research paper on soil and water conservation

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2019

Impacts of soil and water conservation practices on soil property and wheat productivity in Southern Ethiopia

• Tesfaye Tanto 1 &
• Fanuel Laekemariam 1  

Environmental Systems Research volume  8 , Article number:  13 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

35 Citations

Metrics details

Soil erosion and nutrient depletion have been the major challenges in Ethiopia that adversely affect soil fertility and crop productivity. With the aim of curbing land degradation problems, efforts are underway on the implementation of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices. This research investigated the effects of SWC practices on soil properties and crop productivity in cultivated lands of Bashe micro-watershed, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Data were collected from five different practices viz. non-conserved land, physical SWC (2 and 5 years age); and physical SWC integrated with biological practices (2 and 5 years age).

The result revealed that integrated SWC for 5 years reduced the soil bulk density; and increased soil pH (5.87 to 6.60), organic carbon (1.34 to 1.74%) and available phosphorous (8.06 to 25.23 mg kg −1 ) by 12%, 30% and 203% compared to non-conserved land, respectively. Agronomic analysis also indicted that SWC practices significantly (p < 0.05) enhanced plant height, tiller formation, spike length, thousand seed weight, biomass, and grain yield of wheat. Integrated SWC for 5 years increased grain yield by 72.8% than control.

It is concluded that SWC practices have positive impacts on soil and crop productivity of cultivated lands; however, their effect is more pronounced when physical SWC practices are integrated with biological SWC practices and at a longer establishment.

Introduction

Land degradation in the form of soil erosion and fertility depletion is a major challenge in the Ethiopian highlands due to its adverse impacts on crop productivity, food security and natural resource conservation (Laekemariam et al. 2016 ; Teklu et al. 2018 ; Adimassu et al. 2017 ). The principal causes are rapid population growth and improper land resources management and utilization which finally declining agricultural productivity (Laekemariam et al. 2016 ). Erratic and erosive rainfall, steep terrain, deforestation, inappropriate land use, land fragmentation, overgrazing and weak management practices are among the factors that cause land degradation in the country (Osman and Sauerborn 2001 ). The review paper by Adimassu et al. ( 2017 ) indicated that soil loss due to erosion in the Ethiopian highlands is between 42 and 175.5 t ha −1  year −1 . Other studies on crop fields have also confirmed that declining soil fertility and limited water availability resulted to low crop yields on Ethiopian highlands (Laekemariam et al. 2016 ; Adimassu et al. 2017 ; Teklu et al. 2018 ).

In an effort to curb soil erosion and nutrient depletion, government of Ethiopia (GoE) in collaboration with local community and several donors have been implemented large national soil and water conservation (SWC) program since the 1970s (MOARD 2005 ). The GoE, since 1980s, has supported rural land rehabilitation through watershed development approach; and management has moved from a focus on physical SWC to the integration of social, economic, and environmental development (MOARD 2005 ). Welu and Solomon ( 2015 ) explained that soil bund, fanyajuu bund and deep trench structures are widely implemented physical SWC structures to conserve cultivated land from soil erosion.

Research efforts on the effects of SWC practices demonstrated that they may improve soil physico-chemical properties (e.g. Mekuria et al. 2006 ; Adimassu et al. 2017 ; Teklu et al. 2018 ); reduce soil loss by sediment trapping (Walie and Fisseha 2016 ); improve crop growth and yield (Walie and Fisseha 2016 ; Teklu et al. 2018 ); fodder yield (Kebede 2015 ) and farmers’ income (Amede 2003 ). Yet, this generalization is coarse and inconsistent as there are different factors influencing the effectiveness of SWC practices. For instance, the potential of SWC practices to restore soil properties and result better yield would be influenced by age of structures (Mekuria et al. 2007 ; Dulo et al. 2017 ; Adimassu et al. 2017 ); integration of physical and biological activities (Fikir et al. 2009 ; Teklu et al. 2018 ); type of physical practices (Gachene and Kimaru 2003 ); and the soil fertility condition of the land at a time when treated with SWC measures. Thus, taking into account of soil-crop-and management type specific information is pertinent for sustainable implementation of soil conservation practices at field, farm and watershed level.

Damot Gale woreda (district) is located in Wolaita Zone, Southern Nation, Nationalities, and People Regional State (SNNPRS) of Ethiopia where soil erosion and soil fertility depletion have been a major problems resulting lower crop yields (DGWFED 2016 ; Laekemariam et al. 2016 , 2018 ). The mean soil loss on neighboring district (Delbo Wogene micro-watershed, Sodo Zuria district, Wolaita zone) was estimated to be 48.6 t ha −1 year (Abebayehu and Awdenegest 2015 ). With response to severe land degradation problems, the woreda in support of the government and non-government programs have been implemented watershed based soil conservation practices. Among watersheds, Bashe micro watershed is the one on which SWC activities have been undertaken since 2010 (DGWAO 2016 ). Fanyajuu type of physical soil conservation practice is commonly implemented on farm lands following SNNPRS recommendation (SNNPRS Agr. 2012 ). Moreover, to rehabilitate physical conservation biologically and also for other purpose, some farmers on embankments have been growing elephant grass ( P. Purpureum ), Sesbania sesban ( S. sesban ), Desho grass ( Pennisetum pedicellatum ), and peagon pea ( Cajanus cajan ) (DGWAO 2016 ). However, information on the effects of SWC practices (alone, integrated and with age of practices) on soil properties and crop productivity has been lacking in Bashe micro watershed. Thus, the main objectives of this study are to explain the effects of SWC practices on (i) soil properties, and (ii) growth and yield of crop.

Materials and methods

Description of study area.

The study was conducted in Bashe micro watershed (37°47′37.829″ E and 6°56′23.7″ N) which is found in Akabilo Kebele , Damot Gale district ( Woreda ), Wolaita Zone of Southern Ethiopia (Fig.  1 ). The study area falls within the altitude of 1805–2601 m elevation range that receives an average annual rainfall of 800–1500 mm. The minimum and maximum mean temperature is 18 °C and 25 °C, respectively (DGWFED 2016 ). The soil of the area is mainly covered by Nitisols. Damot Gale is the most populated district within Wolaita zone (CSA 2007 ) where the livelihood of farmers relies heavily on agriculture. Wheat ( Triticum aestivum ), teff ( Eragrostis tef ), maize ( Zea mays ), haricot bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ), and field pea ( Pisum sativum ) are major crops grown in the area.

Map of study area of Bashe micro watershed

Total area of Bashe watershed is about 414.9 ha. The slope within watershed varies from 3 to 58% where majority of crop lands lay between 10 and 20% (DGWAO 2016 ). Bashe watershed is characterized by problem of soil erosion, low soil productivity, low fodder supply, and intensive cultivation (DGWAO 2016 ). Since 2010, with the aim of curbing soil erosion and soil fertility depletion within watershed, efforts are underway on the implementation of physical and biological soil conservation practices.

Treatment selection

Five different SWC practices were used as treatments in order to study their effects on soil properties and crop yield. These include: non-conserved land, physical soil conservation (2 and 5 years old); and physical conservation integrated with biological practices (2 and 5 years old). Preliminary field survey within watershed has been done in order to secure a good representation of the treatments having SWC practices of different age. Each practice had three replications in which they are located in the upper, middle and lower part of watershed. Thus, a total of 15 cultivated lands (5 practices × 3 replication) were identified for soil and crop data collection.

Soil sampling and laboratory analysis procedure

Surface soil sample (disturbed and undisturbed) were collected at 0–20 cm depth (Laekemariam et al. 2016 ) for determination of soil particle size distribution (PSD), bulk density (BD), soil pH-H 2 O, organic carbon (OC), and available phosphorus (AP). Soil samples were analyzed following standard procedures at Horticoop soil lab, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Soil BD was determined by using the core method (Anderson and Ingram 1993 ). Soil PSD was analyzed by Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Bouyoucos 1951 ). Soil pH-H 2 O was measured using 1:2.5 soil to water ratio using pH meter (Van Reeuwijk 2002 ). The Walkley and Black method was applied to determine the OC content (Walkley and Black 1934 ). Available P (Olsen) was measured using sodium bicarbonate extraction solution (Olsen et al. 1954 ).

Crop data sampling procedures

Wheat is one of major cereal crop grown in Bashe micro watershed during the main rainy season (June–September). Thus, improved bread wheat (variety 604) that was promoted by woreda extension system was taken as a test crop to evaluate the crop response on above mentioned SWC practices (i.e., treatments). The crop was planted with package of recommendations such as fertilizer [100 kg NPS (19-38-0-7SO 4 ) and 100 kg Urea (46-0-0)], seed rate (125 kg ha −1 ), row planting and two hand weeding.

At physiological maturity stage of the crop (November, 2018), a square quadrant with 0.3 m × 0.3 m (0.09 m 2 ) size was randomly assigned to three random spots (top, middle and bottom) of each crop land that was identified for soil data collection. The crop within each quadrant was harvested to record growth, yield and yield component parameters following standard agronomic data collection procedures. Plant height (cm) was determined from the base to the tip of the spike (awns excluded from 10 randomly selected plants). Spike length (cm) is part of wheat plant which is the length occupied by seed. It is measured from 10 randomly selected plants. Number of tillers was determined by counting the plants from each quadrant 0.3 m × 0.3 m (0.09 m 2 ), and then converted into m 2 . Number of productive tillers was determined by counting all spikes producing seeds of each quadrant then converted into m 2 .

Above ground dry biomass (t ha −1 ) was taken by harvesting and measuring sun dried weight from each quadrant and then converted to t ha −1 . Grain yield (t ha −1 ) was measured after threshing the seed yield from each quadrant and then converted to tons per hectare after adjusting to moisture content of 12.5%. Straw yield (t ha −1 ) was obtained as the difference of the total above ground plant biomass and grain yield of plants of randomly selected quadrat area then converted to ton per hectare. Thousand grain weights (g) was determined based on the weight of 1000 grain sampled from the grain yield of each treatment by counting using weight sensitive balance and weighed with electronic balance.

Statistical analysis

The effects of SWC practices on soil properties and wheat yield were evaluated using different statistical methods. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for crop data using Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute Inc 2008 ). Soil data was subjected to descriptive statistics. When the effects of treatments were significant, mean comparison was performed using least significance differences (LSD) at 5% probability level.

Results and discussion

Soil properties, soil bulk density and texture.

Soil bulk density (BD) (g cm −3 ) was affected by soil conservation practices. It ranges from 0.96 g cm −3 (physical SWC for 5 years) to 1.10 g cm −3 (non-conserved crop land) (Table  1 ). The lower mean BD value under integrated measures for 5 years might be the subsequent effects of reduced soil loss and crop residue through erosion; and addition of organic matter from plants. Similar results were reported by (Gebiresilassie et al. 2013 ; Dulo et al. 2017 ; Solomon et al. 2017 and Worku 2017 ) who indicated lower mean soil BD value in conserved farms than non-treated cultivated lands. Data regarding particle size distribution revealed dominantly clay textural class which implying that SWC practices (management) do not alter the soil texture. The result agrees with the finding of Lemma et al. ( 2017 ) who reported non-significant difference in texture due to SWC management practices.

Soil pH among conservation practices varied between 5.87 and 6.60. The minimum and maximum pH value was recorded from non-conserved land and integrated SWC practices for 5 years, respectively (Table  1 ). From the result it was observed that the soil pH has shown an increasing trend with age and integration of SWC practices (Fig.  2 ). These might be associated to the decrease of the loss of soil organic matter and exchangeable bases through soil erosion and runoff; and thereby increase soil pH. Pearson correlation matrix (Table  2 ) also showed that organic carbon was positively and significantly associated with soil pH (r = 0.73**). The result is in agreement with different scholars who observed lower pH value from the non-conserved cultivated land as compared to conserved farms (Million 2003 ; Haweni 2015 ; Worku 2017 ; Solomon et al. 2017 ) that was attributed to the high soil erosion, loss of basic nutrients, relatively lower base saturation percentage and lower soil organic matter content. For instance, Worku ( 2017 ) reported that land with stone bund had higher soil pH (5.89 ± 0.038) than control (5.81 ± 0.043). Solomon et al. ( 2017 ) also recorded that soil pH in terraced cultivated land was higher (6.0) compared to non-terraced farm land (5.5).

Effects of SWC practices on soil pH in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

Soil organic carbon

SWC practices influenced soil organic carbon (OC) of farm lands. The mean value of soil OC range between 1.34 and 1.74% in which integrated SWC established for 5 years had the highest value and the minimum was obtained on non-conserved land (Table  1 and Fig.  3 ). Overall, it was noted that the longer the age of SWC practices and its integration with biological measures, the positive is its impact on soil OC of cultivated lands. This might show that SWC practices have a positive role in improving soil OC. The finding was supported by Million ( 2003 ) who reported higher soil OC on land conserved with fanyajuu for 5 years (2.21 ± 0.08) and 10 years (2.17 ± 0.1) compared non-conserved sites (1.96 ± 0.10) of similar slopes. Other scholars for instance, Demelash and Stahr ( 2010 ), Tadele et al. ( 2011 ), Dulo et al. ( 2017 ), Lemma et al. ( 2017 ) and Solomon et al. ( 2017 ) also showed a higher value of soil OC on farm lands treated with SWC; and with increasing age of structures (Dulo et al. 2017 ) when compared to non-conserved land. This implies that SWC measures restore eroded materials on their embankment.

Effects of SWC practices on soil OC in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

Available phosphorus

Available P among different SWC practices was highly variable. It varies from 8.06 to 25.23 mg kg −1 (Table  1 and Fig.  4 ) that was recorded from integrated SWC for 5 years and non-conserved land, respectively. Integrated SWC established for 5 years had 2.13-fold more available P content than non-cultivated land. The result clearly depicted that the longer the establishment of SWC practices and its integration with biological measures positively influenced available P content of cultivated lands (Fig.  4 ). It is clear that changes recorded in soil pH, restoration of soil OC and maintenance of externally added P by reducing soil erosion and runoff could result an increased available P on integrated and aged SWC practices. This is also supported by correlation matrix (Table  2 ) that showed positive and significant association of available P with soil pH (0.62*) and OC (0.78**). According to Prasad and Power ( 1997 ), available P is more in the soil when soil pH range is 6.0–6.5. The result was supported by the finding of Demelash and Stahr ( 2010 ) who reported that available P was observed to be significantly different in the treated cultivated land than non-treated cultivated lands. Tolera ( 2011 ) in addition confirmed that integration of physical and biological measures on cultivated lands resulted higher amount of available P than un-conserved cultivated lands. According to the author it was due to improved soil organic matter which increases P and protect from the removal and fixation.

Effects of SWC practices on available P content in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

Growth, yield component and yield of wheat

Plant height.

Table  3 depicts the effects of SWC practices on selected growth parameters of wheat crop. SWC practices significantly influenced (p < 0.05) plant height of wheat. The tallest plant (89.9 cm) was attained form integrated SWC with 5 years duration whereas the shortest plant (67.20 cm) was recorded from non-conserved cultivated land (Fig.  5 ). The probable reason could be related to the effect of SWC practices on increasing soil moisture availability through increased infiltration and protecting washing away of essential soil nutrients as it was observed in soil analysis result (Table  2 ). The reduced limitation of water and nutrients allowed luxurious vegetative growth of crops grown on plots with soil bunds, while those grown without soil bund switched to early senescence and maturity due to the possible terminal moisture stress (Abay 2011 ; Ferede 2018 ; Teklu et al. 2018 ).

Effects of SWC practices on plant height of wheat in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

Total and productive of tiller

The yield of wheat crop is affected by different factors of which the number of tillers per plant has a vital position. The larger the number of tillers per plot area, the better will be the status of crop, which at the end results increased yield. Tillering capacity of wheat was significantly (p < 0.05) influenced by SWC practices. The total number of tillers per m 2 was varying from 482.73 under physical conservation for 5 years to 348.17 on non-conserved cultivated land in which physical SWC for 5 years resulted 38.6% tillering advantage than non-conserved cultivated lands (Table  3 ). Data regarding number of productive tillers per m 2 showed the maximum value (469.13) that was obtained from integrated conservation for 5 years whereas the minimum (309.87) number was recorded from non-treated farms. In general, tiller formation increases with increasing age of SWC practices; and under integrated measures (Fig.  6 ). This corroborates the findings of Teklu et al. ( 2018 ) who reported higher tiller number per plant of wheat grown with soil bund.

Effects of SWC practices on tiller formation of wheat in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

The use of SWC practices significantly increased biomass yield of wheat (Table  3 ). The maximum total biomass from integrated SWC for 5 year was 11 t ha −1 which is 85.5% more than the minimum from non-conserved farm (5.93 t ha −1 ). The longer the establishment year of SWC practices and corresponding integration with biological measures has resulted corresponding advantage on biomass yield of wheat (Fig.  7 ). This might be due to the fact that SWC practices reduced run off loss of nutrients; and improved access of plants to both water and nutrients due to improvements in soil properties such as infiltration rate, moisture retention and nutrient availability. These contributed to increased plant height, tiller production and spike length, finally leading to increased biomass yield as compared to the control. This is also supported by Pearson correlation matrix (Table  2 ) that showed significant association of biomass with soil BD (− 0.85**), plant height (0.90**), productive tillers per m 2 (0.74**) and spike length (0.94**). The result of the present finding on biomass yield agrees well with the result of Teklu et al. ( 2018 ) who reported that higher biomass yield of wheat, maize and ground nut crops grown on fields supported by soil bund as a result of better soil moisture retention and supplying of water to the crops. In addition, Ferede ( 2018 ) observed 29.2% and 36.8% biomass increment on maize due to soil bund, and interaction effects of soil bund and intercropping, respectively. Higher sorghum biomass yield on terraced site compared to non-terraced site in Northern Ethiopia was also reported by Alemayehu et al. ( 2006 ).

Effects of SWC practices on biomass yield of wheat in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

Grain yield

The end goal of crop production is maximizing yield, which is cumulative function of individual yield components in response to improved seed and management practices. Grain yield of wheat was significantly (p < 0.05) different due to SWC practices that vary between 2.47 t ha −1 (non-conserved land) and 4.27 t ha −1 (integrated SWC for 5 years) (Table  3 ). The maximum grain yield was 72.9% more than the yield obtained from untreated farms. Construction of SWC with time and integration with biological activities result in a successive increase in grain yield of wheat compared to non-conserved plot (Fig.  8 ). The improvement in grain yield due to SWC practices might be related to the enhanced water availability until grain filling stage, reduced runoff, increased infiltration and enhanced nutrients availability that might give extended time for increased photosynthesis, nutrient uptake and grain filling, and finally resulted in better yield components and grain yield. This is also evidenced by a significant association of grain yield with soil BD (− 0.70**), biomass yield (0.88**) and yield components (Table  2 ). The results are in accordance with Alemayehu et al. ( 2006 ), Abay ( 2011 ), Ferede ( 2018 ), Teklu et al. ( 2018 ), Tugizimana ( 2015 ) and Adimassu et al. ( 2014 ) who found substantial grain yield increment on lands with SWC measures compared to non-conserved land. Similarly, Eshetu et al. ( 2016 ) reported up to 87% maize grain yield advantage by using fanyajuu than without treatment.

Effects of SWC practices on grain yield of wheat in farm lands of Bashe micro watershed

It is concluded that SWC practices have positive impacts on soil fertility and crop productivity of cultivated lands. From agronomic view point, this is also justified by 72.9% more grain yield advantage from integrated SWC practices established for 5 years over non-conserved land. This might be attributed to reduced runoff, retained moisture and enhanced nutrients availability during growth time that is leading to improvement of soil properties and grain yield. It is fact that the changes on soil properties and yield become increasing when physical works are integrated with biological practices and with increasing age of establishment. Additionally, stabilizing physical SWC structures by planting multi-purpose grasses/plants would also benefit farmers by providing fodder/fuel. Thus, this study recommends the use of integrated SWC practices. Yet, further studies on other crops yield performance and cost effectiveness of SWC practices are suggested. Furthermore, identification of best grass/plant type that can stabilize the bund and provide added benefits to farmers should be investigated.

Abbreviations

soil bulk density

organic carbon

organic matter

soil particle size distribution

soil and water conservation

Adimassu Z, Langan S, Johnston R, Mekuria W, Amede T (2017) Impacts of soil and water conservation practices on crop yield, run-off, soil loss and nutrient loss in ethiopia: review and synthesis. Environ Manag 59:87–101

Article   Google Scholar  

Abay A (2011) Construction of soil conservation structures for improvement of crops and soil productivity in Southern Ethiopia. J Environ Earth Sci 1(1):21–29

Google Scholar  

Abebayehu A, Awdenegest A (2015) Rill erosion assessment in cultivated lands and farmers perception on soil erosion, a case of Delbo Wogene micro-watershed Southern Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc 5(3):87–115

Adimassu Z, Mekonen K, Yirga C, Kessler A (2014) Effects of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev 25:554–564

Alemayehu M, Yohannes F, Dubale P (2006) Effect of indigenous stone bunding ( Kab ) on crop yield at Mesobit-Gedeba, North Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev 17:45–54

Amede T (2003) Restoring soil fertility in the highlands of east Africa through participatory research. International Center for Research in Agroforestry. AHI brief No. A1

Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1993) Tropical soil biology and fertility. A hand book of methods, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford, p 221

Bouyoucos GJ (1951) A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making analysis of the soil. Agron J 43:434–438

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

CSA (Central Statistics Agency) (2007) Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia population census commission summary and statistical, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Demelash M, Stahr K (2010) Assessment of integrated soil and water conservation measures on key soil properties in South Gonder, North-Western highlands of Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Environ Manag 1(7):164–176

CAS   Google Scholar  

DGWAO (Damot Gale Woreda Agricultural office) (2016) Unpublished base line Data of Damot Gale Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia

DGWFED (Damot Gale Woreda Finance and Economic Development) (2016) Unpublished population statistical data and agroecology data of Damot Gale Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia

Dulo H, Feto E, Fisiha G (2017) Effects of soil bund on soil physical and chemical properties in Arsi Negelle woreda, Central Ethiopia. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 11(10):509–516

Eshetu A, Tadele G, Gemechu A, Desalegn M, Alemayhu D (2016) Effects of level Fanya Juu and Fanya Chin structures on grain yield of maize in moisture stress areas of Daro Labu district, West Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc 6(21):94–98

Ferede AJ (2018) Assessing soil bund and haricot bean-maize intercropping effects on productivity of maize at Arjo, Eastern Wollega Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Int J Eng Sci Comput 8(11):19313–19325

Fikir A, Nurhussen T, Nyssen J, Atkilt G, Amanuel Z, Mintesinot B, Deckers J, Poesen J (2009) The impacts of watershed management on land use and land cover dynamics in Eastern Tigray (Ethiopia). Resour Conserv Recycl 53:192–198

Gachene C, Kimaru G (2003) Soil fertility and land productivity: a guide for extension workers in eastern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya

Gebiresilassie Y, Amare T, Terefe A, Yitaferaru B, Wolfgramm B, Hurni H (2013) Soil properties and crop yields along the terraces and topo-sequences of Anjeni watershed, central high lands of Ethiopia. J Agric Sci 5(2):134–144

Haweni H (2015) Effect of soil and water conservation on selected soil characteristics in Dimma Watershed, Central Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, pp 99

Kebede W (2015) Evaluating watershed management activities of campaign work in Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State of Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 4:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-015-0029

Laekemariam F, Kibret K, Mamo T, Karltun E, Gebrekidan H (2016) Physiographic characteristics of agricultural lands and farmers’ soil fertility management practices in Wolaita zone, Southern Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 5:24

Laekemariam F, Kibret K, Shiferaw H (2018) Potassium (K)-to-magnesium (Mg) ratio, its spatial variability and implications to potential Mg-induced K deficiency in Nitisols of Southern Ethiopia. Agric Food Secur 7:13

Lemma T, Menfes T, Fantaw Y (2017) Effects of integrating different soil and water conservation measures into hillside area closure on selected soil properties in Hawassa Zuria District, Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Environ Manag 6(10):268–274

Mekuria W, Veldkamp E, Mitiku H, Nyssen J, Muys B, Kindeya G (2006) Effectiveness of enclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray, Ethiopia. Department of Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia. J Arid Environ 69:270–284

Mekuria W, Veldkamp E, Haile M, Nyssen J, Muys B, Gebrehiwot K (2007) Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray, Ethiopia. J Arid Environ 69(2):270–284

Million A (2003) Characterization of indigenous stone bunding (Kab) and its effect on crop yield and soil productivity at Mesobit-Gedba, North Showa Zone of Amhara Region. Master of Science Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia, pp 45–54

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) (2005) Guide line for integrated watershed management. MoARD, Addis Ababa

Olsen S, Cole C, Watanable F, Dean L (1954) Estimation of a variable phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ 939:1–19

Osman M, Sauerborn P (2001) Soil and water conservation in Ethiopia: experiences and lessons. J Soils Sediments 1(2):117–123

Prasad R, Power JF (1997) Soil fertility management for sustainable agriculture. Lewis Publishers, New York

SAS Institute Inc (2008) SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide

SNNPRS (South Natation Natationalities People Regional State) (2012) Agricultural bureau of natural resource and environmental protection authority published integrated watershed management planning and implementation, small scale irrigation and water harvesting development and surveyor farmers training manual, Hawassa, Ethiopia

Solomon H, James L, Woldeamilak B (2017) Soil and water conservation effect on soil properties in the Middle Silluh Valley, northern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:231–240

Tadele A, Yihenew GS, Mitiku H, Yamoh C (2011) Effect of soil and water conservation measures on selected soil physical and chemical properties and barely ( Hordeum spp.) yield. J Environ Sci Eng 5:1488–1493

Teklu E, Williams TO, Fanuel L (2018) Integrated soil, water and agronomic management effects on crop productivity and selected soil properties in Western Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6:305–316

Tolera M (2011) Assessing the role of traditional land management practices in improving crop land productivity: the case of Diga Woreda, Oromia

Tugizimana J (2015) Effects of soil and water conservation techniques on soil productivity and bean grain yield in Nyamasheke District, Rwanda. MSc Thesis, Kenyatta University, Kenya, pp 92

Van Reeuwijk L (2002) Procedures for soil analysis, 6th edn, Technical paper 9. Wageningen, The Netherlands

Walie SD, Fisseha G (2016) Perception of farmers toward physical soil and water conservation structures in Wyebla Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia. World J Agric Sci 12(1):57–63

Walkley A, Black A (1934) Estimation of soil organic carbon in by the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38

Welu G, Solomon T (2015) Perception of local community towards soil and water conservation in the case of Damote Boloso Kebele, Damote Gale Woreda, Wolaita zone. J Biol Agric Healthc 5(11):149–155

Worku H (2017) Impact of physical soil and water conservation structure on selected soil physicochemical properties in Gondar Zuriya Woreda. Resour Environ 7(2):40–48

Download references

Authors’ contributions

TT collected, analyzed and interpreted the data. FL contributed in advising and drafting the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge farmers of Bashe micro watershed of Damot Gale District who allowed their land and crops for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

We declare that the data and materials presented in this manuscript can be made available as per the editorial policy of the journal.

Consent for publication

All data and information are generated and organized by the authors.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable to this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Agriculture, Wolaita Sodo University, P.O. Box 138, Wolaita Sodo, Ethiopia

Tesfaye Tanto & Fanuel Laekemariam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fanuel Laekemariam .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is 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, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tanto, T., Laekemariam, F. Impacts of soil and water conservation practices on soil property and wheat productivity in Southern Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 8 , 13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0142-4

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2019

Accepted : 20 April 2019

Published : 30 April 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0142-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Crop growth
• Soil conservation
• Soil property

Soil and Water Conservation

Cite this chapter.

• Humberto Blanco-Canqui 2 &
• Rattan Lal 2  

9207 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Soil is the most fundamental and basic resource. Although erroneously dubbed as “dirt” or perceived as something of insignificant value, humans can not survive without soil because it is the basis of all terrestrial life. Soil is a vital resource that provides food, feed, fuel, and fiber. It underpins food security and environmental quality, both essential to human existence. Essentiality of soil to human well-being is often not realized until the production of food drops or is jeopardized when the soil is severely eroded or degraded to the level that it loses its inherent resilience (Fig. 1.1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Benito E, Santiago JL, De Blas E et al. (2003) Deforestation of water-repellent soils in Galicia (NW Spain): Effects on surface runoff and erosion under simulated rainfall. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 28:145–155

Article   Google Scholar  

Bennett HH (1939) Soil conservation. McGraw-Hill, New York

Google Scholar  

Bielders CL, Michels K, Rajot JL (2000) On-farm evaluation of ridging and residue management practices to reduce wind erosion in Niger. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:1776–1785

CAS   Google Scholar  

Chepil WS, Englehorn CL, Zingg AW (1952) The effects of cultivation on erodibility of soils by wind. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 16:19–21

Daily GC (1995) Restoring value to the world’s degraded lands. http://dieoff.org/page114.htm . Cited 3 Dec 2007

Eswaran H, Lal R, Reich PF (2001) Land degradation: an overview. In: Bridges EM, Hannam ID, Oldeman LR et al. (eds) Responses to land degradation. Proc. 2nd. International Conference on land degradation and desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford, New Delhi

FAO (2002a) Reducing poverty and hunger: the critical role of financing for food, agriculture and rural development. Paper presented at International Conference on Financing for Development, Monterrey, Mexico, 18–22 March 2002

FAO (2002b) Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y6831e/y6831e-03 . Cited 3 Dec 2007

FAO (1996) Our land our future. Food and agriculture organization and United Nations Environment Programme, Rome

GEO (Global Environmental Outlook) (2006) GEO YearBook 2006. Deforestation. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Holden C (2006) African soil exhaustion. Sci 312:31 http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2005/pop918.html . Cited 3 Dec 2007.

IFDC (International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development) (2006) New study reports three-quarters of African farmlands plagued by severe degradation. http://www.ifdc.org/New_Design/Whats_New/index.html . Cited 3 Dec 2007

Kaiser J (2004) Wounding earth’s fragile skin. Science 304:1616–1618

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lal R (2007) Promoting technology adoption in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia. Crops, Soils, Agronomy News 52:10–13

Lal R (2003) Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ Int 29:437–450

Lal R, Sobecki TM, Iivari T et al. (2004) Soil degradation in the United States: Extent, Severity, and Trends. Lewis Publishers, Florida

Lal R (1998) Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. Crit Rev Plant Sci 17:319–464

Larney FJ, Bullock MS, Mcginn SM et al. (1995) Quantifying wind erosion on summer fallow in southern Alberta. J Soil Water Conserv 50:91–94

Li XY, Liu LY, Wang JH (2004) Wind tunnel simulation of aeolian sandy soil erodibility under human disturbance. Geomorphol 59:3–11

Mafongoya PL, Bationo A, Kihara J et al. (2006) Appropriate technologies to replenish soil fertility in southern Africa. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosyst 76:137–151

Michelena RO, Irurtia CB (1995) Susceptibility of soil to wind erosion in La Pampa province, Argentina. Arid Soil Res Rehab 9:227–234

Oldeman LR (1994) The global extent of land degradation. In: Greenland DJ, Szabolcs I (eds) Land resilience and sustainable land use. CAB International, Wallingford UK, pp 99–118

Pimentel D, Lal R (2007) Biofuels and the Environment. Science 317:897

Pimentel D (2006) Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ Develop Sust 8:119–137

Pimentel D (2000) Land Use: U.S. Soil Erosion Rates-Myth and Reality. Science 289:248–250

Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P et al. (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Sci 267:1117–1123

Shao Y (2000) Physics and modeling of wind erosion. 393 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Sterk G (2003) Causes, consequences and control of wind erosion in Sahelian Africa: A review. Land Degrad Develop 14:95–108

Troeh FR, Hobbs JA, Donahue RL (2004) Soil and water conservation for productivity and environmental protection, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Troeh FR, Hobbs JA, Donahue RL (1999) Soil and water conservation. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

UN (United Nations) (2005) The millennium development goals report. UNEP, New York

UNEP (1997) Global environment outlook. Oxford, New York

UNEP (1992) World atlas of desertification. UNEP, London

Uri ND (2000) Agriculture and the environment – The problem of soil erosion. J Sust Agric 16:71–94

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) (1996) America’s private land, a geography of hope. Program Aid 1548. Washington DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDA-NRCS (2007) National Resources Inventory (NRI). http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri03/SoilErosion-mrb.pdf . Cited 1 Dec 2007

Wang E, Xin C, Williams JR et al. (2006) Predicting soil erosion for alternative land uses. J Environ Qual 35:459–467.

Washington R, Todd M, Middleton NJ et al. (2003) Dust-storm source areas determined by the total ozone monitoring spectrometer and surface observations. Ann Assoc Am Geographers 93:297–313

WRI (World Resources Institute) (1992) World Resources 1992–1993: A guide to the global environment toward sustainable development. Oxford University Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Rd., 422B Kottman Hall, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

Humberto Blanco-Canqui & Rattan Lal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R. (2010). Soil and Water Conservation. In: Principles of Soil Conservation and Management. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8709-7_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8709-7_1

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-90-481-8529-0

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-8709-7

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Exploring the potential of soil and water conservation measures for climate resilience in burkina faso.

1. Introduction

2. definition of swcm.

Click here to enlarge figure

2.1. Half-Moons

2.2. stone ribbons, 2.4. filtering dikes, 2.5. grass strips, 2.6. boulis, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. study area, 3.2. datasets and methodology.

• P SWCM : areal percentage under SWCM of interest;
• R r : runoff reduction factor from literature;
• WHC i : water-holding capacity increase factor.
• Apit: fractional area of the pit;
• Anon-pit: fractional area excluding the pit;
• WHC L: water-holding capacity increase factor from literature;
• −1: increment from the regional water-holding capacity baseline.
• A: 10-year average from 2002 to 2011 ( Figure S4 );
• B: 10-year average from 2012 to 2021 ( Figure S5 ).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. some leading causes of swcm implementation, 4.1.1. swcm levels of adoption, 4.1.2. soil conditions, 4.1.3. socio-economic context, 4.2. potentialities following swcm adoption, 4.2.1. impact on the vegetation cover, 4.2.2. swcm for climate resilience.

4.3. Recommendations and Future Directions

5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Matlon, P.J. The West African Semiarid Tropics. In Accelerating Food Production in Sub-Saharan Africa ; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1987; pp. 59–77. ISBN 0-8018-3390-6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; Volume 881. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tazen, F.; Diarra, A.; Kabore, R.F.; Ibrahim, B.; Bologo/Traoré, M.; Traoré, K.; Karambiri, H. Trends in Flood Events and Their Relationship to Extreme Rainfall in an Urban Area of Sahelian West Africa: The Case Study of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2019 , 12 , e12507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Xiao, H.; Li, Z.; Liu, C.; Ning, K.; Tang, C. How Effective Are Soil and Water Conservation Measures (SWCMs) in Reducing Soil and Water Losses in the Red Soil Hilly Region of China? A Meta-Analysis of Field Plot Data. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 735 , 139517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sawadogo, H. Using Soil and Water Conservation Techniques to Rehabilitate Degraded Lands in Northwestern Burkina Faso. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2011 , 9 , 120–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Duivenbooden, N.; Pala, M.; Studer, C.; Bielders, C.L. Efficient Soil Water Use: The Key to Sustainable Crop Production in the Dry Areas of West Asia, and North and Sub-Saharan Africa ; International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas: Aleppo, Syria; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Patancheru, India, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Duijn, H.J.W.; Van Driel, W.F.; Kabore, O. Influence Des Cordons Pierreux Sur La Relation Entre Le Bilan Hydrique et Le Rendement Du Mil Dans Le Bassin Versant de Oualaga à Namsiguia Au Burkina Faso. In Bilan Hydrique Agricole et Secheresse en Afrique Tropicale ; John Libbey Eurotext: Paris, France, 1994; pp. 275–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• INERA. Rapport d’activités de Recherches Excutées Par l’INERA Dans Le Cadre Du Programme Spécial CES/AGF Dans Le Plateau Central Du Burkina Faso ; Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles du Burkina Faso: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zouré, C.O.; Koïta, M.; Niang, D.; Baba, I.I.; Roland, O.; Yonaba, A.E.D.; Fowé, T.; Queloz, P.; Karambiri, H. Relationship between Soil Water Content and Crop Yield under Sahelian Climate Conditions: Case Study of Tougou Experimental Site in Burkina Faso. J. Adv. Phys. 2017 , 13 , 5177–5184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, J.; Yang, Z.; Govers, G. Soil and Water Conservation Measures Reduce Soil and Water Losses in China but Not down to Background Levels: Evidence from Erosion Plot Data. Geoderma 2019 , 337 , 729–741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nyamekye, C.; Thiel, M.; Schönbrodt-Stitt, S.; Zoungrana, B.J.-B.; Amekudzi, L.K. Soil and Water Conservation in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 3182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magrath, J. Regreening the Sahel: A Quiet Agroecological Evolution ; Oxfam GB: Oxford, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zougmoré, R.; Mando, A.; Stroosnijder, L. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation and Nutrient Management on the Soil–Plant Water Balance in Semi-Arid Burkina Faso. Agric. Water Manag. 2004 , 65 , 103–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lejeal, F. Le Burkina Faso ; KARTHALA Editions; KARTHALA: Paris, France, 2002; ISBN 2-84586-143-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• ProSol. Catalogue De Mesures Ces/Drs Promues Par Le ; ProSol: Saint Laurent, QC, Canada, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• CILSS. Bonnes Pratiques Agro-Sylvo- Pastorales d’amélioration Durable de La Fertilité Des Sols Au Burkina Faso ; CILSS: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2012; p. 194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaboré, D.; Reij, C. The EMERGENCE and Spreading of an Improved Traditional Soil and Water Conservation Practice in Burkina Faso ; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Volume 114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roose, E.; Kabore, V.; Guenat, C. Zai Practice: A West African Traditional Rehabilitation System for Semiarid Degraded Lands, a Case Study in Burkina Faso. Arid. Soil Res. Rehabil. 1999 , 13 , 343–355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spaan, W. Consuming the Savings: Water Conservation in a Vegetation Barrier System at the Central Plateau in Burkina Faso ; Wageningen University and Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2003; ISBN 978-90-6754-707-9. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Longueville, F.; Hountondji, Y.-C.; Kindo, I.; Gemenne, F.; Ozer, P. Long-Term Analysis of Rainfall and Temperature Data in Burkina Faso (1950–2013). Int. J. Climatol. 2016 , 36 , 4393–4405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• INSD. Cinquième Recensement Général de La Population et de l’Habitation Du Burkina Faso/Résultats Préliminaires ; Institut National de la Statistique et de la Démographie: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2020; Available online: http://www.cns.bf/IMG/pdf/rapport_preliminaire_rgph_2019.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2024).
• Mantel, S.; Dondeyne, S.; Deckers, S. World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB). In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment , 2nd ed.; Goss, M.J., Oliver, M., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2023; pp. 206–217. ISBN 978-0-323-95133-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schad, P. World Reference Base for Soil Resources—Its Fourth Edition and Its History. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2023 , 186 , 151–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajot, J.L. Wind and Water Erosion of Non Cultivated Sandy Soils in the Sahel: A Case Study in Northern Burkina Faso, Africa. In Proceedings of the Management of Tropical Sandy Soils for Sustainable Agriculture, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 27 November–2 December 2005; p. 175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rajot, J.L.; Ribolzi, O.; Thiebaux, J.P. Wind Erosion in a Small Catchment of Grazing Area in Northern Burkina Faso: Influence of Surface Features. In Proceeding of the ICAR5/GCTE-SEN Joint Meeting, Lubbock, TX, USA, 22–25 July 2002; Volume 185, p. 190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, H.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Lutsko, N.J.; Dufour, A.; Zeng, Z.; Jiang, X.; van Dijk, A.I. High-Resolution (1 Km) Köppen-Geiger Maps for 1901–2099 Based on Constrained CMIP6 Projections. Sci. Data 2023 , 10 , 724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• MAAHM. ANNUAIRE DES STATISTIQUES AGRO-SYLVO-PASTORALES 2021 ; Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Aménagements Hydroagricoles et de la Mécanisation: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2022. Available online: http://cns.bf/IMG/pdf/annuaire_agro-sylvopastoral_2021.pdf (accessed on 29 March 2024).
• Oldeman, L.R.; Hakkeling, R.T.A.; Sombroek, W.G.; Batjes, N. Global Assessment of Human-Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD). In World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation ; Winand Staring Centre–ISSSFAO–ITC: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panagos, P.; Van Liedekerke, M.; Jones, A.; Montanarella, L. European Soil Data Centre: Response to European Policy Support and Public Data Requirements. Land Use Policy 2012 , 29 , 329–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Allestro, P.; Parente, C. GIS Application for NDVI Calculation Using Landsat 8 OLI Images. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2015 , 10 , 42099–42102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Funk, C.; Peterson, P.; Landsfeld, M.; Pedreros, D.; Verdin, J.; Shukla, S.; Husak, G.; Rowland, J.; Harrison, L.; Hoell, A. The Climate Hazards Infrared Precipitation with Stations—A New Environmental Record for Monitoring Extremes. Sci. Data 2015 , 2 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halecki, W.; Kruk, E.; Ryczek, M. Loss of Topsoil and Soil Erosion by Water in Agricultural Areas: A Multi-Criteria Approach for Various Land Use Scenarios in the Western Carpathians Using a SWAT Model. Land Use Policy 2018 , 73 , 363–372. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, L.; Huang, Y.; Rong, L.; Duan, X.; Zhang, R.; Li, Y.; Guan, J. Effect of Soil Erosion Depth on Crop Yield Based on Topsoil Removal Method: A Meta-Analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021 , 41 , 63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, J.; Van Oost, K.; Chen, L.; Govers, G. Moderate Topsoil Erosion Rates Constrain the Magnitude of the Erosion-Induced Carbon Sink and Agricultural Productivity Losses on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Biogeosciences 2016 , 13 , 4735–4750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MEDD. Les Bonnes Pratiques de Gestion Durable des Terres au Burkina Faso ; Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2011.
• Fentahun, T.; Gashaw, T. Population Growth and Land Resources Degradation in Bantneka Watershed, Southern Ethiopia. Population 2014 , 4 , 13–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putri, R.F.; Naufal, M.; Nandini, M.; Dwiputra, D.S.; Wibirama, S.; Sumantyo, J.T.S. The Impact of Population Pressure on Agricultural Land towards Food Sufficiency (Case in West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia) ; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 256, p. 012050. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wouterse, F.S. Survival or Accumulation: Migration and Rural Households in Burkina Faso ; Wageningen University and Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2006; ISBN 90-8504-424-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• USAID. Burkina Faso Fact Sheet-Agriculture and Food Security ; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
• Nebie, E.K.; West, C.T. Migration and Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Burkina Faso: A Comparative Case Study. J. Political Ecol. 2019 , 26 , 614–632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, M.; Huang, N.; Wu, M.; Pei, J.; Wang, J.; Niu, Z. Vegetation Change in Response to Climate Factors and Human Activities on the Mongolian Plateau. PeerJ 2019 , 7 , e7735. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bamba, A.; Dieppois, B.; Konaré, A.; Pellarin, T.; Balogun, A.; Dessay, N.; Kamagaté, B.; Savané, I.; Diédhiou, A. Changes in Vegetation and Rainfall over West Africa during the Last Three Decades (1981–2010). Atmos. Clim. Sci. 2015 , 5 , 367–379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Z.; Wang, W.; Fu, J. Vegetation Response to Precipitation Anomalies under Different Climatic and Biogeographical Conditions in China. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, C.; Li, L.; Wu, X.; Tsunekawa, A.; Wei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Peng, L.; Chen, J.; Bai, K. Increasing Precipitation Promoted Vegetation Growth in the Mongolian Plateau during 2001–2018. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023 , 11 , 1153601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanogo, S.; Karambiri, B.L.C.N.; Badini, M.; Yanogo, P.I. The Dynamics of Land Use in the Province of Kossi, North-West Burkina Faso. Geogr. Malays. J. Soc. Space 2024 , 20 , 69–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trancoso, R.; Syktus, J.; Allan, R.P.; Croke, J.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Chadwick, R. Significantly Wetter or Drier Future Conditions for One to Two Thirds of the World’s Population. Nat. Commun. 2024 , 15 , 483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hausfather, Z. Explainer: What Climate Models Tell Us about Future Rainfall. Carbon Brief. 2018. Available online: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall/ (accessed on 15 July 2024).
• Xiong, J.; Guo, S.; Abhishek; Chen, J.; Yin, J. Global Evaluation of the “Dry Gets Drier, and Wet Gets Wetter” Paradigm from a Terrestrial Water Storage Change Perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2022 , 26 , 6457–6476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolka, K.; Mulder, J.; Biazin, B. Effects of Soil and Water Conservation Techniques on Crop Yield, Runoff and Soil Loss in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. Agric. Water Manag. 2018 , 207 , 67–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tamagnone, P.; Comino, E.; Rosso, M. Rainwater Harvesting Techniques as an Adaptation Strategy for Flood Mitigation. J. Hydrol. 2020 , 586 , 124880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naba, C.; Ishidaira, H.; Magome, J.; Souma, K. Analysis of flood-poverty relationship in burkina faso using remotely sensed nighttime light. J. JSCE 2023 , 11 , 23–27035. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibrahim, B.; Karambiri, H.; Polcher, J.; Yacouba, H.; Ribstein, P. Changes in Rainfall Regime over Burkina Faso under the Climate Change Conditions Simulated by 5 Regional Climate Models. Clim. Dyn. 2014 , 42 , 1363–1381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nuraddeen Danjuma, M.; Mohammed, S. Zai Pits System: A Catalyst for Restoration in the Drylands. J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2015 , 8 , 2319–2372. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rainwater Harvesting Innovations in Response to Water Scarcity: The Lare Experience ; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2006; ISBN 978-92-9059-197-9.
• Critchley, W.; Reij, C.; Seznec, A. Water Harvesting for Plant Production. Volume II: Case Studies and Conclusions for Sub-Saharan Africa ; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adimassu, Z.; Langan, S.; Johnston, R.; Mekuria, W.; Amede, T. Impacts of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Crop Yield, Run-off, Soil Loss and Nutrient Loss in Ethiopia: Review and Synthesis. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 59 , 87–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wakindiki, I.I.C.; Ben-Hur, M. Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation Techniques: Effects on Runoff, Erosion, and Crop Yields under Semi-Arid Conditions. Soil Res. 2002 , 40 , 367–379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roose, E. Land Husbandry: Components and Strategy ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1996; Volume 70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nazir, M.J.; Li, G.; Nazir, M.M.; Zulfiqar, F.; Siddique, K.H.; Iqbal, B.; Du, D. Harnessing Soil Carbon Sequestration to Address Climate Change Challenges in Agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 2024 , 237 , 105959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lehmann, J.; Kleber, M. The Contentious Nature of Soil Organic Matter. Nature 2015 , 528 , 60–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5° C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty ; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., et al., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahajan, G.R.; Das, B.; Manivannan, S.; Manjunath, B.L.; Verma, R.R.; Desai, S.; Kulkarni, R.M.; Latare, A.M.; Sale, R.; Murgaonkar, D. Soil and Water Conservation Measures Improve Soil Carbon Sequestration and Soil Quality under Cashews. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2021 , 36 , 190–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Naba, C.; Ishidaira, H.; Magome, J.; Souma, K. Exploring the Potential of Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Climate Resilience in Burkina Faso. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187995

Naba C, Ishidaira H, Magome J, Souma K. Exploring the Potential of Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Climate Resilience in Burkina Faso. Sustainability . 2024; 16(18):7995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187995

Naba, Carine, Hiroshi Ishidaira, Jun Magome, and Kazuyoshi Souma. 2024. "Exploring the Potential of Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Climate Resilience in Burkina Faso" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187995

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 957 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Exploring the Potential of Soil and Water Conservation Measures for Climate Resilience in Burkina Faso

• September 2024
• Sustainability 16(18)

• University of Yamanashi
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

Supplementary resource (1)

• Chuanhua Li
• Liangliang Li

• Hiroshi ISHIDAIRA

• Robin Chadwick

• Jinghua Xiong

• INT J SEDIMENT RES

• Heena Mulla
• SOIL TILL RES

• Seppe Deckers
• Peter Schad
• Lanlan Zhang

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Open access
• Published: 19 August 2019

Effects of soil and water conservation practices on soil physicochemical properties in Gumara watershed, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

• Mengie Belayneh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8027-7143 1 ,
• Teshome Yirgu 2 &
• Dereje Tsegaye 3  

Ecological Processes volume  8 , Article number:  36 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

55 Citations

Metrics details

Soil erosion is among the foremost causes of declining soil resources in Ethiopia, which in turn affect agricultural productivity. To limit this problem, for the last two decades in Gumara watershed, soil and water conservation measures have been practiced through free labor community mass-mobilization. However, their effect on soil fertility has not been evaluated. This study investigated the impact of implemented soil and water conservation measures on fertility improvement in the Gumara watershed. Both composite and core soil samples were taken from upstream, midstream, and downstream adjacent conserved and non-conserved cultivated and grazing plots. Selected soil fertility indicators were analyzed using standard laboratory procedures.

Soil and water conservation practices have resulted in a statistically significantly higher mean values of total nitrogen, exchangeable Na + and Mg 2+ at p  < 0.01, and of soil organic carbon and organic matter at p  < 0.05 in the watershed. The clay content, soil reaction, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable K + showed non-significant, but higher mean values in conserved plots. Furthermore, the effects of conservation practices on soil properties were found more effective in cultivated land uses as compared to that of grazing land uses. This is because conservation treatments had significant effects on organic carbon, total nitrogen, exchangeable Na + and Mg 2+ in cultivated land uses but only on exchangeable Na + in grazing land uses. The interaction effect of treatments and land uses did not reach a statistically significant result for any of the soil properties considered in this study.

Conservation measures have important implications for improving soil fertility in the Gumara watershed. Therefore, proper guidance and follow-up, use of agro-forestry and grass strips, and maintenance are required for the watershed’s sustainability and good soil conditions.

Introduction

Land degradation and its related decline in the productivity potential of agricultural land are challenging the economic and social well-being of the current and future generations on earth (Keno and Suryabhagavan 2014 ; Haregeweyn et al. 2012 ). Soil erosion is the main cause of land degradation and a leading factor contributing to poor agricultural development in developing countries (Gemechu 2016 ). Currently, soil resources are the main sources of livelihoods for most people of the world, such human exploitation being the foremost factor for soil degradation (Molla and Sisheber 2017 ). In developing countries, many people have been settled in the highlands due to favorable agricultural and ecological conditions, leading to high population densities and causing resource degradation (Haregeweyn et al. 2017 ; Nyssen et al. 2008 ).

Cultivation of marginal lands, forest degradation for farming, and overgrazing are the major causes of increasing vulnerability of agricultural land to soil erosion in Ethiopia (Adimassu et al. 2014 ). The slope steepness, long cultivation history with outdated technology, and overgrazing make soil erosion more severe in Ethiopia (Nyssen et al. 2004 ). It has been identified as a major threat to the national economy (Hurni 1993 ) and among the main challenges influencing the sustainability of agriculture (Molla and Sisheber 2017 ). As a result, two-thirds of the population of Ethiopia has been affected by soil erosion mainly associated with the conversion of forest to agricultural land (Hurni et al. 2015 ). This is indicated by a 0.4% increase in crop yields and a 5.7% increase in cultivated land from 1991 to 2003 (International Monetary Fund 2005 ). The net soil loss increased from 130 to 182 million metric tons from 1995 to 2005 (Environment for Development 2010 ).

As part of the Ethiopian highlands, the Upper Blue Nile Basin experiences high soil erosion rate (0–200 tons ha −1  year −1 ) (Haregeweyn et al. 2017 ) and 131 million tons of soil loss annually because of poor land use management systems (Betrie et al. 2011 ). The Gumara watershed is part of this basin that is affected by high soil erosion (Belayneh et al. 2019 ; Hurni et al. 2005 ) and among the highest mean runoff portion in the basin (Haregeweyn et al. 2016 ).

To solve this problem, soil and water conservation (SWC) practices were initiated in Ethiopia during the 1970s and 1980s (Adgo et al. 2013 ; Adimassu et al. 2014 ; Haregeweyn et al. 2015 ; Nyssen et al. 2008 ). The main intent of the initiatives was to minimize erosion, restore soil fertility, rehabilitate degraded land, and increase agricultural productivity (Mekuria et al. 2007 ). Conservation programs were reviewed in different phases by considering their success (Haregeweyn et al. 2012 ). Since the 1990s, the implementation of SWC measures has been an integral part of agricultural extension packages (Bewket and Sterk 2002 ). Community-based watershed management approaches and a nationwide 30-day public campaign (community mass-mobilisation) for watershed management have been implemented since 2009 (Haregeweyn et al. 2012 ).

However, programs were targeted on areas frequently affected by drought in the northern and northeastern parts of the country aiming at social protection but not so much at resource conservation (Haregeweyn et al. 2015 ; Mekuriaw et al. 2018 ). Active erosion and high annual runoff rates occur in the northwestern highlands of the country (Haregeweyn et al. 2017 ; Nyssen et al. 2004 ), which are characterized by high and erosive rainfall and poor land management (Nyssen et al. 2004 ).

The effectiveness of SWC measures was evaluated by several studies but most of them focused on the semi-arid northern part of the country (Haregeweyn et al. 2016 ; Nyssen et al. 2010 ). Few studies were conducted in the northwestern highlands (Haregeweyn et al. 2015 ). The efficiency and effectiveness of SWC measures is subject to both the prevailing agro-ecology and the type of conservation measures implemented (Haregeweyn et al. 2015 ). This indicates the need for local and agro-ecologically based evaluation of the impacts of SWC measures in high potential northwestern highlands.

On the other hand, there is no consent on the effectiveness of SWC interventions among the research findings reported so far (Dagnew et al. 2015 ). Some argue that SWC contributes for reduction in runoff and sediment loss (Mekuriaw 2017 ) and increased soil moisture conservation (Haregeweyn et al. 2015 ; Nyssen et al. 2010 ). On the other side, it is reported that SWC structures were not effective in reducing soil erosion (Bewket and Sterk 2002 ) and had not resulted in decreasing sediment concentrations (Temesgen et al. 2012 ). This indicates that there is a gap in the evaluation of the impacts of SWC interventions.

In the Gumara watershed like most northwestern highlands, different SWC structures were implemented by farmers through community mass-mobilization since 1995. However, soil erosion is still very high and a threatening problem for soil resource and agriculture (Belayneh et al. 2019 ). In the sub-humid northwestern highlands, little attention has been given to SWC interventions and little information is documented on effectiveness of SWC measures (Haregeweyn et al. 2015 ). Insufficient data on the effectiveness of SWC practices could lead to ineffective planning, progress, and realization of SWC initiatives.

Hence, evaluating the impacts of SWC practices has been vital to learn lessons from its success and limitations of the initiative. In this regard, the objectives of the study were (1) to investigate the impact of implemented SWC measures on soil physicochemical properties in the watershed, and (2) to evaluate the effectivness of SWC in improving soil fertility under different land uses (cultivated and grazing land) in sub-humid Gumara watershed.

Materials and methods

The study area.

Gumara watershed (Fig.  1 ) is located in Dega Damot district, Footnote 1 West Gojjam Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia. It is among the headquarter streams of Blue Nile River (Abay river). It extends from 10° 50′ 15″ to 11° 0′ 40″ N and 37° 30′ 40″ to 37° 41′ 22″ E. The watershed covers a total area of 20,438 ha.

Map of Gumara watershed, in Upper Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia

Gumara watershed is part of the northern highland, dominated by the Oligo–Miocene volcanic trap basalt rock underlain by the early Tertiary volcanoes (Abbate et al. 2015 ). The watershed is characterized by diverse topographic conditions and its elevation ranges from 1864 to 3235 m above sea level.

According to the soil map of the watershed collected from Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Energy, the soil of the watershed is characterized by haplic luvisols, haplic nitisols, and haplic alisoils (Ministry of Water Resources of Ethiopia (MoWR) 1998 ). Haplic alisols is the dominant soil type in the watershed, covering an area of 90.67 km 2 followed by Haplic luvisols (70.8 km 2 ). The watershed is characterized by high amount of rainfall, which received 2078.1 mm in a unimodal rainfall pattern (computed from 20 years national meteorology agency data of Feres Bet rainfall station). It experienced 16.6 °C mean annual temperature (Fig.  2 ). The watershed has Dega (tropical) and Woina Dega (sub-tropical) agro-ecologies, in which 71% of the watershed has highland tropical climate.

Monthly average rainfall (mm) and temperature (maximum, minimum, and average) (°C) for the study area

Cultivated land, forest land, grazing land, shrub/wood land, bare land, and built-up areas are the major land uses/covers in the watershed (Belayneh et al. 2019 ). Of which the cultivated land covers 58.09%. Subsistence agriculture, in the form of mixed crop and livestock system, is the main source of livelihood, accounting for ~ 90% of the households in the watershed.

The total population of the District for the years 1994, 2007, and 2017 were 130,939, 152,343, and 179,078 respectively (Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) 1994 , 2007 ) and 2017 (Dega Damot District Administration office 2017), with an increase of 16.35% in 13 years (1994–2007) and 17.16% in 10 years (2007–2017).

Methods of data collection

The impacts of SWC measures were evaluated using adjacent conserved and non-conserved plots in the Gumara watershed. Sites having conserved and non-conserved plots adjacently were identified through reconnaissance survey and Google Earth image. For several reasons, some plots had not been conserved adjacent to the conserved plots in different portions of the watershed. This was vital to make sample sites relatively similar in physical and environmental conditions for comparison and the variation could be due to SWC structures. Soil samples were collected using 15-cm depth auger and 294.375 cm 3 core sampler at a depth of 0–30 cm. A total of 24 composite and core soil samples (two treatments [conserved and non-conserved plots] * two land uses * six replicates) were collected. Soil samples were collected from upstream, midstream, and downstream part of the watershed to make representative for the whole watershed. Soil samples from upper (0.5 m from the upper bund), middle (midpoint between two successive bunds), and lower (0.5 m from the lower bund) part of two successive bunds were composited for conserved soil samples to make it more representative, because upper, middle, and lower portion of the area between terraces may have different soil fertility. One kilogram composite soil was packed from each soil sampling site for laboratory analysis. Purposive sampling was applied to select adjacent conserved and non-conserved plots and to represent large area. Core samples were taken along with each composite sample. Samples from cultivated land were taken after crop harvest with similar crop land uses.

Direct field observation and key-informant interviews were conducted to support the laboratory result about the effectiveness of SWC practices. Direct field observation was conducted to see the current physical conditions of conservation structures, destructions, and maintenance. Key-informant interview was done with experienced natural resources management unit authorities (five), developmental agents (three) and kebele Footnote 2 agricultural professionals (three), and 27 selected farmers (nine from each sample kebele) to collect supporting data about the effectiveness of conservation measures in the watershed. Sample farmers were selected from the three sample kebeles (among eight watershed kebeles) using simple random sampling. Sample households were selected through purposive sampling method by considering farmers understanding, participation in campaign work, and their involvement in different decision-making processes in the kebeles. The sex and age of farmers and their adoption level of SWC measures were also considered in the selection process.

Laboratory analysis

Composite soil samples were air-dried, grinded, and sieved to pass through a 2 mm sieve to make it ready for lab analysis. The soil laboratory analysis was done at Amhara National Regiional State Agriculture Office, Debre Markos soil research and fertility iprovment center. Selected soil fertility indicators such as soil texture, soil pH, bulk density, total nitrogen, organic carbon, available phosphorus, exchangeable bases, and caution exchange capacity were analyzed using standard laboratory procedures. For the analysis of total nitrogen and organic carbon content, the soil sample was further sieved by 0.5 mm sieve.

The soil bulk density was determined by core sampler method described in Black et al. ( 1965 ). The determination of soil particle size proportions were carried out by hydrometer method suggested by Sakar and Haldar ( 2005 ). Following this, the determination of soil texture and textural classification ware identified using equilateral triangle suggested by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and described by Osman ( 2013 ). Soil reaction (soil pH) was determined by a 1:2.5 soil:water ratio using a pH meter as described by Van Reeuwijk ( 2002 ). The soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration was determined by using Walkley and Black rapid titration method as described in Sakar and Haldar ( 2005 ). Soil organic matter (SOM) was determined by multiplying percent organic carbon by 1.724 (Jones 2001 ). Total nitrogen (TN) was determined by the modified Kjeldahl methods as modified by Sakar and Haldar ( 2005 ). The available phosphorus (av. P) content was determined using Olsen extraction method as described by Van Reeuwijk ( 2002 ). The exchangeable bases and CEC were determined by using ammonium acetate method (Sakar and Haldar 2005 ). Ca 2 + and Mg 2 + were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometer; flame photometer method was used for determination of Na + and K + .

Statistical analysis

Mean and mean differences were used as a descriptive statistical analysis method. One-way ANOVA was used to test whether there is a significant difference in soil physicochemical properties between conserved and non-conserved plots. Two-way ANOVA was applied to test whether soil properties are affected significantly due to the interaction effect of land uses and SWC treatment. In addition, bivariate correlation analysis was used to show the relationships between soil physicochemical properties. The statistical analysis was manipulated using Statistical Package for Social Scientists [SPSS] version 20.

The effects of SWC initiatives practiced through free labor communities’ mass-mobilization on selected soil physicochemical properties (bulk density, soil texture, soil pH, total nitrogen, organic carbon, available phosphorous, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and exchangeable basis) were evaluated using mean differences and ANOVA. Furthermore, the assumptions of ANOVA were tested using Levene’s test of homogeneity and Shapiro-Wilk test of normality (Table  1 ).

The test of normality for SOC, av. P, clay, and silt content of the soil were found significant, which indicates non-normal distribution ( p < 0.05; Table 1 ). In this regard, Blanca et al. ( 2017 ) and Stevens ( 2007 ) reported the robustness of F test for non-normally distributed data ( p  < 0.05). Therefore, the robust test of ANOVA result was used for dependent variables showing non-normally distribued data. The homogeneity of variance assumption of one-way ANOVA for TN was violated ( p  < 0.05) in the data collected from treated and untreated cultivated plots. In this case, the robust test (Welch) were used; as the Welch test is the best method for homogeneous but normal and balanced data to control type I error (Liu 2015 ; Stevens 2007 ).

The effect of soil and water conservation practices on soil physical properties

Soil particle size proportions (distributions).

The textural classes were identified using soil equilateral triangle recommended by USDA and described by Osman ( 2013 ). Accordingly, the mean particle size proportion showed that the soil was fine textured in conserved and non-conserved plots. The soil in the study area has been dominated by clay content experiencing a mean value of 67.8% and 60.5% in conserved and non-conserved soil respectively (Table  2 ), which implies that the mean value of clay content was higher under conserved plots. The mean sand fraction is the lowest proportion of soil particle content in the area. It was also indicated that the mean sand fraction was relatively lower in conserved plots. This might be attributed to the relative effect of SWC on soil erosion, which reduces the removal of top fine soil particles. On the contrary, higher sand content of the soil in non-conserved plots may be resulted due to removal of fine particles via soil erosion. A land that receives a high amount of rainfall and continuously cultivated without any conservation measure could allow free and easy removal of fine particles via rainfall runoff.

The silt content of the soil was higher in non-conserved plots against the conserved plots. However, the differences in the mean soil particle size distribution (sand, clay, and silt) among conserved and non-conserved plots were not statistically significant at p  < 0.05 (Table  2 ).

Soil bulk density

The effect of SWC on the mean soil bulk density was found to be minimal and slightly lower values were observed in conserved plots. A relatively higher bulk density in non-conserved plots could be related with washing out of fine organic matter rich soils by erosion and thereby exposed slightly heavier soil particulates. The ANOVA result indicated that the variation in bulk density was not statistically significant following treatment ( p  < 0.05; Table  2 ).

The effect of soil and water conservation practices on soil chemical properties

Soil reaction (soil ph).

The acidity level of the watershed in general was rated as medium acidic based on Osman ( 2013 ) acidity and alkalinity categories of soil pH. The mean pH of the soil in the study watershed was 5.77 and 5.66 in conserved and non-conserved land respectivly (Table  3 ). The acidity of the soil could be related with its sub-humid nature of the area and high amount of rainfall. This is true that greater rainfall increases soil acidity and humid areas are more acidic than arid and semi-arid areas (Osman 2013 ).

Soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic matter (SOM)

The analysis of variance result for SOC and SOM showed a statistically significant mean difference following treatments ( p < 0.05; Table 3 ). The mean organic carbon and organic matter content of the soil in conserved plots were higher (SOC = 2.49%, SOM = 4.3%) than non-conserved plots (SOC = 1.66%, SOM = 2.83%). Besides, the mean soil organic carbon (SOC) content was rated low in conserved and very low in non-conserved plots according to the rating standard developed for tropical soils (Landon 2013 ). It could be explained by soil erosion, continuous cultivation, harvesting crop residues, and animal dung. The use of animal dung for fuel instead of manure may reduce the effectiveness of SWC practices in SOC concentration (Mengistu et al. 2016 ).

Total nitrogen

The total nitrogen (TN) content of the soil was significantly affected by SWC practices ( p <0.01; Table 3 ). TN content of the soil in Gumara watershed was rated medium and low in conserved and non-conserved plots respectively (Landon 2013 ). The mean total nitrogen of the soil was greater in conserved (0.27%) than non-conserved plots (0.138%).

Available phosphorous

Available phosphorous of the soil was not significantly affected by conservation measures ( p  > 0.05). Its mean value was lower in conserved plots (6.96 ppm) as compared to non-conserved plots (7.9 ppm) (Table  3 ). The varations in the use of artificial fertilizer (diammonium phosphate) may be the reason for the previaled varations in the soil. As compared to the requirements of crops that have been dominantly practiced in the area, the phosphorous content of the soil was questionable (4.1–8 ppm) and deficient (< 11 ppm) for low demand crops (such as cereals and maize) and high demand crops (such as potatoes, onions) respectively (Landon 2013 ).

Cation exchange capacity

According to the rating standards of Landon ( 2013 ), the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil in Gumara watershed was rated as high (25–40 cmol(+) kg −1 ) in both conserved and non-conserved plots. The study result revealed that SWC measures had a positive effect on the CEC content of the soil. The mean difference was higher in conserved plots (33.6 cmol(+) kg −1 ) than non-conserved plots (31.9 cmol(+) kg −1 ) (Table  3 ), but not statistically significant ( p  > 0.05). This is believed to be caused by the relative effect of conservation measures in the watershed.

Exchangeable cations (Na + , K + , Ca 2+ , and Mg 2+ )

The relative abundance of basic cations in the exchange complex was Na +  < K +  < Mg 2+  < Ca 2+ for both conserved and non-conserved soils. Exchangeable Ca 2+ (19.3 cmol(+) kg −1 , 21.4 cmol(+) kg −1 ) and Na + (0.31 cmol(+) kg −1 , 0.18 cmol(+) kg −1 ) constitutes the highest and lowest proportion in conserved and non-conserved plots respectively (Table  3 ). One-way analysis of variance result for exchangeable Na + and Mg 2+ showed a statistically significant difference ( p  < 0.01) between conserved and non-conserved plots. By contrast, the effect of conservation practices for exchangeable Ca 2+ and K + was not statistically significant ( p  > 0.05).

The effectivness of conservation practices in different land uses

As shown in Table  4 , the analysis of variance result for the mean differences of all soil particle size distributions was not significantly affected by conservation practices in both land uses ( p  > 0.05). However, mean differences were observed in cultivated and grazing land uses following treatments. The highest sand fraction was recorded from non-conserved cultivated land and lowest in conserved grazing land. The mean clay content of the soil was 65.67% and 62% in conserved and non-conserved cultivated plots.

The mean difference for bulk density was slightly higher in cultivated land, with higher mean values in the non-conserved than in the conserved land (Table  4 ). It was not the case for grazing land uses, in which conserved plots experience higher mean values than non-conserved plots. The ANOVA result indicated that the variation in bulk density was not statistically significant between the conserved and non-conserved lands for either cultivated or grazing land uses due to SWC treatment ( p  > 0.05; Table  4 ).

The influence of land use on the effect of conservation measures for the mean difference of soil pH was slight. Higher SOC concentration was observed in grazing land uses than in cultivated land uses. Our analysis result by land use revealed that the mean difference in SOC and SOM was higher and statistically significant ( p  < 0.05) between conserved and non-conserved cultivated land uses.

Higher TN content of the soil was observed in conserved grazing land uses (0.32%) followed by conserved cultivated land uses (0.219%) and non-conserved cultivated lands constitute the lowest (0.105%) (Table  5 ). The ANOVA result revealed a significant effect on effectiveness of conservation measures on cultivated plots at p  < 0.01. Conversely, conservation measures did not show a statistically significant variation for SOM, SOC, and TN in grazing lands ( p  < 0.05).

The SWC treatments for available phosphorous were not significantly affected by land uses ( p  > 0.05). Instead, greater concentrations were observed in non-conserved (9.755 ppm) than in conserved cultivated land (7.78 ppm) (Table  5 ). Grazing land uses revealed very small mean difference for available phosphorous following SWC treatments. The use of inorganic fertilizer (diammonium phosphate) to enhance crop production in cultivated land could probably increase av. P concentrations in cultivated plots.

The CEC content of the soil in conserved and non-conserved land uses revealed 31.97 cmol(+) kg −1 , 35.3 cmol(+) kg −1 in cultivated land and 29.56 cmol(+) kg −1 , 34.3 cmol(+) kg −1 in grazing land respectively (Table  5 ). The influence of conservation structures on CEC was not determined by land uses and the mean difference was not statistically significant for both land uses. However, the impact of SWC has been better in cultivated land uses as compared to grazing land uses. The effect of SWC in cultivated and grazing land uses showed a statistically significant difference in exchangeable Na + for both land uses ( p  < 0.05) and exchangeable Mg 2+ only in cultivated land use ( p  < 0.01).

A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of SWC treatment and land use types on soil fertility variation. The result showed a statistically significant main effect for SWC treatment on SOC, SOM at p  < 0.05, and TN, Na + , and Mg 2+ at p  < 0.01. The main effect for land uses was statistically significant only for SOC, SOM, and bulk density at p  < 0.05. However, the interaction effect of SWC treatment and land uses did not show a statistically significant mean difference for any of the selected soil fertility indicators ( p  < 0.05; Table  6 ).

The interrelationship among soil physicochemical properties

The simple linear correlation (Pearson) results revealed the strength and magnitude of relationship among physicochemical properties. The pH of the soil showed a positive significant relationship with SOM (0.673**), TN (0.628**), CEC (0.619**), and all exchangeable bases except magnesium (Table  7 ). It also showed significantly negative relationship with BD (−0.426*). The correlation matrix further revealed a positive very strong significant relationship (0.959**) between TN and SOM and strong positive significant correlation (0.7**, 0.783**, 0.734**) with CEC, exchangeable Na + , and Mg 2+ content.

Similarly, bulk density showed strong negative significant relationship (−0.702**, −0.756**, −0.747**) with OM, CEC, and exchangeable Ca 2+ content of the soil respectively. However, available phosphorous showed no regular trends and weakly varied with other soil physicochemical properties in Gumara watershed (Table  7 ).

The impact of soil and water conservation practices on soil properties

SWC measures implemented in the Gumara watershed have improved the soil condition as a result of reduction in runoff and sediment transport. This is indicated by the significant variations in soil physicochemical properties between conserved and non-conserved plots. SWC structures decreased the slope length and steepness and consequently led to better infiltration, slow movement, and less accumulation of runoff. As a result, the removal of soil particles, crop residues, and other organic components can be limited, which improves the soil condition as compared to the non-conserved soils.

The particle size proportion of the soil was fine textured in both conserved and non-conserved soils. The soil of the watershed was dominated by clay content indicating relatively higher mean value in conserved plots. Similarly, Mengistu et al. ( 2016 ) reported higher mean clay content in the conserved Minchit than in non-conserved Zikire sub-watershed. Higher soil erosion, removal of fine materials, clay contents, and organic matter could be possible reasons for relativly lower clay content in non-conserved plots.

Clay contents are fine particulates and more vulnerable to be washed out by erosion unless treated with SWC measures (Hishe et al. 2017 ; Selassie et al. 2015 ). A clay soil has an inherent advantage of good water and nutrient holding capacity and low level of leaching (Osman 2013 ). This nature of the soil helps the area to be more productive, even though it has been influenced by high soil erosion, continuous cultivation, and other natural and manmade influences. However, significant variation was not observed between conserved and non-conserved plots. This might be related with the prevailing parent materials and its inherent properties; such nature of the soil determines the texture of a soil, even if erosion, deposition, and other human activities may modify (Osman 2013 ).

SWC practices affected the bulk density of the soil in Gumara watershed. A relatively higher bulk density in non-conserved plots could be related with washing out of fine organic matter-rich soils by erosion and thereby exposing slightly heavier soil particles. On the other side, several potential causes may explain lower bulk density in conserved plots such as lesser effects of soil erosion (SWC structures as a barrier) and relatively higher SOM content resulted from accumulation of crop residues decay, plant leaves’ decay, and less vulnerability for easy removal of this components. The study finding was consistent with the results reported by Hishe et al. ( 2017 ) and Hailu et al. ( 2012 ) for Middle Silluh valley, northern Ethiopia, and Goromti watershed western Ethiopia respectively. On the other hand, Challa et al. ( 2016 ), Husen et al. ( 2017 ), and Selassie et al. ( 2015 ) reported a statistically significantly lower bulk density in conserved plots than in non-conserved plots.

Soil pH showed slightly higher mean values in conserved plots. Relatively higher soil acidity in non-conserved plots may be related with high rainfall, associated with leaching and removal of important soil nutrients. Amare et al. ( 2013 ) and Osman ( 2013 ) explained that high amount of rain water leaches soluble bases and consequently contributes to soil acidity. Similarly, long-term cropping, high rainfall, topographic steepness, and the application of inorganic fertilizer could probably increase soil acidity (Selassie et al. 2015 ). The analysis of variance result show that soil pH was not statistically significantly affected by conservation practices (Table  3 ). Similar results were reported by Challa et al. ( 2016 ) and Husen et al. ( 2017 ) in the central highland of Ethiopia.

The effect of conservation measures on SOC, SOM, and TN has been significant in the watershed. This coincides with Challa et al. ( 2016 ), Hailu et al. ( 2012 ), Hishe et al. ( 2017 ), Selassie et al. ( 2015 ), and Sinore et al. ( 2018 ), who reported statistically significantly higher SOC in terraced landscapes. It could be mainly related with conservation structures and biomass accumulation (Selassie et al. 2015 ). Soils exposed for severe erosion has been more vulnerable to decomposition of SOC than slightly eroded soils (Abegaz et al. 2016 ). This implies that non-conserved soils are more vulnerable to erosion and most likely to have low SOC concentration as compared to conserved soils.

As a result, supporting SWC structures by agro-forestry practice has been suggested for better carbon sequestration in the soil (Abegaz et al. 2016 ; Degefu et al. 2011 ). Similarly, supporting terracing with susbania and elephant grasses could result in high SOC and SOM due to high biomass return, which contributes to symbiotic fixation and soil erosion reduction (Sinore et al. 2018 ). However, we identified during on-site observation that as an agro-forestry and gully rehabilitation system, eucalyptus tree plantations were predominantly used to limit soil erosion and other related benefits in the study watershed. However, it was reported that the use of eucalyptus tree limits undergrowth and its contribution for SWC has been poor (Fikreyesus et al. 2011 ) and it is highly nutrient and water consuming species (Wolancho 2015 ). Hence, there is a need to recommend other better alternative tree plantations in the area.

The variation is primarily explained by conservation effects on soil erosion, because soil bund reduces loss of fine soil particles and residues (Husen et al. 2017 ; Mengistu et al. 2016 ; Selassie et al. 2015 ; Sinore et al. 2018 ). This process further improves the concentration of SOM and SOC which consequently leads to increase TN in the soil. The result was consistent with Challa et al. ( 2016 ), Hailu et al. ( 2012 ), Husen et al. ( 2017 ), Selassie et al. ( 2015 ), and Sinore et al. ( 2018 ), who stated that conserved plots resulted in significantly higher TN content. On the other side, the result did not agree with the findings of Hishe et al. ( 2017 ) who reported statistically non-significant difference in plots following treatments.

The available phosphorous content of the soil between conserved and non-conserved plots did not have consistent pattern with conservation measures. The application of diammonium phosphate (DAP) may be the reason for its indistinguishable availability in the soil. This result coincides with the result reported by Hishe et al. ( 2017 ) for Middle Silluh valley, Northern Ethiopia. Hailu et al. ( 2012 ) did not find a statistically significant difference between treated and non-treated fields. Our result was not in agreement with Mengistu et al. ( 2016 ) and Selassie et al. ( 2015 ) who observed insignificant but higher available phosphorous concentration in conserved soils.

The concentration of av. P in the soil in Gumara watershed was deficient. This could be explained by different factors; the medium acidity nature of the soil and soil erosion through runoff may contribute to its limited availability in the soil. The limited availability of phosphorous in the soil may limit the growth and productivity of plants in the area. Phosphorous in the soil is highly required by plants and may cause slow growth when its concentration is very low (Hishe et al. 2017 ).

The CEC and exchangeable basis content of the soil in the watershed was rated as high. This might be due to the inherent characteristics of the soil because fine textured soils have more exchangeable basis (Osman 2013 ). Soils having high clay and SOM content have strong probability to hold positively charged ions and consequently hold high CEC concentration (Selassie et al. 2015 ; Sinore et al. 2018 ). Conservation measures caused a relatively higher CEC and cation exchange capacity in conserved soils than in non-conserved but the difference did not show statistical significance. Different researchers reported that the effect of SWC measures showed non-significant difference in the CEC content of the soil (such as Hailu et al. 2012 ; Hishe et al. 2017 ). On the other hand, the findings of Challa et al. ( 2016 ), Mengistu et al. ( 2016 ), and Selassie et al. ( 2015 ) reported significantly higher CEC contents in conserved soil.

The variation among research reports may be attributed to the level of effectiveness of SWC measures due to variations in conservation types, proper construction, and maintenance. Sinore et al. ( 2018 ) reported a significantly higher CEC and exchangeable bases in a soil treated with susbania and elephant grasses than in controlled soil. Supporting terracing with such plants/grasses strengthens the bund, generate high biomass, and increases OM and better control of erosion, consequently increases CEC in the soil.

The effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures in different land uses

The effect of conservation measures found to be different in grazing and cultivated land uses. This is indicated by a significant variation in SOC, SOM, TN, exchangeable Na + and Mg 2+ in conserved and non-conserved cultivated land uses and only exchangeable Na + in grazing land uses. The highest sand fraction was recorded from non-conserved cultivated land and lowest in conserved grazing land. Similarly, Hishe et al. ( 2017 ) reported greater sand content in non-terraced farm land. The effect of conservation measures caused greater mean variation of clay content in grazing land uses than in cultivated land uses. The highest (31.3%) and lowest (23.7%) silt content was observed in non-conserved and conserved grazing land uses, respectively (Table  4 ). This result did not agree with the findings of Hishe et al. ( 2017 ) who reported that lowest silt content was recorded in non-terraced cultivated land uses.

A relatively lower bulk density, higher SOC, SOM, and total nitrogen were observed in conserved cultivated land than in grazing land uses as compared to their counterpart. Higher SOC concentration was observed in grazing land uses than in cultivated land uses. Abegaz et al. ( 2016 ) explained that higher concentration of SOC was observed in cultivated land which makes this land uses to loss SOM more quickly than grazing land uses. The effect of SWC measures has reduced the removal of soil particles, residues, and other organic matter. On the other hand, non-conserved soils are exposed to greater removal of these components that may lead to relatively better effectiveness of conservation measures in cultivated land uses.

The analysis result showed that the effectiveness of SWC was better and significant (for some soil fertility indicators) in cultivated land than in grazing land. This might be related with high removal of fine nutrient-rich soil particles due to soil erosion in cultivated land (Belayneh et al. 2019 ) and conservation structures reduced soil loss in conserved plots. The key informant interview indicated that little or no attention was given for maintenance of conservation structures mainly in grazing land. This is due to communal ownership of most of the grazing land uses and waiting for any community mass-mobilization. On the other hand, the destruction of conservation structures was very high due to year-round open grazing. The result was supported by Wolancho ( 2015 ), who stated that controlling SWC measures in communal grazing lands was poor and its effect was minimal.

Some limitations of the SWC practices affecting its effectivness

The effect of SWC showed important implications in reducing soil erosion, improving soil conditions, and thereby land rehabilitation. However, significant results were observed only in some soil fertility indicators. The construction, follow-up, and maintenance could be possible causes for limited effectiveness among others. In this regard, the key informant interview result indicated that the construction of physical structures has not been mostly following the recommended terrace dimensions. During data collection period, researchers also observed over flow of runoff, filled with sediments and damaged SWC structures.

The key informants indicated that so far, the construction of most of the physical structures has been constructed targeted reporting number of hectares covered by SWC works through community mobilization. The recommended and scientific standards have not been given due attention. This result was confirmed by Bekele et al. ( 2018 ) who stated that the spaces between successive graded bunds were somewhat wider than the recommended standards mainly due to lack of technical assistance in bund design and layout. Such conditions more likely increase erosion risk on the cropland due to the large amount of runoff accumulation in bund ditches (Molla and Sisheber 2017 ). Several problems were reported by Wolancho ( 2015 ) concerning the community mobilization campaign work such as poor foundations in stone bunds, poorly designed mounding, and compacting embankments in fanya juus and spacing between soil bunds. Little technical support makes SWC ineffective (Wolancho 2015 ).

The maintenance of SWC structures has been given little attention. The work of maintenance was entirely left for farmers after construction by community mass-mobilization and its maintenance depends on individual farmers’ willingness. Some farmers maintain when damage occurred mainly in the sowing time. Our field observations also confirmed that conservation structures were filled with sediments without any maintenance and may not detain any more sediment and runoff. Most of the existing structures were demolished mainly related with high intensity of rainfall, sediment overload, and vulnerability to livestock damage (Molla and Sisheber 2017 ; Wolancho 2015 ). As a result, frequent removal of sediments and other maintenance is required (Wolancho 2015 ). This situation could probably limit the effectiveness of SWC structures for only some soil properties and did not result in significant variations in mean values for soil particle size distribution, bulk density, pH, CEC, and available phosphorus in the Gumara watershed.

The correlation between soil properties

The correlation matrix implies that most of the soil physical and chemical properties vary together. Soil pH had a positive significant relationship with SOM, TN CEC, exchangeable Na + , K + , and Ca 2+ . This indicated that many of the soil properties vary together with soil pH and it determines the availability of other physicochemical properties of the soil and vice versa. The presence of high organic matter, CEC, and basic cations improved the pH of the soil (Sinore et al. 2018 ). Moderately significant negative relationships were also observed between bulk density and TN, clay content, and basic cations except Ca 2+ . This could be due to the availability of high organic matter and fine soil particles in the soil (Hishe et al. 2017 ); Sinore et al. 2018 ).

Principally, the availability of SOM, SOC, TN, CEC, and basic cations showed strong relationship. With respect to this, the implementation of SWC improved most of these soil properties significantly (such as SOC, SOM, TN, and some cations) in this study and other studies (Challa et al. 2016 ; Hishe et al. 2017 ; Sinore et al. 2018 ; Mengistu et al. 2016 ; Selassie et al. 2015 ). Therefore, it gives an important lesson that the improvement in SOM, CEC, and clay content can also indirectly influence other properties and rehabilitates the soil to be healthier through its aggregate effect.

SWC practices have been an important means to reverse the degraded land and limit further damages to the land resources. They have been a tool for the communities to care for their local environment. This study evaluated the effects of SWC practices in improving soil physicochemichal properties in Gumara watershed. In this regard, the study revealed that SWC resulted in improvement in soil nutrient content in Gumara watershed. Soil organic matter, soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and exchangeable Na + and Mg 2+ showed significantly higher mean values in conserved land as compared to non-conserved land. Furthermore, the mean values of soil pH, bulk density, clay content, caution exchange capacity, and exchangeable Ca 2+ were better following conserved plots than non-conserved plots, even if the difference was not statistically significant.

Our results also showed that the effectiveness of SWC measures was better in cultivated land than in grazing land. This could be mainly related with poor management and maintenance of conservation structures in grazing land, year-round open grazing with little attention for treatments. SWC practices are effective ways in minimizing soil erosion and improving soil fertility mainly in cultivated lands. However, in general, the issue of continuity (spatial and temporal), maintenance, and reconstruction of structures has been given little attention, which is among the main challenges for limited effect of SWC practices in the watershed.

As a result, regular community mobilization for conservation, assistance, maintenance, and reconstruction of demolished structures needs better attention from the concerned stakeholders, mainly the local government. Since conservation structures were constructed through community mass-mobilization in a campaign form, some individual farmers have been reluctant to retain and maintain structures for long. In addition, supporting SWC structures with grasses and trees is very important for strengthening their effectiveness in improving soil fertility and decrease soil erosion in the watershed.

District: locally referred and roughly equivalent to “woreda,” is the next lower level of administration in the current Ethiopian administration system.

Kebele: Is the lowest level of administration in the current Ethiopian government administration system.

Abbreviations

• Analysis of variance

Central statistical authority

Statistical Packages for Social Scientists

• Soil and water conservation

Abbate E, Bruni P, Sagri M (2015) Geology of Ethiopia: a review and geomorphological perspectives. In: Billi P (ed) Landscapes and landforms of Ethiopia. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8026-1_2

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Abegaz A, Winowiecki LA, Vagen T-G, Langan S, Smith JU (2016) Spatial and temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon in lands capes of the upper Blue Nile Basin of the Ethiopian highlands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 218:190–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.11.019

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Adgo E, Teshome A, Mati B (2013) Impacts of long-term soil and water conservation on agricultural productivity: the case of Anjenie watershed, Ethiopia. Agric Water Manag 117:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.026

Article   Google Scholar  

Adimassu Z, Mekonnen K, Yirga C, Kessler A (2014) Effect of soil bunds on run-off, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad Develop 25(6):554–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2182

Amare T, Terefe A, Selassie YG, Yitaferu B, Wolfgramm B, Hurni H (2013) Soil properties and crop yields along the terraces and toposequece of Anjeni watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia. J Agric Sci 5(2):134–144. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v5n2p134

Bekele A, Aticho A, Kissi E (2018) Assessment of community based watershed management practices: emphasis on technical fitness of physical structures and its effect on soil properties in Lemo district, Southern Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 7:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-018-0124-y

Belayneh M, Yirgu T, Tsegaye D (2019) Potential soil erosion estimation and area prioritization for better conservation planning in Gumara watershed using RUSLE and GIS techniques. Environ Syst Res 8:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0149-x

Betrie GD, Mohamed YA, van Griensven A, Srinivasan R (2011) Sediment management modelling in the Blue Nile Basin using SWAT model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:807–818. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-807-2011

Bewket W, Sterk G (2002) Farmers’ participation in soil and water conservation activities in the Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Land Degrad Develop 13:189–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.492

Black CA, Evans DD, White JL, Ensminger LE, Clark FE (1965) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical properties, including statistics of measurement and sampling. American Society of Agronomy, Madison

Google Scholar  

Blanca MJ, Alarcón R, Arnau J, Bono R, Bendayan R (2017) Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema 29(4):552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383

Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) (1994) Statistical abstract of Ethiopia. CSA, Addis Ababa

Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) (2007) Statistical abstract of Ethiopia. CSA, Addis Ababa

Challa A, Abdelkadir A, Mengistu T (2016) Effects of graded stone bunds on selected soil properties in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Int J Nat Resour Ecol Manage 1(2):42–50. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160102.15

Dagnew DC, Guzman CD, Zegeye AD, Tibebu TY, Getaneh M, Abate S, Zemale FA, Ayana EK, Tilahun SA, Steenhuis TS (2015) Impact of conservation practices on runoff and soil loss in the sub-humid Ethiopian highlands: the Debre Mawi watershed. J Hydrol Hydromech 63(3):210–219. https://doi.org/10.1515/johh-2015-0021

Degefu T, Woldemeskel E, Frostegard A (2011) Multilocus sequence analyses reveal several unnamed Mesorhizobium genospecies nodulating Acacia species and Sesbania sesban trees in southern regions of Ethiopia. Syst Appl Microbiol 34:216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2010.09.006

Environment for Development (2010) Green accounting puts price on Ethiopian soil erosion and deforestation. Retrieved from http://efdinitiative.org/our-work/policy-interactions/green-accounting-puts-price-ethiopian-soil-erosion-and-deforestation

Fikreyesus S, Kebebew Z, Nebiyu A, Zeleke N, Bogale S (2011) Allelopathic effects of Eucalyptus camaldulensis  Dehnh. on germination and growth of tomato. Am-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 11(5):600–608

Gemechu A (2016) Estimation of soil loss using revised universal soil loss equation and determinants of soil loss in Tiro Afeta and Dedo districts of Jimma zone, Oromiya National Regional State, Ethiopia. Trends Agri Econ 9(1–3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3923/tae.2016.1.12

Hailu W, Moges A, Yimer F (2012) The effects of ‘Fanya juu’ soil conservation structure on selected soil physical & chemical properties: the case of Goromti watershed, Western Ethiopia. Resour Environ 2(4):132–140. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.re.20120204.02

Haregeweyn N, Berhe A, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT (2012) Integrated watershed management as an effective approach to curb land degradation: a case study of Enabered watershed, northern Ethiopia. Environ Manag 50(6):1219–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9952-0

Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Nyssen J, Poesen J, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT, Schutt B, Adgo E, Tegegne F (2015) Soil erosion and conservation in Ethiopia: a review. Prog Phys Geogr 39(6):750–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315598725

Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Poesen J, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT, Fenta AA, Nyssen J, Adgo E (2017) Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk for better land use planning in river basins: case study of Upper Blue Nile River. Sci Total Environ 574:95–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.019

Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M, Meshesha D, Adgo E, Poesen J, Schutt B (2016) Analyzing the hydrologic effects of region-wide land and water development interventions: a case study of Upper Blue Nile basin. Reg Environ Chang 16(4):951–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0813-2

Hishe S, Lyimo J, Bewket W (2017) Soil and water conservation effects on soil properties in the Middle Silluh Valley, northern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.06.005

Hurni H (1993) Land degradation, famine and resources scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimental D (ed) World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hurni H, Debele B, Zeleke G (2015) Saving Ethiopia’s soils. In: Ehrensperger A, Ott C, Wiesmann U (eds) Eastern and southern Africa partnership Programme: highlights from 15 years of joint action for sustainable development. Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern with Bern Open Publishing, Bern, pp 27–30. https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.72023

Hurni H, Kebede T, Zeleke G (2005) Implications of changes in population, land use and land management for surface runoff in the upper basin area of Ethiopia. Mt Res Dev 25(2):147–154. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0147:TIOCIP]2.0.CO;2

Husen D, Esimo F, Getechew F (2017) Effects of soil bund on soil physical and chemical properties in Arsi Negelle woreda, Central Ethiopia. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 11(10):509–516. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2017.2275

International Monetary Fund (2005) Ethiopia: scaling up. Assessing the impact of a dramatic increase in aid in one of Africa's poorest countries. Finance Dev 42 Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/andrews.htm

Jones JB (2001) Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton

Book   Google Scholar  

Keno K, Suryabhagavan KV (2014) Multi-temporal remote sensing of landscape dynamics and pattern change in Dire district, Southern Ethiopia. J Geom 8(2):189–194. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.1000226

Landon JR (2013) Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Routledge, New York

Liu H (2015) Comparing Welch’s ANOVA, a Kruskal-Wallis test and traditional ANOVA in case of heterogeneity of variance. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond Retrieved from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/3985

Mekuria W, Veldkamp E, Haile M, Nyssen J, Muys B, Gebrehiwot K (2007) Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray, Ethiopia. J Arid Environ 69(2):270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.10.009

Mekuriaw A (2017) Assessing the effectiveness of land resource management practices on erosion and vegetative cover using GIS and remote sensing techniques in Melaka watershed, Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 6:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-017-0093-6

Mekuriaw A, Heinimann A, Zeleke G, Hurni H (2018) Factors influencing the adoption of physical soil and water conservation practices in the Ethiopian highlands. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.12.006

Mengistu D, Bewket W, Lal R (2016) Conservation effects on soil quality and climate change. Land Degrad Develop 27:1603–1621. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2376

Ministry of Water Resources of Ethiopia (MoWR) (1998) Abbay river basin integrated development master plan, main report. Ministry of Water Resources, Addis Ababa

Molla T, Sisheber B (2017) Estimating soil erosion risk and evaluating erosion control measures for soil and water conservation planning at Koga watershed in the highlands of Ethiopia. Solid Earth 8:13–25. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-8-13-2017

Nyssen J, Clymans W, Descheemaeker K, Poesen J, Vandecasteele I, Vanmaercke M, Zenebe A, Van Camp M, Haile M, Haregeweyn N, Moeyersons J, Martens K, Gebreyohannes T, Deckers J, Walraevens K (2010) Impact of soil and water conservation measures on catchment hydrological response—a case in North Ethiopia. Hydrol Process 24(13):1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7628

Nyssen J, Poesen J, Moeyersons J, Deckers J, Haile M, Lang A (2004) Human impact on the environment in the Ethiopian and Eritrean highlands—a state of the art. Earth Sci Rev 64(3):273–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(03)00078-3

Nyssen J, Poesen J, Moeyersons J, Haile M, Deckers J (2008) Dynamics of soil erosion rates and controlling factors in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands—towards a sediment budget. Earth Surf Process Landforms 33(5):695–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1569

Osman KT (2013) Soils: principles, properties and management. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5663-2

Sakar D, Haldar A (2005) Physical and chemical method in soil analysis: fundamental concepts of analytical chemistry and instrumental techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd Publisher, New Delhi

Selassie YG, Anemut F, Addisu S (2015) The effects of land use types, management practices and slope classes on selected soil physico-chemical properties in Zikre watershed, North-Western Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 4:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-015-0027-0

Sinore T, Kissi E, Aticho A (2018) The effects of biological soil conservation practices and community perception toward these practices in the Lemo District of Southern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 6:123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.01.004

Stevens JP (2007) Intermediate statistics: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York

Temesgen M, Uhlenbrook S, Simane B, van der Zaag P, Mohamed Y, Wenninger J, Savenije HHG (2012) Impacts of conservation tillage on the hydrological and agronomic performance of Fanya juus in the upper Blue Nile (Abbay) river basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4725–4735. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4725-2012

Van Reeuwijk LP (2002) Procedures for soil analysis, 6th edn. ISRIC, Wageningen Technical paper 9

Wolancho KW (2015) Evaluating watershed management activities of campaign work in southern nations, nationalities and peoples’ regional state of Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 4:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-015-0029-y

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was financed by Arba Minch University. Netsanet Belayneh, Aragaw Munuye and Amogn Alimaw are gratefully acknowledged for their great assistance in data collection. Authors would like to acknowledge Dega Damot District Authorities for allowing the study and some vehicle service. We would like to thank Natural Resources Management authorities of the district and Developmental Agents (watershed kebeles) for their cooperation in various forms during data collection. Finally, we acknowledge Debre Markos soil research and fertility improvement laboratory for lab analysis.

Authors’ detail

Mengie Belayneh is an Assistant Professor and Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia. Mengie Belayneh attended his Bachelor and Master’s Degree at Department of Geography and Environmental Studies in Wollo University and Mekelle University, Ethiopia respectively. Currently, he is a PhD student specialized in “Environment and Natural Resources Management” at Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. E-mail address: [email protected] , Tel: + 251918662162, Box 318 Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.

Teshome Yirgu (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Land Resources Management in Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Email: [email protected] , P.O. Box 21.

Dereje Tsegaye (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Soil Science in Department of Plant Science, Arba Minch University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Email: [email protected] , P.O. Box 21.

The first author acknowledges Arba Minch University for financial support of this study.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Mettu University, Box 318, Mettu, Ethiopia

Mengie Belayneh

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Arba Minch University, Box 21, Arba Minch, Ethiopia

Teshome Yirgu

Department of Plant Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, Arba Minch University, Box 21, Arba Minch, Ethiopia

Dereje Tsegaye

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MB has made significant contribution in conception and designing of the study, soil sample collection, analysis, and interpretation; TY and DT have contributed in designing the study, interpretation of results and editing, commenting and suggesting ideas in the manuscript preparation process. Finally, all authors read and approved the final manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mengie Belayneh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors agreed and approved the manuscript for publication in ecological process.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is 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, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Belayneh, M., Yirgu, T. & Tsegaye, D. Effects of soil and water conservation practices on soil physicochemical properties in Gumara watershed, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Ecol Process 8 , 36 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0188-2

Download citation

Received : 30 April 2019

Accepted : 22 July 2019

Published : 19 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0188-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Soil properties
• Soil erosion
• Gumara watershed

• Advanced search

Advanced Search

Information for Authors

Types of material considered .

The Journal of Soil and Water Conservation has two sections: the A Section containing various departments and features, and the Research Section containing peer-reviewed research papers. Manuscripts must represent original work and address a topic related to soil and water conservation. Topics include, but are not limited to, erosion control, watershed management, forestry, agroecology, hydrology, soil science, wetland conservation, ecological restoration, water quality improvement, sustainable agriculture systems, and climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. Below you will find submission requirements for the two sections of the Journal. For more information, please read the JSWC Editorial Policy . 

Jump to information about the following submission types:

A Section Research Section Research Briefs Research Editorials Research Reviews Dataset Papers Special Issue/Section

Access the online mansucript submission system .

Submissions

A Section articles are typically between 600 and 4,000 words (including References section) and include high-quality supporting photographs. It is recommended that authors query the Director of Publications/Editor ( [email protected] ) regarding A Section article ideas before submitting. The articles should be submitted by email to [email protected] . The decision to publish A Section submissions is made by the Director of Publications/Editor based on how well a manuscript addresses a topic of current and ongoing concern to the readership and on the accessibility of the writing for a broad audience. 

• Articles submitted to the JSWC cannot have been published previously.
• Authors may choose to include up to five figures, images, or tables in their articles. The figures and images should be submitted as JPEG or EPS files, at least 300 dpi. 
• All figures, images, and tables should have descriptive captions and be referenced in the article.
• Authors should provide job position title, organization, city, and state for each author.
• The headings in the A Section articles should not follow the format of the Research Section articles (Materials and Methods, Research and Discussion, etc.). However, like the Research Section articles, A Section articles should have no more than two levels of headings and should include a References section if applicable. 
• With the exception of the "Parts of the Manuscript" section of the JSWC Style Guide, A Section articles should follow the Style Guide . 
• There are no page charges for the articles published in the A Section. However, all authors are encouraged to pay a fee for open access, in which case their articles become available in the online journal to all readers—not only to subscribers. 

Research Section

The Research Section containins peer-reviewed applied research papers. Manuscripts must represent original work and address a topic related to soil and water conservation. Authors may submit their manuscript as a Research Paper or as one of the other options listed under " Submission Types " below.

Manuscript Suitability

The following factors are considered in determining the suitability of a research manuscript:

• Manuscripts submitted to the JSWC cannot have been published previously.
• The manuscript should contribute to a new or better understanding of natural resource conservation.
• Studies must make a unique contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge and contain sufficient detail of research methods to be replicated or verified by other investigators. 
• The research objectives and/or hypotheses must be clearly stated.
• Appropriate investigative techniques (including controls, if applicable) must be used.
• Manuscripts should demonstrate that the research design and methods for data analysis (quantitative and/or qualitative) are scientifically rigorous and appropriate for the research topic. Quantitative research deriving inferences about differences, trends, or other patterns must be accompanied by appropriate statistics. 
• All social science research manuscripts received by the journal will be evaluated by the journal’s social science panel. Social science research manuscripts must demonstrate that the research design and methods for data analysis (quantitative and/or qualitative) are scientifically rigorous and appropriate for the research topic. All qualitative research must adhere to social scientific standards for rigorous research design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. 
• Data must be clearly presented.
• Interpretations must be supported with the data presented.
• All data sources, models, and other information must be fully documented.
• Implications of the results must be discussed.

Manuscript Preparation

Please prepare and submit the following:

• Author Information File. Submit a Microsoft Word file that includes the title of the manuscript, list of authors, and author bios. For the bios, include author names, job position titles (e.g., director or ecologist), name of institution, city, and state or country (if not the United States). Keep author names in same order for both the list and the author bio. Example: Reid Kreutzwiser is a professor and Rob de Loë is an assistant professor in the Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Upon request, the JSWC will identify the corresponding author within the author bios. 
• Manuscript File. Submit a Word file of your manuscript. Be sure there is no identifying author information in your manuscript file (citations and references are acceptable). Your manuscript should include the following parts in the following order: title, abstract, key words, body, references. Tables and figures may be integrated throughout manuscript; include table titles and figure captions. Be sure that your manuscript is double spaced and that it includes line numbers and page numbers. It is recommended that manuscripts be between 5,000 and 9,000 words. Consult the JSWC style guide below for more detail. 
• Figure Files. Figures may be included in the Word manuscript file, or they may be submitted as individual files when you upload your manuscript file. If a paper is accepted, we will need access to high quality figure files that meet the following standards. We use EPS (vector) files for most charts/graphs and line illustrations, and we use high-quality TIFF or JPEG (raster) files for photographs and other nonvector-based images. Image size should be 4.75 inches wide at 300 dpi (1,425 pixels wide). It is recommended that the manuscript include no more than 12 figures and 10 tables. Figures submitted in color will be published online in color. Authors who prefer to publish figures in color in both the online and print publication will incur additional pages charges (see page charge rates below). If authors choose to publish in color online only, the same caption will appear on both the online (color) and print (black and white) versions. Authors should ensure that figures are legible and correspond to captions in both formats and should consider marking lines and graph bars with differentiating symbols and shading to assist with clarity in grayscale.  

Style Guide

Authors should consult the  JSWC style guide  for manuscript preparation guidance before making a submission. QUICK TIPS: All units of measurement should be expressed in the International System of Units (SI). If authors desire, English or local unit equivalents may be provided as well. English or local unit values should follow the SI units and appear in parentheses. For non-English local units, conversion factors should be included at the first instance of inclusion. All references must be complete, with journal and publisher names spelled out.  

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials submitted to the JSWC will be linked to the manuscript and available for download. These materials may include additional information in support of the paper’s findings and conclusions. Supplementary materials for research articles will be peer-reviewed and should be included in both the initial submission and in subsequent revision submissions. Supplementary materials will not be assigned unique DOIs. For large files or datasets, authors should instead upload materials to a permanent repository (e.g., Figshare, GRACEnet) and provide the corresponding DOI and/or URL within the main paper text.

Please be aware of the following supplementary material guidelines:

• Multiple tables, figures, etc. should be integrated into a single file and labeled appropriately, e.g., Supplementary Table 1 (Table S1 in main text). 
• Captions should be included for each item.
• References may be included in the supplementary materials and should be formatted in JSWC style. However, these will not be live links and will not contribute toward citation measures.
• Paper title should be included in the supplemental file. For review, please do not include author information in the file. A citation for the corresponding published article will be added to the file by journal staff, if possible. 
• Files will be posted to the online journal in the format provided by authors (e.g., PDF, Word, Excel).
• Supplementary material will not be edited or formatted by journal staff. Please ensure that materials are clearly presented and correspond with the style and terminology used within the main text.
• File sizes should be limited to below 10 MB, when possible.
• The following file types are accepted: Adobe PDF (.pdf), Microsoft Word (.doc, .docx), Microsoft Excel (.xls, .xlsx), Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt, .pptx), Plain Text (.txt), HTML page (.html), JPEG image (.jpeg, .jpg), GIF image (.gif), EPS image (.eps), QuickTime Movie (.mov, .mp4), WAV Audio (.wav).
• To request to submit an additional file type, please email [email protected] .

Manuscripts are submitted online and will be analyzed using iThenticate plagiarism software. Coauthors need to be listed during the submission process so that they are given the opportunity to view the article's progress throughout review. Upload your manuscript to the following Web page: http://www.editorialmanager.com/jswc . 

Manuscript Review Process

The journal's Research Section has a rigorous peer-review process. Each manuscript is peer reviewed by experts in the manuscript's particular field under the direction of the research editor and associate editors. Authors may suggest potential reviewers for their manuscripts; however, it is not guaranteed that these reviewers will be asked to review their manuscripts. 

Turnaround Time

Authors are usually notified of the initial manuscript review decision within 10 weeks. Accepted manuscripts are typically published within 6 to 9 months from the date final files are submitted. 

Page Charges and Open Access

Page charges are assessed based on the number of pages in the final page layout. Authors are charged US$190 per page ( SWCS members receive 20% discount). For figures requiring color, a US$400 color fee will be added per figure, up to four figures. Additional color figures will be charged at US$75 per figure, starting with figure five. SWCS members receive a 20% discount on the color fee. 

Authors have the option to purchase open access to their articles in the online journal for US$2,630 (SWCS members receive 25% discount). Page charges and color fees will not be applied to open access articles. 

Page charges and color fees will not be applied to A Section articles. Authors have the option to purchase open access to their articles in the online journal for US$1,315 (SWCS members receive 25% discount). 

Submission Types

Research briefs.

Research Briefs are short manuscripts that report upon research of high relevance, novelty, or emerging concern. These manuscripts will undergo full peer review following standard procedures. Research Briefs report upon promising, unique findings, such as new technologies, analytical methods, research of narrow scope, or new modeling routines. Research Briefs have a maximum of 3,500 words and contain no more than 3 graphics, but otherwise are subject to all the requirements of peer review for a standard manuscript. Manuscripts may be submitted as a Research Brief, or the Editorial Board may recommend that a manuscript be condensed from standard length to Research Brief as part of the review process. 

Research Editorials

On occasion, the Research Editor may invite an author to submit a manuscript as a Research Editorial or may suggest that a manuscript submitted for consideration as a Research Article be submitted for review (with or without revision) as a Research Editorial. These papers do not require a Materials and Methods section, although they must uphold the journal’s standards of science and integrity. In general, Research Editorials must be comprehensive in nature or sufficiently authoritative to represent some aspect of the state of the science. Research Editorials are subjected to the journal’s traditional peer-review system, and acceptance of a Research Editorial is contingent upon it passing the peer review. If a Research Editorial is accepted for publication, the authors are responsible for any and all publication fees. 

Research Reviews*

A Research Editor may invite an author to submit a manuscript as a Research Review or may suggest that a manuscript submitted for consideration as a Research Article be submitted for review (with or without revision) as a Research Review. These papers require a Materials and Methods section or meta-analysis of methods from existing publications, and must uphold the journal’s standards of science and integrity. In general, Research Reviews must be comprehensive in nature or sufficiently authoritative to represent some aspect of the state of the science, and must synthesize existing knowledge in such a way as to make a substantial new contribution to the science of conservation. Research Reviews are subjected to the journal’s traditional peer-review system, and acceptance of a Research Review is contingent upon it passing the peer review. If a Research Review is accepted for publication, the authors are responsible for any and all publication fees.

*Reviews are by invitation only. Unsolicited review manuscripts will be released. Authors should contact one of the research editors prior to submitting a review manuscript.

Dataset Papers

Publishing a dataset gives more impact to research work and increases the value and usefulness of the data. Publishing datasets also provides opportunities for the creators to receive academic credit. Publishing a dataset in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (JSWC) requires two elements, each with its own digital object identifier (DOI): 

• A data paper submitted through the online submission system, peer-reviewed, and accepted.
• A dataset uploaded to a permanent repository, peer-reviewed, and accepted. As an alternative for a dataset DOI, the URL that points to the dataset may be submitted. 

Data papers are stand-alone papers that describe the dataset(s) by giving details about the purpose and objectives for collecting the data, the scope of the dataset, the collection methods, and the data QA/QC process, processing, format, accessibility, and availability. Data papers document the data and provide information on data availability so that other researchers can use and analyze the data for purposes that go beyond the original purpose for which the data were collected. Main characteristics and examples of how the data were or can be used should be included. Data papers should be submitted to the JSWC using the online submission system: http://www.editorialmanager.com/jswc/ . 

The dataset and the supporting metadata must be uploaded and formally archived to a journal-approved data repository, so that any qualified scientist is able to obtain the data, free of charge. The authors will be responsible for preparing data in the format required by the selected data repository. If fees are necessary to support publication of the data, the authors will be responsible for these fees. An appropriate data repository is one that is commonly used by the scientific community it supports and will be active for a very long time. 

Before submitting, please review the full JSWC Dataset Paper Policy . 

Special Issue/Section

Occasionally, the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation publishes a group of related research manuscripts. All manuscripts for a special issue/section must go through the journal's peer review process. To propose a special topic or to learn more about the special issue/section process, please see the section Journal Special Issues/Special Sections Rules in the Editorial Policy . Contact Research Editor Gretchen Sassenrath with special issue/section proposals:  [email protected]

For information on any of these topics, please contact

J. Gordon Arbuckle, Jr. Research Editor,  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Co-Chair Editorial Board, Soil and Water Conservation Society  Department of Sociology, Iowa State University Ames, Iowa, USA [email protected]

Gretchen Sassenrath Research Editor,  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Co-Chair Editorial Board, Soil and Water Conservation Society  Southwest Research and Extension Center, Kansas State University Parsons, Kansas [email protected]    

Abigail Christian Managing Editor,  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Soil and Water Conservation Society 945 SW Ankeny Road Ankeny, IA 50023 [email protected]