INT L JOURNAL OF AGRIC. AND RURAL DEV. SAAT FUTO 2015 AN EVALUATION OF POTENTIALS OF SOME SOIL S FOR CROP PRODUCTION IN YOLA, NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA.

Transcription

1 AN EVALUATION OF POTENTIALS OF SOME SOIL S FOR CROP PRODUCTION IN YOLA, NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA. Musa H. Department of Soil Science, ModibboAdama University of Technology Yola, Nigeria (hassanfuy@yahoo.com) ABSTRACT The study evaluated potentials of selected soils in Yola,Adamawa state in northeastern Nigeria.A free survey technique was used in the field studies of a 50hateaching and research farm of the ModibboAdama University of Technology, Yola. Three mapping units were identified and two profile pits were dug in each mapping units,the pits were described using FAO procedures.soil samples were collected from genetic horizons.routine analysis of the Soil samples was conducted according to IITA manual.results of laboratory work confirmed that thearea has three different mapping units based on the USDA Taxonomical classification system.mapping unit one is TypicHaplustalf, mapping unit two is TypicPaleustalf and mapping unit three is Dystropept. The total land of about 50ha was evaluated for the cultivation of maize, sorghum, rice, cowpea, cotton and groundnut using the FAO land evaluation and SYS land suitability evaluation methods. Mapping unit one which is also called TRFU 1 is moderately suitable (S2) for maize, sorghum, rice, cowpea, cotton and groundnut but marginally suitable (S3) for rice cultivation. Mapping unit two (TRFU2) is moderately suitable (S2) for sorghum cotton and rice but not suitable (NS) for cowpea and groundnut. Mapping unit three (TRFU ) is marginally suitable for cowpea and groundnut but not suitable (NS) for maize, sorghum, rice and cotton. Keywords: Arable crops, Soil quality, Land suitability, Yield INTRODUCTION The purpose for which a tract of land is used constitutes its land use. Land use can be defined as any permanent or cyclic human interactions to satisfy needs from complex natural and artificial resource which constitute land (Musa2007). Soil quality can be maintained or enhanced through the use of appropriate crop production Technologies and related source management systems. Inappropriate farming practices, on the other hand, can lead to soil degradation-loss of topsoil through erosion; loss of organic matter through oxidation; soil compaction; acidification; loss of nitrates, and trace elements. Recent interest in evaluating the quality of Soil resource has been stimulated by increasing awareness that soil is a critically important component of the earth s biosphere functioning not only in the production of food and fiber but also in the maintenance of local, regional and global environmental quality (Maniyunda et-al 2007). The Success in Soil management to maintain Soil quality depends on an understanding of how Soil responds to agricultural practices over time On the other hand, feeding the ever increasing human population is almost challenging in developing countries because of Soil degradation. For assessing the suitability of soils for crop production, soil requirements for crops must be known. The requirements must be understood within the context of limitations imposed by the soil and other features which do not form a part of the soil but may have a significant influence on use that can be made of the soil (FAO, 1978). From the basic soil requirements of crops, numbers of soil qualities are directly related to crop yield performance. For most crops, soil characteristic have been identified for high, moderate, marginal and unsuitable levels. Beyond critical levels. Crop performance will reduce unless some precautionary management measures are applied. Soil suitability classifications are based on matching requirements for crops and soil qualities (FAO, 1995). The suitability classes obtained from the matched characteristics are combined to obtain overall soil suitability classes through use of principle of limiting condition, addition and multiplication methods (Dent and Young, 1987; FAO, 1995).In farming, Risk is reduced by matching the requirements of land use to land qualities. This is the role of land evaluation and it implies a process of prediction (Alves and Nortcliff, 2000). Land evaluation involves collection and interpretation of data on soils and other land aspects of the land in order to identify and make suggestions on suitable land use and management (FAO 1982). Application of the FAO(1976) frame work for land evaluation can identify the most limiting land qualities and provide a good basis for advising farmers on appropriate management practices for optimum production in a particular agro-ecological zone (Chinene,1992). Land suitability marches land quality with crops and its productive capacity. This researchexamined the suitability of the soil for some common crops grown in the study area which include- maize, sorghum, rice, cowpea, and cotton and groundnut production with a view to making recommendations on howto manage and make judicious use of the soils for optimum crop yield. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area The study was conducted at the Teaching and Research farm of the School of Agriculture and Volume 18 (1): ,

2 Agricultural Technology, ModibboAdama University of Technology, Yola which lies between latitude N N and Longitude E and covers an area of about 50 hectares. The area is relatively flat to undulating with a slope of 2-6%. It falls within the northern Guinea Savannah region which is characterized by grassland with few trees and many shrubs. The area has the typical West Africa savannahclimate with distinct wet and dry seasons. The dry season starts from October to April, while the wet season commences from May to October. Temperature is high throughout the year because of high solar radiation and is relatively evenly distributed throughout the Year Adebayo (1997). However, there is a seasonal change in temperature, which gradually increases from January to April. The maximum usually occur in April/May and drops at the onset of rains due to cloudiness, maximum temperature in the area can reach 40 0 C with mean monthly range of c (Adebayo,1997). The annual amount of rain fall ranged between mm (Adebayo, 1999).Farming is a major socio economic activity of the people within this region and maize, Rice, Cowpea and groundnut are the major arable crops cultivated. Field Work Free Soil survey technique was used in siting the profile pits. Based on the USDA soil Taxonomy three mapping units were delineated in the area studied.two profile pits were dug on each of the delineated three soil mapping units and soil samples were collected from genetic horizons using FAO (1998) procedure. Soil morphological properties were observed and described in the field following USDA Soil Survey Manual procedure (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). Laboratory Analysis The soil samples were air-dried, crushed and sieved through a 2mm sieve. Particle size analysis was determined by the Bouyoucos Hydrometer method (Gee and Or,2002). Soil ph was determined in 1:2.5 water ratioswith a glass electrode. Electrical conductivity was also measured alongside ph in same solution with EC meter (Landon 1991). Total nitrogen was determined bykjeldahl wet oxidation method(bremner,1965) and organic carbon was determined by Walkley and Black method (IITA, 1979). Exchangeable bases (Ca,Mg,Na and K) were extracted using the ammonium acetate extraction procedure (NH 4 OAC). The Na and K in the extract was determined using flame photometer while Ca and Mg were determined using titration method.exchangeableacidity was extracted with IN KCl and then determined by titration with NaOH in IN KCl. The cation exchange capacity CEC was determined by summation method ((Soil survey staff 2010). Available phosphorus was determined using Bray.No 1 methods ((Soil survey staff 2010) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The soil physical and chemical characteristics obtained from the land units showed that the soils were moderately deep to very deep. The soils were predominantly medium textured with silt loam surface horizons and clay loam dominated in the subsoil, and was similarly reported by Malgwi (2000). Soil structure was dominated by blocky structure and observed to be more developed in soils of TRFU1 and TRFU2 They are deep moderately well and characterized by a light surface soils and a clay rich sub surface. The soils of TRFU3 are shallow and characterized by a gravelly surface. Drainage condition was poor in the mapping unit. The soil reaction varied between ph 5.2 and 7.5 and rated very strongly to moderately alkaline Values of exchangeable bases across the study area shows that Ca dominated the exchange sites followed by Mg and K with Na being least. Total exchangeable bases, total exchange acidity and cation exchange capacity were low in soils of the study are. Organic carbon was generally low inthe soils with mean values of 1.03, 1.06 and 1.17 gkg-1 for mapping units 1,2 and 3. Several researchers have reported low content of organic carbon in the Nigerian savanna (Raji and Mohammed, 2000; Malgwi et al., 2000; ).Total nitrogen values across the study area ranged from vary low to low with ranges of g/kgin TRFU1, mg/kg in TRFU2 and o mg/kg in TRFU3.Electrical conductivity values across the study area were also low with values less than cmol/kg and therefore rated asnon saline Musa(2006).soils of the School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology,ModibboAdama University of Technology,Yola farm are classified into three different mapping units based on the USDA Taxonomy classification system. Mapping unit one is classified as TypicHaplustalf, mapping unit two astypicpaleustalf and mapping unit three as Dystropept. Land evaluation The criteria used in rating the soil of the various mapping units for capability classification is presented in table1. The criteria used is based on the severity of land limitation for general agricultural purposes as adopted from (Sys).The suitability of the soil were assessed for four crops commonly grown around the study area (maize, sorghum, rice, and groundnut) using the method adopted from Sys (1985). The soil was classified by matching the land requirement of the various crops with the soil characteristics of the study area.the crop requirement qualities for the crops are presented in Table 2. The land units characteristics and the crop requirement qualities were matched to obtained the suitability classes.none of the land units were observed to be highly suitable (S1) for all the crops used in the studies. This may be attributed to low moisture retention, poor drainage, soil degradation and low fertility status as shown by the base Volume 18 (1): ,

3 of less than 50% in the three mapping units. Matching the mappingunits characteristics with land ratings for capability classification for general agriculture, the land capability classification for the mapping units are presented in Table 4. The letters sew were symbols for imitating s used as criteria for classifying the soil while S stands for limitation in rooting condition was determined by soil depth and s is indicating limitation in the soil workability and is determined by the texture. The E is indicating limitation due to erosion hazard and is determined by the slope of the area, and W stands for limitation for oxygen availability and is determined by the drainage condition of the area. Based on characteristics of the Soils from the study area, mapping unit1(trfu1) was rated as marginally suitable for maize and sorghum, marginally suitable for rice and groundnut, Mapping unit 2(TRFU2) was rated marginally suitable for Maize, sorghum and Rice but not suitable for Groundnut. Mapping unit 3(TRFU3) was rated as marginally suitable for Groundnut and not suitable for Maize Sorghum and Rice.Based on the limitations, the three mapping units generally matched with classes one and two of the Sys classification method. However, mapping unit 1 has only depth and texture as limiting s, mapping unit 2 has depth, texture and drainage as the limiting s, while mapping unit 3 has depth, texture, slope and drainage as limiting s. Table 1: Ratings of land characteristics for capability classification (land rating). Land Characteristics Diagnostic unit Unit Rooting Depth(cm) conduction(s) Soil workability(s) Texture class Sl.sil L,Sl.sc. Is,c Sc,c Erosion hazard(e) Slope ,2-18 Oxygen Drainage class Well Moderately Very poorly availability Source:Sys,1985 Table 2: Land unit characteristics and qualities for the mapping units Land quality Diagnostic Unit Map unit 1 Map unit 2 Map unit 3 Oxygen availability Drainage condition Moderately well Moderately Nutrient Reaction ph avalaiblity Nutrient ret Base % Rooting Depth M condition Soil workability Texture Si,scl,sc Sl,scl,sc Gs,sl Soil workability Structure Moderately dev. Moderately dev. Weakly Dev. Erosion Slope % Sl =sandy loam, scl= sandy clay loam, sc= sandy clay Table: 3 shows the rating of the land use requirement of soil for various crops matched with the land characteristics. Land quality Diagnostic Unit S1 S2 S3 N 1.Maize oxygen Drainage Well Mod. Well v.poorly avail (g) Nutrient Reaction ph , avail(a) Nutrient Ret(a) Base % > <330 Rooting con(r) Depth Cm > <30 Soil worka (w) Texture SI.i Scl.sil Ls,cl,sicl Sc, sil, c Soil worka (w) Structure Mod.Welldev Mod.Dev Weakly dev Structureless Volume 18 (1): ,

4 Erosionhard (e) Slope % >6 (2)sorghum oxygen avail (g) Drainage Mod.well draied draied v.poorly Nutrientavail.(a Reaction ph ,8-8.3 <4>8.5 ) NutrientRet.(n) Base % > <20 Rooting Depth Cm > <30 cond(r) Soil worka (w) Texture SS.II Sc.sl Structureless Soil worka (w) Texture Mod.well cl.scl mod. Weakly dev. Dev Erosion hazard (e) Slope % <12 3Rice oxygen Drainage Well Mod. Well poorly avail (g) Nutrient avail Reaction ph , ,6.5-7 <5 (a) 6.5 Nutrient Ret(a) Base % > <20 Rooting cond Depth Cm > >30 (R) Soil worka (w) Texture SI.sil Sic,cl Sils,sc C Soil worka (w) Structure Mod. Well Mod. Dev Structure Prismatic Dev. structured structured less Erosion hard (e) Slope % >6 (4)Groundnut Drainage Well Mod. Well Fairly Porly oxygen avail (g) Nutrient avail. Reaction ph <8 (a) NutrientRet. (n) Base % > <25 Rootingcond(R) Depth Cm > <40 Soil worka (w) Texture Sc,lc,c Sclc Lc,scl S Soil worka (k) Structure Mod. Well Mod.Dev Weakly Erosion hazard Slope % >8 (e) Source:Sys,1985 Table 3: Land suitability classes of the mapping units for some crops Crop Mapping unit 1 Mapping units 2 Mapping unit 3 Maize S2n S3ng N Sorghum S2n S3nn N Rice S3gnaw S2awnk N G/Nut S2na N S3wkr NB: a,n,g,k,r,w indicates limitations for nutrients availability, nutrient retention, oxygen availability, soil structure, rooting depth, and texture respectively. CONCLUSION Soils of Technology Teaching and Research farm, ModibboAdama University of Technology, Yola were evaluated. The area studied is generally characterized as low in fertility as could be observed from the low content of organic carbon and total nitrogen which are important fertility indicators. The study categorized the three mapping units into Volume 18 (1): ,

5 class 2 and 3 basedon the severity of their limitations to the cultivation of the crops. For optimum productivity to be achieved on the research farm, it is recommended that Mapping unit 1 should be used for the cultivation of maize, sorghum, and groundnut. Mapping Unit 2 for the cultivation of rice while mapping Unit 3 should not be used for arable crop cultivation. However, for sustained crop cultivation on the study area, the low organic pool in the soil needs to be improved through organic residue management. Nitrogen fertilizer management is also recommended to boost the nitrogen level of the Soils. REFERENCES Adebayo, A.A ((1997), Agro-climatology of rice production in Adamawa State Ph.D thesis, Department of Geography F.U.T Minna, Nigeria in Adamawa Maps Alves,H.M.R and Nortcliff,S.(2000). Assessing potential production of Maize using Simulation Models for land evaluation in Brazil.Soil use and management, 16;49-55 BremarJ.M(1965) determination of nitrogen in soli by the KJeldah methodology J.Agric science Black C.A (1965). Methods of Soil analysis ASA Monogor, No. Madison Wisconsin Bray. R and Kurtz L. (1945). Determination of total organic and available form of phosphorus. Chinere,V.R.N.(1992).Land evaluation using the FAO framework; An example from Zambia. Soil use and management,8: Day,P.R.(1965). Particle fraction and Particle analysis.in:black.c.a (ed.) Method of Soil Analysis Part 2.Agronomy 9: ASA Madison WI USA. Dent,F.J and Young, A.(1987) Soil survey and land evaluation,london.george Allen and Unwin( Publishers) ltd U.K 278PP FAO, 1976a.A Framework for Land Evaluation.FAO Soils Bulletin 32.FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO, b. Crop adaptability inventory. In: Report on the Agro-Ecological Zones Project. World Soil Resources Report 48, FAO, Rome, Italy FAO, 1985.Guidelines: Land Evaluation for Irrigated Agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin 55,FAO, Rome, Italy FAO (1995) guild lines land evaluation for rain fed agriculture soil resources andconservation services, land and water development division, Rome Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO soil bulleting 52,237 pp) ITA (1997) :selected methods for and plant analysis manual series 1 pp 4-7 FAO(1996).A framework for Land evaluation. FAO Soils Bull,32:FAO Rome 87pp Fasina A,S Aruleba, J.O, Omotoso, Omolayao F.O and Shittu O.S (2005) evaluation potentials of soil for crop production at Ado Ekiti, south western Nigeria journal of soil science 1 vol. 15 (2) FDALY (1982) land evaluation for Agricultural land use in Nigeria in efficient use of Nigeria land resources proceedings of the 1st national seminar on Agriculture resource held at Kaduna September pp IITA(1979). Selected Methods for Soil, Plant and Water analysis. Sys, c (1965): land evaluation in state university of Ghent Part 1 and II Landon J.R (1991) booker Tropical soil manual a book for soil survey and Agricultural Land evaluation in the Topics and sub tropics Longman Inc. New York Malgwi, W.B., A.G. Ojanuga, T. Kparmwang and B.A. Raji(2000)Morphological and physical properties of some soils at Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Soil Research, Department of Soil Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria Maniyinda, L.M., and Malgwi, W.B. (2011).Physico chemical properties and management strategies for soils long River Galma, Zaria, Nigeria.Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the SSSN, Minna. Maurique L.A and Uchera G(1984) A proposed land suitability classification for potato. Soil Science Society of American Journal 48: Musa, H; Singh, L; Usman, B.H; Sadiq, A.M. and Mustapha, S. (2007). Characterisation and classification of soils developed on Basement complex in Federal University of Technology, Yola Journal of league of Researches in Nigeria 8(2): pp Soil Survey Staff (2010).Methods of soil analysis. Voncir, N (2002). Genesis and ification of Gubi soil series Ph.D Thesis Abubarkar Tafawa Belewa University, Bauchi Nigeria (unpublished). Volume 18 (1): ,