IRJET- Assessment of Farmers’ Perception Towards the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices and Soil Quality in Kechabira Woreda; Southern Ethiopia

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 11 | Nov 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1868
Assessment of Farmers’ Perception towards the Adoption of Soil and
Water Conservation Practices and Soil Quality in Kechabira Woreda;
Southern Ethiopia
Belete Ashuro1, Serekebirhan Takele2
1Department of Biology, Arba Minch University, P.O.Box 21,
2Department of Biology, Arba Minch University, P.O.Box 21, Corresponding Author
-----------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract – Study on assessment of farmers’ perception towards the adoption of soil and water conservation practices and
selected physicochemical properties of soil were carried out in Kechabirra woreda, southern Ethiopia. The aim of the study
was to investigatefarmers’perception towards the adoption of soil and water conservation practices in the area. Descriptive
survey design method was used. Thus, a total of 302 households from three kebeles (The lowest administrative unit) were
randomly selected for the study. Experimental work has also been carried out to determine physicochemical properties
of soil in the study area. A total of 18 plots among these, 9 plots were from farmlands treated with 5 and above years old
fanaya juu and various physical and biological soil conservation structures as treated and other 9 plots were with no
soil and water conservation (SWC) practices as a control with the same land use system. Moreover, soil samples were
taken at three slope gradients lower slope (3-8%), middle slope (8-13%), and upper slope(13-18%).The samples were
analyzed for soil moisture, soil pH, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, soil organic carbon, and basic cation exchange
capacity (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+). The study revealed that among indigenous soil and water conservation measures practiced
in the study area, application of manure (81.8%), indigenous tree planting (79.5%) and crop rotation (77.2%) were most
preferred by the farmers. On the other hand, grass strips (70.4%) and fanaya juu (46%) were among the most preferred
modern soil and water conservation methods practiced in the study area. Farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation
measures in the study area was influenced by demographic (gender, family size, educational status and age) and bio-
physical (farmland size, farmland fertility and distance of farmland from residence) factors. The mean of soil moisture
content (MC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Soil Organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus
(Av.P) and basic cations exchangeable capacity (BCEC) except the exchangeable Na+ showed significant variation
between treated (experimental) and non-treated (control) farm plots (p≤0.05).Hence, farmland treated with soil and
water conservation measures showed high mean values of the analyzed soil nutrients. Similarly, the mean values of
analyzed soil nutrients were higher at lower slope (3-8%) position in both treated and untreated farmlands with the
exception exchangeable Na+.
Formulating appropriate plan and strategies for creating suffices awareness about different SWC techniques in the study
area is very important.
Key words: Adoption, Ajacho, Farmers perception, Watershed, SW
1. INTRODUCTION
Land degradation is an important global problem because of its adverse impact on agricultural productivity, food security
and the quality of the environment. Due to land degradation in most developing countries, particularly agricultural
productivity reached the level beyond the subsistence requirement of a household (Antenah Gebremariam, 2010). The
economic development of developing countries depends on the performance of the agricultural sector, and the
contribution of this sector depends on how the natural resources are managed. Unfortunately, in the majority of
developing nations, the quality and quantity of natural resources are decreasing resulting in more severe droughts and
floods(FikruAssefa, 2009).
Inappropriate land management practices in areas with high population density and fragile ecosystem further increases
loss of productivity of resources. These in turn affect food security and livelihood. According to Getachew Adem and
Demele Yismawas (2000) large areas of sub- Saharan African soils in particular are affected by various types of
degradation, which directly cause the decline in soil fertility. Consequently, yields are relatively low. For instance, the
productivity of some land in Africa has declined by 50% because of soil erosionand desertification (Dregne, 1990). Further,
yield reduction in Africa due to past soil erosion may range from 2% to 40% with a mean loss of 8.2% for the continent
(Lal, 1995). The most pressing environmental problem in the least developed countries are prevalent in rural areas, where
large number of population live and whose livelihood depend on agriculture and related activities (Getachew Adem and
Demele Yismaw, 2000).

Ethiopia is among the least developed countries that survival and livelihood of majority of the people is based natural
resources such as land, water and forests. Therefore, there is a strong and direct link between the basic needs such as food
and shelter and natural resources in Ethiopia (Mitche, 1991). Declining land productivity, natural resource degradation,
high population growth and food security are major challenges facing Ethiopia (Alemneh Dejene, 2003). In particular,
small scale farmers that depend on the resources face severe constraints related to intensive cultivation, overgrazing
and deforestation. Thus, for environmentally sustainable development, there is an urgent need of identifying the
serious problem of soil erosion which directly results with land degradation, land productivityand food security.
The present study area, Kechabira Woreda, is located in Kembata and Tambaro Zone, southern region of Ethiopia.
According to the Woreda (Administrative unit higher than Kebele) office report (2017), there is high population
density in the area. Farmers in this locality are mainly small land holders that are engaged in subsistence agriculture. The
current agricultural activities of farmers coupled with rapid population growth in the area resulting land degradation. Due
to lack of appropriate soil management practices, a number of agricultural and grazing lands are seriously degraded.
Even though modern technological soil and water conservation practices area applied in most places, land degradation
problems still persists that need further research and investigations. Therefore, the present study is towards this end that
assessing farmers’ perception towards the adoption of soil and water conservation practices and selected physicochemical
properties of soil in the study area.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study area is located between 7º10’ 30’’N -7º 10' 00"N latitude and 37º 31' 30"E - 37º 45' 30"E longitude with the
altitude range from 1800-2400 m.a.s.l. (Figure 1) The area covers three agro-ecological zones namely; ‘Dega’ (wet
highland and relatively cold), ‘Woina-dega’ (moderately warm midland) and ‘Kolla’ (low land and relatively hot) which
accounts for 24%, 72% and 4%, respectively. Regarding the land use pattern of the study area, 17161ha Crop
land, 7506.4ha forest land, 748ha grazing land, 440ha degraded land and the rest 89ha is fallow land (Kechabirra Woreda
Agricultural Office Report, 2018). Descriptive survey design method was used. Both qualitative and quantitative data
were collected using questionnaires, interviews and focus group discussions. Experimental work has also been carried out
to determine physicochemical properties of soil in the study area. Among 20 kebeles in the study area, three kebeles namely -
Mesafe, Kachabirra and Wrerama were randomly selected. The total number of households in the selected kebeles was
1234. Thus, to determine the sample size, Yemane (1967) sample size determination formula was used and it has
become 320. Later on sample size perstudysites(Kebeles) was determined following Kothari (2004).
For soil sampling, a total of 18 plots were selected from three kebeles. Among these, 9 plots were from farmlands treated
with 5 and above years old fanaya juu and various physical and biological soil conservation structures as treated
(experimental plots) and the other 9 plots were with no SWC practices as a control plots (cultivation land adjacent to
each structure) with the same land use system. Even though the structures were common between 3 to above 30% slope,
the samples were collected from 3−18% slope based on land use practice. Accordingly, the farm land was divided into three
slope classes as lower slope (3-8%), middle slope (8-13%), and upper slope(13-18%) and soil samples (0-20cm depth)
were taken from each layer following Dejene Teressa (2017). On the other hand, soil samples for control plots were
collected from the 0-20 cm depth at four corners and center of a plot of 10m x10msize using “X” sampling design (Marges a
n d Schinner, 2005) using sharp edged and closed circular auger pushed manually down the soil profile. Therefore,
based on the terrace site position, soil conservation practice and study kebeles, 18 composite soil samples (3
replication * 2 treatments * 3 slope gradients) w e r e collected. Then after, the samples mixed thoroughly in clean
plastic bucket to form a composite sample and analysis was made in the laboratory for selected physicochemical
properties of soil. Data analysis was employed by combining both qualitative and quantitative methods. Rate of adoption,
constraints and farmers’ of SWC technologies were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Microsoft excels, SPSS (Version
22.00) and SAS (Version 9.4) wereusedfor data analysis. Statistical tests such as, correlation, standard error, means for mean
separation of each soil parameters, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were computed. Soil samples were air dried,
crushed with mortar and pestle, mixed well and passed through 2 mm sieve for the following selected physicochemical
propriety analysis; total nitrogen, available phosphorus, Soil Organic carbon, soil basic Cation Exchange Capacity, soil
moisture and soil PH. Total nitrogen was determined following the Kjeldehal procedures (Hamagaki and
Panbingbatan, 1988) for converting organic nitrogen to ammonium-nitrogen that can be readily estimated. Available
phosphorus of soil samples were determined by measure absorbance on UV- visible spectrophotometer following the
Olsen method (VanReeuwijk, 1992) at pH 7.0. pH of soil samples were measured from a soil suspension solution prepared
with 1:5 (5gm soil with 25ml distilled water) soil to water ratios using conventional glass pH meter. Soil moisture was
estimated by taking undisturbed soil core from the surface of the soil by driving a metal cylinder /core sampler,
samples then dried in the oven at a temperature of 105°c for 24 hours.

Figure-1: Location map of the study area.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Soil and water conservation practices
3.1.1. Indigenous SWC practices
Indigenous soil and water conservation management practices are broadly grouped as physical, vegetative and agronomic
methods of soil management practices. These practices also emerge from a detailed understanding of local conditions, and
are modified in response to changing socio-economic, political and ecological conditions. In the present study, it has been
revealed that many indigenous SWC methods such as traditional stone bunds, traditional ditch, crop rotation, fallowing,
cut-off drains, tree planting, contour farming, traditional terrace, application of manure, mixed cropping and inter-cropping
were practiced in the study area. However, their level of application in the area was varied. Hence, according to
respondents, the top three known indigenous SWC practices in the study area were application of manure (81.8%),
indigenous tree planting (79.5%), and crop rotation (77.2%); whereas the least practiced were fallowing (5.1%),
terracing (10.8%) and traditional stone bunds (15.9%) (Table 1). Similarly, per study kebeles also, application of manure,
indigenous tree planting, and crop rotation were the dominant indigenous SWC practices. Application of organic manure
has become the most preferred agronomic indigenous soil fertility management practice in the study area. Farmers
used manure mainly on the homestead farm rather than the distance plot presumably to reduce transport and/or labor
cost. Focus group discussions with development agents and farmers (who have very low inco me) have also
confirmed the same. Major sources of organic matter are manure, household refuse and thrash lines. Tree leaves and
branches of harvested trees also provide organic matter. Manure is obtained from animals raised at home, and
community garbage. Unlike in Northern part Ethiopia, animal dung is not used as fuel and in the past decades farmers in
study area used to apply dried human and poultry farce to their field as the best sources of organics than manure
(Hallpike, 1972).
Indigenous tree planting was the second most used indigenous SWC practice in the study area. Biological (vegetative)
measures can prevent soil erosion by slowing down water flowing over the land and it allows much of the rain water to flow
into the ground and thus prevent it from being removed away. Moreover, plants break the impact of a raindrop before it
washes the soil, thus minimizing its ability to erode soil. The loss of protective vegetation through deforestation, over-
grazing and ploughing makes soil vulnerable to being removed away by wind and water erosion. In the study area, trees

such as Korch (Ehre abyssinica), kulkual (Euphorbia ampliphyla), Kinchib (Euphorbia tirucalli), Wanza (Cordia africana),
Bisana (Croton machrostachus) are commonly planted. Besides, enset (Enset ventricosum), Coffee tree (Coffee abyssinica),
local grass strip and others are also played significant role in protecting soil moisture, controlling fast run-off and
flood, breaking wind as well as to increase soil fertility with their decomposing leaves. During FGD, it has been
mentioned that planting of trees is important conservation activity to combat soil degradation and rehabilitating
degraded lands since it does not cost that much. Plants break the impact of a rain drop before it hits the soil, thus
reducing its ability to erode soil. Indigenous trees and shrubs are planted on eroded lands to rehabilitate land degradation.
In certain areas, communal highly degraded lands are closed off to livestock to protect it from grazing and planted with
trees for regeneration (Lal, 2008).
Crop rotation was the third most preferred indigenous SWC practice in the study area. It was applicable in all parts of the
study area where terraces were not built that the slope was not the problem. Farmer’s choices of crops to grow in rotation
were largely based on their personal preference, agro climatic condition and suitability of the soil type of farm plot for
the chosen crops. According to the key informant discussion, major crop rotation system practiced by farmers in the study
area were from cereals to cereals (Maize - Teff - Maize or Maize - Wheat or Wheat - Teff - Wheat), from legumes to
cereals (Haricot bean - Teff or Maize - Beans - Maize) or from cereals to root crops (Maize-Sweet potato or Wheat - Sugar
potato or Teff -Yam). Planting of different crops on the field in rotation can increase soil nutrients and crop yields. On
the other hand, if the same crop is grown on the same land frequently, the planted crop develop the root at the same depth
of soil profile and thus the propagation of the root systems in the same depth results in strong competition for moisture and
nutrients. Teklu Erkossa and Gezahegn Ayele (2003) reported that in east Wollega region, major cereals after legumes or
oil crops are rotated mainly for soil fertility maintenance, weed and disease control. Moreover, a study in Konso area
showed that to improve soil fertility farmers’ use alternating high residue producing crops with the growing low
residue producing crops (Yeshambel Mulat, 2013).
Fallowing, a conservation technique which involves the practice of leaving the land out of production for 3-5 years for the
purpose of restoring soil fertility and minimizing soil loss, was the least practiced indigenous SWC technique in the study
area. As FGD revealed, despite the fact that farmers have good knowledge about this conservation practice, due to
shortage of farmland and high population pressure in the study area, the method has become rarelypracticed.During
field observation in the study area, it was observed that farmers applied fallowing in the formerly degraded farm
and grazing lands. A study conducted at Digil watershed in East Gojam indicated that fallowing was used to be the
most important way for improving soil fertility (Michael Shiferaw, 2002). Therefore, fallowing is effective measure in
restoring degraded farm and grazing lands in the study area, though it is less practiced.
3.1.2. Modern soil and water conservation practices
Modern soil and water conservation practices were recently introduced but widely applied methods in the study area. Of
the total sampled households, 94% of them used modern soil and water conservation practices such as fanaya juu, soil
bunds, grass strip, improved cut-off drains plantation of trees, check dams, and basins (Table 2). However, grass strips
were highly practiced (70.4%) conservation activities in the study area. This is in agreement with Lan et al., (2009) that
grass strips create barriers that minimize soil erosion and runoff. Silt builds up in front of the strip, and within time benches
are formed. Types of grasses planted in the study area included elephant grass and bushes (Figure 2). Furthermore, key
informants reported that there are different types of strips used along with grass stripes such as banana, gravillea, and
coffee. According to respondents, the major reasons for using grass stripes were due to its low cost and could be used as
foragefor their cattles. Besides,in somecases, they earned money from the sale of grasses.
Figure-2: Grass strips used in the study area.

On the other hand, check dams and basins were the least practiced (6.8% each) conservation activities in the study area.
Gully erosion was one of the serious problem in the study. Hence, according to respondents, check dams are important
structures constructed by woods and rock fragments across the gully to reduce the velocity of run-off and prevent
deepening and widening of the gully. In order to overcome the problem, different gully stabilization measureswere
implemented in the study area. Basins are normally small semi- circular shaped or holes constructed to capture and holds
rainwater and soil. They constructed along the contours on the eroded bare lands and communal lands which used to trap
rapid run- off and flow of rain water. According to respondents, constructed basins enhanced the infiltration capacity of
water and nutrients in the ground. In the study area, basins were constructed in different shapes (Figure 3).
Table-1: Indigenous soil conservation measures practiced in the study area
Indigenous soil
management practices
Kebeles
TotalMesafe Kachabirra Wererama
No % No % No % No %
Traditional stone bunds 18 16 15 18 13 13 48 15.9
Traditional ditches 53 46.9 36 42 63 61.6 153 50.5
Crop rotation 77 68.1 65 76 91 88.3 233 77.2
Following 5 4.5 3 4 7 6.6 15 5.1
Cut-off drains 82 72.7 64 74 70 68.3 216 71.6
Tree planting 89 78.7 71 82 81 78.3 241 79.5
Contour farming 49 43.9 53 62 62 60 164 54.5
Terraces 10 9 14 16 9 8.3 33 10.8
Application of manure 84 74.2 76 88 87 85 247 81.8
Mixed cropping 48 42.4 60 70 72 70 180 59.6
Inter cropping 32 28.7 39 46 38 36.6 110 36.6
Figure-3: Basins on degraded land in wererama kebele
Table-2: Soil and water conservation techniques.
Types of modern soil
management practices
Kebeles Total
Mesafe Kachabirra Wererama
No of
HHH
%No of
HHH %
No of
HHH %
No of
HHH %
Fanaya juu 53 47 36 42 46 45 135 46
Improved cut-off drains 38 34 32 38 36 35 107 35.7
Check dams 5 4.5 9 10 7 7 21 6.8
Soil bunds 37 33 32 38 29 28 99 33
Basins 5 4.5 7 8 8 8 21 6.8
Plantation of trees 53 47 36 42 46 45 135 44.8
Grass strip 89 79 67 78 57 55 212 70.4

3.2 Farmers’ perception on the significance of modern SWC practices
Farmers and focus group informants were interviewed to understand their perception upon the effectiveness of modern
soil and water conservation practices in retaining soil erosion on their farm. Thus, 66.5% of respondents perceived that
application of modern soil and water conservation practices such as grass strips, improved cut- off drains, fanaya juu and
others are highly effective and widely used in their locality (Table 3). The level of perception on modern SWC practices
per study kebeles was also relatively the same. Similar study that has been carried out in southern Ethiopia at Gununo
area confirmed that farmers in the area have good perception about SWC practices (Abay Ayalew, 2011)
Table- 3: Farmer’s perception on the effectiveness of modern soil and water conservation practices
Effectiveness of modern SWC
Practices
Kebeles Overall total
Mes
afe
Kacha birra Wer era ma No of sample
HHH
%
of sam
Less effective 16 10 7 33 11
Moderately effective 21 20 27 68 22.5
Highly effective 76 56 69 201 66.5
Total 113 86 103 302 100
Regarding the length of time at which farmers practiced SWC techniques in their farmland, 66.5% of respondents
mentioned that they used for more than 5 years. At study kebele levels also, 76%, 65.1% and 60% of respondents
practiced the same at Kachabirra, Mesafe and Wrerama, respectively (Table 4). Different studies (Million Alemayehu,
2003; Fikru Assefa, 2009) have also shown that using of SWC techniques for prolonged periods would result improved
crop yield.
Table-4: Time of length for application of SWC measures.
Variable
Duration
(Years)
Kebeles Total
Mesafe
%
Kachab irra
%
Wrera ma
% No %
Time of length for application of
SWC measures
More than
5 74(65.1) 65(76) 62(60) 201 66.5
3 – 4 24(21) 9(10) 17(17) 50 16.5
2 – 3 10(9.09) 5(6) 15(15) 30 10
One 6(4.54) 7(8) 8 (8) 21 7
3.3 Factors affecting implementation of soil and water conservation practices
In the study area, it has been found that farmers’ application of structural soil and water conservation practices were
influenced by different factors such as, age, sex, house hold size, topography, educational status and farmland size. Besides,
lack of information, labor cost, distance from the homestead, level of contact with DA’s, and training on soil conservation
techniques had significant influences on practicing structural soil and water conservation measures in the study area.
3.3.1. Gender
Of the total of 302 sampled household heads, 79.8% were males. These household heads were include a wide range of
people, village elders, decision makers or local administrators, younger people, older people, farmers and so on. The
remaining 20.2 % of the household heads were females. There is a positive relationship between gender and
implementation of soil and water conservation measures. In most cases male households are more actively participated in
the implementation of indigenous and modern SWC measures than female household heads. Analogously, Krishna et al.,
(2008) and Eleni Tesfaye (2008), revealed that male headed house hold heads have a higher chance to be involved in
continued use of SWC measures than female headed households in most women spent their time in domestic activities
and responsibilities.

Majority (93%) of household heads among the sampled respondents were married. And the remaining households were
single (2%), divorced (2%) and widowed (3%). Out of the total sampled household heads, 67.5% had family size of 5-
7. The remaining 10.8% and 21.7 % of the household heads had 1-4 and > 8, respectively. Hence, majority of household
heads (89.2%) had family size > 5. The minimum and maximum family sizes found in the present study were 3 and 13,
respectively, with the average family size of 7. The result is greater than Ethiopian national average household size of
5 (MoH, 2014). This clearly indicates that there is relatively high population density in the studyarea that presumably have
negative impact on SWC measures since to feed such large family, engagement in off-farm activities would be
inevitable. Large family size influences the decision of farmers to undertake the conservation measures. Wagayehu
Bekele and Lars, (2003) indicated that in the large families with greater number of mouth to feed, immediate food
generate need is given priority and labor is diverted to off-farm activities that food.
3.3.2. Marital status and family size
According to the present finding, majority of the respondents were found at productive age between 20-29 (28.1%), 30-
39 (46.1%) and 40-49 (16.1%). Age has influence on the acceptance and implementation of SWC practices. Usually farmers
at younger age are not resistant to adopt different SWC techniques as compared to the older ones. Mulugeta Demalash et
al., (2001) mentioned that young farmers are often expected to engage in SWC practices because they assumed to have a
better awareness and not resistant to change. Similarly, Goulson and Dillman (1983) pointed out that there is a
negative correlation between age of farmers and adoption of erosion control practices. Wagayehu Bekele and Drake
(2003) also found out that old-aged farmers are more likely to reject conservation practices. Of the total householdheads
in the survey, 13% were unable to read and write whereas the remaining 87% were literates at different levels that
assumed to have a better knowledge of SWC practices in their locality. Generally, better-educated households have a more
realistic perception and adoption about SWC practices (r = 0.726). Mulugeta Demalash, et al. (2001), explained that
level of education has strong in fluency towards the adoption of any kind of technology. In similar fashion, Krishna,
et al., (2008) and Fikru Assefa, (2009) indicated that better educational level of the HH heads has strong and
positive relationship with their adoption of SWC because of their ability to find new information and their understanding
of new technologies.
3.4 Bio-physical characteristics
3.4.1. Farmland Size
Similar to most of the highlands of the country, the landholding size of farmers in the study area was very small.
Majority (72.7 %) of farmers had farmland less than 0.5 ha. On the other hand, only 5.1% of the total sampled households
had farmland size larger than 2 ha (Table 5). Reports from Zonal bureau indicated that majority of households in the
study area cultivate in <2.0 ha of farmland (CSA, 2010). During FGD, discussants mentioned that due to the smallness of
their farmland implementation of some SWC practices such as terracing would further narrowed the farmland. Thus,
due to this reason either they do not use such practices or they would not let the constructed terrace for longer period.
Similarly, Belay Tegene (1992) and Habtamu Ertiro (2006) showed that farmers having smaller farming land usually
remove soil conservation measures such as terraces.
Table-5: Land holding size of sample household heads
Variables Frequency Percentage
<0.25 ha 17 5.7
0.26-0.5 ha 202 67
0.6-2.0 ha 68 22.2
>2.0 ha 15 5.1
Total 302 100
3.4.2. Soil fertility of farmland
The condition of soil fertility on cultivated farm land has been found another important factor that affected farmers'
decision on the application of SWC practices in the study area (Table 6). Farmers with infertile farm land were more

involved in conservation work than those who had fertile land. This might be due to the reason that farmers with infertile
farmland need to improve the productivity of the land by implementing various SWC techniques. Eleni Tesfaye (2008)
mentioned that continuous use of soil management practices is important to enhance the productivity of a farmland.
The distance between farmland and farmer’s residence was also another factor which determines the
implementation of SWC practices in the study area (Table 6). Generally speaking, as the farmland distance from
the residence increases, the level of engagement in SWC practices decrease. This implies that distant farmlands are not
well managed compared to near farm lands which are close to the homesteads. Labor cost due to time spent on travel
might be the probable reason. Similarly, Kessler (2006) revealed that the level of engagement of farmers in practicingSWC
measures is very high in fields situated near to the residences. According Shiferaw and Holden (1998) also, scattered and
far away fields are determinant factors that discourage farmers from adopting SWC measures. They further
explained that some farmers undertake SWC work during the evening, making it difficult to go to the fields that are located
far from the residence.
3.4.3. Fertility Impacts on soil quality
Concerning the fertility status of soil in the study area, 84.7% of respondents confirmed that it is improving whereas
13% of respondents said it is declining. On the other hand majority of respondents (73.2%) have mentioned that
the decline of agricultural productivity is one of the most important indicators for declining of fertility in the study area
(Table 7). With regard to reasons for soil fertility decline in the study area, majority of respondents (55.7%) replied
loss of top soil by erosion. Other reasons for soil fertility decline in the study area include over cultivation and over
grazing. Habtamu Ertiro (2006) indicated that soil loss occur on unproductive land with less vegetation cover that
was once under cultivation. He further explained that along with soil movement large amount of organic matter (OM),
nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K) and other nutrients that are necessary for agricultural production are lost.
3.5. soil quality analysis
3.5.1. Soil moisture
Among analyzed soil quality parameters, soil moisture showed significant variation (p<0.05) with respect to
treatment of soil (conservation practices). Highersoil MC (2.86±0.018) was recorded in terraced farm plots with
Table-6: Relationship between distance of farm land and soil fertility with soil and water conservation practices on farm
lands.
Variables
Soil and water conservation practices
CorrelationIndigenous
methods of SWC
Modern
methods of
SWC
Integrating
indigenous
with modern
Location
of farm plots
Near
No of HHH No HHH No of HHH Count
.849
**
73 62 61 196
Far 37 34 35 106
110 96 96 302
Fertility of
Soil
Fertile 67 51 72 190
.773**
Medium 24 26 37 87
Low 8 6 11 25
99 83 120 302
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table-7: Fertility of soil in study area (Based on respondents’ response)
CAM Options Frequency Percentage
Improving 256 84.7
The same 7 2.3
Declining 39 13

Fertility status
Total 302 100
Indicators of fertility
decline
The decline of agricultural productivity 221 73.2
Devoid of vegetation cover 21 7
Size and color of seedlings 60 19.8
Total 302 100
Reasons for fertility
decline
Losses of top soil by erosion 168 55.7
Over cultivation 115 38
Over grazing 19 6.3
Total 302 100
different SWC measures as compared with non-Terraced farm plots (2.37±0.018). On the other hand, the interaction of
treatment and slope effect was not statistically different (p>0.05) (Table 8). In conserved farm plots, the higher soil
moisture (2.86±0.018) was observed in the lower slope gradients (3-8%) than in the higher and middle slope
gradient (13-18% and 8-13%) (2.818±0.018 and 2.817±0.018) whereas in non- conserved farm plots, lower
soil moisture with very small difference was observed at all slope gradients (2.363 - 2.375) (Table 9). The result of the
study revealed that BPSWC practices highly improved the soil moisture capacity or contents. Soil MC, which is a
key factor affecting agricultural production in water shortage problem having environments, was higher in farm
plots with BPSWC practices compared to non-SWC practiced farm plots. Lewis (1982) reported that soils found at the
middle and lower level receives high moisture than upper slope. The increase in soil MC also may be attributed to an
additional water supply from upper slope to down slope direction as catchment area increase.
Table-8: summaryof ANOVAfor (MC pH SOC TN Av.P Ca2+ Mg2+ K+ and Na+
TR-Treatment, SP-slope, TR*SP-Treatment with Slope, MS-Mean, P-value

3.5.2. Soil PH
Soil PH mean value showed significant variation with regard to treatment (p<0.05), however no variation observed at
different slope gradients (p>0.05). Similarly, the interaction between treatment and slope effect was not statistically
significant (p<0.05) (Table 8). The pH mean values of the study site at conserved and non- conserved plots were
6.23±0.19 and 4.96±0.19, respectively (Table 9). This difference may be due to leaching of cations in non-conserved
farm lands due to lack of SWC measures. The results of the soil P
H
content analysis revealed that traditional land
conservation practices have significant role in controlling soil cover, soil organic matter and reduces soil erosion. Alemu
Lelago et al., (2016) mentioned that soil PH(water) critical levels used for classifying soil fertility. As strongly acidic <5.5,
Moderately acidic 5.6-6.5, Neutral 6.6-7.3, Moderately alkaline 7.3-8.4 and Strongly alkaline >8.4. Therefore, in the
present study non-conserved farm lands were strongly acidic whereas conserved farm lands were moderatelyacidic.
3.5.3 Soil organic carbon
Laboratory results of SOC showed significant variation with respect to both treatments and slope gradients (p<0.05).
However, the interaction of treatment and slope gradients did not show variation (p>0.05) (Table 8). The conserved farml
a nd s (0.637±0.024) c onta ined higher soil organic carbon than then on-concerned ones (0.497±0.024).This indicates
that the BPSWC methods have significant role in conserving soil organic carbon. T a d e l e Amdemariam (2011) reported
that SOC is higher in treated farmlands than untreated ones. Other similar studies ( Million Alemayehu, 2003;Yihenew
Gebreselassie, et al., 2009; Worku Hailu, et a. 2012), have also pointed out that non-treated farm lands have significantly
lower SOC than treated farm lands. With respect to slope gradient position, the lower slope gradient had higher SOC where
as the upper slope gradients contained lower SOC (Table 9).The lower soil SOC content at higher slope gradient might
reflect the decreasing width of horizon with uniform sheet erosion. Million Alemayehu (2003) and Gregorich (1998)
reported that soil organic carbon content is higher in the lower slope position due to increasing in moisture (soil water
content) and fertile soil deposition which higher crop biomass production. Moreover, Bot and Benites (2005) revealed
that the accumulation of soil o r g a n i c matter would be favored in the lower slope gradients due to soil moisture and
transportationof soil organic matter through erosion.
3.5.4. Total nitrogen
Total nitrogen differed significantly between the treatments (p<0.05), but not for slope positions and, treatment and
slope interactions (p>0.05) (Table 8).The overall TN content in soil sunder non-conserved farm lands was
significantly lower (0.14) than conserved farmland (0.16). Abay Chall et al., (2016) mentioned that the farm plots
treated with SWC measures within the catchment was found to exhibit higher TN than the non- conserved farm plots in

the catchment. TN also correlated positively with SOC contents. Havlin et al., (2002) explained that there is strong
positive correlation between total soil nitrogen and soil organic carbon contents. Bezuayehu Tefera et al., (2002) also
confirmed that the availability of total nitrogen is dependent on soil organic matter content of the soil.
3.5.5. Soil available phosphorus
Soil available phosphorous differed significantly between the treatments and slope gradients (p<0.05), but it was not
significant for treatment and slope interactions (p>0.05) (Table 8).The conserved farmlands had greater concentration of
available phosphorous than non- conserved ones. With respect to slope gradient position, the lower slope gradient
(0.42+0.0015) showed higher mean of available phosphorus than both in the middle and upper slope gradient
position (0.41008 ±0.0015 ) and (0.39± 0.0015) (Table 9). This result implies that implementation of biophysical soil and
water conservation (BPSWC) structures maintain soil fertility by reducing the removal of available phosphorous and soil
organic matter through soil erosion. Furthermore, these variations could be happened due to washing of top soil and soil
organic matter from the higher slope gradient position and accumulation at the lower slope gradient/accumulation zone.
Phosphorus is normally strongly fixed with soil particles. Therefore, it is easily transported from higher slope position to
down slope gradient position during erosion, giving higher amount of Phosphorous in the soil accumulation zone. As result
of erosion is responsible for the reduction of soil available phosphorus in the upper slope gradient (Ohwoghere, 2012).
Available phosphorus also showed positive correlation with SOC and TN. According to Press (1992) report, the amount of
soil organic matter in the semi- arid region is the main factor of controlling available p and other soil fertility parameters.
The higher soil organic matter content in treated farm land would result high availability phosphorus (Mulugeta Demelash
and Stahr, 2010).
3.5.6 Exchangeable cations Ca2+ Mg2+K+and Na+
The exchangeable Na+ ion showed significant variations at (p<0.05) with treatments, however, it was not significant in
slope gradients and treatment-slope gradient interaction their interaction (p>0.05) (Table 8). Exchangeable Na+ under
non-conserved farm land was significantly higher (0.274±0.0039) than conserved farmland (0.175+0.0039) (Table
9). Generally, Ca2+ Mg2+ and K+ concentrations in conserved farm lands were found to be significantly higher
than non-conserved farm lands based on both treatment and slope gradient positions. This indicates that SWC measures
have great contribution for improving soil quality with respect to the above mentioned basic cations. Unlike all other
parameters measured in the present study, exchangeable Na+ was significantly higher in non-conserved farm land with
higher slope gradient position. The mean value of Na+ in conserved soil were low the soil have good texture and high
amount of Ca2+ and Mg2+ because of calcium and magnesium ions are very essential soil nutrients. When the Na+
is high amount in soil the sodas, salinity and electric conductivity of soil increase.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusion
The study assessed awareness of the kechabirra woreda community about SWC practices in the locality. Thus,
different SWC practices that include indigenous, modern and integrated approaches are practiced at various levels in the
study area. Among indigenous SWC techniques farmers showed high degree of preference to application of manure,
indigenous tree planting and crop rotation. On the other hand, grass strips and fanaya juu were among the most preferred
modern SWC measures in the study area. Effectiveness of the methods towards farmland productivity, farmers’ prior
experience/awareness, and ease application in terms of cost and accessibility might contribute for such preferences.
Different demographic factors such as gender, level of education, age and family size have influenced farmers’ adoption of
SWC practices in the study area. Besides, bio-physical characteristics such as soil color, farmland size, farmland fertility
and distance of farmland from residence were also affected farmers adoption of soil and water conservation practices.
Many prior studies that have been carried out at different regions also confirmed demographic and bio-physical
characteristics as key factors affecting implementation of SWC practices. The physicochemical properties (MC, pH, SOC,
TN, Av.P and BCEC) of soil analysis revealed high mean content for farm plots treated with SWC practices. At different slope
gradients, variations have been observed for some soil physicochemical properties. In general, both the experimental and
farmers perception assessment results confirmed that farmlands treated with different SWC techniques have better
productivity than untreated ones.

4.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings of the present study, the following recommendations are forwarded:
High population pressure forced local people to cultivate very sloppy areas that accelerate soil erosion, land
degradation and loss of biodiversity in the study area. Therefore, minimizing population pressure by implementing
wide resettlement program to low populated areas is advisable.
Indigenous knowledge of farmers on soil and water conservationmeasures should be highly encouraged.
Formulating appropriate plan and strategies for creating suffice awareness about different SWC techniques
among farmers is very important
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to Kechabirra Woreda Agricultural Office for providing us valuable information about the study
area. Furthermore, we are very thankful to Arba Minch University for covering all financial expenses during the study.
REFERENCES
1. Abay Ayalew (2011). Construction of Soil Conservation structures for improvement of crops and soil productivity
in the Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. Journal of Biology, 1(1), ISSN2225-
0948(online).
2. Abay Challa, Abdu Abdelkadir and Tefera Mengistu (2016). Effects of Graded Stone Bunds on Selected Soil
Properties in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. International Journal of NaturalResource Ecologyand Management,
1(2):42-5
3. Alemneh Dejene (2003). Integrated Natural Resources Management to Enhance Food Security: the Case of
Community-based Approach in Ethiopia. Environment and Natural Resource Service Research, Extension
and Training Division FAO sustainable Development Department, working paper No.16, FAO of UNS, Rome.
4. Alemu Lelago, Hailu Shiferaw, Tekalign Mamo and Wassie Haile (2016). Assessment a Mapping of Status and
Spatial Distribution of Soil Macronutrients in Kambata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia, Research Article 4: 4,
Hawassa University Anley.
5. Antenah Gebramariam (2010). Farmers’ awareness about land degradation and their Aware towards land
managementPractices Aleta Wondo Woreda, Southern Ethiopia.MSc.Thesis. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
6. Belay Tegene, (1992). Farmer’s perceptions of erosion hazards and attitudes towards soil Conservation in
Gununo, Wolaita, southern Ethiopia. Ethiopia journal and Development research 14(2):31-58.
7. Bezuayehu Tefera, Gezahegn Ayele, Yigezu Atnafe, Jabber, M.A. and Paulos Dubale, (2002). Nature and causes of
land degradation in the Oromiya Region: A review. Socioeconomic and Policy Research Working Paper 36. ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. P.82.
8. Bot, A. and Benites J. (2005).The importance of soil organic matter key to drought resistant soil and sustained
cropproduction. FAO soils bulletin. P.80. Challenges of Collective Action in Soil and Water Conservation: The case
of Gununo Watershed, Southern Ethiopia, African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, 8:15411545, Egypt.
complex challenge Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social Conservation Investment
Conservation, 45: p.431-73 CSA (2010). The 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa:
Federal Darkoh, M. K. (1995). The deterioration of the environment in Africa’s dry lands and river basins.
Desertification Control Bulletin, 24: 35–41.
9. Dejene Teressa, (2017). The effectiveness of stone bund to Maintain soil physical and chemical
properties. Civil and Environmental Research, 9:12 p.11
10. Dregne, H.E. (1990). Erosion and Soil Productivity in Africa. Journal of Soil and Water Economy strategy.
Education, Inc.,UpperSaddle River, New Jersey. 07458
11. Eleni Tesfaye (2008). Continued Use of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: a Case study in Tulla District,
Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation and Environmental Policy Group.
12. Wageningen University, Nether lands. Fertilizers.7thEd.PearsonHallofIndia, New Delhi. p.633.
13. Fikru Assefa (2009). Assessment of adoption behavior of soil and water conservation practices in the Koga
watershed high lands of Ethiopia. Master of Professional Studies Thesis. Cornell University, Ethiopia.
14. Getachew Adem and Demele Yismaw (2000). Sustainable Development Indicators and Environmental Policy-
Proceedings of Symposium of the Forum for social studies Addis Ababa, in Environment and Development in
Ethiopia. Zenebework Tadesse Image printing press. (P.40-80).
15. Gregorich, E.G., Greer, K. J., Anderson, D.W. and. Liang.

16. B.C., (1998).Carbon distribution and losses erosion and deposition effects. Soil Tillage Research 47:291–302.
17. Habtamu Ertiro (2006). Adoption of physical soil and water conservation structures.
18. Hallpike, C. R. (1972). The Konso of Ethiopia. A Study of the Values of Cushitic People.
19. Hamagaki, T. and E.P.Jr. Paningbatan. (1988). Procedures for soil analysis. Department of soil sciences, College of
Agriculture.Universityof Philippinesat Los Banos, Languna-The Philippines.
20. Kechabirra Woreda Agricultural Office Report, (2017). Kechabirra Woreda Agricultural Office Report, (2018).
21. Kelsa Kena (1996). Major Soil Groups of Southern Regions of Ethiopia and their land use Practices. A paper
presented at the workshop on the environmental awareness raising, held at Hwassa and mizan-teferi towns,
October 8-11 and 28-31 respectively. Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Regions, Awassa. Kessler,
(2006). Decisive Key-factors Farm Households’
22. Soil and Water
23. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology; Method and techniques. New Delhi, India: New Age International
Publishers.
24. Krishna, R., Bicol, K., Ingrid, I. and Giridhari, S. (2008).
25. Determinants of Farmers Adoption of Improved Soil Conservation Technology in a Middle Mountain Watershed of
Central Nepal. Environmental Management, Springer, New York.
26. Lal, (2008). Soil Conservation in Nigeria: Past and Present On-Station and On-Farm Initiatives
Practices: Hypothesis, Evidence and Policy Implications. Land Economics. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
27. Lal, R. (1995). Erosion-crop Productivity Relationships for Soils of Africa. Soil Science
28. Lan Nuberg, Rowan Reid and Brendan George. (2009).
29. Agro forestry as Integrated Natural Land
30. Evaluation in the Tropical and Subtropical”. Longman Broak. p. 447. Ministry of Health (2014). Annual report.
31. Michael Shiferaw (2002). Linking Indigenous With
32. ‘Conventional’ Measures For Sustainable
33. Million Alemayehu, (2003).Characterization of indigenous stone bunding (Kab) and its effect on crop yield and
soil productivity at Mesobit-Gedba, North Shewa zone of Mitche, B. (1991). Resource Management and
Development. Canada: Oxford University Press.
34. Mulugeta Demelash and Stahr, K., (2010). Assessment of integrated soil and water conservation measures on
key soil properties in South Gonder, NorthWestern High lands of Ethiopia. Soil Science and Environmental
Management, 1 (7):164-Ohwoghere Asuma and Oghenero, (2012).Impact of degradation processes on physical
and chemical properties of soils in Delta State of the Niger Delta. Journal of Geology and Mining Research, 4 (2):13-
22.
35. Shiferaw Bekele and Holden, T.S. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in
the highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of and it Tid,North Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 18 (233): 247.
36. Tadele Amdemariam, Yihenew Gebreselassie, Mitiku Hailu and Yamoh C. (2011). Effect of soil and water
conservation measures on selected soil physical and chemical East Wollega, Ethiopia. Conference on
International Agricultural Research and Development Held in Gottingen, October 8-10.
37. Teklu Erkossa and Gezahegn Ayele (2003). Indigenous knowledge and practices for soil and water management in
East Wollega Ethiopia.Conference on International agricultural Research and development. Göttingen, October 8-10,
2003.
38. Van Reeuwijk, L. P. (1992). Procedures for soil analysis. 3rd ed. International Soil reference and Information center,
Wageningen (ISRIC). The Netherlands.
39. Wogayehu Bekele and Drake, L. (2003).Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Measures by Subsistence
40. Farmers in the Eastern Ethiopia: Presented at the 17
41. Congress of Soil Science. Held in Bangkok, Thailand, June, 15-18.
42. Woga yehu Bekele, S., Holden, S.T. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation
technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in and it Tid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 18:233–
247.
43. Worku Hailu, Awdenegest Moges and Fantaw Yimer (2012). The Effects of l e v e l Fanya juu Soil
Conservation Structure on Selected Soil Physical and Chemical Properties: the Case of Goromti Watershed,
Western Ethiopia. Resources and Environment.
44. Yamane, Taro. (1967). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York.
45. Yeshambel Mulat (2013).Indigenous knowledge practices in soil conservation at Konso.
46. Yihenew Gebreselassie, Tadele Amdemariam, Mitiku Haile and Yamoah, C.,(2009).Less from upstream soil
conservation measures to mitigate soil erosion and its impact on upstream and downstream users of the Nile River.
International Water Management Institute.p.170-183.

IRJET- Assessment of Farmers’ Perception Towards the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices and Soil Quality in Kechabira Woreda; Southern Ethiopia

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to IRJET- Assessment of Farmers’ Perception Towards the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices and Soil Quality in Kechabira Woreda; Southern Ethiopia

More from IRJET Journal

Recently uploaded

IRJET- Assessment of Farmers’ Perception Towards the Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices and Soil Quality in Kechabira Woreda; Southern Ethiopia