Hindawi

e Scientific World Journal

Volume 2023, Article ID 1763367, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1763367

Research Article
Analysis of Selected Soil Properties in Relation to Soil and Water
Conservation Practices in Sibiya Arera, Soro District, South
Central Ethiopia

Belayneh Bufebo , Getachew Beyene , and Temesgen Addise

Department of Natural Resource Management, Wachemo University, P.O. Box 667, Hosanna, Ethiopia

Correspondence should be addressed to Belayneh Bufebo; [email protected]

Received 15 July 2022; Revised 20 January 2023; Accepted 13 February 2023; Published 28 February 2023

Academic Editor: Cezary Slawinski

Copyright © 2023 Belayneh Bufebo et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commo
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original w
cited.

Soil erosion by water is a severe and continuous ecological problem in the south central highlands of Ethiopia. Lim
and water conservation technologies by farmers is one of the major causes that have resulted in accelerated soil e
this context, signifcant attention has been given to soil and water conservation practices. Tis study was conducted
the efects of soil and water conservation practices on soil physicochemical properties after being practiced continu
10 years. Te physicochemical properties of soil of landscape with physical soil and water conservation stru
biological conservation measures and physical soil and water conservation structures combined with biologica
measures were compared with soil of landscape without soil and water conservation practices. Te result of analysi
soil and water conservation interventions (both with biological and without biological measures) signifcantly inc
pH, soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and available phosphorus content than the soil of landscape without
conservation practices. Te results of the analysis also showed that the mean value of cation exchange capacity and
+
, Na+, Ca+2 , and Mgbases
+
2 ) of (K
the soil under nonconserved farm feld was signifcantly lower as compared to the soil of
adequately managed farm felds. Te fndings of this study clarifed that there was signifcant variation in soil properties. Tis
variation could be due to uneven transport of soil particles by runof. Terefore, soil conservation structures supported with
biological measures improves the soil’s physicochemical properties.

1. Introduction activity for long-term economic production soil is becoming

extremely susceptible to various forms of depletions, such as
Te soils constitute one of the world’s most important soil erosion, soil fertility decline, and associated changes in
natural resources. Soil plays a crucial role in biochemical and soil physicochemical properties [4].
geochemical cycling, partitioning of water, storage and re- Te great eforts has been made to address the problem
lease, bufering, and energy partitioning, which are essential of soil erosion in Ethiopia since 1970s [5] coming after the
for supporting ecosystems [1]. Soil, as a major component of occurrence of famine and drought. Since then, the gov-
land resources, from which many ecosystem services es- ernment of Ethiopia has given considerable attention on soil
sential to humans and the environment is obtained [2]. and water conservation technologies for rehabilitation of
Soil is one of the natural capitals that provides long-term land resources. A large number of conservation, re-
economic, production, and environmental services and plays habilitation, and aforestation campaigns were undertaken
a major role in global climate processes through regulation through Food-For-Work programs. Nevertheless, the eforts
of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions; have not been happening in many places and some farmers
however, agricultural management practices can largely are still reluctant showing no willingness to practice soil and
infuence the quality of the soil [3]. Because of humans’ water conservation measures in their farm felds [6].
2 Te Scientifc World Journal

Agriculture is the backbone of the Ethiopian economy Rainfall distribution in the study area is bimodal,
accounting more than 80% of total employment, 84% of characterized by heavy rainy season from June to September,
national export, and 50% of gross domestic product (GDP). and light rainy season from March to May. Te annual long
However, currently, there is an increasing concern that soil term average rainfall is 1,107 mm and peak rainfall in
erosion as the result of improper land resources manage- September. Te long term average annual temperature is
ment extremely limits sustainability of agriculture in 17.2°C [10]. Te mean monthly temperature ranges from
Ethiopia [7]. Activities like deforestation, overgrazing, and 15.98°C in December to 18.91°C in March (Figure 2). Tese
intensive cultivation without conservation measures, caused favorable climatic conditions and high population have
severe soil erosion, which diminished agricultural pro- made the district to be one of the intensively cultivated areas
duction and afected food security. Te estimated soil losses in the south central highlands of Ethiopia. Rain-fed agri-
in Ethiopia due to erosion at the rate of 130 tones/ha for culture is the only source of livelihood for the majority of
cultivated felds and 35 tons/ha average for all land use population. It is characterized by a smallholder mixed crop-
classes in the highland areas of the country [8]. Te gov- livestock production.
ernment of Ethiopia by mobilizing local community has Soil is a good indicator of the infuence of soil parent
been implemented soil and water conservation practices material and the spatial variability in the degree of weath-
since the last four decades through watershed management ering, geological, and other factors are responsible for soil
approach [9]. Te most commonly constructed physical soil formation and development [11]. Te dominant soil type of
and water conservation structures to control soil erosion are the study area is Nitisols that cover extensive areas of ag-
fanya juu. Fanya juu terraces are made by digging a trench ricultural felds are highly suitable for crop production. Te
along the contour and throwing the soil uphill to form an local geology is characterized by volcanic basalt fows and
embankment. Te embankments are stabilized with fodder Cenozoic pyroclastic fall deposits [10].
grasses and in between cultivated portions. Over time, the Te major land use/land cover types in the district in-
fanya juu develop into bench terraces. clude cultivated land, grazing land, forest land, and built-up
Soro district is located in south central Ethiopia where soil areas. Cultivated land is the dominant land use type with
erosion has been a major problem resulting in soil fertility 50,454 hectares (73.3% of the total area). At the present time,
depletion. In reaction to extreme problem of soil degradation, the local community has been implementing diferent
soil and water conservation practices have been implemented practices to protect the adverse efect of erosion on their
in diferent areas of the district. Among areas, Sibiya Arera is farmland and to improve soil fertility. Sibiya Arera is one of
the one on which soil and water conservation practices have the areas with better implementation of soil and water
been constructed. Besides, to stabilize physical soil and water conservation practices. Model farmers adopted biological
conservation structures (fanya juu) desho grass (Pennisetum and physical conservation practices, however, there is still
pedicellatum) has been planted. However, landscape with soil land without conservation technologies which owned by
and water conservation practices in relation to soil physi- reluctant farmers showing no willingness to implement soil
cochemical property is not studied so far in the study area. As and water conservation measures.
the result; such efects of soil and water conservation practices Te farming system of the study area is mainly sub-
on soil physicochemical properties is poorly understood. sistence farming based on mixed crop-livestock production.
Terefore, the objective of this study was to compare soil Major crops grown in the area include wheat (Triticum
physicochemical properties in felds with physical conser- aestivum L.), maize (Zea mays L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare
vation structures not combined with biological measures L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), and tef
(fanya juu without biological measures), physical conserva- (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). All farmers of the area have
tion structures combined with biological measures of ten been practicing rain-fed agriculture based on continuous
years (fanya juu with biological measures) to landscape cultivation. Previously, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and
without soil and water conservation practices. Te signif- urea were the main fertilizer types used by a large number of
cance of the study shows the variation of soil properties due to people. However, currently, farmers in the study area have
land management changes. Tis will help in decision-making started to use blended fertilizers such as nitrogen, phos-
by providing more information about the current status of the phorus, sulfur (NPS), and nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and
soil under diferent management. Moreover, it is helpful for boron (NPSB).
the development of a soil management plan framework to Arable lands are composed of the landscape without
maintain its sustainability and health in the study area. conservation practice, physical soil and water conservation
structures (fanya juu), and physical soil and water conser-
2. Materials and Methods vation structures combined with biological practices (fanya
juu stabilized with desho grass). Soil and water conservation
2.1. Description of the Study Area. Soro is one of the ad- practices are mechanisms used to reduce erosion and as-
ministrative districts of Hadiyya zone which is located in sociated nutrient loss, reducing the risk of production;
south central Ethiopia. It is situated approximately 272 km however, are not constructed in some agricultural lands in
southwest of Addis Ababa and in a close proximity to the the study area. As a result soil erosion is major deterioration
Gimicho town. Sibiya Arera is geographically located in 7° 9′ processes which lead to soil degradation and declining ag-
0″–7° 11′ 0″ N latitude and 37° 52′ 30″–37° 54′ 0″ E lon- ricultural productivity in nonconserved agricultural land.
gitude (Figure 1). Fanya juu structures integrated with biological practices are
Te Scientifc World Journal 3

37°52′30″E 37°53′0″E 37°53′30″E 37°54′0″E

Study site

7°11′0″N 7°11′0″N

7°10′30″N 7°10′30″N

7°10′0″N 7°10′0″N

7°9′30″N 7°9′30″N

7°9′0″N 7°9′0″N
km
0 0.35 0.7 1.4
SIBEYA ARERA

37°52′30″E 37°53′0″E 37°53′30″E 37°54′0″E

Figure 1: Location map of the study area.

180 30 water running of. Erosion is prevented by keeping enough

vegetation cover on embankment to protect the soil surface
160
25 and binds the soil together and maintains soil structure.
140
Temperature in (°C)

120 20
Rainfall in (mm)

2.2. Design of Experimental Plots and Soil Sampling.

100 Depending on the information obtained from the re-
15 connaissance survey, in the study area, landscape with three
80
diferent soil management practices were used as treatments
60 10 to study its efects on soil properties. Tere are distinct
40 diferences in soil management practices among farmers in
5 the study area. Tese management practices include land-
20
scape without conservation practice (control feld or treat-
0 0 ment i), physical soil and water conservation structures
(fanya juu not supported with desho grass) (treatment ii),
October
March
April

June

September

November
December
August
January
February

May

July

and physical soil and water conservation structures com-

bined with biological practices or (fanya juu supported with
desho grass) (treatment iii) were selected for soil data col-
Mean Monthly Rainfall in mm
lection. Based on the landscape positions, the farm land of
Mean Monthly Min.Temp. in °C
Mean Monthly Max.Temp. in °C the study watershed was categorized into three landscape
positions, such as upper landscape position (>30%), middle
Figure 2: Mean monthly rainfall and temperature of the study area. landscape position (15–30%), and lower landscape position
(3–15%). Experimental design and arrangements were ac-
permanent features made of earth, designed to protect the complished using a transect line [12]. Soil samples were
soil from uncontrolled runof and erosion and retain water collected from line transects which were laid along the
where needed. It seeks to increase the amount of water contour. In each landscape position, two lines transect were
seeping into the soil, reducing the speed and amount of laid at a distance of 50 m between them. On each line,
4 Te Scientifc World Journal

transect fve sampling points were laid at a distance of 25 m 3. Results and Discussion
from each point. To avoid the border efect, the frst and the
last lines transect were laid at a distance of 5 m from the 3.1. Particle-Size Distribution. Te result showed that the
edges. We used area-based types of topographic/geographic sand content was signifcantly afected by soil conservation
unit sampling: Area-based soil sampling means that more practices. Sand content of the soil had shown substantial
than one soil sample is collected and composited from each variation with conservation practices (P ≤ 0.001). However,
topographic zone (landscape position). Each landscape there was no signifcant variation in mean values of sand
(treatment) had ten replications. Tus, a total of 30 samples between felds of physical conservation structures and
(3 treatments × 10 replications) were collected by using physical conservation structures combined with biological
auger from a depth of 0–30 cm. Soil samples were collected measures. Te highest and lowest mean value (40.20 and
during January 2020 to February 2020 after the crop harvest. 30.80) of sand content of the soil was recorded under the
Moreover, undisturbed soil samples were also collected feld without conservation practices and physical conser-
separately using core samples from each land management vation structures combined with biological measures, re-
type for the determination of soil bulk density. Disturbed spectively (Table 1). Sand percentage decreased as one go
soil samples placed in polythene bags and undisturbed soil from the land without conservation practices to the land
samples in a steel core sampler were well labeled as described with conservation structures combined with biological
by the Soil Survey Field and Laboratory Method Manual [13] measures. Tis diference is attributed by the variability in
and then taken for subsequent laboratory test. the problem caused by erosion. Moreover, least signifcant
Prior to laboratory analysis, the soil samples were air diference (LSD) test revealed that land without conservation
dried, crushed, and passed through 2 mm sieve. Analyses of practice showed signifcantly higher sand content than the
the soil samples for particle distribution, bulk density (BD), rest land management types.
soil pH, organic carbon (OC), total nitrogen (TN), available Te result also showed that the clay content was sig-
phosphorus (AP), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and nifcantly afected by soil conservation practices. Clay had
exchangeable bases were conducted at the soil fertility shown substantial variation with conservation practices
laboratory of the Agricultural Bureau of Southern Nations (P ≤ 0.001). However, there was no signifcant variation
Nationalities and People’s Region following standard lab- (P ≤ 0.05) in mean values of clay between felds of physical
oratory procedures. conservation structures and physical conservation structures
Te soil particle size distribution was determined by combined with biological measures. Te lowest and highest
a hydrometer method outlined by the simplifed procedure mean value (27.40 and 40.50) of clay content of the soil was
of reference [14]. Soil textural names were determined recorded under the feld without conservation practices and
following the textural triangle of USDA system [15]. Bulk physical conservation structures combined with biological
density (BD) was estimated from undisturbed soil samples measures, respectively (Table 1). Clay percentage increased
collected using a steel core sampler [16]. Soil pH (H2O) was as one go from the land without conservation practices to the
measured by using a pH meter in a 1 : 2.5 soil : water [17]. land with conservation structures combined with biological
Te content of soil organic carbon (%) was decided by the measures. Tis diference is attributed by the variability in
method proposed by Walkley et al. [18]. After laboratory the problem caused by erosion. Moreover, least signifcant
report, SOC content was changed to SOM content using diference (LSD) test revealed that land without conservation
conversion factor of 1.724 adopted from references [19, 20]. practice showed signifcantly lower clay content than the rest
Te total nitrogen was estimated by Kjeldahl methods [21]. land management types.
Available phosphorus was decided by extraction from the Te result showed that the silt content was signifcantly
soil using sodium carbonate at pH equals 8.5 [22]. Te CEC afected by soil conservation practices. Silt content of the soil
was determined at soil pH 7 after displacement by using 1 N had shown substantial variation with conservation practices
ammonium acetate method in which it was thereafter, es- (P ≤ 0.001). However, there was no signifcant variation
timated titrimetrically by distillation of ammonium that was (P ≤ 0.05) in mean values of silt between felds of physical
displaced by sodium [23]. Exchangeable bases were de- conservation structures and physical conservation structures
termined after leaching the soils with ammonium combined with biological measures. Te lowest and highest
acetate [24]. mean value (28.6 and 32) of silt content of the soil was
recorded under the felds without conservation practices and
physical conservation practice supported by biological
2.3. Statistical Analysis. ANOVA was applied to analyze the measures, respectively (Table 1). Te mean value of silt
diference in mean values of soil parameters between the farm increased as one goes from the land without conservation
felds with physical soil and water conservation structures, practices to the land with physical conservation practices
physical soil and water conservation structures combined supported with biological measures. Tis diference is at-
with biological measures and without conservation practices. tributed by the variability in the problem caused by erosion.
Treatment mean comparison was determined using the least Moreover, least signifcant diference (LSD) test revealed
signifcant diference (LSD) at 0.05 level of signifcance [25]. that land without conservation practice showed signifcantly
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version lower silt content than the rest land management types.
26.0 was used for the analysis of the data.
Te Scientifc World Journal 5

Table 1: Efects of land management on soil physical properties (mean ± standard deviations).
Land management types Sand (%) Clay (%) Silt (%) BD (g/cm− 3)
Fanya juu not supported with desho grass 32.6 ± 2.413a 38.7 ± 3.773a 28.6 ± 2.119a 1.18 ± 0.000a
Fanya juu supported with desho grass 30.80 ± 1.936a 40.50 ± 2.455a 28.70 ± 1.537a 1.17 ± 0.000a
Landscape without conservation practice (control feld) 40.2 ± 3.521b 27.4 ± 2.989b 32 ± 1.491b 1.36 ± 0.000b
Mean 34.43 ± 4.890 35.53 ± 6.606 29.77 ± 2.329 1.24 ± 0.000
F 34.362 52.974 12.251 32.439
∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Sig
∗∗∗
Means within a column followed by same letters in superscripts are not signifcantly diferent from each other at P ≤ 0.05; P ≤ 0.001.

3.2. Bulk Density (BD). Te data obtained from the labo- by Warren et al. [27], the soil pH is moderately acidic and
ratory were subjected to one-way analysis of variance slightly acidic in farm feld without conservation practice
(ANOVA) to check whether signifcant diference exists and with conservation practices, respectively. Slightly acidic
among diferent soil management practices. Te result soil pH in conserved land might be associated with the
showed that the bulk density was signifcantly afected by soil decrease of the loss of soil organic matter and exchangeable
conservation practices. Bulk density of the soil had shown bases through soil erosion and thereby increase pH of the
substantial variation with conservation practices (P ≤ 0.001). soil. On the other hand, the reduction in pH of the soil of
However, there was no signifcant variation (P ≤ 0.05) in nonconserved farm feld could be due to continuous removal
mean values of bulk density between felds of physical of basic cations by severe erosion from the exposed surfaces
conservation structures and physical conservation practices of nonconserved land. Tis result is in agreement with
combined with biological measures. Te highest and lowest fndings of diferent researchers who observed higher
mean value (1.36 g/cm3 and 1.17 g/cm3) of soil bulk density pH value from the conserved farm feld as compared to
was recorded under the feld without conservation practices nonconserved farm felds [28, 29].
and physical conservation structures combined with bi- Soil conservation practices infuenced soil organic car-
ological measures, respectively (Table 1). Te considerable bon (SOC) of farm felds. Soil organic carbon (SOC) content
increase in bulk density of soils in farm felds without showed signifcant variation with conservation practices
conservation practice can be attributed by small amount of (P ≤ 0.001). Te mean value of SOC ranges between 1.40 and
organic matter content available because crop residues could 2.37% in which physical conservation structures combined
be used for thatch and other purposes after crop harvest. with biological measures had the highest mean value and the
Moreover, such diferences could probably be due to the lowest mean value was obtained on nonconserved farm feld
infuence of livestock grazing, since after harvest this farm is (Table 2). Tis might show that soil conservation practices
open for grazing. Relatively the lower bulk density in well have played a positive role in improving the content of soil
conserved soil is obviously due to the available residue and organic carbon (SOC). Tis fnding is in accordance with
planted grasses on conservation structures to stabilize the Tanto et al. [30], who reported that soil organic carbon
bunds and due to the presence of zero (restricted) grazing (SOC) content of cultivated land without conservation
practice. Te results obtained from this study are also in line practices, was signifcantly lower than that of cultivated land
with Hillel [26] who stated that soils of higher bulk densities with conservation practices.
are highly compacted. Least signifcant diference (LSD) test Total nitrogen content of soils showed signifcant vari-
also revealed that farm feld without conservation practice ation with conservation practices (P ≤ 0.001). Te mean
had signifcantly higher bulk density than the rest land values of total nitrogen (TN) decreased with the change in
management types. conservation practices from physical conservation practices
combined with biological measures (0.19%) to land without
conservation practices (0.12%), following the reduction in
3.3. pH (H2O), Soil Organic Carbon, Total Nitrogen, and soil organic carbon (SOC) content. According to the rating
Available Phosphorus. Te results of the study showed proposed by Hazelton et al. [31], total nitrogen content of the
signifcant variation of soil pH (H2O) with conservation soil is medium (sufcient) and low (defcient) in farm feld
practices. Te pH (H2O) of the soil had shown substantial with conservation and without conservation practices, re-
variation with soil and water conservation practices spectively. Generally, the result of this study is in agreement
(P ≤ 0.001). Te mean values (6.10) and (5.69) soil pH (H2O) with fndings of Selassie et al. [32] who reported that physical
was recorded under the farm feld of conservation structure soil and water conservation practices supplemented with
combined with biological measures and farm feld without biological conservation measures had a positive efect in
conservation practices, respectively (Table 2). Te mean improving the content of total nitrogen (TN) of the soil.
value of soil pH (H2O) is higher in the conserved land than Diference in land management practices signifcantly
in the nonconserved land (Table 2). However, there was no afected the available phosphorus (AP) of the soil. Te result
signifcant variation (P ≤ 0.05) in mean values of pH (H2O) of ANOVA revealed signifcant diference between land
between felds of physical soil and water conservation management types (P ≤ 0.001). Te lowest content of
structures and physical conservation structures combined available phosphorus (8.00 ppm) was recorded in the non-
with biological measures. According to the rating proposed conserved farmlands. Relatively higher mean value of
6 Te Scientifc World Journal

Table 2: Efects of land management on selected soil properties (mean ± standard deviations).
Land management types pH (H2O) SOC (%) TN (%) AP (mg/kg)
Fanya juu not supported with desho grass 6.09 ± 0.000a 2.37 ± 0.483a 0.19 ± 0.000a 11.39 ± 2.547a
Fanya juu supported with desho grass 6.1 ± 0.000a 2.4 ± 0.441a 0.20 ± 0.000a 11.56 ± 2.833a
Landscape without conservation practice (control feld) 5.69 ± 0.000a 1.40 ± 0.483b 0.12 ± 0.000b 8.14 ± 0.667b
Mean 5.96 ± 0.000 2.06 ± 0.000 0.17 ± 0.000 10.36 ± 2.200
F 0.255 14.286 0.151 17.807
∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Sig
∗∗∗
Means within a column followed by same letters in superscripts are not signifcantly diferent from each other at P ≤ 0.05; P ≤ 0.001.

Table 3: Efects of land management on selected soil properties (mean ± standard deviations).
Land management CEC (meq/100 gm
Na (cmol/kg) K (cmol/kg) Ca (cmol/kg) Mg (cmol/kg)
types soil)
Fanya juu not supported with desho grass 28.4 ± 2.547a 0.23 ± 0.000a 0.18 ± 0.422a 14.46 ± 1.567a 6.18 ± 1.563a
Fanya juu supported with desho grass 28.8 ± 2.833a 0.24 ± 0.000a 1.67 ± 0.441a 14.47 ± 1.424a 6.2 ± 1.616a
Landscape without conservation practice (control feld) 21.31 ± 0.160b 0.13 ± 0.000b 0.8 ± 0.000b 10.9 ± 0.738b 3.77 ± 0.483b
Mean 26.17 ± 4.161 0.2 ± 0.000 1.38 ± 0.507 13.28 ± 2.086 5.39 ± 1.675
F 32.901 0.000 18.00 21.189 10.328
∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Sig
∗∗∗
Means within a column followed by same letters in superscripts are not signifcantly diferent from each other at P ≤ 0.05; P ≤ 0.001.

available phosphorous was observed in farmlands of con- was a distinguished dominant exchangeable base and the
servation structures supported by biological measures concentration of sodium had the smallest component on the
having a mean value of (11.30 ppm) (Table 2). According to exchange complex. High mean values of exchangeable bases
the rating proposed by FAO, (2006), the content of available (Na, K, Ca, and Mg) were recorded in conserved land.
phosphorus of the soil is medium (optimum) and low However, lower exchangeable cations (Na, K, Ca, and Mg)
(defcient) in farm feld with conservation practices and were found in nonconserved land as compared to conserved
without conservation practices, respectively. Low available land. Tis is because of washing away of top soil by erosion
phosphorus content of farm feld without conservation result in reduction of exchangeable bases. Te results of this
practices might be due to the washing away of basic cations study is failed to be in accordance with the fndings of Amare
by the action of water erosion that result in soil acidity (low et al. [33], who reported a nonsignifcant variation in ex-
pH) and low organic matter. Te application of lime and changeable bases between land with conservation and
phosphorus in farm feld without conservation practices by without conservation measures.
means of fertilizer can increase availability of phosphorus.
4. Conclusion
3.4. Cation Exchange Capacity and Exchangeable Bases.
Diference in land management practices signifcantly af- In the study area, diferent soil and water conservation
fected the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil. Te (fanya juu integrated with desho grass and fanya juu only)
result of ANOVA revealed signifcant diference between measures were implemented by the community participa-
land management types (P ≤ 0.001). Te lowest content of tion to minimize soil erosion and related problems. Besides,
CEC (21.30 meq/100 g of soil) was recorded in the non- there is landscape without conservation practice as control
conserved felds of farmlands. Relatively higher mean value feld. Tis study was conducted to analyze the efects of soil
of CEC was observed in the felds of farmlands with con- and water conservation (fanya juu with desho grass, fanya
servation practices having a mean value of (28.40 meq/100 g juu only) measures on the selected soil physicochemical
of soil) (Table 3). According to the rating proposed by properties at Sibiya Arera. Te results of this study showed
Warren et al. [27], the content of CEC of the soil is high and that land management types signifcantly afected selected
medium in farm feld with soil conservation practices in- soil properties. Te soil without conservation measure had
tegrated with biological measures and without soil conser- resulted in signifcant reduction of soil nutrients, while it
vation practices, respectively. Low CEC content of farm feld increased bulk density of the soil. For most parameters
without conservation practices might be due to the wearing evaluated, the most favorable soil properties were found in
a way of basic cations by the action of severe erosion. soils of landscape with conservation practices (fanya juu
Te result of analysis indicated that the mean values of integrated with desho grass) followed by felds with soil and
exchangeable bases (Na, K, Ca, and Mg) were signifcantly water conservation (fanya juu only), while the least favorable
varied (P ≤ 0.001). Te mean relative abundance of basic soil properties were found in felds without conservation
cations in the exchange complex for all the land manage- practices. Tis fnding suggests the need for physical and
ment categories in the study samples were in the order of biological conservation measures, particularly in the culti-
(Ca > Mg > K > Na) (Table 3). Tis indicates that calcium vated land, to minimize damage of erosion and improve the
Te Scientifc World Journal 7

soil property. Tis would be planned and implemented [10] B. Bufebo, E. Elias, and G. Agegnehu, “Efects of landscape
based on the approach of integrated watershed management. positions on soil physicochemical properties at Shenkolla
Terefore, the study might have policy implications about Watershed, South Central Ethiopia,” Environmental Systems
how soil quality could be maintained with proper design and Research, vol. 10, no. 1, 2021.
implementation of physical and biological soil and water [11] E. Elias, Soils of Ethiopian High Lands: Geomorphology and
conservation practices to improve the livelihood and ensure Properties, CASCAPE project, ALTERA. Wageningen Uni-
versity and Research Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2016.
food security of the rural farming community.
[12] J. M. Anderson and J. S. I Ingram, Tropical Soil Biology and
Fertility: A Handbook of Methods, Oxford University Press, 2
Data Availability edition, Oxford, England UK, 1993.
[13] R. Burt, “Soil survey staf. Soil survey feld and laboratory
Te data used to support the fndings of this study are
methods manual,” soil survey investigations report 51(2.0)
available upon reasonable request from the corresponding
soil survey staf,” U.S. Department of Agri. Natural Resources
author. Conservation Service, Washington, D.C, 2014.
[14] P. R. Day, “Hydrometer method of particle size analysis,” in
Conflicts of Interest Methods of Soil Analysis, C. A. Black, Ed., pp. 562-563, Agron,
Mumbai, 1965.
Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest. [15] D. L. Rowell, Soil Science: Methods and Applications, Addison
Wesley Longman Limited, England, 1994.
Acknowledgments [16] C. A. Black, Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1965.
Te authors acknowledge the Development Agents of Sibiya [17] M. Peach, Hydrogen Ion Activity. Methods of Soil Analysis, Soil
Arera for their generous support during the feld work. Te Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1965.
authors also wish to thank the Wachemo Universitythat [18] A. Walkley and I. A. Black, “An examination method for
provided fnancial and other material support during determining soil organic matter and the proposed mod-
the study. ifcation of the chromic acid titration method,” Soil Science,
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 1934.
References [19] A. Young, Tropical Soils and Spoil Survey, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, England, 1976.
[1] U. N. C. C. D. Secretariat, A Stronger UNCCD for a Land- [20] H. K. Tan, Soil Sampling, Preparation and Analysis, Marcel
Degradation Neutral World, Issue Brief, Bonn, Germany, Dekker, New York and Basel, Switzerland, 1996.
2013. [21] M. L. Jackson, Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course,
[2] E. Ozgoz, H. Gunal, N. Acir, F. Gokmen, M. Birol, and Department of Soils, College of Agric., University of Wis-
M. Budak, “Soil quality and spatial variability assessment of consin, Madison, USA, 2 edition, 1979.
land use efects in a typic haplustoll” Land Degradation,” Land [22] S. R. Olsen, C. V. Cole, F. J. Watnahe, and L. A. Dean, Es-
Degradation and Development, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 277–286, timation of Available Phosphorous in Soils by Extraction with
2013. Sodium Bicarbonate, US Department of Agriculture, Wash-
[3] H. J. Di, K. C. Cameron, and J. Shen, “Te role of bacteria and ington, D.C, 1954.
archaea in nitrifcation, nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide [23] H. D. Chapman, “Cation exchange capacity,” Methods of soil
emissions in nitrogen-rich grassland soils,” in Molecular analysis: Part 2 Chemical and microbiological properties, vol. 9,
Environmental Soil Science, Xu and D. L. Sparks, Eds.,
pp. 891–901, 1965.
pp. 79–89, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
[24] G. W Tomas, E. cations” In, L. Page, R. Miller, and
[4] D. T. Gardiner and R. W. Miller, Soils in Our Environment,
R. Keeney, Eds., Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of
Pearson Education, Inc, 10 edition, London, UK, 2004.
Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990.
[5] E. Assefa and H. R. Bork, “Deforestation and forest man-
[25] K. A. Gomez and A. Gomez, Statistical Procedure for Agri-
agement in Southern Ethiopia: investigations in the Chencha
cultural Research, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, U.S, 2 edition,
and Arbaminch areas,” Environmental Management, vol. 53,
no. 2, pp. 284–299, 2014. 1984.
[6] T. Yitbarek, G. Heluf, K. Kibebew, and S. Beyene, “Impacts of [26] D. Hillel, Fundamentals of Soil Physics, Academic Press,
land use on selected physicochemical properties of soils of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980.
Abobo area, Western Ethiopia,” Agriculture, Forestry and [27] P. Warren, T. Hofer, D. McGuire, W. Fleming, B. Kiersch, and
Fisheries, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 177–183, 2013. S. Bernini, Te New Generation of Watershed Management
[7] F. Laekemariam, K. Kibret, T. Mamo, E. Karltun, and Programmes and Projects, FAO Forestry Paper, America,
H. Gebrekidan, “Physiographic characteristics of agricultural USA, 2006.
lands and farmers’ soil fertility management practices in [28] H. Haweni, Efect of Soil and Water Conservation on Selected
Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia,” Environ Syst Res, vol. 5, Soil Characteristics in Dimma Watershed, Central Ethiopia,
no. 1, 2016. MSc Tesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
[8] B. Bufebo and E. Elias, “Efects of land use/land cover changes 2015.
on selected soil physical and chemical properties in Shenkolla [29] H. Solomon, L. James, and B. Woldeamilak, “Soil and water
watershed, south Central Ethiopia,” Advances in Agriculture, conservation efect on soil properties in the Middle Silluh
vol. 2020, pp. 1–8, Article ID 5145483, 2020. Valley, northern Ethiopia,” International Soil and Water
[9] Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Guide Line Conservation Research, vol. 5, pp. 231–240, 2017.
for Integrated Watershed Management, MoARD, Addis [30] T. Tanto and F. Laekemariam, “Impacts of soil and water
Ababa, Ethiopia, 2005. conservation practices on soil property and wheat
8 Te Scientifc World Journal

productivity in Southern Ethiopia,” Environmental Systems

Research, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 13, 2019.
[31] P. Hazelton and B. Murphy, Interpreting Soil Test Results:
What Do All the Numbers Mean, CSIRO Publishing, 2 edition,
Clayton, Victoria, 2007.
[32] Y. G. Selassie, F. Anemut, S. Addisu et al., “Te efects of land
use types, management practices and slope classes on selected
soil physico-chemical properties in Zikre watershed, North-
Western Ethiopia,” Environmental Systems Research, vol. 4,
no. 1, p. 3, 2015.
[33] T. Amare, A. Terefe, Y. G. Selassie, B. Yitaferu, B. Wolfgramm,
and H. Hurni, “Soil properties and crop yields along the
terraces and toposequece of anjeni watershed,” Central
Highlands of Ethiopia, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 134–144, 2013.