Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia

Sirna Gadisa; Leta Hailu

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia

Sirna Gadisa, Leta Hailu

Published in American Journal of Environmental Protection (Volume 9, Issue 5)

Received: 14 August 2020 Accepted: 18 September 2020 Published: 30 October 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of physical soil and water conservation (SWC) structures and slope gradients on soil properties and to identify factors affecting farmer’s adoption of the SWC practices. Cropland treated with level soil bund, fanya juu, and adjacent cropland without conservation structures were considered along the three slope gradients. A total of 27 soil samples were collected from the top 20 cm soil depth in ‘X’ design square plot with a length of 10m x 10m and replicated three times. A total of 120 households (HH) were randomly selected among which 48.3% were adopters and 51.7% were non-adopters of SWC structures. The collected soil samples were analyzed following standard laboratory procedures and a total of 10 variables were fitted in the logistic regression model. The result of the analysis revealed that sand fraction (%), SOC (%), TN (%), CEC (meq/100gm), and pH (H₂O) were showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences between cropland treated with conservation structures and control plots; however, available P (ppm) did not show significant (P ≤ 0.05) variation. With regard to slope gradient, soil textural fractions sand (%), Silt (%) and Clay (%), and CEC (meq/100gm) were showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05). While BD (g cm^-3), SMC (%), SOC (%), TN (%), and available P (ppm) did not significantly differ along the slope. The result of the model also showed that the explanatory variables; age, education level, family size, landholding, farm experience, availability of labor shortage, and extension service were significantly affected the adoption of SWC practices by the farmers. On the other hand; sex, marital status, and livestock holding were not significantly affected farmers’ adoption of SWC practice. Therefore, scaling up of the soil bund for the area is necessary and building capacity, providing training and experience-sharing through field days for farmers is essential. Moreover, further investigation is encouraged on the integrated effect of physical and biological SWC practice and its socioeconomic aspects for a better understanding of the effect of sustainable use of the land.

Published in	American Journal of Environmental Protection (Volume 9, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
Page(s)	102-115
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Level Fanya Juu, Level Soil Bund, Slope Gradient, Soil Physicochemical Properties

References

[1]	J. De Graaff, A. Amsalu (2008) "Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries. "Applied Geography 28 (4): 271-280.
[2]	G. Temesgen, B. Amare (2014)"Land degradation in Ethiopia: causes, impacts and rehabilitation techniques. "Journal of environment and earth science 4 (9): 98-104.
[3]	T. Gashaw (2015) Soil erosion in Ethiopia: Extent, conservation efforts and issues of sustainability.
[4]	E. Yeshaneh, J. L. Salinas (2015) "Decadal trends of soil loss and run off in the Koga catchment, northwestern Ethiopia."Land Degradation & Development 28 (6): 1806-1819.
[5]	B. Tefera and G. Sterk (2010) "Land management, erosion problems and soil and water conservation in Fincha’a watershed, western Ethiopia. "Land Use Policy 27 (4): 1027-1037.
[6]	B. Gessesse, W. Bewket (2015) "Model based characterization and monitoring of runoff and soil erosion in response to land use/land cover changes in the Modjo watershed, Ethiopia. "Land Degradation & Development 26 (7): 711-724.
[7]	J. Nyssen, M. Veyret-Picot (2004) "The effectiveness of loose rock check dams for gully control in Tigray, northern Ethiopia. "Soil Use and Management 20 (1): 55-64.
[8]	K. R. Olson, M. Al-Kaisi (2016) "Impact of soil erosion on soil organic carbon stocks." Journal of soil and water conservation 71 (3): 61A-67A.
[9]	B. Sundquist (2010) "Chapter9—Food supply from soil." Top soil Loss and Degradation—Causes, Effects and Implications.
[10]	D. T. Meshesha, A. Tsunekawa (2012) "Dynamics and hot spots of soil erosion and management scenarios of the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. "International Journal of Sediment Research 27 (1): 84-99.
[11]	W. Bewket (2007)" Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in north western highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers." Land Use Policy 24 (2): 404-416.
[12]	L. Desta, V. Carucci (2005)" Community- based participatory watershed development. a guide line.
[13]	W. M. Mekuria, D. Chanie (2015)" Sustaining the benefits of soil and water conservation in the highlands of Ethiopia."
[14]	Y. G. Selassie, F. Anemut (2015) "The effects of land use types, management practices and slope classes on selected soil physico-chemical properties in Zikr ewatershed, North-Western Ethiopia.’’ Environmental Systems Research 4 (1): 3.
[15]	E. Kato, C. Ringler, M. Yesuf, E. Bryan 2011 Soil and water conservation technologies: a buffer against production risk in the face of climate change? Insights from the Nile basin in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 42: 593-604.
[16]	N. Haregeweyn, A. Tsunekawa (2015) "Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: a review." Progressin Physical Geography 39 (6): 750-774.
[17]	F. A. Mengstie (2009) Assessment of adoption behavior of soil and water conservation practices in the Koga watershed, highlands of Ethiopia, Cornell University.
[18]	C. CSA (2007) The 2007 population and housing census of Ethiopia, CSA Addis Ababa.
[19]	T. Gemtessa and K. Dera (2017)" Study on Prevalence of Bovine Trypanosomosisin Dale Wabera District, Kellam Wollega Zone, Western Ethiopia." Int J Anim Sci 1 (1): 1002.
[20]	DWFEDO (2018) Dale Wabera Finance and Economic Development office annual report.
[21]	R. Margesin, and F. Schinner (2005) Manual for soil analysis-monitoring and assessing soil bio remediation, Springer Science & Business Media.
[22]	R. Jahn, H. Blume (2006) Guide lines for soil description, FAO.
[23]	C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, RC. Dinauer 1965 Methods of soil analysis. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy USA. 9: 653-708.
[24]	G. R. Blake and Hartge K. H. 1986 Bulk density1. Methods of soil analysis: part1—physical and mineralogical methods, (methods of soilan1), pp. 363-375.
[25]	E. Van Ranst, M. Verloo, etal. (1999) Manual for the soil chemistry and fertility laboratory: analytical methods for soils and plants equipment, and management of consumables.
[26]	J. Z. Kjeldahl (1992) A new method for the determination of nitrogen in organic bodies analytical chemistry. pp. 22: 366.
[27]	Van Reeuwijk, (2002) Procedures for soil analysis, international soil reference and information centre, 6700 AJ Wageningen the Netherlands.
[28]	R. H. Bray and L. Kurtz (1945) "Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. "Soil science 59 (1): 39-46.
[29]	W. G. Cochran (1977) Sampling techniques (3rded.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[30]	W. Hailu (2017) "Impact of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structure on Selected Soil Physico chemical Properties in Gondar Zuriya Woreda. "Resources and Environment 7 (2): 40-48.
[31]	Y. T. Ademe and Kebede (2017) "Evaluation of the effectiveness of soil and water conservation practices on improving selected soil properties in Wonago district, Southern Ethiopia. "Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management 8 (3): 70-79.
[32]	J. Tugizimana (2015) Effects of soil and water conservation techniques on soil productivity and bean grain yield in Nyamasheke District, Rwanda, Doctoral Dissertation, School of Agriculture and Enterprise Development.
[33]	B. Bahilu, L. Mulugeta et al. (2014) "Soil fertility status as affected by different land use types and to pographic positions: a case of Deltasub-watershed, South western Ethiopia. "Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health care 4 (27): 91-105.
[34]	Z. M. Easton and A. M. Petrovic (2005) "Effect of hill slope on nutrient run offf romturf. "Golf Course Manage 2005: 109-113.
[35]	A. A. Challa and Abdelkadir (2016) "Effects of graded stone bunds on selected soil properties in the central high lands of Ethiopia." International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management 1 (2): 42-50.
[36]	USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998.
[37]	F. Khan, Z. Hayat (2013) "Effect of slope position on physico-chemical properties of eroded soil." Soil Environ 32 (1): 22-28.
[38]	D. Taressa 2017 "The Effectiveness of Stone Bund to Maintain Soil Physical and Chemical Properties: The Case of Weday Watershed, East Hararge Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia."
[39]	Z. Siraw, and W. Bewket (2018) "Effects of Community-Based Watershed Development on Soi Properties in the North western High lands of Ethiopia." Malaysian Journal of Soil Science 22: 19-33.
[40]	T. Amare, A. Terefe (2013). "Soil properties and crop yields a long the terraces and toposequece of Anjeni Watershed, Central High lands of Ethiopia. "Journal of Agricultural Science 5 (2): 134.
[41]	M. Demelash, and K. Stahr (2010) "Assessment of integrated soil and water conservation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder, North-Western High lands of Ethiopia." Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management 1 (7): 164-176.
[42]	W. Hailu, A. Moges (2012) "The effects of ‘fanya juu’ soil conservation structure on selected soil physical & chemical properties: the case of Goromti watershed, western Ethiopia." Resources and Environment 2 (4): 132-140.
[43]	B. Bezabih, A. Aticho (2016) "The effect of land management practices on soil physical and chemical properties in Gojeb Sub-river Basin of Dedo District, Southwest Ethiopia." Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management 7 (10): 154-165.
[44]	T. Tadesse, I. Haque, (1991)."Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis manual."
[45]	L. Alemu, M. Tekalign, H. Wassie and Sh. Hailu (2016) Assessment and Mapping of Status and Spatial Distribution of Soil Macronutrients in Kambata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research, 4 (4): 144.
[46]	L. Fanuel, K. Kibebew, M. Tekalign and G. Heluf 2016 a Soil–Plant Nutrient Status and their Relations in Maize-Growing Fields of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 47 (11): 1343-1356.
[47]	J. Kehali, M. Tekalign and K. Kibebew 2017 Characteristics of agricultural landscape features and local soil fertility management practices in Northwestern Amhara, Ethiopia. Journal of Agronomy, 16 (4): 180-195.
[48]	M. Aytenew (2015) "Effect of slope gradient on selected soil physicochemical properties of Dawja watershed in Enebse Sar Midir District, Amhara National Regional State. "Am. J. Sci. Industr. Res 6 (4): 74-81.
[49]	M. Getnet and S. Quraishi (2014) Effect of soil conservation measures on some physico-chemical properties of soil and crop yield in simada district, south gondar zone, Ethiopia, Haramaya University.
[50]	A. Fikru (2009) "Assessment of Adoption Behaviour of Soil and Water Conservation Practices in the Koga Watershed, High lands of Ethiopia." MPS Thesis. Cornell University, United States: 62.
[51]	M. T. Atsbaha and R. Reddy (2014) Farmers’ Perception of Soil Erosion and Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Kolla Tembien Tabia Awotbkalsi, Tigray Regional State, Ethiopia, Haramaya University.
[52]	S. Tamiru, A. Katiso and M. Mengesham (2018) Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Measures and Their Effect on Selected Soil Properties in Chingo Watershed, Southern SNNPR Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).
[53]	M. D. Alemu, A. Kebede and A. Moges (2019) Farmers’ Perception of Soil Erosion and Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies at Geshy Sub-Catchment, Gojeb River Catchment, Ethiopia. Agricultural Sciences, 10, 46-65.
[54]	T. W. Meshesha and S. K. Tripathi (2016) "Farmer’s perception on soil erosion and land degradation problems and management practices in the Beressa Watershed of Ethiopia." Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 5 (5): 64-72.
[55]	E. Kediro (2015) Farmers Perception on Soil Erosion and Effect of Conservation Structures on Soil Properties and Wheat Yield in Fulaso Watershed Sebeta Oromia, Addis Ababa University.
[56]	M. Merkineh Mena (2018) Community Adoption of Watershed Management Practices at Kindo Didaye District, Southern Ethiopia. International journal of environmental science and natural resources Volume 14 issue 3.
[57]	G. W Zerssa, B. Bezabih (2017) "Assessment of farmers perception towards soil and water conservation in Obi Koji Peasant Association, Woliso District, SouthWest Shewa Ethiopia. "Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment 9 (3): 45-52.
[58]	A. Mekuriaw, A. Heinimann (2018) "Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. "International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (1): 23-30.
[59]	D. T. Meshesha, G. Fisseha (2018) "Effects of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Selected Bio-physical, and Livelihood Attributes and Farmers Perception at Akusti Micro Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia. "Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences 3 (2): 57-75.
[60]	D. Simeneh and F. Getachew (2015) "Perception of Farmers towards Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in Wyebla Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia. "Academic Journal of Plant Sciences 7 (3): 34-40.
[61]	B. S. Demissie (2009) Factors affecting the adoption of soil and water conservation practices in northeastern Ethiopia (M. A) thesis) Addis Ababa University.
[62]	S. Birhanu (2016) Assessment of factors determine farmers adoption behavior of soil and water conservation practice: Libo Kemkem Woreda, MA Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
[63]	K. Wolka and M. Negash (2014) "Farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation technology: acase study of the Boko leand Tonisub-watersheds, southern Ethiopia. "Journal of Science & Development 2 (1): 35-48.
[64]	D. Asfaw and M. Neka 2017 Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices: the case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 5 (4): 273-279.
[65]	A. Mulie (2012) Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Farmlands: The Case of Karita Wuha Watershed, West Belessa District, North Gondar, Ethiopia, ST. Mary’s University.
[66]	L. M. Long (2003) Conservation practices adoption by agricultural land owners, Northern Illinois University.
[67]	S. Tedla (2003) "Ethiopians Environmental Condition: Today and Twenty five Years from Now In Economics focus." Bullet in of Ethiopian Economics Association 5 (5).
[68]	G. Bagdi (2005) People's participation in soil and water conservation through watershed approach, International Book Distributing Co.
[69]	W. Bekele and L. Drake (2003) "Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area. "Ecological economics 46 (3): 437-451.
[70]	W. Bewket (2003) Land degradation and farmers' acceptance and adoption of conservation technologies in the Digil Watershed, Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia, OSSREA.
[71]	R. Reddy and M. Melese (2016) Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices among smallholder farmers: The case of Boloso Sore Woreda, Wolaita Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia, Haramaya University.
[72]	R. B. Seenga (2014). Factors influencing adoption of soil conservation measures sustainability and socio-economic impacts among smallholders farmers in Mbeya rural district, Tanzania, Sokoine University of Agriculture.
[73]	M. Erkie (2016) Asessment of Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption on Soil and Water Conservation Practices: The Case of Borebor Micro watershed, Dera Woreda, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa University Addis Ababa.
[74]	F. Beyene and A. Temesgen (2014) Perception of Smallholder Farmers towards Adoption of Improved Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Lemo Woreda, Hadiya Zone, Snnpr, Haramaya University.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sirna Gadisa, Leta Hailu. (2020). Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 9(5), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sirna Gadisa; Leta Hailu. Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2020, 9(5), 102-115. doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sirna Gadisa, Leta Hailu. Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia. Am J Environ Prot. 2020;9(5):102-115. doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12,
  author = {Sirna Gadisa and Leta Hailu},
  title = {Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia},
  journal = {American Journal of Environmental Protection},
  volume = {9},
  number = {5},
  pages = {102-115},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajep.20200905.12},
  abstract = {The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of physical soil and water conservation (SWC) structures and slope gradients on soil properties and to identify factors affecting farmer’s adoption of the SWC practices. Cropland treated with level soil bund, fanya juu, and adjacent cropland without conservation structures were considered along the three slope gradients. A total of 27 soil samples were collected from the top 20 cm soil depth in ‘X’ design square plot with a length of 10m x 10m and replicated three times. A total of 120 households (HH) were randomly selected among which 48.3% were adopters and 51.7% were non-adopters of SWC structures. The collected soil samples were analyzed following standard laboratory procedures and a total of 10 variables were fitted in the logistic regression model. The result of the analysis revealed that sand fraction (%), SOC (%), TN (%), CEC (meq/100gm), and pH (H2O) were showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences between cropland treated with conservation structures and control plots; however, available P (ppm) did not show significant (P ≤ 0.05) variation. With regard to slope gradient, soil textural fractions sand (%), Silt (%) and Clay (%), and CEC (meq/100gm) were showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05). While BD (g cm-3), SMC (%), SOC (%), TN (%), and available P (ppm) did not significantly differ along the slope. The result of the model also showed that the explanatory variables; age, education level, family size, landholding, farm experience, availability of labor shortage, and extension service were significantly affected the adoption of SWC practices by the farmers. On the other hand; sex, marital status, and livestock holding were not significantly affected farmers’ adoption of SWC practice. Therefore, scaling up of the soil bund for the area is necessary and building capacity, providing training and experience-sharing through field days for farmers is essential. Moreover, further investigation is encouraged on the integrated effect of physical and biological SWC practice and its socioeconomic aspects for a better understanding of the effect of sustainable use of the land.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia
AU  - Sirna Gadisa
AU  - Leta Hailu
Y1  - 2020/10/30
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
T2  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JF  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JO  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
SP  - 102
EP  - 115
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5699
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
AB  - The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of physical soil and water conservation (SWC) structures and slope gradients on soil properties and to identify factors affecting farmer’s adoption of the SWC practices. Cropland treated with level soil bund, fanya juu, and adjacent cropland without conservation structures were considered along the three slope gradients. A total of 27 soil samples were collected from the top 20 cm soil depth in ‘X’ design square plot with a length of 10m x 10m and replicated three times. A total of 120 households (HH) were randomly selected among which 48.3% were adopters and 51.7% were non-adopters of SWC structures. The collected soil samples were analyzed following standard laboratory procedures and a total of 10 variables were fitted in the logistic regression model. The result of the analysis revealed that sand fraction (%), SOC (%), TN (%), CEC (meq/100gm), and pH (H2O) were showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences between cropland treated with conservation structures and control plots; however, available P (ppm) did not show significant (P ≤ 0.05) variation. With regard to slope gradient, soil textural fractions sand (%), Silt (%) and Clay (%), and CEC (meq/100gm) were showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05). While BD (g cm-3), SMC (%), SOC (%), TN (%), and available P (ppm) did not significantly differ along the slope. The result of the model also showed that the explanatory variables; age, education level, family size, landholding, farm experience, availability of labor shortage, and extension service were significantly affected the adoption of SWC practices by the farmers. On the other hand; sex, marital status, and livestock holding were not significantly affected farmers’ adoption of SWC practice. Therefore, scaling up of the soil bund for the area is necessary and building capacity, providing training and experience-sharing through field days for farmers is essential. Moreover, further investigation is encouraged on the integrated effect of physical and biological SWC practice and its socioeconomic aspects for a better understanding of the effect of sustainable use of the land.
VL  - 9
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sirna Gadisa

Dale Wabera District Agricultural and Rural Development Office, Kake, Ethiopia
Leta Hailu

Jimma Agricultural Research Center, Jimma, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sirna Gadisa, Leta Hailu. (2020). Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 9(5), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sirna Gadisa; Leta Hailu. Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2020, 9(5), 102-115. doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sirna Gadisa, Leta Hailu. Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia. Am J Environ Prot. 2020;9(5):102-115. doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12,
  author = {Sirna Gadisa and Leta Hailu},
  title = {Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia},
  journal = {American Journal of Environmental Protection},
  volume = {9},
  number = {5},
  pages = {102-115},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajep.20200905.12},
  abstract = {The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of physical soil and water conservation (SWC) structures and slope gradients on soil properties and to identify factors affecting farmer’s adoption of the SWC practices. Cropland treated with level soil bund, fanya juu, and adjacent cropland without conservation structures were considered along the three slope gradients. A total of 27 soil samples were collected from the top 20 cm soil depth in ‘X’ design square plot with a length of 10m x 10m and replicated three times. A total of 120 households (HH) were randomly selected among which 48.3% were adopters and 51.7% were non-adopters of SWC structures. The collected soil samples were analyzed following standard laboratory procedures and a total of 10 variables were fitted in the logistic regression model. The result of the analysis revealed that sand fraction (%), SOC (%), TN (%), CEC (meq/100gm), and pH (H2O) were showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences between cropland treated with conservation structures and control plots; however, available P (ppm) did not show significant (P ≤ 0.05) variation. With regard to slope gradient, soil textural fractions sand (%), Silt (%) and Clay (%), and CEC (meq/100gm) were showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05). While BD (g cm-3), SMC (%), SOC (%), TN (%), and available P (ppm) did not significantly differ along the slope. The result of the model also showed that the explanatory variables; age, education level, family size, landholding, farm experience, availability of labor shortage, and extension service were significantly affected the adoption of SWC practices by the farmers. On the other hand; sex, marital status, and livestock holding were not significantly affected farmers’ adoption of SWC practice. Therefore, scaling up of the soil bund for the area is necessary and building capacity, providing training and experience-sharing through field days for farmers is essential. Moreover, further investigation is encouraged on the integrated effect of physical and biological SWC practice and its socioeconomic aspects for a better understanding of the effect of sustainable use of the land.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effect of Level Soil Bund and Fayna Juu on Soil Physico-chemical Properties, and Farmers Adoption Towards the Practice at Dale Wabera District, Western Ethiopia
AU  - Sirna Gadisa
AU  - Leta Hailu
Y1  - 2020/10/30
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
T2  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JF  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
JO  - American Journal of Environmental Protection
SP  - 102
EP  - 115
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5699
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajep.20200905.12
AB  - The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of physical soil and water conservation (SWC) structures and slope gradients on soil properties and to identify factors affecting farmer’s adoption of the SWC practices. Cropland treated with level soil bund, fanya juu, and adjacent cropland without conservation structures were considered along the three slope gradients. A total of 27 soil samples were collected from the top 20 cm soil depth in ‘X’ design square plot with a length of 10m x 10m and replicated three times. A total of 120 households (HH) were randomly selected among which 48.3% were adopters and 51.7% were non-adopters of SWC structures. The collected soil samples were analyzed following standard laboratory procedures and a total of 10 variables were fitted in the logistic regression model. The result of the analysis revealed that sand fraction (%), SOC (%), TN (%), CEC (meq/100gm), and pH (H2O) were showed significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences between cropland treated with conservation structures and control plots; however, available P (ppm) did not show significant (P ≤ 0.05) variation. With regard to slope gradient, soil textural fractions sand (%), Silt (%) and Clay (%), and CEC (meq/100gm) were showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05). While BD (g cm-3), SMC (%), SOC (%), TN (%), and available P (ppm) did not significantly differ along the slope. The result of the model also showed that the explanatory variables; age, education level, family size, landholding, farm experience, availability of labor shortage, and extension service were significantly affected the adoption of SWC practices by the farmers. On the other hand; sex, marital status, and livestock holding were not significantly affected farmers’ adoption of SWC practice. Therefore, scaling up of the soil bund for the area is necessary and building capacity, providing training and experience-sharing through field days for farmers is essential. Moreover, further investigation is encouraged on the integrated effect of physical and biological SWC practice and its socioeconomic aspects for a better understanding of the effect of sustainable use of the land.
VL  - 9
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download