation strategies to reduce erosion and improve soil health (Auerswald et al., 2014).

Coastal-Plain-Sand (CPS) soil is an important component of the tropical ecosystem in Akwa Ibom State, serving as the bedrock for agriculture, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability. This area is located in a highly susceptible agro-ecological zone of Nigeria, where acute soil erosion is prevalent due to the region's heavy rainfall and the high erodibility of its soils, especially during the rainy seasons. These conditions pose a significant challenge to the stability and long-term productivity of the soils. Therefore, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive understanding and effective solutions to ensure consistent food security, enhance water resources, promote biodiversity, facilitate carbon sequestration, and promote sustainable environmental management (Mol and Keesstra, 2012; Keesstra et al., 2016; Novara et al., 2016).

Factors such as inherent soil characteristics of the CPS soil, land use types practiced in the area, climatic forces, and topography, as well as management techniques, intensify the vulnerability of these soils to erosion processes (rill, sheet, gully erosion, and sediment transportation), leading to land deterioration as experienced in the area.

 

The absence of accurate predictions specific to the region's unique soil composition and land uses pose a substantial challenge. Consequently, there is an urgent need to bridge this gap by implementing model-based predictions to comprehensively understand and mitigate soil losses in this vulnerable ecosystem (Sadeghi et al., 2007; Rahim et al., 2016). Documenting the extent of soil erosion through modeling will be crucial for formulating an acceptable land use plan for agricultural development vis-a-vis environmental sustainability in the area.

Although widely recognized models such as the USLE and the RUSLE have been applied in the area, the choice of the USLE model and the recently developed SLEMSA originally designed for the Southern African Region was to determine if SLEMSA can be adapted for accurate soil loss predictions in the area as well as evaluate its performance against USLE model under different land use scenarios. 

The justification of this research lies in the critical need to address the escalating soil loss challenges in the coastal-palin-sand soils of Akwa Ibom State. The application of modeling techniques in this work aligns with the global trend of employing technology to tackle environmental challenges.

The outcomes of this study also have the potential to inform future research endeavours and policies aimed at mitigating soil erosion in areas with similar geological and ecological characteristics. The work will also help farmers, planners, and environmental agencies in conserving soil, preserving agriculture, and safeguarding infrastructure as well as improves the understanding of intricate relationship between land use, soil properties, and soil loss in coastal-plain-sand soils thus its significance.

Therefore, the research work aimed to contribute to scientific knowledge and practical solutions required to mitigate erosion in coastal plain sand soils by predicting soil losses under different land uses using the USLE and SLEMSA models.

The main objective of this study is to predict the soil loss of soils of coastal plain sand in Akwa Ibom State as influenced by land use.The specific objectives of the study were to:

i.         assess the variations in some physico-chemical properties of the soils among land uses;

ii.         predict the soil losses of the area based on land use using USLE and SLEMSA models;

iii.         ascertain the soil properties that mostly influence water erosion in CPS-derived soils of Akwa Ibom State;

iv.         compare the USLE and SLEMSA models for the determination of soil losses;

v.         develop models that relate predicted soil loss to texture and organic matter.

 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment


Sold By

ProjectShelve

8179

Total Item

Reviews (31)

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    This is so amazing and unbelievable, it’s really good and it’s exactly of what I am looking for

  • Anonymous

    1 month ago

    Great service

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    This is truly legit, thanks so much for not disappointing

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    I was so happy to helping me through my project topic thank you so much

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Just got my material... thanks

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Thank you for your reliability and swift service Order and delivery was within the blink of an eye.

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    It's actually good and it doesn't delay in sending. Thanks

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    I got the material without delay. The content too is okay

  • Anonymous

    2 months ago

    Thank you guys for the document, this will really go a long way for me. Kudos to project shelve👍

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    You guys have a great works here I m really glad to be one of your beneficiary hope for the best from you guys am pleased with the works and content writings it really good

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Excellent user experience and project was delivered very quickly

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    The material is very good and worth the price being sold I really liked it 👍

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Wow response was fast .. 👍 Thankyou

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Trusted, faster and easy research platform.

  • TJ

    3 months ago

    great

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    My experience with projectselves. Com was a great one, i appreciate your prompt response and feedback. More grace

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Sure plug ♥️♥️

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Thanks I have received the documents Exactly what I ordered Fast and reliable

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Wow this is amazing website with fast response and best projects topic I haven't seen before

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Genuine site. I got all materials for my project swiftly immediately after my payment.

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    It agree, a useful piece

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Good work and satisfactory

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Good job

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Fast response and reliable

  • Anonymous

    3 months ago

    Projects would've alot easier if everyone have an idea of excellence work going on here.

  • Anonymous

    4 months ago

    Very good 👍👍

  • Anonymous

    4 months ago

    Honestly, the material is top notch and precise. I love the work and I'll recommend project shelve anyday anytime

  • Anonymous

    4 months ago

    Well and quickly delivered

  • Anonymous

    4 months ago

    I am thoroughly impressed with Projectshelve.com! The project material was of outstanding quality, well-researched, and highly detailed. What amazed me most was their instant delivery to both my email and WhatsApp, ensuring I got what I needed immediately. Highly reliable and professional—I'll definitely recommend them to anyone seeking quality project materials!

  • Anonymous

    4 months ago

    Its amazing transacting with Projectshelve. They are sincere, got material delivered within few minutes in my email and whatsApp.

  • TJ

    6 months ago

    ProjectShelve is highly reliable. Got the project delivered instantly after payment. Quality of the work.also excellent. Thank you