ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIALS OF THREE TREE SPECIES ON SOIL

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN SHABU-LAFIA NASARAWA STATE,

NIGERIA

BY

YUSUF Adamu Musa

NSU/AGR/FOW/0010/16/17

A PROJECT SUBMITTEDTO THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE, SHABU-LAFIA CAMPUS,
NASARAWA STATE UNIVERSITY KEFFI, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIRMENT FOR THE AWARD OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE (B.FORESTRY
AND WILDLIFE)

SUPERVISOR: MR T.M. SOBA

FEBRUARY, 2023

DECLARATION

1
I declared that this research work with the title “ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIALS OF
THREE TREE SPECIES ON SOIL PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN SHABU-
LAFIA NASARAWA STATE, NIGERIA” was genuinely carried out by me and has not been
previously submitted for award of any certificate in this university or any other institution.

YUSUF ADAMU MUSA ________________ ________________

NSU/AGR/FOW/0010/16/17 Signature Date

CERTIFICATION

2
This is to certify that this research work entitled “ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIALS

OF THREE TREE SPECIES ON SOIL PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES IN

SHABU-LAFIA NASARAWA STATE, NIGERIA” has been duly presented by YUSUF

ADAMU MUSA with Matriculation number (NSU/AGR/FOW/0010/16/17) a student with the

Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Nasarawa State

University, Keffi meets the regulations governing the award of DEGREE IN BACHELOR

OF FORESTRY (B. FORESTRY) IN FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

and has been approved by the Examiners.

MR T.M. SOBA
(Project Supervisor) ________________ ________________
Signature Date

PROF. Z.T EGBEWOLE

(Head of Department) ________________ ________________
Signature Date

DEDICATION

3
I dedicate this research work to Almighty God for his guidance, support and protection

throughout my academic journey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

4
All thanks and encomium is due to ALLAH for sparing my life to the end of my years of study

and for giving me the strength, wisdom, knowledge, ability and understanding in the course of

my academic pursuit.

I sincerely acknowledge in particular the support of my supervisor MR T.M. SOBA for his

guide and patience which have brought my work to huge success. I also appreciate the support

of my H.O.D for his fatherly advice which added significant value to my work. To all my

lecturers, staff and course mates. Thank you all for your support and cooperation.

A special gratitude goes to my beloved mother Haj. Hindatu Yusuf, my father Alhaji Yusuf

Musa Adeka whom have been my pillar and source of motivation throughout this journey. To all

my brothers and sisters whom are too numerous to be mentioned I say thank you all for the

support rendered. To my friends whom have supported me in one way or the other I pray may

God bless you all Amen.

TABLE OF CONTENT
Title Page

5
Title page - - - - - - - - - - i
Declaration - - - - - - - - - - ii
Certification - - - - - - - - - - iii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - - iv
Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - - v
Table of contents - - - - - - - - - vi
List of table - - - - - - - - - - xiii
List of figures - - - - - - - - - - xi
Abstract - - - - - - - - - - xii

CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - 11

1.1 Background of the study - - - - - - - 11

1.2 Statement Problem - - - - - - - - 13
1.3 General Objectives - - - - - - - - 13
1.4 Specific Objective - - - - - - - - 14
1.5 Hypothesis (Physical Properties) - - - - - - 14
1.5.1 Hypothesis (Chemical Properties) - - - - - - 14
1.6 Significant of the Study - - - - - - 14
1.7 Scope of the Study - - - - - - - - 15

CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW - - - - - - - 16
2.1 Concept of Soil - - - - - - - 16
2.2 Soil Formation - - - - - - - - 17
2.3 Habitat for Soil Biota and their Biodiversity - - - - 18
2.3.1 Soil Functions and Soil Health - - - - - - 20
2.3.2 Soil Quality and Service - - - - - - - 21
2.3.3 Carbon Transformation - - - - - - - 21
2.4 Nutrient Cycling - - - - - - - - 22

6
2.4.1 Important of Soil to Tree Growth and Development - - - - 22

2.4.2 Relationship between Soil and Plant - - - - - - 22

2.4.3 Contribution of Tree to Soil Fertility - - - - - - 27

2.5 Soil Nutrients - - - - - - - - 33

2.5.1 Factors that can Affect the Availability of Soil Nutrients - - - 34

2.5.2 Factors that can Affect Soil Bulk Density - - - - - -37

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHOD - - - - - - 38
3.1 Study Area - - - - - - - - - 38
3.2 Sampling Method - - - - - - - - 39
3.3 Method of Soil Sample Collection - - - - - - 39
3.4 Laboratory and Data Analysis - - - - - - 40
3.4.1 Analysis of Soil Physical Properties - - - - - 40
3.4.2 Soil Texture (Mechanical Analysis) - - - - - - 40
3.4.3 Soil Bulk Density (B.D) - - - - - - 41
3.5. Soil Moisture - - - - - - - - 41
3.5.1 Analysis of Soil Chemical Properties - - - - - 42
3.5.2 Nitrogen - - - - - - - - - 32
3.5.3 Phosphorus - - - - - - - - - 42
3.6 Exchangeable Bases (Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Sodium) - 42
3.6.1 Soil Ph - - - - - - - - - -
42
3.6.2 Electrical Conductivity - - - - - - - 42
3.6.3 Organic Carbon - - - - - - - 42
3.7 Organic Matter - - - - - - - - 43
3.7.1 Lead, Cardium and Chromium- - - - - - - 43
3.7.2 Percentage Base Saturation - - - - - - - 43
3.7.3 Exchangeable Acidity - - - - - - - - 43

7
3.8 Cation Exchange Capacity - - - - - - - 43
3.8.1 Micro Elements - - - - - - - - 43
3.8.2 Data Analysis - - - - - - - - - 43

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS - - - - - - - - 44
4.1 Results- - - - - - - - - - 44
4.1.2 Result of Mean Values of Soil Physical Properties Assessed- - - 44
4.1.3 The Result of ANOVA of all the parameters assessed under Soil Physical Properties
- - - - - - - - - - - 44
4.2 Result of Mean Values of Soil Chemical Properties Assessed - - 46
4.2.1 The Result of ANOVA of all the Parameters Assessed under Soil Chemical Properties
- - - - - - - - - - - 49
4.2.2 Significant Correlation (Soil Physics) - - - - - 51
4.2.3 Non Significant Correlation (Soil Physics) - - - - - 51
4.3 Significant Correlation (Soil Chemistry) - - - - - 52
4.3.1 Non Significant Correlation (Soil Chemistry) - - - - 56

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION - - - - - - - - - 0

CHAPTER SIX
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - - 68
6.1 Summary - - - - - - - - - 68
6.1.2 Conclusion - - - - - - - - - 68
6.1.3 Recommendation - - - - - - - - 69

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE

8
4.1.2 Table 1: Mean Value of Soil Physical Properties as influenced by the canopies of

Tectona grandis, Khaya senegalensis and Gmelina arborea - - - 44

4.1.3 Table 2: ANOVA for Soil Physical Properties - - - - 45

4.2 Table 3: Mean Value of Soil Chemical Properties as influenced by the canopies of

Tectona grandis, Khaya senegalensis and Gmelina arborea - - - - 48

4.2 Table 3: Mean Value of Soil Chemical Properties as influenced by the canopies of

Tectona grandis, Khaya senegalensis and Gmelina arborea - - - - 49

4.2.1 Table 4: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Soil Chemical Properties

Plantations - - - - - - - - - - 50

4.2.3 Table 5: Correlation (Soil Physics) - - - - - - 51

4.3.1 Table 6: Correlation (Soil Chemistry) - - - - - 59

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
3.1 Fig. 1: Map of the Study Area - - - - - - 38

3.3 Figure 2: Laying of Sample Plots - - - - - - 39

3.3 Figure 3: Collected Soil Sample - - - - - - 39

3.4.2 Figure 4: Laboratory Soil Analysis - - - - - - 40

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to assess the potentials of three tree species () on soil Physico-
Chemical properties in Shabu-Lafia Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Three lines parallel transects of
100m running in a West to East direction in all the three plantations were established. At

9
interval of 25m a plot of 4m x 4m was established along the line transect. In each line transect a
total of five plots were also established making a total of fifteen plots per plantation. This study
has randomly selected five plots per plantation making a total of fifteen soil samples. Four of the
five soils samples were collected at the vertex while the remaining one was collected at the
center, the soil was were mixed up to form one composite sample per plot and this was repeated
throughout the plantation. The soil samples were collected at the depth of 15cm each and the
collected soil samples was put into a container to the laboratory for soil analysis. The soil
samples collected were analyzed for soil chemical and physical properties. Data obtained from
the experiment was subjected to mean and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and the least
significant difference (LSD) was used to compare the means. The result of moisture content
from the soil sample was significantly influenced by the tree species (T. grandis, G. arborea and
K. senegalensis) at 5% probability level (0.004*). Also the result of Ph, potassium, sodium,
calcium, total exchangeable base, cation exchange capacity, base saturation and lead from the
soil sample was significantly influenced by the tree species at 5% probability level with the
following values respectively (0.021*, 0.014*, 0.018*, 0.035*, 0.025*, 0.040*, 0.048* and
0.295*). Many significant correlation was reported for both the chemical and the physical
properties of the soil.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INRODUCTION

10
1.1 Background of the Study

Low soil nutrient is the most significance causes of low agricultural productivity, sustainability

as well as profitability in Nigeria. Maintenance of soil quality is considered essential for

ensuring sustainable land use. Hence, land resource management must aim at soil conservation

(Parysow, 2001). Loss of soil quality is explained through increased bulk density, reduced

inorganic matter content and availability of soil nutrients (Brenner, 1994). Agriculture cannot

take place, and different plant communities cannot exist without soil. Around 7% of the total

global soil ecosystem is used for forest plantations (Jurgensen et al., 2014). Different tree

species were mainly planted to provide timber, food for humans and animals, fire wood,

medicines, opportunities for recreation and tourism (Campos et al., 2005). They were also

planted for climate and erosion control, carbon sequestration, and for biodiversity conservation

(Dyck 2003; Mishra et al., 2003).

The amount of humus in soil affects soil properties and the plants in several positive ways.

Light-weighted spongy textured humus increase the water retention capacities of soils and slows

down runoff (Uno et al., 2001). Humus provides habitats for many soil organisms that mix and

concentrate nutrients in the soil; and most plants grow best in soil containing 10-20% humus.

The nutrients input of humus from decomposed leaves to soil fertility per unit area is far much

richer, cheaper and more readily available than plant nutrient from inorganic fertilizer

(Thevathasan et al., 1997). The tropical humid forest which is the most productive and most

luxuriant vegetation in the world, grows on very poor soils which is made rich by humus. The

presence of foliar humus in the soil creates soil voids which are conduits by which needed soil

air reaches the roots of plants and also enhance the penetration of water in soils thereby

stimulating plant growth (Parker and Corbitt, 1992).

11
The influence of trees canopies on soil resources can be of significant importance in forest

ecosystem dynamics. Effects of different tree species plantations on soil nutrients are quite

different on a global scale, for example, broad-leaved tree species promote soil available

phosphorus increase (7–18%), while coniferous tree species cause uncertain changes in soil

available phosphorus (-3%-16%) (Deng et al., 2017). The impact of these different tree species

on soil nutrients may be regulated by litter quantity and quality because litter plays an important

role in soil nutrient cycling (Laughlin et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). Large numbers of litter

addition experiments have proved that the presence of litter had a positive effect on soil

nutrients (McGrath et al., 2000), and litter mixing experiments of different species showed that

the chemical properties of litter were closely related to soil nutrients (Chomel et al., 2016).

Therefore, the litter is the key to the nutrient cycling in the forest ecosystems (Chen et al.,

2000). The nitrogen and nitrogen-phosphorus ratio in litter significantly affected soil nutrient

properties by controlling litter decomposition rate (Zhang et al., 2018). McGrath et al. (2000)

explored the influences of litter quality of different species on soil phosphorus availability, and

pointed out that phosphorus-rich leaf litter released more phosphorus to increase soil phosphorus

availability, and vice versa reduce soil phosphorus availability.

Different studies have shown the existence of a close interaction between trees and soil. Van

Breemen (1995) showed how Sphagnum formed an adverse environment for many plant species

(such as poorly drained soils with low pH and low nutrient levels) in order to gain competitive

advantage for its own growth. Berendse (1994) studied the competition between two heathland

plant species, the dwarf shrub Erica tetralix L. and the perennial grass Molinia caerulea (L.).

While the slow growing Erica was much more competitive at low N levels, the fast growing

12
Molinia dominated at high N levels. He concluded that these species could remain dominant,

each at their own N level, because of positive feedbacks on soil N availability. Erica produced

litter with low decomposability and therefore N availability in the soil remained low while

Molinia produced litter of high quality keeping high levels of N in the soil. However, the present

study will look at some of the physical and chemical properties of soil under the canopies of

Khaya senegalensis, Tectona grandis, and Gmelina arborea.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Despite the increase in global land area used for forest plantations and their importance to

human well being, the implications of forest plantations on soil physicochemical properties

remain an interesting topic in environmental studies. There is an assumption that some tree

species are capable of increasing soil acidification, and consume high water quantity and soil

nutrients, particularly in mono dominant stands. So also there are some tree species that are

appreciated for improving soil fertility and hence the agricultural productivity . However, not

very much is known about the impact of planting Khaya senegalensis, Tectona grandis, and

Gmelina arborea on soil properties in Middle Belt Region of Nigeria. Thus, in the process of

ecological restoration of plantations, it is of great significance to clarify the effects of litter

chemical properties of different tree species on soil nutrients for the selection of afforestation

tree species and the management of plantations.

1.3 General Objective

The general objective of this study is to determine the effect of three different tree species

(Tectona grandis, Gmelina arborea and Khaya senegalensis) on the potentials of three tree

species on soil physico-chemical properties in the study area.

1.4 Specific Objective

The specific objectives of this study were;

13
i. To determined the effect of three different tree species on soil physical properties.

ii. To determine the effect of three different tree species on soil chemical properties.

1.5 Hypothesis (Physical properties)

Null hypothesis (Ho)i

There is no significant effect of the three different tree species on the soil physical properties.

Alternative hypothesis (Ha)i

There is a significant effect of the three different tree species on the soil physical properties.

1.5.1 Hypothesis (Chemical properties)

Null hypothesis (Ho)ii

There is no significant effect of the three different tree species on the soil chemical properties.

Alternative hypothesis (Ha)ii

There is a significant effect of the three different tree species on the soil chemical properties.

1.6 Significant of the Study

The study is important to the local farmers especially those practicing agroforestry in selecting

the best tree species to be integrated on their farmland. The study will also serve as a basis for

further research to researchers in the area of agriculture. The study can also be used for

references by students and researcher in related areas.

1.7 Scope of the Study

14
The study was limited to physico-chemical properties of soil under the canopies of three

different tree species (Tectona grandis, Gmelina arborea and Khaya senegalensis). The study

was conducted in October 2022.

CHAPTER TWO

15
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Concept of Soil

Soil scientists understood that soil is part of earth crust where mineral particles are formed as a

result of physical, chemical and biological processes (Ritzema, 1994). Soil is the dominant

ecosystem that serves as the storage of transformed organic substances mainly the recycled soil

organic carbon (Vignozzi et al. 2019). Soil as well can be considered a non-renewable resource as it

takes many hundreds of years to form fertile topsoil, and land itself is a finite and shrinking resource

(Breure et al., 2018). Soil contributes to the control of water fluxes, and it is the suitable habitat

for different terrestrial animal species (Rietz and Van der Putten 2012). Agriculture cannot take

place, and different plant communities cannot exist without soil. Around 7% of the total global

soil ecosystem is used for forest plantations (Wood 2018; Jürgensen et al. 2014). The soil

remains the treasure base of agriculture and also a pivotal base and home of terrestrial

ecosystems. Humanity depends on terrestrial ecosystem services, which supports C

stabilization and regulation aimed towards mitigation of adverse effects of climate change for

sustainable and livelihood. The role of the soil includes: providing base and physical support

for effective plant growth, nutrient and mineral supply for biomass production, biodiversity

conservation and provision of ecosystem services for mankind (Ren et al., 2012, Edmondson

2014). Given the situation, soil and its functions have been raised to a position of critical

importance for our common future through the thematic Strategy on Soil Protection (EC,

2006). Within the Thematic Strategy, seven essential soil functions (SF) have been established:

(i) biomass production, including agriculture and forestry; (ii) storing, filtering and

transforming nutrients, substances and water; (iii) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species

and genes: (iv) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities; (v) source

16
of raw materials; (vi) acting as a carbon pool; (vii) archive of geological and archaeological

heritage (EC, 2006).

2.2 Soil Formation

Soils are made up of mineral particles mixed with decomposed organic matter. The top soil

consists of the mixture which is so vital for plant growth. Below the top soil is the sub-soil

which is largely composed of mineral matter. In addition to the mineral and organic matter,

called the soil solids, there are spaces between the soil particles which are taken up by water

and air, and make up the non-solid part of the soil. Within a soil composition, the amount and

proportion of certain constituents constantly vary. Soil solids consist of particles of various

sizes. According to their size, they are called gravel, coarse and fine sand, silt and clay

particles. The mineral material in all soils is derived from the parent material by the process of

weathering, which breaks down rocks into smaller particles, by mechanical disintegration, and

chemical decomposition (Márton et al 2008).

Soil is the most important economic industry for the millions of people in rural areas of Sub-

Saharan Africa. For decades, soil has been associated with the production of vital crops, herbs,

raw materials and variety of human needs for sustainable development (Brady and Weil, 2007).

Soil and soil functional services are backbone of agricultural economic development in Sub-

Saharan, Africa ( Kalpage, 1976; Okigbo, 1991; Hartemink, 2006). Essentially, soil plays a key

role in the entire crop production systems (Zachar, 1982). Economic environment for crop

production: Soil served as a potential environment for growth and development of all kinds of

crops and plants. It provides suitable conditions for root germination and growth. Soil is the

basis of all production systems in agriculture, forestry and fishery. Soil stored water and

nutrients in order to make them available for proper growth and development of crops, grazing

land, forest and vegetations. Soil texture (relative proportion of sand, silt and clay), soil

17
structure (arrangement of aggregate particles in soil), soil colour (an indicator of soil status),

soil consistency (degree of cohesion and adhesion among soil particles) and soil water

(available water and moisture in soil) are important soil physical properties, which support

plant growth and development for many economic benefits (Brady and Weil, 2007). They tell

us whether the soil has the potential to store enough water to keep plants growing through a

drought, to resist a flood, and to provide a right condition of chemical nutrients to plant so that

the crops will grow healthy for economic development (Levine, 2001). Soil store large amount

of water between and within the network of pores of various sizes as well as within and around

the various horizons of soil profile. This water is useful for an ideal growth of plant roots,

animals and microorganisms. Under agricultural crop production, soil-water functions

according to its nature and conditions. Soils having micro-pores hold water very tightly

whereas those soils having larger pores (macro) hold their water loosely (Johnson, 1991). In

saturated soil condition, these pores become accommodated with water, when drained-out of

larger pores the soil will become unsaturated, and finally ends in the ground as ground water

(Johnson, 1991). This ground water is useful for various human economic benefits. Besides

crop productions, the available underground water stored in soil is used for human and animals

drinking, industrial productions, forest development, educational purposes, engineering

constructions, environmental management and health services (Levine, 2001).

2.3 Habitat For Soil Biota And Their Biodiversity

Soil is the home of millions organisms. The biota (micro and macro-organisms) depends fully

on soil for their basic needs and survival: air, water, food and shelter (Coleman, 2001; Barrios,

2007). Soil accommodates diverse living organisms: Bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, yeast and

algae; earthworms, termites and arthropods; protozoa and nematodes (Ritz et al., 2010). These

organisms interact with one another and with variety of living and non-living materials to

18
improve soil quality, soil fertility and soil health for economic development of crop

productions (Coleman, 2008; Castro-Huerta et al., 2015). They also serve as machinery that

helps to decompose and transform various organic materials in the production of bio-organic

fertilizers (Li et al., 2014). Thus, soil provides a source of energy and functional support for

economic development in crop production systems. Soil serves as number one source of raw

materials to most of Sub-Saharan African economic development. Agriculture that covered all

components of agronomic productions depends fully on soil and its quality (Brady and Weil,

2007). All cash and economic crops such as cotton, sugarcane, tobacco, edible and non-edible

oils, rice, wheat, maize etc., are grown on soil. The variety of fruits, forest timbers and

vegetables are used by many industries in the productions of wood materials, juices, medicines

etc. Soil serve as natural mechanism that recycle and transform abundant of materials in the

global ecosystem. This function of soil is of utmost important to all Sub-Saharan African

countries. The abundant of dead materials-plants and animals, unwanted food and non-foods

materials are recycled by soil through decomposition processes-physically, chemically and

biologically (FAO., 2005). The fully decomposed materials add organic matter to the soil and

enhance soil quality and soil fertility for high and economic crop yield production (Li et al.,

2014). Soil remains the most important source of income to millions of rural farmers in Sub-

Saharan Africa. Approximately 60-75% of rural people in Sub-Saharan Africa depend greatly

on crop production (UNCCD., 2011). Soil, through agriculture has provided many job

opportunities to rural farmers in the region. Some worked in fadama areas under irrigation

system, some in dryland for rainy season cultivations and still many others in forest and

through commercial production. Soil integrates the influence of solar radiation, atmosphere,

ground and underground water, biological and ecological resources (Varallyay, 2010). It is the

pedosphere environment, where, four entities (Brady and Weil, 2007): Atmosphere (world of

19
air, gases), hydrosphere (world of water-oceans and seas), lithosphere (world of rocks and

mountains) and biosphere (world of living organisms) interact and communicate for the

benefits of global ecosystem, crop production and human developments. This function creates

an environment that support natural vegetation and cultivated crops for economic development.

2.3.1 Soil Functions And Soil Health

Soil functions is a loaded term which has been used alternatively to mean process, function,

role, or service (Baveye et al., 2016; Bünemann et al., 2018). Confusing as the term may be, it

has served as a conceptual foundation in soil management, most notably in EC 2006, so it is

considered worthwhile to clarify and distinguish between soil processes, functions and services

(Baveye et al., 2016). Accordingly, soil functions are here defined as what the soil has the

capability to do in its natural (undisturbed) state as a result of the (bundles of) soil processes

(e.g. soil formation, nutrient cycling, etc.) arising out of the complex interaction between biotic

and abiotic components in the soil environment (Bünemann et al., 2018; Volchko et al., 2013).

Soil functions thus can be viewed as a subset of wider ecosystem functions (Volchko et al.,

2013), which underpin the delivery of ecosystem services (Bünemann et al., 2018)

Soil Health accounts for soil's capacity beyond the direct utilitarian end use considerations as it

has typically included soil's ecological attributes associated with soil biota, biodiversity, and

the living and dynamic nature of soil (Bünemann et al., 2018; Doran and Zeiss, 2000; Garbisu

et al., 2011; Karlen et al., 1997). The most frequently referred to definition defines soil health

as the capacity of soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem and land-use

boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality,

and promote plant and animal health (Doran and Zeiss, 2000). In a more agricultural context,

Kibblewhite et al. (Kibblewhite et al., 2008) derive the definition of soil health as an essential

feature of sustainable agriculture: a healthy agricultural soil is one that is capable of supporting

20
the production of food and fibre, to a level and with a quality sufficient to meet human

requirements, together with continued delivery of other ecosystem services that are essential

for maintenance of the quality of life for humans and the conservation of biodiversity. A

recently performed review (Bünemann et al., 2018) concluded that soil quality and soil health

are essentially equivalent, so for this review the term soil quality will be favoured.

2.3.2 Soil Quality And Service

Soil quality has a generally agreed upon definition broadly meaning the capacity of a soil to

perform its functions necessary for its intended end use (Garbisu et al., 2011; Karlen et al.,

2003, 1997; USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2015; Volchko et al., 2013). This

inherently anthropocentric definition has been expanded in Bünemann et al., (2018) to more

broadly include ecological (i.e. biological) functioning 'within ecosystem and land-use

boundaries to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote

plant and animal health.'

Soil Services can essentially be viewed as soil-based ecosystem services. That is, soil functions

which have been utilized by humans directly or indirectly; therefore, are considered soil

services (Volchko et al., 2013).

2.3.3 Carbon Transformations

Transformation of carbon through the decomposition of plant residues and other organic

matter, including soil organic matter, together with the synthetic activities of the soil biota,

including, and particularly, soil organic matter synthesis. Decomposition in itself is not only an

essential ecosystem function and driver of nutrient cycles (i.e. a master variable or 'common

currency' that governs microbial activity, and ultimately all soil organisms are driven by energy

derived from reduced forms of carbon (Brussaard, 2013) but also supports a detoxification and

21
waste disposal service. Soil organic matter contributes to nutrient cycling and soil structure

maintenance. Sequestration of C in soil also plays some role in regulating the emission of

greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide (Jürgensen et al., 2014).

2.4 Nutrient Cycling

Nitrogen, phosphorous and sulphur, including regulation of nitrous oxide emissions. While

closely linked to decomposition, the cycling of nutrients is largely mediated by soil

microorganisms whose activity levels are regulated by food web interactions within the soil

community (Barrios et al., 2012).

2.4.1 Importance Of Soil To Tree Growth And Development

Agriculture cannot take place, and different plant communities cannot exist without soil.

Around 7% of the total global soil ecosystem is used for forest plantations (Wood 2018;

Jürgensen et al. 2014).

2.4.2 Relationship Between Soil And Plant

Penetration of deep roots into the soil profile passing through the topsoil to the subsoils layers

tends to increases the root inputs of the soil (Maeght et al., 2013 and Rumpel et al., 2011).

Release of root exudates by roots enhances formation of soil organic matter, while the efficient

utilization of exudates by microorganisms through the conversion of root exudates to biomass

and secondary byproducts contributes to effective soil stabilization and retention of soil

minerals (Bradford et al., 2013, Cotrufo et al 2013, Lehmann and Kleber 2015). Furthermore,

the mycorrhizal type of deep roots is a key driver in the accumulation of soil organic carbon

within the rhizosphere (Clemmensen et al., 2013 and Phillips et al 2013).

22
Trees add organic matter to the soil system in various manners, whether in the form of roots or

litterfall or as root exudates in the rhizosphere (Bertin et al., 2003). These additions are the

chief substrate for a vast range of organisms involved in soil biological activity and

interactions, with important effects on soil nutrients and fertility. In participating in these

complex processes, trees contribute to carbon accumulation in soils, a topic that is increasingly

present in discussions on the mitigation of greenhouse gases associated with global warming

and climate change. Although carbon (C) constitutes almost 50% of the dry weight of branches

and 30% of foliage, the greater part of C sequestration (around 2/3) occurs belowground,

involving living biomass such as roots and other belowground plant parts, soil organisms, and

C stored in various soil horizons Nair et al (2010).

Although the ability of soils to accumulate C is generally related to characteristics that are little

influenced by management, such as texture (clay soils typically accumulate more C than sandy

soils), some management practices can influence soil C sequestration, particularly the insertion

of trees in agricultural systems. Soils in various sites studied by (Takimoto et al., 2010) in the

African Sahel were not markedly different among each other in terms of their characteristics

such as pH, bulk density, and particle size, such that variations in their C contents seemed to be

related to the influence of trees. In 8-year-old alley-cropping systems with five different

species, for example, the authors found that greater C content is nearer to the trees. However,

the greater part of this C was found in the form of particles of size between 250–2000 µm,

fractions that are considered to be large and less stable. In systems where trees where present

for more than 30 years (parklands), there was a predominance of soil C in smaller fractions

which are more stable and thus represent a more “protected” form of C. Trees influence

microclimate and soil property through organic matter accumulation and canopy produced

shade which reduces evaporation from the soil surface and modifies air temperature extremes

23
(Hugues and Philippe 1998). Tree roots hold soil in place and tree crown reduces the intensive

force of rainfall and also act as physical barrier in controlling runoff. The difference between

exotic, native and agroforestry tree species was mainly explained by the impacts that each tree

species may have on soil quality and soil biodiversity (Sjoerd et al., 2018). The inclusion of

trees in agricultural systems can also optimize nutrient cycling and have positive effects on soil

chemical and physical properties. This process is especially important in tropical soils, where a

high degree of weathering has created deep, leached soils that are poor in plant nutrients

(Ricklefs 1996 and Primavesi 2001). Although poor in nutrients, tropical soils are very rich in

biodiversity, with higher diversity and biomass of microorganisms than temperate soils, with

these being the principal agents mediating the supply of nutrients to the soil by means of the

decomposition of organic matter, derived from the vegetation (Luizao 1989, Fearnside and

Barbosa 1998 and Primavesi 2002).

Studies of forests in temperate climates indicate variations in soil that can be related to

individual tree species. Besides the expected correlations, such as greater levels of N under

legumes (Ulery et al., 1885) or lower pH under species that produce acidifying litter, such as

Pinus spp. (Ulery et al., 1885 and Reich et al., 2005), other interesting interactions show that

different species can alter soil in distinct ways, with variations in the increment of soil carbon

(Ulery et al 1885), exchangeable Ca and Mg and per cent base saturation (Finzi 1998 and

Reich et al., 2005). In a study of 14 tree species in Poland Reich et al., (2005) found varied

effects on soil characteristics; however, these effects were significantly related to the level of

Ca in litter, independent of the species. Trees producing litter rich in Ca were associated with

soils with greater pH, exchangeable Ca, and per cent base saturation, as well as greater rates of

forest floor turnover and greater diversity and abundance of earthworms. (Dijkstra 2003)

emphasizes that the rate of mineralization of organic Ca is a fundamental factor in this process,

24
since it determines the immediate availability of this nutrient in the soil and can vary between

species. The study of vertical patterns of the distribution of nutrients in soil can indicate other

phenomena that are not detected when only the horizontal distribution of nutrients is examined.

In an evaluation of more than 20,000 globally distributed soil profiles, the greater part in

temperate climates, Jobbagy and Jackson (2001) found that cycling mediated by plants exerts a

marked influence on the vertical distribution of nutrients in the soil, especially in the case of

more limiting nutrients such as P and K. Patterns of greater concentration of these nutrients in

surface layers (0– 20 cm) were attributed to the fact that since these are more important to

plants, they are subject to greater uptake and cycling, being absorbed from deeper layers and

returned to the soil surface through litterfall and rain water throughfall. This process of uptake

functions in opposition to leaching, which moves nutrients downward and acts more strongly

on those nutrients that are in lessdemand by plants. If a nutrient is not limiting, its movement in

the soil profile will be more influenced by leaching than by cycling and it will present higher

concentrations at greater depth, as occurs with Na, Cl, and Mg (Jobbagy and Jackson 2001). In

Poland, Ulery et al, 1885 found this sort of pattern in soils influenced by the presence of four

planted tree species, with increments of almost 3 times as much K in the surface layer in

relation to the original soil before planting, while below 20 cm this increment was absent or

negative.

In contrast to temperate ecosystems, where soils generally are more fertile and a greater part of

the nutrients is supplied by the weathering of parent material, conditions of high temperatures

and rainfall in the tropics accelerate soil processes, including loss of nutrients, so that the

greater stock of nutrients is found held in the biomass and made available through

decomposition (Ricklefs et al., 1996; Primavesi 2001; and Primavesi 2002). Although there are

exceptions to this rule, such as soils of more recent volcanic origin in Asia, or the floodplains

25
of the Amazon River that annually receive sediments from the Andes, the majority of soils in

the Amazon Basin are typical examples of low-fertility tropical soils, having been formed on

ancient sediments. The high temperature and humidity of tropical climates are conducive to the

decomposition of organic matter, so that there is not only the release of nutrients but also the

formation of negatively charged particles, which help to retain cations such as K, Ca, and Mg

and maintain them in constant interface with the soil solution, where they can be absorbed by

plants. In tropical systems, therefore, a soil cover of organic matter is essential to maintain

adequate conditions for the soil micro, meso, and macrofauna that carry out this cycling

(Lavelle et al., 2001). As such, many of the studies on the effects of trees on tropical soil

concentrate on the importance of organic matter made available in great part through litterfall.

Changes in soil properties due to the introduction of plantation forests may either favour an

increase in the nutrient status of a soil (Swamy, Kushwaha, and Puri 2004) or have no

significant changes on soil quality (Onyekwelu, Mosandl, and Stimm 2006) or decline in the

nutrient status of the soil (Wang, Wang, and Yu 2010). Influence of vegetation on soil fertility

properties fluctuate in the long run, in plantations (Goma-Tchimbakala, et al., 2008).

Organic matter inputs to soil come primarily from plants, for example via rhizo deposition and

litter fall. In addition, plants take up a range of soil resources, such as water, nitrogen (N), and

phosphorus, and as a result plants strongly influence physical, chemical and biological

properties of soil. However, since plants exhibit broad variation in their natural history and

physiology (Diaz et al., 2004 and Eviner 2004), it is likely that differences in plant species

traits will create distinctive soil environments and biotic communities (De Deyn et al., 2008).

For instance, plant species differ in the quality and quantity of their inputs to soil, root

architecture, and nutrient requirements (Rovira 1965, Gransee and Wittenmayer 2000 and

Lynch 1995).

26
In farmer fields, trees reduce the effect of high rainfall velocity on the ground and reduce

subcanopy solar radiation by 45 to 60% (Belsky et al., 1989) and also reduce soil temperature

by 20% under the crown (Grouzis and Akpo 2006). Under shade, evapotranspiration is reduced

and soil moisture is improved (Akpo 1993). Tree-crop integration increases crop yields, and the

presence of trees, leaves and crop residues on the soil increases soil fauna activity and nutrient

cycling which in turn improves soil fertility (Schlecht et al. 2006). Also, woody species

improve overall species biodiversity. In a field survey, 79% of farmers reported that tree

species increase the presence of birds and some predatory insects and reduce the use of

pesticides by farmers (Cunningham and Abasse 2005). In the same way, Abass et al., (2013)

show that the flowers of P. reticulatum produce a repulsive effect which diminish the attack of

flower beetles on millet production under this species.

2.4.3 Contribution Of Trees To Soil Fertility

Soil fertility has its origins in agriculture primarily referring to the ability of the soil to supply

essential plant nutrients and soil water in adequate amounts and proportions for plant growth

and reproduction in the absence of toxic substances which may inhibit plant growth

(Bünemann et al., 2018). Soil fertility represents the ability of soil to fulfill the demands of

plants, and thus, the old definition of soil fertility should be improved by introducing other soil

functions such as productive, environmental, and socio-economic factors (Kiryushin 2007).

Soil fertility is a difficult term for it can be referred to as both soil function and ecosystem

service. Whenever possible, this term will be avoided in favour of more consistently used terms

like primary productivity. One of the pioneer studies to measure the effects of individual trees

on soils was that by Zinke (1962 ) who looked at pines growing on dunes in northern

California, USA. His study found that under trees, certain soil properties exhibited a pattern of

radial symmetry, with changes in pH, nitrogen, cations, and cation exchange capacity varying

27
according to distance from the tree trunk, with a peak in these characteristics at a certain

distance.

Nevertheless, agroforestry system which is the integration of trees on farmlands with annual

crops has provided low cost (Yengwe et al., 2018), sustainable opportunity for soil fertility

enhancement (Tanga et al., 2014) and has increased agricultural productivity (Nair, 1989).

Trees as the main components of agroforestry can play a substantial role to modify the

microclimate, enhance soil fertility and crop productivity of the area of its canopy influence by

adding nitrogen through nitrogenfixation and recycling nutrients through litter-fall or biomass-

transfer (Umar et al., 2013; Bishaw and Abdu, 2003; Kohili et al., 2008; Young, 1997; Berhane

and Agajie, 2006).

Hence, implementing agroforestry systems in resourcepoor farming households is considered

to mitigate soil nutrient mining (Bishaw 2001; Gladwin et al., 2002) Integration of legume

trees into agricultural systems, therefore, adds biologically fixed nitrogen and other

agriculturally important nutrients to the soil (Rosenstock et al., 2014) in a way that

complements the crops grown in association with the trees (Akinnifesi et al., 2010). These trees

are also known to bring about changes in edaphic, micro-climatic, and other components of the

ecosystem through bio recycling of mineral elements, environmental modifications (including

thermal and moisture regime), and changes in floral and faunal composition (Shukla 2009).

Trees have been either purposely planted or naturally grown on farmlands and left to stand to

support agriculture (Ajake 2013; Aladi and John 2014) by reducing nutrient losses from

erosion and leaching, increasing nutrient inputs through nitrogen fixation, and increasing

biological activities by providing biomass and suitable microclimate (Ogunkunle and Awotoye

2010). In semi-arid climates, it is common to find higher soil organic matter and nutrient

content under tree canopies than in adjacent open land and cropland (Rao et a.,l 1998). The

28
presence of trees on farmland adds nutrients to the soil through biological nitrogen fixation and

efficient nutrient cycling (Tadesse et al., 2002). Agroforestry tree species are appreciated to

improve soil fertility and hence the agricultural productivity (Ospina 2017). Native tree species

are recognized to enhance biodiversity conservation of wild species and to maintain soil quality

(FAO 2014). Implementing agroforestry systems in resourcepoor farming households is

considered to mitigate soil nutrient mining (Bishaw 2001; Gladwin et al., 2002). Loss of soil

quality is explained through increased bulk dencity, reduced inorganic matter content and

availability of soil nutrients (Brenner, 1994). Agroforestry can be a viable option to alleviate

the degradation and loss of soil fetility from the agricultural fields. Trees provide ecological

services such as fertility and microclimate amelioration (Boffa, 1999 and Bayala et al., 2002).

Agroforestry is an important land use system that has a positive influence on maintaining soil

fertility mainly due to the tree component (Mulangey and Merck 1993). The effect of the tree

component on soil can be seen by comparing soil properties under individual tree canopies with

surrounding tree-less area. Although poor in nutrients, tropical soils are very rich in

biodiversity, with higher diversity and biomass of microorganisms than temperate soils, with

these being the principal agents mediating the supply of nutrients to the soil by means of the

decomposition of organic matter, derived from the vegetation (Luizao 1989, Fearnside, et. al.,

2002). One of the pioneer studies to measure the effects of individual trees on soils was that by

(Zinke 1962) who looked at pines growing on dunes in northern California, USA. His study

found that under trees, certain soil properties exhibited a pattern of radial symmetry, with

changes in pH, nitrogen, cations, and cation exchange capacity varying according to distance

from the tree trunk, with a peak in these characteristics at a certain distance.

Subsequent studies also demonstrated patterns in the variation of soil characteristics as

influenced by trees, such as in tropical savannas (Belsky et al., 1989 and Burke et al., 1998),

29
deserts (Schlesinger et al., 1996) and areas of temperate forests (Frost and Edinger 1991 and

Ulery et al., 1995). In analyzing soil characteristics under individual tree crowns in Kenyan

savannas, Belsky et al 1989 found greater levels of mineralizable N, microbial biomass, P, K,

and Ca underneath the crowns when compared to open savanna. Burke et al explain that in dry

savannas the strong limitation on water availability permits only punctuated establishment of

trees and shrubs but that under crowns cycling occurs in a different form than in open

grasslands, with the possibility of soil enrichment in a scale of decades. However, such soil

changes can be reverted with the death of the tree or by fires. Belsky et al., 1989 also point out

the effect of nutrients deposited in dung by birds and large mammals that utilize trees as resting

places or roosts. Such patterns form what have been called “islands of fertility” or “resource

islands” created by trees or bushes, generally in savannas or desert areas. The

microenvironment of these “islands” can also influence the composition of the herb stratum

(Belsky et al., 1989 and . Burke et al., 1998), soil density and earthworm activity among other

factors, allowing the creation of positive feedbacks that favor plant establishment and

productivity (Reich et al., 2005 Scholes and Archer 1997). At the same time, these patterns can

be important indicators of stability or risk of desertification in such areas (Burke et al., 1998

and Schlesinger et al., 1996).

Trees add organic matter to the soil system in various manners, whether in the form of roots or

litterfall or as root exudates in the rhizosphere (Bertin et a.,l 2003). These additions are the

chief substrate for a vast range of organisms involved in soil biological activity and

interactions, with important effects on soil nutrients and fertility. In participating in these

complex processes, trees contribute to carbon accumulation in soils, a topic that is increasingly

present in discussions on the mitigation of greenhouse gases associated with global warming

and climate change. Although carbon (C) constitutes almost 50% of the dry weight of branches

30
and 30% of foliage, the greater part of C sequestration (around 2/3) occurs belowground,

involving living biomass such as roots and other belowground plant parts, soil organisms, and

C stored in various soil horizons (Nair et al., 2010). In a study that gathered information from

sites around the world, Nair et al 2009 found values for soil organic C stocks ranging from 6.9

to 302 Mg ha−1. Despite the great amplitude of these values, attributed to the variation

between systems, ecological regions, and soil types, the study revealed a general trend of

increasing soil C sequestration in agroforestry when compared to other land-use practices, with

the exception of forests. Although the ability of soils to accumulate C is generally related to

characteristics that are little influenced by management, such as texture (clay soils typically

accumulate more C than sandy soils), some management practices can influence soil C

sequestration, particularly the insertion of trees in agricultural systems. Soils in various sites

studied by Takimoto et al., 2008 in the African Sahel were not markedly different among each

other in terms of their characteristics such as pH, bulk density, and particle size, such that

variations in their C contents seemed to be related to the influence of trees. In 8-year-old alley-

cropping systems with five different species, for example, the authors found that greater C

content is nearer to the trees. However, the greater part of this C was found in the form of

particles of size between 250–2000 µm, fractions that are considered to be large and less stable.

In systems where trees where present for more than 30 years (parklands), there was a

predominance of soil C in smaller fractions (<53 µm), The lag in achieving positive results in

terms of soil C accumulation under trees are similar to what has been observed in the transition

to continuous no-till agriculture. According to Derpsch et al., 2008, clear increases in soil

organic matter only appear 5–10 years after the adoption of this form of cropping system.

Litter production can be a very important contribution in systems where perennial crops such as

cacao and coffee are grown under the shade of trees. Souza et al., 2004 observed that litter

31
production in a coffee plantation shaded with diverse tree species was similar to that of native

forests in the same region. Araujo and Collier 2006, working in an agroforestry system with

four fruit trees in a transition region between savanna and Amazonian forest in Brazil,

indicated the importance of litterfall in the dry season, when compared to conventional

cropping systems. Jaramillo-Botero et al., 2006, in analyzing the effects of native trees planted

as shade for coffee in southeastern Brazil, found that the quantity of accumulated litter and

level of K in the soil was positively influenced by the number of trees present in a distance of 0

to 3 meters from the coffee bushes. Since K is a very mobile element, K enrichment may be

partly due to throughfall and stemflow, as observed by Pinho et al., 2002 in coffee agroforestry

systems in the same region. Also in coffee systems, Jesus et al., 2006 found higher pH and base

saturation in areas intercropped with rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) than in monocultures. These

studies suggest that roots of trees occupy deeper soil layers that may not be accessible to other

crops, or that they are more efficient in extracting nutrients, due to their greater size and

biomass or to other factors such as mycorrhizal associations. As such, when compared to other

agricultural systems in tropical conditions, agroforestry can accumulate greater amounts of

carbon and can help maintain soil fertility through a more efficient cycling of nutrients and a

reduction of losses through leaching and erosion.

In a number of situations, intercropping with legume species that fix atmospheric N means that

this element will be provided through decomposition to other plants, a practice commonly

known as “green manuring” (Schroth et al., 2002 , Vitousek et al., 2002). Mochiutti and

Queiroz 2006, working in the state of Amapa,´ eastern Amazonia, found that N levels were two

times higher in the litter under improved fallows planted with the native legume taxi-branco

(Sclerolobium paniculatum), when compared to fallows with natural regeneration. In a

floodplain ecosystem in central Amazonia, Kreibich et al., 2003 found that the flux of mineral

32
 N in the soil at 0–20 cm was 3-fold greater under native legume species than under

nonlegumes, indicating the importance of legumes in that ecosystem. A continent-wide study in

Africa found that green manuring increases maize production, with important benefits for food

security (Pye-Smith 2008, Sileshi, et al., 2009). The great variety of legume species with

potential for use as green manures offers a number of possibilities for intercropping. Quick-

growing herbaceous species include Cajanus cajan, Crotalaria juncea, Stizolobium aterrimum,

and Calopogonium mucunoides, which decompose rapidly and improve soil within 2-3 months

(Alcantara et al., 2000, Delarmelinda et al., 2010). In contrast, tree legumes with slower

growth, such as Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala, are important for supplying

organic matter with different characteristics, such as greater C/N ratios, polyphenol, or lignin

contents. While organic matter with a low C/N ratio will decompose more quickly and rapidly

releasing nutrients for use by crop plants, in certain situations a slower decomposition rate may

be desirable, in order to maintain soil cover and control growth of weeds (Neves et al., 2003,

Bergo et al., 2006). Soil fertility parameters vary spatially in relation to diverse local

environmental characteristics including the type of plant communities (Paudel and Sah 2003;

Amponsah and Meyer 2000). Vegetational influence on fertility characteristics in different

soils is unique and depends on the nature of the plant community (Kara and Bolat 2008 and

Lehmann et al., 2001). On the other hand, the influence of soil factors directly or indirectly on

vegetations is also specific (Watanabe et al., 2009).

2.5 Soil Nutrients

Survival and reproduction of plants require water, air, light and relatively considerable amounts

of nutrients called essential nutrients to carry out photosynthesis and thus produce energy

(Wiedenhoeft, 2006). The Macronutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium) and

Micronutrients (Iron, Zinc and Copper) are essential for healthy plant growth. Macronutrients

33
are needed in large amounts and Micronutrients are needed in smaller amounts. Both

micronutrients and macronutrients are naturally obtained by the roots from the soil. (Dhanapriya

and Maheswari 2015). Tree-crop integration improves soil chemical and physical properties,

increases soil porosity and tree litter, increases organic matter accumulation and contributes to

the recycling of N and P under and near the tree trunk (Belsky et al., 1989; Vetaas 1992). Thus,

woody species maintain soil moisture, influence soil water holding capacity and water

infiltration (Belsky et al., 1989). In research conducted by Udawata et al., (2008) in the Midwest

region of the United States near tree buffer zones, trees improved soil porosity three to five

times compared to maize soybean rotation and also improved soil stability, soil carbon and

nitrogen content. Research in a semi-arid climate showed that shrubs improved soil nutrient

accumulation, as evidenced by increased soil organic carbon (39%), nitrogen (38%) and

phosphorus (51%) (Wezel et al., 2000; Wezel 2000). Augustine and Joseph (1992) also reported

that in the natural Guinea savanna of Nigeria, soils under tree canopy have higher pH, organic

carbon (OC), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), total exchangeable bases and

cation exchange capacity (CEC) than in open grassland.

2.5.1 Factors That Can Affect The Availability Of Soil Nutrient

The study of vertical patterns of the distribution of nutrients in soil can indicate other

phenomena that are not detected when only the horizontal distribution of nutrients is examined.

In an evaluation of more than 20,000 globally distributed soil profiles, the greater part in

temperate climates (Jobbagy and Jackson 2001) found that cycling mediated by plants exerts a

marked influence on the vertical distribution of nutrients in the soil, especially in the case of

more limiting nutrients such as P and K. Patterns of greater concentration of these nutrients in

surface layers (0– 20 cm) were attributed to the fact that since these are more important to

plants, they are subject to greater uptake and cycling, being absorbed from deeper layers and

34
returned to the soil surface through litter fall and rain water through fall. This process of uptake

functions in opposition to leaching, which moves nutrients downward and acts more strongly on

those nutrients that are in less demand by plants. If a nutrient is not limiting, its movement in the

soil profile will be more influenced by leaching than by cycling and it will present higher

concentrations at greater depth, as occurs with Na, Cl, and Mg (Jobbagy and Jackson 2001). In

Poland (Ulery et al., 1885) found this sort of pattern in soils influenced by the presence of four

planted tree species, with increments of almost 3 times as much K in the surface layer in relation

to the original soil before planting, while below 20 cm this increment was absent or negative.

Their study also showed a high degree of leaching of Na, which is less in demand by plants.

Associated with biological cycling and leaching, other processes that influence the vertical

distribution of nutrients in soil are atmospheric deposition and weathering (Trudgill, 1988).

However, atmospheric deposition is considered minor when compared to the annual uptake by

plant communities and generally has little influence on the vertical distribution of nutrients

Jobbagy and Jackson (2001), Arianoutsou (1989) The degree of weathering, however, appears

to have a marked influence on the vertical distribution of nutrients, such that in more weathered

soils the pattern of concentration in the surface layer is accentuated Jobbagy and Jackson

(2001). This emphasizes the importance of biological cycling in supplying nutrients in

weathered soils, as is found in the greater part of the tropics and will be discussed in a

subsequent section. The fertility continued to decline due to continuous cropping (abandoning of

fallowing), reduced manure application, removal of crop residues and animal dung for fuel

wood and erosion coupled with low inherent fertility of the soils (Yohannes, 1994; Tilahun et

al., 2007). According to Abebe (1998),other challenges of soil fertility decline in Ethiopia are

related to cultural cropping practices like traditional cultivation, removal of vegetative cover

(such as straw or stubble), burning plant residues as practiced under the traditional system of

35
crop production or the annual burning of vegetation on grazing lands. These are the major

contributors to the loss of nutrients. According to Barry and Ejigu (2005), the main causes of

fertility decline in southwestern Ethiopia are deforestation, land fragmentation, overgrazing, low

fertilizer inputs, inadequate soil and water conservation practices and cropping of marginal

lands. All of these have resulted in lowering of agricultural production which is leading to food

insecurity and increased poverty. Inappropriate land use, overgrazing, deforestation and

continuous cultivation of the same land without appropriate and sufficient management lead to

soil degradation and its consequences like depletion of nutrients and reduction of output

(Conant, et al., 2003, Kebede et al., 2013, Bernoux et al., 1998,). Some exotic tree species are

criticized to increase soil acidification, and consume high water quantity and soil nutrients,

particularly in monodominant stands (Henok et al., 2017; Tesfaye et al., 2016; Jagger and

Pender 2003).

Associated with biological cycling and leaching, other processes that influence the vertical

distribution of nutrients in soil are atmospheric deposition and weathering (Trudgill, 1988 as

cited by Jobbagy and Jackson 2001). However, atmospheric deposition is considered minor

when compared to the annual uptake by plant communities and generally has little influence on

the vertical distribution of nutrients (Jobbagy and Jackson2001 and Arianoutsou 1989). The

degree of weathering, however, appears to have a marked influence on the vertical distribution

of nutrients, such that in more weathered soils the pattern of concentration in the surface layer is

accentuated (Jobbagy and Jackson2001). This emphasizes the importance of biological cycling

in supplying nutrients in weathered soils, as is found in the greater part of the tropics and will be

discussed in a subsequent section. Climate conditions also affect C accumulation in soils, since

temperature and humidity greatly affect the activity of microbial communities and the

breakdown of organic matter (Nair et al., 2010). Takimoto et al., 2008 for example, attributed,

36
at least partly, To the low levels of C found in their study of soils in the African Sahel to the

high temperatures in that region. Rainfall amounts and distribution, irrigation types and

management, and soil and air temperatures during the growing season can alter the retention,

availability, and uptake of nutrients .( Dhanapriya and Maheswari 2015).

2.5.2 Factors That Can Affect Soil Bulk Density

The potential to reduce soil productivity and adversely affect other ecological functions of soil

by trafficking soil with ground-based equipment has long been a concern in agriculture and

forestry (Rosenberg 1964). More than 150 papers published between 1970 and 1977 reported

that soil compaction affected the growth of agricultural crops and forest trees (Greacen and

Sands 1980). The ecological consequences of compaction on forest soils are complex. Soil

compaction causes an increase in bulk density and a related decrease in air-filled porosity as a

function of an increasing number of machines passes (McNabb et al., 2001). These changes in

soil affect a wide range of other soil properties important for the growth of roots (DaSilva et al.,

1997), including soil resistance to root penetration (Zou et al., 2001), soil aeration (Startsev et

al., 2009), soil water availability, and movement of water into and through soil (Startsev and

McNabb 2001, Startsev and McNabb 2000]. The potential for soil compaction to affect multiple,

interrelated soil properties has complicated our ability to relate changes in tree growth on

compacted soil to a single-soil property. This complexity also makes it difficult to define

specific values of bulk density that limit root and tree growth (Froehlich and McNabb 1983).

Values of natural and compacted bulk densities are also significantly correlated (Howard et

al.,1981). Particle size distribution and organic matter content are important soil properties

responsible for these differences (Zhao et al., 2008).

37
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area

The experiment was carried out at Teak, Gmelina and Mahogany plantation sites of the

department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Agriculture Shabu-Lafia campus

Nasarawa State University Keffi. Lafia is situated at Latitude 080, 35N and Longitude 080 33E in

the Guinea savannah zone of North Central Nigeria at an altitude of about 177m above the sea

level. The mean monthly maximum temperature range between 35.06 0 C to 36.400C and 20.160C

to 20.500C respectively while relative humidity and rainfall are 74.67% and 168.90mm

respectively. (Jayeoba, 2013).

Fig 1: Map of the Study Area

38
3.2 Sampling Method

Three lines parallel transects of 100m running in a West to East direction in all the three

plantations were established. At interval of 25m a plot of 4m x 4m was established along the

line transect. In each line transect a total of five plots were also established making a total of

fifteen plots per plantation.

3.3 Method of Soil Sample Collection

This study has randomly selected five plots per plantation making a total of fifteen soil samples.

Four of the five soils samples were collected at the vertex while the remaining one was collected

at the center, the soil was mixed up to form one composite sample per plot and this was repeated

throughout the plantation. The soil samples were collected at the depth of 15cm each and the

collected soil samples was put into a container to the laboratory for soil analysis.

Fig 2: Laying of Sample Plots Fig 3: Collected Soil Samples

39
3.4 LABORATORY AND DATA ANALYSIS

3.4.1 Analysis of Soil Physical Properties

3.4.2 Soil Texture (Mechanical analysis)

The particle-size distribution was determined by Bouyoucous hydrometer method of mechanical

analysis (Bouyoucos, G.J. 1962.). The textural class was determined by subjecting the particle-

size distribution to marshall’s textural triangle.

The particle size was calculated using the formula

Sand = 100 – (H1 + 0.2 (T1 - 68) - 0.2)2

Clay = (H2 + 0.2 (T2 – 68) – 2.0)2

Silt = 100 (% sand + % clay)

Fig 4: Laboratory Soil Analysis

40
3.4.3 Soil Bulk Density

The bulk density was determined by the core method of known soil volume (fuller and warrick,

1985). Cylindrical core of known diameter was selected and force into the soil with a hammer

until its level with soil surface in order to obtain undisturbed soil sample.

Bulk density was calculated from the equation

Massof oven dry soil (g)

Bulk density =
Total volume of soil (cm3)

Soil porosity was calculated from the soil density; bulk and particle density using the equation

below;

1−Bulk density
%Porosity =
Particle density

3.5 Soil Moisture Content

Water holding capacity was determine by the gravimetric water content of a quantity of soil

fully saturated with water using the porous cup method. The mass of the cup, filter paper and

saturated soil samples were recorded.

Mass of dried soil = mass of cup + filter paper + dry soil – mass of cup and filter paper.

Mass of saturated soil = mass of cup + filter paper + saturated soil – mass of cup and filter

paper.

Mass of water contained in saturated soil = mass of saturated soil – mass of dry soil.

Mass of water ∈saturated soil

%Water holding capacity = ×100
Mass of saturated soil

41
3.5.1 Analysis of Soil Chemical Properties

3.5.2 Nitrogen

N- The determination of nitrogen was by Regular macro-kjeldahl method (%) and then titrated

with acid.

3.5.3 Phosphorous

P- Colorimetric determination of phosphorus in plant was by using vanado molybdate (yellow)

method

3.6 Exchangeable bases (Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium and Sodium)

The exchangeable bases calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) were determined by the EDTA

titration method while potassium (K) and sodium (Na) were determined by flame photometry

(Black 1965)

3.6.1 Soil PH

Soil PH – was determined in water and in KCI suspension at a ratio of 1.1 using Beckman Zero

metric pH meters and also in H2O (1.1 soil to water ratio). The pH was determined on pH meter.

3.6.2 Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The electrical conductivity (EC) was determined alongside PH (soil water suspension) using

cole and parmer 1.500 – 10CE meters.

3.6.3 Organic Carbon

The organic carbon content was determined by the black (1965) potassium dichromate wet

oxidation method.

42
3.7 Organic Matter

The organic matter in the soil was determined according to Black, 1965 as;

% organic matter = % organic carbon × 1.729

3.7.1 Lead, Cardium and Chromium

The lead and cardium were determined by Atomic Absorption Spectrometer method. While

chromium was determined through spectrophotometric method with diphenyl-carbazide (DPC).

3.7.2 Percentage Base Saturation

Total exc h angeable bases

The percentage base saturation was determined as % BS = ×100
CEC

3.7.3 Exchangeable Acidity

Exchangeable acidity was determined by the titration method.

3.8 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

Cation exchange capacity was determined as CEC = TEB + TEA

3.8.1 Micro Elements

The micro elements – zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn) and copper (Cu) were determined using an

atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Model UNICAM 939).

3.8.2 Data Analysis

The soil samples collected were analyzed for soil chemical and physical properties. Data

obtained from the experiment was subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and the least

significant difference (LSD) was used to compare the means.

43
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULT

4.1 Results

4.1.2 Result of Mean Values of Soil Physical Properties Assessed

The physical properties of the soil assessed were % sand, % silt, % clay, moisture content, bulk

density, texture as well as total porosity. The mean result of parameters assessed on the basis of

physical properties was shown in the table one (1) below:

Table 1: Mean value of Soil Physical Properties as influenced by the canopies of Tectona

grandis, Khaya senegalensis and Gmelina arborea.

Sources % Sand % Silt % Clay % Moisture Bulk Density % Total Porosity Texture
of Contain
variation

Tectona 86.533±1.1547 5.600±0.0000 7.867±1.1547 0.2733±0.11930 0.7733±0.13577 70.8133±5.12462 Sand

grandis

Khaya 86.533±1.1547 5.600±0.0000 7.867±1.1547 0.3100±0.03000 0.6167±0.05859 76.7267±2.21721 Sand

segegale
nsis

Gmelina 85.300±0.0000 5.600±0.0000 9.200±0.0000 0.6933±0.11930 0.7267±0.03786 72.5733±1.42721 Sand

arborea

Total 86.122±1.0232 5.600±0.0000 8.311±1.0541 0.4256±0.21892 0.7056±0.10333 73.3711±3.90104 Sand

The % sand from T. grandis, and K. senegalensis has the highest mean values of 86.533±1.1547

while G. arborea has the least mean value of 85.300 ±1.0232. The result of % silt for T. grandis,

K. senegalensis and G. arborea shows the same mean values of 5.600±0.0000. % clay from G.

arborea had the highest mean value of 9.200±0.0000 followed by T. grandis and K. senegaensis

with the same mean value of 7.867±1.1547. The result for %moisture content shows that soil

sample from G. arborea had the highest mean value of 0.6933±0.11930 followed by soil sample

from K. senegalensis with the mean value of 0.3100±0.03000 while the soil sample from T.

44
grandis had the least mean % moisture content of 0.2733±0.11930. Soil sample from T. grandis

shows the highest mean bulk density of 0.7733±0.13577 this was closely followed by the soil

sample from G. arborea with the mean value of 0.7267±0.03786 while K. senegalensis had the

least mean value of 0.6167±0.05859. The result of % Total porosity revealed that soil samples

from K. senegalensis had the highest % mean value of 76.7267±2.21721 followed by soil

sample followed by soil sample from G. arborea with the mean value of 72.5733±1.42721

while the least % mean value of 70.8133±5.12462 was observed at soil sample from T. grandis.

Generally sandy texture was observed across all the soil samples that were analyzed.

4.1.3 The result of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of all the parameters assessed under soil

physical properties were presented in Table two (2) below:

TABLE 2: ANOVA for Soil Physical Properties

Sand Silt Clay

Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 1.711 0.258ns 2.000 0.216ns
M.C B.D T.P
Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 16.585 0.004* 2.499 0.162ns 2.498 0.162ns

NOTE: * = Significant at 5% probability level, ns = not significant at 5% probability level.

The result of moisture content from the soil sample was significantly influenced by the tree

species (T. grandis, G. arborea and K. senegalensis) at 5% probability level (0.004*). The result

of the analysis of variance for sand, clay, bulk density and total porosity shown no significant

differences at 5% probability level (0.25ns, 0.216ns, 0.162ns and 0.162ns respectively).

45
4.2 Result Of Mean Values Of Soil Chemicals Properties Assessed

The mean result of parameters assessed on the basis of chemical properties was shown in table

three (3) A and B respectively:

Higher mean value of soil pH (7.0400±0.41073) was observed from soil sample of K.

senegalensis followed by G. arborea with the mean value 6.3967±0.10599 and T. grandis with

least mean value of 6.1500±0.24269. The result of the study revealed that Electrical

conductivity had the highest mean value of 26.67±7.774 at T. grandis while K. senegalensis and

G. arborea had the same mean value of 20.00±0.000. The result of Organi Carbon was higher at

T. grandis with the mean value of 1.7967±0.04041 this was closely followed by K. senegalensis

with the mean value of 1.7500±0.13528 while the least mean value of 1.7333±0.06429 was

observed at G. arborea. The % O.M from K. senegalensis has the highest mean value of

3.0100±0.23065 followed by G. arborea with the mean value of 2.9833±0.10786 while T.

grandis had the least mean value of 1.7967±0.04041. Soil sample from K. senegalensis shows

the highest mean nitrogen of 0.3500±0.07000 this was followed by the soil sample from G.

arborea with mean value of 0.2333±0.04041 while T. grandis had the least mean value of

0.2100±0.07000. Phosporus from K. senegalensis had the highest mean value of

6.8400±0.55570 which was closely followed by T. grandis with the mean value of

6.3300±0.16523 while G. arborea had the least mean value of 6.1733±0.09713. The the result

of potassium from K. senegalensis had the highest mean value of 0.37533±0.050846 follwed by

soil sample from G. arborea with the mean value of 0.27400±0.036497 while the soil sample

from T. grandis had the least mean value of 0.22700±0.039051. The highest mean value of

sodium was observed at K. senegalensis 0.24267±0.030022 follwed by G. arborea with the

mean value of 0.19533±0.014295 while T. grandis had least mean value of 0.13500±0.044576.

46
The result of magnesium revealed that the soil sample from K.senegalensis had the highest

mean value of 1.27300±0.144094 next to it was G. arborea with the mean value of

1.07733±0.057492 while the least mean value was observed at T. grandis 1.02467±0.094553.

Higher mean value of calcium was observed from soil sample of K. senegalensis with the mean

value of 1.75267±0.344767 followed by soil sample from G. arborea with the mean value of

1.28833±0.058859 while soil sample from T. grandis had the least mean value of

1.18433±0.101854. The result for Exchangeable acidity shos that the soil sample from T.

grandis had the highest mean value of 0.9967±0.28868 follwed by the soil sample from G.

arborea with the mean value 0.7767±0.09238 while the soil sample from K. senegalensis had

the least mean value of 0.5000±0.17000. Total exchangeable base (T.E.B) K. senegalensis had

the highest mean value of 3.64067±0.529859 followed by G. aborea with the mean value of

2.83200±0.165309 while T. grandis had the least mean value of 2.58100±0.268531. The result

of cation exchange capacity for K. senegalensis had the highest mean value of

4.14367±0.385593 followed by G. arborea with the mean value of 3.61167±0.078233 while for

T. grandis had the least mean value of 3.57767±0.037978. The base saturation (B.S) from K.

senegalensis had the highest mean value of 87.67±5.132 followed by G. arborea with the mean

value of 78.33±3.215 while T. grandis had the lowest mean value of 72.33±8.083. Soil sample

from T. grandis shows the highest mean vcalue for lead (pb) as 0.30300±0.000000 while K.

senegalensis and G. arborea had the same mean value of 0.23433±0.068501 respectively. The

result of manganesse revealed that soil sample from T. grandis had the highest mean value of

1.26467±0.539320follwed by soil sample from K. senegalensis with the mean value of

1.18867±1.029008 while the least value was observed at soil sample from G. arborea as

1.08500±0.36214. The highest mean value of chromium (cr) was observed from soil sample at

K. senegalensis as 0.23900±0.000000 while soil sample from T. grandis and G. arborea Had the

47
 same mean value of 0.20267±0.062931 respectively. Soil sample from K. senegalensis shows

the highest mean value of zinc (Zn) as 9.04167±4.732424 closely followed by T. grandis with

the mean value of 8.62500±3.307189 while G. arborea had the least mean value of

4.45667±3.609883. Soil sample at G. arborea shows the highest mean value for cupper (Cu) as

0.11633±0.024420 followed by K. senegalensis with the mean value of 0.11200±0.000000

while T. grandis had the least mean value as 0.10467±0.006351. Cardium (Cd) had its highest

mean value at K. senegalensis as 89.79800±3.727682 followed by T. grandis with the mean

value of 69.59400±2.527583 while G. arborea had the least mean value of 52.84667±37.85197.

Table 3: Mean Value of soil chemical properties as influenced by the canopies of Tectona

grandis, Khaya senegalensis and Gmelina arborea.

Sources of Ph Ec Organic Carbon % O.M N

variation (ds/m) (g/kg) (g/kg)

Tectona 6.1500±0.24269 26.67±5.774 1.7967±0.04041 1.7967±0.04041 0.2100±0.07000

grandis
Khaya 7.0400±0.41073 20.00±0.000 1.7500±0.13528 3.0100±0.23065 0.3500±0.07000
segegalensis
Gmelina 6.3967±0.10599 20.00±0.000 1.7333±0.06429 2.9833±0.10786 0.2333±0.04041
arborea
Total 6.5289±0.46697 22.22±4.410 1.7600±0.08261 3.0278±0.13998 0.2644±0.08413

Sources of P K Na Mg Ca
variation (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)

Tectona 6.3300±0.16523 0.22700±0.03 0.13500±0.04457 1.02467±0.094553 1.18433±0.101854

grandis 9051 6
Khaya 6.8400±0.55570 0.37533±0.05 0.24267±0.03002 1.27300±0.144094 1.75267±0.344767
segegalensis 0846 2
Gmelina 6.1733±0.09713 0.27400±0.03 0.19533±0.01429 1.07733±0.057492 1.28833±0.058859
arborea 6497 5
Total 6.4478±0.42133 0.29211±0.07 0.19100±0.05438 1.12500±0.145235 1.40844±0.319145
5303 1

48
 Table 3:Mean value of soil chemical properties as influenced by the canopies of Tectona grandis,

Khaya senegalensis and Gmelina arborea (Cont.)

Sources of E.A T.E.B C.E.C B.S Pb

variation
Tectona 0.9967±0.28868 2.58100±0.268531 3.57767±0.037978 72.33±8.083 0.30300±0.000000
grandis
Khaya 0.5000±0.17000 3.64067±0.529859 4.14367±0.385993 87.67±5.132 0.23433±0.068501
segegalensis
Gmelina 0.7767±0.09238 2.83200±0.165309 3.61167±0.078233 78.33±3.215 0.23433±0.068501
arborea
Total 0.7578±0.27685 3.01789±0.570111 3.77767±0.338682 79.44±8.383 0.25722±0.059371

Sources of Mn (mg) Cr Zn Cu Cd
variation (mg) (mg)

Tectona 1.26467±0.53932 0.20267±0.062931 8.62500±3.307189 0.10467±0.0 69.59400±2.527583

grandis 0 06351
Khaya 1.18867±1.02900 0.23900±0.000000 9.04167±4.732424 0.11200±0.0 89.79800±3.727682
segegalensis 8 00000
Gmelina 1.08500±0.36214 0.20267±0.062931 4.45667±3.609883 0.11633±0.0 52.84667±37.85197
arborea 9 24420 3
Total 1.17944±0.61344 0.21478±0.048064 7.37444±4.051235 0.11100±0.0 70.74622±24900271
9 13611

4.2.1 The result of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of all the parameters assessed under soil

chemical properties was presented in table four (4) below:

The result of Ph, potassium, sodium, calcium, total exchangeable base, cation exchange

capacity, base saturation and lead from the soil sample was significantly influenced by the tree

species (T. grandis, K. senegalensis and G. arborea) at 5% probability level with the following

values respectively (0.021*, 0.014*, 0.018*, 0.035*, 0.025*, 0.040*, 0.048* and 0.295*). The

result of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for exchangeable cations, organic carbon, organic

49
 matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, magnesium, exchangeable acidity, manganese, chromium, zinc,

cupper and cardium shown not significant difference at 5% probability level with the following

values respectively (0.079ns, 0.685ns, 0.686ns, 0.066ns, 0.115ns, 0.060ns, 0.061ns, 0.952ns, 0.630ns,

0.352ns, 0.634ns and 0.201ns)

TABLE 4: ANOVA for Soil Chemical Properties.

Ph E.C O.C O.M

Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig. F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 7.956 0.021* 4.000 0.079ns 0.403 0.685ns 0.401 0.686ns
N P K Na
Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig. F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 4.429 0.066ns 3.165 0.115ns 9.503 0.014* 8.475 0.018*
Mg Ca E.A T.E.B
Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig. F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 4.668 0.060ns 6.210 0.035* 4.616 0.061ns 7.259 0.025*
C.E.C B.S Pb Mn
Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig. F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 5.792 0.040* 5.268 0.048* 1.507 0.295* 0.049 0.952ns
Cr Zn Cu Cd
Sources of Df F Sig. F. Sig F Sig. F Sig.
Variation
Treatment 2 0.500 0.630ns 1.248 0.352ns 0.492 0.634ns 2.120 0.201ns
NOTE: * = Significant at 5% probability level, ns = not significant at 5% probability level.

50
4.2.2 Significant Correlation (Soil Physics)

The result of the study revealed that there was highly and negative significant correlation

between sand and clay with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). There was also negative and

highly significant correlation between bulk density and total porosity with the significant value

of 0.000 (P<0.05).

4.2.3 Non Significant Correlation (Soil Physics)

However, the result of the study shows no significant correlation between sand and silt, sand

and moisture content (0.316), sand and bulk density (0.727), sand and total porosity (0.727), silt

and clay, silt and moisture content, silt and bulk density, silt and total porosity, clay and

moisture content (0.295), clay and bulk density (0.697), clay and total porosity (0.696), moisture

content and bulk density (0.882), moisture content and total porosity (0.882) in the study area.

TABLE 5: Correlation (soil physics)

Sand Silt Clay M.C B.D T.P

Sand - - - - - -
Silt - - - - - -
Clay -1.000** - - - - -
M.C -0.408 - 0.424 - - -
B.D -0.148 - 0.165 0.063 - -
T.P 0.148 - -0.165 -0.063 -1.000** -

51
4.3 Significant Correlation (Soil Chemistry)

The result of the study indicated that there was highly and positive significant correlation

between ph and total nitrogen with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). There was also a

positive and highly significant correlation between ph and available phosphorus with the

significant value of 0.001 (P<0.05). Also a positive and highly significant correlation was

indicated between ph and potassium with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). The result

showed a positive and highly significant correlation between ph and sodium with the significant

value of 0.000 (P<0.05). In the result there was also an indication of a positive and highly

significant correlation between ph and magnesium with the significant value of 0.002 (P<0.05).

There was also a positive and highly significant correlation between ph and calcium with the

significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). A negative and highly significant correlation was observed

between ph and exchangeable acidity with the significant value of 0.001 (P<0.05). A positive

and highly significant correlation was shown between ph and total exchangeable base with the

significant value 0.000 (P<0.05). There was also a positive and highly significant correlation

between ph and cation exchange capacity with the significant value of 0.001 (P<0.05). Also

between ph and base saturation a positive and highly correlation was observed with the

significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). There was a negative significant correlation between EC

and total nitrogen with the significant value of 0.054 (P<0.05). There was also a negative

significant correlation between EC and sodium with the significant value of 0.026 (P<0.05).

There was highly and positive significant correlation between OC and organic matter with the

significant value of 0.000(P<0.05). A highly and positive significant correlation was shown

between OC and lead with the significant value of 0.005 (P<0.05). There was also a positive

significant correlation between OM and lead with the significant value of 0.005 (P<0.05).

52
From the result there was a positive and highly significant correlation between TN and available

phosphorus with the significant value of 0.006 (P<0.05). A positive and highly significant

correlation was also shown between TN and potassium with the significant value of 0.000

(P<0.05). There was also a positive and highly significant correlation between TN and sodium

with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). The result also indicated a positive and highly

significant correlation between TN and magnesium with the significant value of 0.018 (P<0.05).

There was also a highly and positive significant correlation between TN and calcium with the

significant value of 0.001 (P<0.05). A highly and negative significant correlation was shown

between TN and Exchangeable acid with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). There was also

a positive and highly significant correlation between TN and Total exchangeable base with the

significant value of 0.001 (P<0.05). There was an indication of positive and highly significant

correlation between TN and cation exchange capacity with the significant value of 0.014

(P<0.05). A highly and positive significant correlation was revealed between TN and base

saturation with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). The result indicated a highly and

positive significant correlation between AP and potassium with the significant value of 0.006

(P<0.05). A highly and positive significant correlation was revealed between AP and sodium

with the significant value of 0.008 (P<0.05). There was highly and positive significant

correlation between AP and magnesium with the significant value 0.012 (P<0.05). From the

result a highly and positive significant correlation was indicated between AP and calcium with

significant value of 0.000. (P<0.05). A highly and negative significant correlation was revealed

between AP and exchangeable acidity with the significant value 0.017 (P<0.05). A positive and

highly significant correlation was indicated between AP and total exchangeable base with the

significant value 0.001 (P<0.05). There was also a positive and highly significant correlation

between AP and cation exchange capacity with the significant value of 0.001 (P<0.05).. A

53
positive significant correlation was revealed between AP and base saturation with the significant

value of 0.012 (P<0.05). There was an indication of negative significant correlation between AP

and lead with the significant value of 0.058 (P<0.05). There was highly and positive significant

correlation between K and Na with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). there was also a

positive significant correlation between K and magnesium with the significant value of 0.003

(P<0.05). the result also shows a highly positive signifivcant correlation between K and calcium

with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). there was a highly and negative significant

correlation between K and EA with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). the result also

revealed a highky and positive significant correlation between K and TEB with the significant

value of 0.000 (P<0.05). a positive significant correlation was also shown between K and CEC

with the significant value of 0.003 (P<0.05).the result also indicates positive and highly

significant correlation between K and BS with significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05).

The result revealed a positive and significant correlation between Na and magnesium with the

significant value of 0.017 (P<0.05). there was a positive significant correlation between Na and

calcium with the significant value of 0.002 (P<0.05). from the result a highly and negative

significant correlation was indicated between Na and EA with the significant value of 0.000

(P<0.05). there was also a positive significant correlation between Na and TEB with significant

value of 0.001 (P<0.05). a positive and significant correlation was indicated between Na and

CEC with the significant value of 0.017 (P<0.05). there was also a positive and highly

significant correlation between Na and BS with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). From

the result there was a positive and significant correlation between magnesium and calcium with

the significant value of 0.004 (P<0.05). there was a negative significant correlation between

magnesium and EA with the significant value of 0.010 (P<0.05). the reslt revealed a positive

and significant correlation between magnesium and TEB with the significant value of 0.001

54
(P<0.05). the was a positive significant correlation between magnesium and CEC with the

significant value of 0.002 (P<0.05). the result also revealed a positive significant correlation

between magnesium and BS with the significant value of 0.004 (P<0.05). The reslt shows a

negative and significant correlation between calcium and EA with the significant value of 0.003

(P<0.05). there was a highly and positive correkation between calcium and TEB with the

significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). from the result there was a highly and positive correlation

between calcium and CEC with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). between calcium and

BS there was also a positive significant correlation with the significant value of 0.002 (P<0.05).

Between the EA and TEB there was a negative significant correlation with significant value 0.

001 (P<0.05). there was also a negative correlation between EA and CEC with the significant

value of 0.032 (P<0.05). the result also indicates a negative and highly significant correlation

between EA and BS with the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). There was a highly and

positive significant correlation between TEB and CEC with the significsnt vslue of 0.000

(P<0.05). there was also a highly and positive significant correlation between TEB and BS with

the significant value of 0.000 (P<0.05). From the result there was a positive significant

correlation between CEC and BS with the significant value of 0.017 (P<0.05). The result

indicated a positive significant correlation between chromium and cupper with the significant

value of 0.045 (P<0.05).

55
4.3.1 Non Significant Correlation (Soil Chemistry)

However the result of the study indicated no significant correlation between PH and EC (0.162),

PH and O.C (0.302), PH and O.M (0.292), PH and lead (0.165), PH and manganese (0.212), PH

and chromium (0.574), PH and zinc (0.399), PH and cupper (0.872), PH and cardium (0.171).

The result revealed no significant correlation between E.C and O.C (0.704), E.C and O.M

(0.726), E.C and available phosphorus (0.200), E.C and potassium (0.149), E.C and magnesium

(0.357), E.C and calcium (0.222), E.C and E.A (0.107), E.C and TEB (0.207), EC and CEC

(0.385), EC and BS (0.111), EC and lead (0.693), EC and manganese (0.712), EC and

chromium (0.356), EC and zinc (0.287), EC and cupper (0.852), EC and cardium (0.539). The

result indicates no significant correlation between OC and Total nitrogen (0.419), OC and

available phosphorus (0.105), OC and potassium (0.431), OC and sodium (0.581), OC and

magnesium (0.523), OC and calcium (0.191), OC and E.A (0.458), OC and TEB (0.298), OC

and CEC (0.245), OC and B.S (0.486), OC and manganese (0.205), OC and chromium (0.376),

OC and zinc (0.653), OC and cupper (0.359), OC and cardium (0.436). From the result there

was no significant correlation between OM and total nitrogen (0.407), OM and available

phosphorus (0.098), OM and potassium (0.422), OM and sodium (0.565), OM and magnesium

(0.510), OM and calcium (0.183), OM and EA (0.448), OM and TEB (0.288), OM and CEC

(0.236), OM and B.S (0.475), OM and manganese (0.195), OM and chromium (0.391), OM and

zinc (0.645), OM and cupper (0.371), OM and cardium (0.444). There was no significant

correlation between TN and lead (0.170), TN and manganese (0.224), TN and chromium

(0.755), TN and zinc (0.177), TN and cupper (0.797), TN and cardium (0.210). The result shows

no significant correlation between AP and manganese (0.133), AP and chromium (0.692), AP

and zinc (0.917), AP and cupper (0.834), AP and cardium (0.501). The result also revealed no

significant correlation between potassium and lead (0.202), potassium and manganese (0.277),

56
potassium and chromium (0.473), potassium and zinc (0.273), potassium and cupper (0.763),

potassium and cardium (0.127). The result also shows no significant correlation between sodium

and lead (0.263), sodium and manganese (0.311), sodium and chromium (0.900), sodium and

zinc (0.194), sodium and cupper (0.935), sodium and cardium (0.178). No significant correlation

between magnesium and lead (0.416), magnesium and manganese (0.141), magnesium and

chromium (0.498), magnesium and zinc (0.725), magnesium and cupper (0.911), magnesium

and cardium (0.127). The result indicates no significant correlation between calcium and lead

(0.102), calcium and manganese (0.195), calcium and chromium (0.509), calcium and zinc

(0.533), calcium and cupper (0.846), calcium and cardium (0.225). There was no significant

correlation between EA and lead (0.243), EA and manganese (0.207), EA and chromium

(0.709), EA and zinc (0.144), EA and cupper (0.704), EA and cardium (0.232). The result shows

no significant correlation between TEB and lead (0.173), TEB and manganese (0.177), TEB and

chromium (0.514), TEB and zinc (0.479), TEB and cupper (0.853), TEB and cardium (0.163).

There was no significant correlation between CEC and lead (0.177), CEC and manganese

(0.213), CEC and chromium (0.420), CEC and zinc (0.912), CEC and cupper (0.977), CEC and

cardium (0.177). The result revealed no significant correlation between BS and lead (0.266), BS

and manganese (0.189), BS and chromium (0.680), BS and zinc (0.188), BS and cupper (0.745),

BS and cardium (0.182). The result also no significant correlation between lead and manganese

(0.402), lead and chromium (0.202), lead and zinc (0.892), lead and cupper (0.087), lead and

cardium (0.427). There was also no significant correlation between manganese and chromium

(0.775), manganese and zinc (0.857), manganese and cupper (0.999), manganese and cardium

(0.775). The result shows no significant correlation between chromium and zinc (0.817),

chromium and cardium (0.928). From the result there was no significant correlation between

57
zinc and cupper (0.654), zinc and cardium (0.346). There was no significant correlation between

cupper and cardium (0.173).

TABLE 6: CORRELATION (SOIL CHEMISTRY)

58
 Ph EC OC TN AvP K Na Mg Ca EA TEB CEC BS Pb Mn
Ph -
EC -0.545 -
OC -0.419 -0.160 -
TN 0.955** -0.698* -0.334 -
AvP 0.927** -0.507 -0.614 0.858** -
K 0.984** -0.560 -0.326 0.968** 0.858** -
Na 0.948** -0.768* -0.232 0.986** 0.844** 0.955** -
Mg 0.905** -0.377 -0.267 0.797* 0.823* 0.890** 0.801* -
Ca 0.989** -0.486 -0.516 0.931** 0.956** 0.961** 0.910** 0.880** -
EA -0.937** 0.612 0.308 -0.953** -0.800* -0.947** -0.949** -0.836* -0.885** -
TEB 0.995** -0.500 -0.422 0.935** 0.928** 0.979** 0.923** 0.936** 0.988** -0.918** -
CEC 0.929** -0.357 -0.465 0.816** 0.924** 0.893** 0.799** 0.909** 0.957** -0.751* 0.951** -
BS 0.956** -0.606 -0.290 0.958** 0.822* 0.966** 0.956** 0.882** 0.908** -0.995** 0.945** 0.800** -
Pb -0.543 0.167 0.866** -0.537 -0.690* -0.504 -0.450 -0.336 -0.618 0.467 -0.534 -0.530 -0.447 -
Mn -0.495 0.156 0.502 -0.484 -0.579 -0.439 -0.412 -0.569 -0.512 0.500 -0.530 -0.494 -0.517 0.346 -
Cr 0.236 0.378 -0.364 0.132 0.167 0.298 0.053 0.283 0.275 -0.158 0.272 0.333 0.174 -0.505 0.121
Zn 0.347 -0.431 0.190 0.530 0.044 0.473 0.513 0.149 0.260 -0.565 0.295 0.047 0.519 -0.058 0.076
Cu 0.069 0.079 -0.376 0.109 0.089 0.128 0.035 0.047 0.083 -0.161 0.079 0.012 0.133 -0.640 -0.001
Cd 0.536 -0.257 0.322 0.497 0.281 0.585 0.529 0.586 0.586 -0.477 0.545 0.530 0.525 0.329 -0.121

CHAPTER FIVE

59
 5.0 DISCUSSION

Sand

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of % sand between the

tree species (Table 1). The result of this study is similar to the finding of Anjulo et al., (2014) in

their study effect of three tree species on microclimate and soil amelioration in the central rift

valley of Ethiopia where they recoded different sand% at different crown radius (1/3 crown

radius, 2/3 crown radius and crown edge respectively) of three different tree species (B.

aegyptiaca, A. tortilis and A.sayal). This result also shows similarity to the finding of

Nsengimana V. (2020) in his study Effects of Tree Forest Plantations on Soil Physicochemical

Properties in the Arboretum of Ruhande, Southern Province of Rwanda where he recorded

highest value of % sand under exotic tree plantation followed by indigenous tree plantation and

with the least % sand value under the agroforestry plot.

Silt

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of % silt between the

tree species (Table 1). This study is similar to the findings of Lathwell and T. L. Grove (1986)

in their study soil-plant relationships in the tropics where they reported different value of silt %

under forest vegetation from peru. In another findings of Washburn and M.A. Arthur (2003) in

their study Spatial variability in soil nutrient availability in an oak–pine forest: potential effects

of tree species where they also reported different value of silt % under different vegetation.

Clay

60
The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of % clay between the

tree species (Table 1). The result of this study is in conformity to the finding of Angulo et al.,

(2014 journal) in their study effect of three tree species on microclimate and soil amelioration in

the central rift valley of Ethiopia where they recoded different clay% at different crown radius

(1/3 crown radius, 2/3 crown radius and crown edge respectively) of three different tree species

(B. aegyptiaca, A. tortilis and A.sayal).

Moisture Content

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of soil ph

between the tree species. This result is related to the finding of Akpan et al (2016 journal) in

their study Nutrient Potentials of Some Indigenous Multi-Purpose Tree Species in Soil Fertility

Management of Agroforestry Farms in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria where the reported different

M.C% value under three different tree species (D. edulis, C. albidum and I. gabonensis).

Bulk Density

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of % B.D between the

tree species (Table 1). This finding is in conformity to the finding of Yage et al., (2021) in their

study Effects of Tree Species and Soil Enzyme Activities on Soil Nutrients in The Dryland

Plantations where the recorded different result value of % B.D under six different vegetation

types.

Total Porosity

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of % T.P between the

tree species. However in another study from the findings of Singh et a., (2018 journal) in their

study Soil physico-bio-chemical properties under different agroforestry systems in Terai region

61
of the Garhwal Hiamalayas reported a significance difference in the value of total porosity under

different agroforestry plantation compare to agricultural land.

PH

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of soil ph

between the tree species. The finding of this study is in conformity with the finding of Durak et

al 2010 in their study determination of physical and chemical properties of the soil under

different land management where they reported low ph value under forested area. While in the

finding of Akpan et al (2016 journal) in their study Nutrient Potentials of Some Indigenous

Multi-Purpose Tree Species in Soil Fertility Management of Agroforestry Farms in Akwa Ibom

State, Nigeria where the reported different ph value under each tree species (D. edulis, C.

albidum and I. gabonensis).

Electrical Conductivity

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of E.C between the tree

species.This result is similar to the findings of Gebrewahid et al., (2019) in their study Dispersed

trees on smallholder farms enhance soil fertility in semi-arid Ethiopia where the recorded

different value of EC in the soil as influenced by some tree species.

Organic Carbon

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of O.C between the tree

species. The finding of this study is related to the findings of G.c. hosur and G.s. dasog (1995) in

their study Effect of Tree Species on Soil Properties where they reported different value of

organic carbon under different plantation at 0-30 soil depth.

Organic Matter

62
The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of O.M between the

tree species. The finding of this study is in conformity with the finding of Abrefa et al., (2012) in

their study Effect of African Mahogany Species on Soil Chemical Properties in Degraded Dry

Semi-Deciduous Forest Ecosystems in Ghana where they reported higher value of organic matter

in a mixed mahogany plantation compare to degraded forest area.

Nitrogen

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of Nitrogen between

the tree species . The finding of this study is in conformity with the finding of Habumugisha et

al., (2019) in their study The Effects of Trees on Soil Chemistry where they recorded

significance different in the value of total nitrogen as a result of the influence of different tree

species.

Available phosphorus

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of A.P between the tree

species. The finding of this study is in conformity with the finding of Sanda and Atiku (2013) in

their study Effect of Faidherbia Albida on Soil Nutrients Management in the Semi-Arid Region

of Kano State. Nigeria where they reported significance difference in the value of AP between

each of the treatment with the soil sample collected in the interval distance of 4m and 6m

respectively away from the tree trunk.

Potassium

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of potassium

between the tree species. The result of this finding is similar to the finding of Patel et al., (2018)

in their study Performance of different multipurpose trees and their effect on physical and

chemical properties of loamy sand soil under rainfed condition where they reported a variation in

63
the value of potassium under different multipurpose tree species with the soil sample collected at

the depth of 0-30cm.

Sodium

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of nitrogen

between the tree species. The finding of this research is similar to the study carried out by Henry

et al., (2018) in their study Influence of tree plantation gmelina arborea and gliricidia sepium on

soil physico-chemical properties in Abakaliki, Southeast, Nigeria where they reported that there

was significance difference in the value of sodium (Na) at (P>0.05) from the influence of

Gmelina and Gliricidia plantations.

Magnesium

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of magnesium between

the tree species . The finding of this work is also similar to the findings of Henry et al., (2018) in

their study Influence of tree plantation gmelina arborea and gliricidia sepium on soil physico-

chemical properties in Abakaliki, Southeast, Nigeria where they recorded significance

differences in the value of magnesium (Mg) between each of the treatment of the work.

Calcium

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of calcium

between the tree species. Henry et a.,l (2018) in their work Influence of tree plantation Gmelina

arborea and Gliricidia sepium on soil physico-chemical properties in Abakaliki, Southeast,

Nigeria reported different value of calcium between each of the treatment.

Exchangeable Acidity

64
The result of this study shows significant difference in the mean value of exchangeable acidity

between the tree species. With Tectona grandis having the highest mean value followed by

Gmelina arborea and Khaya senegalensis with the least mean value.

Total Exchangeable Base

The result of this study indicates significant difference in the mean value of total exchangeable

base between the tree species with Khaya senegalensis yielding the highest mean value

3.64067±0.529859 followed by Gmelina arborea 2.83200±0.165309. The result shows that

Tectona grandis had the lowest mean value 2.58100±0.268531.

Cation Exchange Capacity

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of cation

exchange capacity between the tree species. The finding of this research is similar to the previous

study carried out by Henry et al., (2018) in their study Influence of tree plantation gmelina

arborea and gliricidia sepium on soil physico-chemical properties in Abakaliki, Southeast,

Nigeria where they reported significance difference in the value of CEC between each of the

treatment.

Base Saturation

The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of B.S between

the tree species. The finding of this work is similar to the findings of Henry et al., (2018) in their

study Influence of tree plantation gmelina arborea and gliricidia sepium on soil physico-chemical

properties in Abakaliki, Southeast, Nigeria where they recorded significance variation in the

percentage base saturation (BS) between each of the treatment of the work.

Lead

65
The result of the analysis of variance shows significant difference in the amount of lead between

the tree species. On a different research by Enescu et al., 2022 in their study Assessment of Soil

Physical and Chemical Properties among Urban and Peri-Urban Forests: A Case Study from

Metropolitan Area of Brasov, they have recorded different mean value of lead (pb) under urban

and peri-urban forest this could be as a result of different human activities in the forest.

Manganese

The result of this study shows significant difference in the mean value of Manganese between

the tree species with Tectona grandis having the highest mean value (1.26467±0.539320),

followed by Khaya senegalensis (1.18867±1.029008) while Gmelina arborea had the least

mean value of (1.08500±0.362149).

Chromium

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of chromium between

the tree species This study is similar to the research carried out by Enescu et al., 2022 in their

study Assessment of Soil Physical and Chemical Properties among Urban and Peri-Urban

Forests: A Case Study from Metropolitan Area of Brasov, to assess the variation in the value of

chromium in the two different type of forest and they were be able to recorded different mean

value of chromium of (Cr) under the urban and the peri-urban forest this variation could be as a

result of different human activities in the forest.

Zinc

66
The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of zinc between the tree

species. On a different research by Enescu et al., 2022 in their study Assessment of Soil Physical

and Chemical Properties among Urban and Peri-Urban Forests: A Case Study from Metropolitan

Area of Brasov, they have recorded different mean value of zinc (zn) under the urban and the

peri-urban forest this could be as a result of different human activities in the forest.

Cupper

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of cupper between the

tree species. A separate findings was carried out by Enescu et al., 2022 in their study

Assessment of Soil Physical and Chemical Properties among Urban and Peri-Urban Forests: A

Case Study from Metropolitan Area of Brasov, to assess the variation in the value of chromium

in the two different type of forest and they were be able to recorded different mean value of

cupper (Cu) under the urban and the peri-urban forest this variation could be as a result of

different human activities carried out in the forest.

Cardium

The result of the mean value shows significant difference in the amount of cardium between the

tree species (Table 2B). On a different research by Enescu et al., 2022 in their study Assessment

of Soil Physical and Chemical Properties among Urban and Peri-Urban Forests: A Case Study

from Metropolitan Area of Brasov, they have recorded different mean value of cardium (Cd)

under the urban and the peri-urban forest this could be as a result of different human activities

in the forest or this variation could be as a result of different tree components in the forest.

CHAPTER SIX

6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

67
6.1 Summary

This study aimed at assessing the effect of three tree species (Gmelina arborea, Tectona grandis

and Khaya senegalensis) on soil physicochemical properties in Shabu-lafia Nasarawa State,

Nigeria. The results revealed that different tree species can affect soil chemical and physical

properties differently. It is evident that from this study K. senegalensis improved the supply of

nutrients and lowered the soil content of such heavy metals as Pb better than the other two trees

species. This K. senegalensis was thus superior to G. arborea and T. grandis as regards

enhancing the fertility status of the soil. From the result of this study, it is recommended that K.

senegalensis should be adopted among the three trees species for agroforestry practice. To

enhance soil conservation, maintain soil fertility and increase soil productivity, there is need for

an awareness on the potentials ecological benefits of having K. senegalensis trees stands in

farmlands.

6.1.2 Conclusion

The results revealed that different tree species can affect soil chemical and physical properties

differently. It is evident that from this study K. senegalensis improved the supply of nutrients

and lowered the soil content of such heavy metals as Pb better than the other two trees species.

This K. senegalensis was thus superior to G. arborea and T. grandis as regards enhancing the

fertility status of the soil.

6.1.3 Recommendation

68
From the result of this study, it is recommended that K. senegalensis should be adopted among

the three trees species for agroforestry practice. To enhance soil conservation, maintain soil

fertility and increase soil productivity, there is need for an awareness on the potentials

ecological benefits of having K. senegalensis trees stands in farmlands.

REFERENCE

69
Abass T, Aissatou Y, Zakari AB, Adamou AI, Adam T (2013) Effet de Piliostigma reticulatum sur
l’infestation des parcelles de mil par les insectes floricoles et Coniesta ignefusalis (foreur du
mil) dans la zone d’Aguie au Niger. [Effect of Piliostigma reticulatum on millet plots infestation
by flowers insects and Coniesta ignefusalis in Niger] Journal of Applied Biosciences 66:5140-
5146 (In French).
Abebe M (1998). Nature and management of Ethiopian soils. Alemaya University of Agriculture,
Ethiopia. 272 p.
Ajake AO (2013) The role of forest trees in indigenous farming systems as a catalyst for forest
resources management in the rural villages of Cross River State, Nigeria. Glob J Hum Soc Sci
Res12(13):.https://globaljournals.org/GJHSS_Volume12/2-The-Role-of-Forest-Trees-in-
Indigenous.pdf.
Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, Sileshi G, Chirwa PW, Chianu J (2010) Fertiliser trees for sustainable food
security in the maize-based production systems of East and Southern Africa. A review. Agron
Sustain Dev 30(3):615–629.
Akpan et al 2016 Nutrient Potentials of Some Indigenous Multi-Purpose Tree Species in Soil Fertility
Management of Agroforestry Farms in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria International Journal of
Research in Agriculture and Forestry Volume 3, Issue 4, April 2016, PP 1-6.
Akpo LE (1993) Influence du couvert ligneux sur la structure et le fonctionnement de la strate herbacée
en milieu sahélien [Influence of woody species cover on the structure and functioning of the
herbaceous layer in Sahel]. TDM 93 France, Paris: ORSTOM Editions (In French).
Aladi SF, John OO (2014) Farmers perception of opportunities preferences and obstacles of growing
multipurpose trees on farmland in Kogi State. Eur Sci J 10(14):607-617.
Amponsah, I.G., and W.L.Meyer.2000. Soil characteristics in teak plantations and natural forests in
Ashanti Region, Ghana. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 31: 355 – 373.
Anjulo et al (2014) Effect of Tree Species on Microclimate and soil Amelioration in the CentralRift
Valley of Ethiopia journal of soil science and environmental management vol. 5(5), pp. 62-71,
August, 2014.
Araujo G. P. and Collier L. S.,2006 “Parametros de fertilidade dos ˆ solos em sistemas agroflorestais
em Esperantina-TO,” in Anais do VI Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas Agroflorestais, Campos,
Brazil, 2006.
Barrios, E., 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity Ecol. Econ., 64: 269-285.
Barrios, E., Sileshi, G.W., Shepherd, K., Sinclair, F., 2012. Agroforestry and Soil Health: Linking
Trees, Soil Biota and Ecosystem Services, in: Wall, D.H. (Ed.), Soil Ecology and Ecosystem
Services. Oxford University Press, pp. 315–330.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575923.003.0028.
Barry B, Ejigu J (2005). Soil Fertility Practices in Wolaita Zone,Southern Ethiopia: learning from
farmers. FARM-Africa. 34p.
Baveye, P.C., Baveye, J., Gowdy, J., 2016. Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical
appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 1–49.

70
Bayala J. Teklehaimanot Z, Ouedraogo SJ (2002). Millet production under pruned tree crowns in a
parkland system in Burkina Faso. Agroforest. Syst. 54:203-214.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016058906682.
Belsky A.. J, Amundson R. G., . Duxbury J. M, Riha S. J., Ali A. R., and S. M. Mwona (1989) “The
effects of trees on their physical, chemical, and biological environments in a semi-arid savanna
in Kenya,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1005– 1024.
Belsky AJ, Amundson RG, Duxbury JM, Riha SJ, Ali AR, Mwonga SM (1989) The effect of trees on
their physical, chemical and biological environments in a semi-arid savanna of Kenya. Journal
of Applied Ecology 26(3):1005-1024.
Berendse, F. (1994). Litter decomposability - a neglected component of plant fitness. Journal of
Ecology 82, 187-190.
Bergo C. L., Pacheco E. P., De Mendonc H. A., and Marinho J. T. D. S. (2006) “Evaluation of legume
species for coffee plants formation in the segment of family farms in Acre,” Acta Amazonica,
vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19–24.
Bernoux M, Cerri CC, Neill C, de Moraes JF (1998). The use of stable carbon isotopes for estimating
soil organic matter turnover rates. Geoderma 82(1):43-58.
Bertin C., Yang X., and Weston L. A. (2003) “The role of root exudates and allelochemicals in the
rhizosphere,” Plant and Soil, vol. 256, no. 1, pp. 67–83.
Bishaw B (2001) Deforestation and land degradation in the Ethiopian highlands: a strategy for physical
recovery. Northeast Afr Dev Arch Paper 2. http://
scholarworks.wmich.edu/africancenter_icad_archive/2.
Bishaw B, Abdu A (2003). Agroforestry and Community Forestry for Rehabilitation of Degraded
Watersheds on the Ethiopian Highlands, International Symposium on Contemporary
Development Issue in Ethiopia, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Black, C.A, 1965. Methods of soil analysis. Part I, American Society of Agronomy. Madison,
Wisconsin, USA. 1572 p.
Boffa JM (1999). Agroforestry parklands in sub-Sahara Africa. FAO Conservation Guide. Rome.
34:230.
Bouyoucos, G.J. (1962). Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soils.
Agron. J. 54:464-465.
Bradford, M., Keiser, A., Davies, C., Mersmann, C., Strickland, M. 2013. Empirical evidence that soil
carbon formation from plant inputs is positively related to microbial growth. Biogeochemistry,
113, 271–281.
Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil, 2007. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 14th Edn., Prentice Hall, UK.,
Pages: 980.
Brenner T (1994). Accelerated soil erosion in watersheds of Yunnan province, China. J. Soil water
conserve. 1(49):67-68.

71
Breure, A.M., Lijzen, J.P.A., Maring, L., 2018. Soil and land management in a circular economy. ci.
Total Environ. 624, 1025–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.137.
Brussaard, L., 2013. Ecosystem Services Provided by the Soil Biota, in: Soil Ecology and Ecosystem
Services. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575923.003.0005.
Bünemann, E.K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R.E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., Fleskens, L.,
Geissen, V., Kuyper, T.W., Mäder, P., Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., van Groenigen, J.W.,
Brussaard, L., 2018. Soil quality – A critical review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 120, 105–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030.
Burke I. C., Lauenroth W. K., Vinton M. A. et al,.1998 “Plant-soil interactions in temperate
grasslands,” Biogeochemistry, vol. 42, no. 1-2, pp. 121–143, 1998.
Burke I. C., Lauenroth W. K., Vinton M. A. et al., “Plant-soil interactions in temperate grasslands,”
Biogeochemistry, vol. 42, no. 1-2, pp. 121–143, 1998.
Campos, J.J., Alpízar, F., Louman, B., Parrotta, J., and Porras, I. (2005). An integrated approach to
forest ecosystem services. In: Mery, G., Alfaro, R., Kanninen, M., and Lobovikov, M. (Ed.),
Forest in the Global Balance – ChangingParadigms. IUFRO World Series: 97-116.
Castro-Huerta, R.A., L.B. Falco, R.V. Sandler and C.E. Coviella, 2015. Differential contribution of soil
biota groups to plant litter decomposition as mediated by soil use. Peer J. Vol. 3.
Chen G.X., Yu K.W., Liao L.P., Xu G.S. (2000). Effect of human activities on forest ecosystems: N
cycle and soil fertility. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 57:47–54. doi:10.1023/A:1009880708469.
Chomel M., Guittonny-Larchevêque M., DesRochers A., Baldy V. (2016). Effect of mixing herbaceous
litter with tree litters on decomposition and N release in boreal plantations. Plant Soil 398:229–
241. doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2648-5.
Clemmensen, K., Bahr, A., Ovaskainen, O., Dahlberg, A., Ekblad, A., Wallander, H., Stenlid, J., Finlay,
R., Wardle, D., Lindahl, B. 2013. Roots and associated fungi drive long-term carbon
sequestration in boreal forest. Science, 339, 1615–1618.
Coleman, D.C., 2001. Soil biota, soil systems and processes. Encycl. Biodivers., 5: 305-314.
Coleman, D.C., 2008. From peds to paradoxes: Linkages between soil biota and their influences on
ecological processes. Soil Biol. Biochem., 40: 271-289.
Conant RTJ.six, Paustian K (2003). Land use effects on soil carbon fractions in the south eastern united
states management incentive versus extensive grazing. Biol. fertile soils. 38:386-392.
Cotrufo, M.F., Wallenstein, M.D., Boot, C.M., Denef, K., Paul, E. 2013. The Microbial Efficiency-
Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic
matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Global Change
Biology, 19, 988–995.
Cunningham PJ, Abasse T (2005) Reforesting the Sahel: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration. Pp.
75-80 In: Kalinganire A, Niang A, Kone A (eds.) Domestication des espèces agroforestières au
Sahel: situation actuelle et perspectives [Agroforestry species domestication in Sahel: current
situation and outlook]. Working Paper. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya (In French).

72
Da Silva, A.P.; Kay, B.C. 1997 Estimating the least limiting water range of soils from properties and
management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 877–883. [CrossRef].
Danquah et al. 2012 Effect of African Mahogany Species on Soil Chemical Properties in Degraded Dry
Semi-deciduous Forest Ecosystems in Ghana Int. J. Agric. Biol., Vol. 14, No. 3, 2012.
De Deyn GB, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD (2008) Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration
in contrasting biomes. Ecology Letters 11: 516–531.
De F. A. Alcantara, A. E. Furtini Neto, M. B. De Paula, H. A. De (2000) ˆ Mesquita, and J. A. Muniz,
“Green manuring in the recovery of degraded oxisoil fertility,” Pesquisa Agropecuaria
Brasileira, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 277–288, 2000.
Delarmelinda E. A.,. Sampaio F. A. R, Dias J. R. M.,. Tavella L. B, and De Silva J. S. (2010) “Green
manure and changes on chemical characteristics of a soil in the Ji-Parana-RO region,” ´ Acta
Amazonica, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 625–628, 2010.
Deng Q., McMahon D.E., Xiang Y., Yu C., Jackson R.B. and Hui D. (2017). A global meta-analysis
of soil phosphorus dynamics after afforestation. New Phytol 213(1):181–192. doi:10.1111/
nph.14119.
Derpsch R. 2008 “No-tillage and conservation agriculture: a progress report,” in No-Till Farming
Systems, T. Goddard, M. Zoebisch, Y. Gan, W. Ellis, A. Watson, and S. Sombatpanit, Eds., pp.
7–39, World Association of Soil and Water Conservation. Special Publication No. 3, 2008.
Dhanapriya. M., Maheswari. R 2013 Estimation of micro and macro nutrients in the soil of remote area
Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences ISSN: 0974-2115.
Diaz S, Hodgson JG, Thompson K, Cabido M, Cornelissen JHC, et al. (2004) The plant traits that drive
ecosystems: Evidence from three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 295-304.
Dijkstra F. A., (2003) “Calcium mineralization in the forest floor and surface soil beneath different tree
species in the northeastern US,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 175, no. 1–3, pp. 185–
194, 2003.
Doran, J.W., Zeiss, M.R., 2000. Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic component of soil
quality. Appl. Soil Ecol. 15, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00067-6.
Durak et al 2010 Determination of Physical and Chemical Properties of the Soils Under Different Land
Managements Asian Journal of Chemistry Vol. 22, No. 8 (2010), 6375-6386.
Dyck, B. (2003). Benefits of Planted Forests: Social, Ecological and Economic. Inter- sessional Expert
Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management.
EC, 2006. Thematic strategy for soil protection (No. 231 Final), European Commission (2006), COM
(2006). Brussels.
Edmondson, J.L., O'Sullivan, O.S., Inger, R., Potter, J., McHugh, N., Gaston, K.J., Leake, J. R. 2014.
Urban tree effects on soil organic carbon. PLoS ONE, 9, e101872.
Enescu, R.E.; Dinc ˘a, L.; Zup, M.; Davidescu, S, .; Vasile, D. Assessment of Soil Physical and
Chemical Properties among Urban and Peri-Urban Forests: A Case Study from Metropolitan
Area of Brasov. Forests 2022, 13, 1070. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13071070.
73
Eviner VT (2004) Plant traits that influence ecosystem processes vary independently among species.
Ecology 85: 2215–2229.
FAO. 2014. Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species. The state of the
world’s forest genetic resources thematic study. Italy, Rome.
FAO., 2005. The importance of soil organic matter: Key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food
production. FAO Soils Bulletin, No. 80, Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nation,
Rome, Italy.
Fearnside and Barbosa, 1998 “Soil carbon changes from conversion of forest to pasture in Brazilian
Amazonia,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 108, no. 1-2, pp. 147–166, 1998.
Fini A. C., Canham, C. D. and Breemen N. Van (1998) “Canopy tree-soil interactions within temperate
forests: species effects on pH and cations,” Ecological Applications, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 447–454.
Froehlich, H.A.; McNabb, D.H. Minimizing 1983 soil compaction in Pacific Northwest forests. In
Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts. Proceedings of the 6th North American Forest Soils
Conference Knoxville, TN, USA, 19–23 June 1983; Stone, E.L., Ed.; The University of
Tennessee: Knoxville, TN, USA, 1984; pp. 159–192.
Frost W. E. and Edinger S. B.1991 “Effects of tree canopies on soil characteristics of annual
rangeland,” Journal of Range Management, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 286–288, 1991.
Fuller, W.H. and Warrick, A.W.: (1985). Soils in Waste Treatment and Utilization. Volume I. CRC
Press, Inc., Boca Raton. Florida 268 p.
Garbisu, C., Alkorta, I., Epelde, L., 2011. Assessment of soil quality using microbial properties and
attributes of ecological relevance. Appl. Soil Ecol. 49, 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.04.018.
Gebrewahid 2019 Dispersed trees on smallholder farms enhance soil fertility in semi-arid Ethiopia
Ecological Processes (2019) 8:38 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0190-8.
Gladwin CH, Peterson JS, Uttaro R (2002) Agroforestry innovations in Africa: can they improve soil
fertility on women farmers’ fields. Afr Stud Q 6:245–269.
Goma-Tchimbakala, J., J.M. Moutsambote, and S.Makosso.2008.Comparison of some soil chemical
properties in four Terminalia superba plantations and a natural tropical forest in Mayombe,
Congo. Journal of Applied Science 8: 4152-4158.
Gransee A, Wittenmayer L (2000) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of watersoluble root exudates in
relation to plant species and development. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science-
Zeitschrift Fur Pflanzenernahrung Und Bodenkunde 163: 381–385.
Greacen, E.L.; Sands, R. Compaction of forest soils: A review. Aus. J. Soil Res. 1980, 18, 163–189.
Grouzis M and Akpo LE (2006) Interactions arbre-herbe au Sahel. [Tree-grass interaction in Sahel].
Secheresse 17(1-2):318-325 (In French).
Habumugisha et al 2019 The Effect of Tress on Soil Chemistry Current Environmental Engineering,
2019, Vol. 6, No.1.

74
Hartemink, A.E., 2006. The Future of Soil Science. International Union of Soil Sciences, Wageningen,
Netherlands, ISBN-13: 9789071556166, Pages: 165.
Henok, K., Dondeyne, S., Poesen, J., Frankl, A., and Nyssen, J. 2017. Transition from forest based to
cereal based agricultural systems: A review of the drivers of land use change and degradation in
southwest Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development,28: 431- 449.
Henry et al 2018 Influence Of Tree Plantation Gmelina Arborea And Gliricidia Sepium On Soil
Physico-Chemical Properties In Abakaliki, Southeast, Nigeria Acta Chemica Malaysia (ACMY)
2 (2) (2018) 23-28.
Hosur G.C. And Dasog G.S. 1995 Effect of Tree Species on Soil Properties Journal ofthe Indian
Society ofSoil Science. Vol. 43. No.2. pp 256-259 (1995) ReceivedMarch 1994; AcceptedApril
1995.
Howard, R.F.; Singer, M.J.; Frantz, G.A. 1981 Effects of soil properties, water content, and compactive
effort on the compaction of selected California forest and range soils. Soil Soc. Soc. Am. J. 1981,
45, 231–236.
Hugues D, Phiilippe DL (1998). Treesand multi-storey agriculture in Africa, Brussels, Belgium.
Jagger, P., and Pender, J. 2003. The role of trees for sustainable management of less favoured lands:
The case of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics,5:83-95.
Jaramillo-Botero C., Santos H.R.S., Junior P., Marco, Pontes T.M. (2006) P. Fardin, and F. Sarmento,
“Efeito da distribuic¸ao es- ˜ pacial das arvores sobre a produc ´ ¸ao de cafeeiros em sistema ˜
agroflorestal na zona da mata de Minas Gerais, Brasil,” in Anais do VI Congresso Brasileiro de
Sistemas Agroflorestais, Campos, Brazil,.
Jayeoba, O. J.(2013). Land suitability evaluation for arable agriculture inNasarawa state using Geo-
information.APh.D Thesis department of geography, NasarawaStateUniversityKeffi. Pp. 247.
Jesus J.,. Bernardes M. S, Righi C. A., Lunz A. M. P., Favarin J. L., and Camargo F. T., “Avaliac¸ao da
fertilidade do solo ˜ e teor foliar de K do cafeeiro (Coffea arabica L.) em sistema agroflorestal
em aleia de seringueira ( ´ Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) e em monocultivo,” in Proceedings of
the Anais do VI Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas Agroflorestais, Campos, Brazil, 2006.
Jobbagy and Jackson, 2001 “The distribution of soil ´ nutrients with depth: global patterns and the
imprint of plants,” Biogeochemistry, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 51–77, 2001.
Johnson, A.I., 1991. A field method for measurement of infiltration. Geological Survey Water- Supply
Paper 1544-F, US Department of the Interior, USA. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1544f/report.pdf.
Jurgensen, C., Kollert, W., and Lebedys, A. (2014). Assessment of industrial round woodproduction
from planted forests. Online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3384e.pdf. Accessed on 31 January 2018.
Kalpage, F.S.C.P., 1976. Tropical Soils: Classification, Fertility and Management. Macmillan Press
Ltd., London, UK., pp: 48-51.
Kara, O., and I. Bolat.2008. Soil microbial biomass C and N changes in relation to forest conversion in
the northwestern Turkey. Land Degradation and Development 19: 421–428.

75
Karlen, D.L., Ditzler, C.A., Andrews, S.S., 2003. Soil quality: Why and how? Geoderma 114, 145–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00039-9.
Karlen, D.L., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J.W., Cline, R.G., Harris, R.F., Schuman, G.E., 1997. Soil
quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation: (A guest editorial). Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 61, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010001x.
Kebede W, Awdenegest M, Fantaw Y (2013). Farmers perception of the effects of soil and water
conservation structures on crop production: The case of Bokole watershed, Southern Ethiopia.
Kibblewhite, M.G., Ritz, K., Swift, M.J., 2008. Soil health in agricultural systems. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2178.
Kiryushin, V.I. 2007 Assessment of Land Quality and Soil Fertility for Planning Farming Systems and
Agrotechnologies. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2007, 40, 785–791.
Kohili RK, Singh HP, Batish DR, Jose S (2008). Ecological Interaction in Agroforestry: An Overview
In: Batish et al (Ed) Ecological Basis of Agroforestry, CRC Press, London.
Kreibich H., Lehmann J., Scheufele G, and Kern J.,2003 “Nitrogen availability and leaching during the
terrestrial phase in a varzea ´ forest of the Central Amazon floodplain,” Biology and Fertility of
Soils, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 62–64, 2003.
Lathwell D. J. and Grove T. L. 1986 Soil-Plant Relationships In The Tropics Ann. Rev. Eco. Sysi.
1986. 17 :1-16 Cop izht " 1986 by Anmal Reviews Inc. Al righis reserved.
Laughlin D.C., Richardson S.J., Wright E.F. and Bellingham P.J. (2015). Environmental filtering and
positive plant litter feedback simultaneously explain correlations between leaf traits and soil
fertility. Ecosystems 18:1269–1280. doi:10.1007/s10021-015-9899-0.
Lavelle P., Barros E., Blanchart E. et al., “SOM management in the tropics: why feeding the soil
macrofauna?” Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, vol. 61, no. 1-2, pp. 53–61, 2001.
Lehmann, J., D. Günther, M. Socorro da Mota, M. Pereira de Almeida, W. Zech, and K. Kaiser.2001.
Inorganic and organic soil phosphorus and sulfur pools in an Amazonian multistrata
agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems 53: 113–124.
Lehmann, J., Kleber, M. 2015. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528, 60–68.
Levine, E., 2001. Why is soil data important to scientist. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Centre, Code
923/Biospheric Sciences Branch, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA.
Luizao 1989 “Litter production and mineral element input to the forest floor in a Central Amazonian
forest,” Geo Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 407–417, 1989.
Lynch J (1995) Root Architecture and Plant Productivity. Plant Physiology 109:7-13.
M. Arianoutsou 1989 “Atmospheric deposition of nutrients in a coastal maquis ecosystem of
northeastern Greece,” International Journal of Biometeorology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 124–130,
1989.
Maeght, J.L., Rewald, B., Pierret, A. 2013. How to study deep roots - and why it matters. Front. Plant
Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00299.

76
Márton JOLÁNKAI – Ferenc H. NYÁRAI – Ákos TARNAWA – Helga KLUPÁCS – Ildikó FARKAS
2008 DOI: 10.1556/CRC.36.2008.Suppl.1.
McGrath D.A., Comerford N.B and Duryea M.L. (2000). Litter dynamics and monthly fluctuations in
soil phosphorus availability in an Amazonian agroforest. Forest Ecology and Management
131(1–3):167–181. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00207-8.
McNabb, D.H.; Startsev, A.D.; Nguyen, H. 2001 Soil wetness and traffic level effects on bulk density
and air-filled porosity of compacted boreal forest soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 1238–
1247.
Mishra, A., Sharma, S.D., and Khan, G.H. (2003). Improvement in physical and chemical properties of
sodic soil by 3, 6, and 9 years old plantation of Eucalyptus tereticornisBiorejuvenation of sodic
soil. Forest Ecology and Management,184:115- 124.
Mochiutti S. and. Queiroz J. A. L 2006 “Aporte de nutrientes ao solo via serrapilheira em pousios
florestais com taxi-branco e capoeira no Amapa,” in ´ Anais do VI Congresso Brasileiro de
Sistemas Agroflorestais, Campos, Brazil, 2006.
Mulangey K, Merck R (1993). Soil organic matter dynamics and sustainability of tropical agriculture.
John Wiley and Sons , Inc., New York, P. 392.
Nair et al 2010 “Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems,” Advances in Agronomy, vol. 108, pp.
237–307, 2010.
Nair P. K. R., Kumar B. M., and Nair V. D. 2009 “Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration,”
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, vol. 172, no. 1, pp. 10–23, 2009.
Nair P. K. R., Nair V. D., Mohan Kumar B., and Showalter J. M. 2010 “Carbon sequestration in
agroforestry systems,” Advances in Agronomy, vol. 108, pp. 237–307, 2010.
Nair PKR (1989). Agroforestry defined, Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics, Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers pp. 13- 18.
Neves E. G., Petersen J. B., Bartone R. N., and Silva C. A. (2003) “Historical and socio-cultural origins
of Amazonian dark earths,” in Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management, J.
Lehmann, D. Kern, and B. Glaser, Eds., pp. 29– 50, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nsengimana V. (2020) Effects of Tree Forest Plantations on Soil Physicochemical Properties in the
Arboretumof Ruhande,Southern Province of Rwanda https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/rjeste.v3i1.6.
Ogunkunle C, Awotoye O (2010) Soil fertility status under different tree cropping system in a
southwestern zone of Nigeria. Notulae Scientia Biologicae, 3(2): 123.
Okigbo, B.N., 1991. Development of sustainable agricultural production system in Africa: Role of
international agricultural research centers. Ph.D. Thesis, International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Onyekwelu, J.C., R. Mosandl, and B.Stimm.2006. Productivity, site evaluation and state of nutrition of
Gmelina arborea plantations in Oluwa and Omo forest reserves, Nigeria. Forest Ecology and
Management 229: 214–227.

77
Ospina, C. 2017. Climate and economic benefits of agroforestry systems. Climate Institute, Washington
DC, New York.
Parker, S.P. and Corbitt, R.A. (1992). McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering.
3rd Ed., New York. pp 252-253.

Parysow E.T. (2001). Assessing uncertainty of erodibility factors innational cooperative soil survey: A
case study at Fort Hood, Texas. J. Soil. Water conservation. 56(3):207-208.
Patel et al 2018 Performance of different multipurpose trees and their effect on physical and chemical
properties of loamy sand soil under rainfed condition International Journal of Chemical Studies
2018; 6(3): 142-145.
Paudel, S., and J.P. Sah.2003. Physicochemical characteristics of soil in tropical sal (Shorea robusta
Gaertn.) forests in eastern Nepal. Himalayan Journal of Science1:107-110.
Phillips, R., Brzostek, E., Midgley, M. 2013. The mycorrhizal-associated nutrient economy: a new
framework for predicting carbon–nutrient couplings in temperate forests. New Phytologist 199,
41–51.
Pinho R. C., Souza V. V., and Jucksch I. 2002 “Contribuic¸ao de ˜ especies arb ´ oreas na ciclagem de
nutrientes via precipitac ´ ¸ao˜ em um sistema agroflorestal com cafe (Co ´ ffea arabica) no
munic´ıpio de Vic¸osa, MG,” in Anais do IV Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas Agroflorestais,
Ilheus, Brazil, 2002.
Primavesi A., “A fertilidade do solo” (2001) Agroecologia Hoje, vol. 8, article 5,.
Primavesi A., Manejo ecologico do solo (2002) a agricultura em regioes ˜ tropicais, Nobel Sou Paulo,
Brazil.
Primavesi, Manejo 2002 ecologico do solo: a agricultura em regi ´ oes ˜ tropicais, Nobel, Sao Paulo,
Brazil, 2002.
Pye-Smith C. (2008) Farming trees, banishing hunger. How an agroforestry programme is helping
smallholders in Malawi to grow more food and improve their livelihoods, World Agroforestry
Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rao MR, Nair PKR, Ong CK (1998). Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry. Agroforest. Syst.
38:3-50.https//dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005971525590.
Reich P. B., Oleksyn J., Modrzynski J. et al., 2005 “Linking litter calcium, earthworms and soil
properties: a common garden test with 14 tree species,” Ecology Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 811–
818, 2005.
Ren, Y., Yan, J., Wei, X., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Hua, L., Xiong, Y., Niu, X., Song, X. 2012. Effects of
rapid urban sprawl on urban forest carbon stocks: integrating remotely sensed, GIS and forest
inventory data. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 447–455.
Ricklefs R. E. 1996 A Economia da Natureza, Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3rd edition,
1996.
Rietz, K., and Van der Putten, W.H. 2012. The living soil and ecosystem services. In: Wall DH. (Ed.),
Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press: 2-60.

78
Ritz, K., J. Harris and P. Murray, 2010. The role of soil biota in soil fertility and quality and approaches
to influencing soil communities to enhance delivery of these functions. Sub-Project A of Defra
Project SP1601: Soil Functions, Quality and Degradation-Studies in Support of the
Implementation of Soil Policy, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Research
Project Final Report, London, UK.
Ritzema, H.P., 1994. Drainage Principles and Application. 2nd Edn., ILRI Publication, Wageningen,
Netherlands, ISBN-13: 9789070754334, Pages: 1125.
Rosenberg, N.R. 1964 Response of plants to the physical effects of soil compaction. Adv. Agron. 1964,
16, 181–196.
Rosenstock T, Tully K, Arias-Navarro C, Neufeldt H, Butterbach-Bahl K, Verchot L (2014)
Agroforestry with N2-fixing trees: sustainable development’s friend or foe? Curr Opin Environ
Sustain 6:15–21.
Rovira AD (1965) Plant root exudates and their influence upon soil microorganisms. In: Baker KF,
Snyder WC, eds. Ecology of Soil-Borne Pathogens - Prelude to Biological Control. Berkeley:
University of California. pp 170–186.
Rumpel, C., Kögel-Knabner, I. 2011. Deep soil organic matter—a key but poorly understood
component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant and Soil, 338, 143–158.
Sanda and Atikum 2013 Effect Of Faidherbia Albida On Soil Nutrients Management In The Semi-Arid
Region Of Kano State. Nigeria international journal of scientific & technology research volume
2, issue 7, july 2013.
Schlecht E, Buerkert A, Tielkes E, Bationo A (2006) A critical analysis of challenges and opportunities
for soil fertility restoration in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
76:109-136.
Schlesinger W. H., Raikks J. A., Hartley A. E., and. Cross A. F 1996 “On the spatial pattern of soil
nutrients in desert ecosystems,” Ecology, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 364–374, 1996.
Scholes R. J. and Archer S. R. 1997 “Tree-grass interactions in Savannas,” Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, vol. 28, pp. 517–544, 1997.
Schroth G., Lehmann J., Rodrigues M. R. L.,. Barros E, and Macedo J. L. V. 2001, “Plant-soil
interactions in multistrata agroforestry ˆ in the humid tropics,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 53,
no. 2, pp. 85–102, 2001.
Shukla PK (2009) Nutrient dynamics of tea plantations and their impact on soil productivity – a case
study from India. Proceedings of the 8th World Forestry Congress, Oct. 18–23, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, pp 1–11.
Sileshi G.,. Akinnifesi F. K, Ajayi O. C., and Place F. (2009) Evidence for impact of green fertilizers on
maize production in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis, ICRAF Occasional Paper No. 10,
World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, 2009.
Singh 2018 Soil physico-bio-chemical properties under different agroforestry systems in Terai region of
the Garhwal Hiamalayas Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018; 7(5): 2813-
2821.

79
Sjoerd, P., López-Acosta, J.C., Gomez-Díaz, J.A., and Lascurain-Rangel, M. 2018. Floristic diversity
and cultural importance in agroforestry systems on small-scale farmer’s livelihoods in central
Veracruz, México. Sustainability,10:279.
Souza V. V., Pinho R. C., and Jucksch I 2004 “Produc¸ao e ˜ composic¸ao de serrapilheira em um
sistema agroflorestal com ˜ cafe (Co ´ ffea arabica) em Vic¸osa-MG,” in Anais do V Congresso
Brasileiro de Sistemas Agroflorestais, Curitiba, Brazil, 2004.
Startsev, A.D.; McNabb, D.H 2000. Effects of skidding on soil infiltration in west central Alberta. Can.
J. Soil Sci. 2000, 80, 617–624.
Startsev, A.D.; McNabb, D.H. 2001 Skidder traffic effects on water retention, pore size distribution,
and van Genuchten parameters of boreal forest soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 224–231.
Startsev, A.D.; McNabb, D.H. 2009 Effects of compaction on aeration and morphology of boreal forest
soils in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2009, 89, 45–56.
Swamy,S.L., Kushwaha S.K.,and Puri S. 2004. Tree growth, biomass, allometry and nutrient
distribution in Gmelina arborea stands grown in red lateritic soils of Central India. Biomass and
Bioenergy 26: 305-317.
Tadesse H, Lemma N, Olsson M (2002). Millettia ferruginea from southern Ethiopia: Impacts on soil
fertility and growth of maize. Agroforest. Syst. 48:9-24.
Takimoto A., Nair, P. K. R. and. Nair V. D. (2008) “Carbon stock and sequestration potential of
traditional and improved agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel,” Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 125, no. 1–4, pp. 159–166.
Takimoto A.,. Nair P. K. R, and Nair V. D. 2008 “Carbon stock and sequestration potential of
traditional and improved agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel,” Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 125, no. 1–4, pp. 159–166, 2008.
Tanga AA, Erenso TF, Lemma B (2014). Effect of three tree species on microclimate and soil
amelioration in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental
Management 5(5):62-71.
Tesfaye, M.A., Bravo, F., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Pando, V., and Bravo-Oviedo, A. 2016. Impact of changes
in land use, species and elevation on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in Ethiopian
Central Highlands. Geoderma,262:70-79.
Thevathasan, N.V., Hunt, S.L. and Gordon, A.M. (1997). Carbon sequestration and ecological interactions in
temperate agroforestry systems. Dept. of Environmental Biology, University of Geulp, Ontario, Canada.
I1 p.

Tilahun G (2007). Soil fertility status as influenced by different land uses in Maybar areas of South
Wollo zone, North Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Udawatta RP, Gantzer CJ, Anderson SH, Garett HE (2008) Agroforestry and grass buffer effects on
pore characteristics measured by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography. Soil Science
Society American Journal 72:295-304.

80
Ulery A. L., Graham R. C.,. Chadwick O. A, and Wood H. B (1995.) “Decade-scale changes of soil
carbon, nitrogen and exchangeable cations under chaparral and pine,” Geoderma, vol. 65, no. 1-
2, pp. 121–134.
Umar BB, Aune JB, Lungu OI (2013). Effects of Faidherbia albida on fertility of soil in smallholder
conservation agriculture systems in eastern and southern Zambia. African Journal of
Agricultural Research 8:173-183.
UNCCD., 2011. Land and soil in the context of a green economy for sustainable development, food and
poverty eradication. The Submission of the UNCCD Secretariat to the Preparatory Process for
the Rio+20 Conference, Revised Version 18th, United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany, November, 2011.
Uno, G., Storey, R. and Moore, R. (2001). Principles of Botany. Mc Graw-Hill Higher Education, A. New York.
pp 17 - 178.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2015. Soil Quality Indicators: Physical, Chemical, and
Biological Indicators for Soil Quality Assessment and Management. Usda.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.07.020.
Van Breemen, N. (1995). How Sphagnum bogs down other plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10,
270-275.
Vetaas Ole R (1992) Micro-site effects of trees and shrubs in dry savannas. Journal of Vegetation
Science 3:337-344.
Vignozzi, N., Agnelli, A.E., Brandi, G., Gagnarli, E., Goggioli, D., Lagomarsino, A., Pellegrini, S.,
Simoncini, S., Sauro, S., Valboa, G., Caruso, G., and Gucci, R. 2018. Soil ecosystem functions
in a high-density olive orchard managed by different soil conservation practices. Applied soil
ecology, 134:64-76.
Vitousek P. M., Cassman K., Cleveland C. et al., 2002 “Towards an ecological understanding of
biological nitrogen fixation,” Biogeochemistry, vol. 57-58, pp. 1–45, 2002.
Volchko, Y., Norrman, J., Bergknut, M., Rosén, L., Söderqvist, T., 2013. Incorporating the soil function
concept into sustainability appraisal ofremediation alternatives. J. Environ. Manage. 129, 367–
376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.025.
Wang, Q., S. Wang, and X. Yu .2010. Decline of soil fertility during forest conversion of secondary
forest to Chinese fir plantations in subtropical China. Land degradation and developmentDOI:
10.1002/ldr.1030.
Washburn C.S.M., and Arthur M.A. (2003) Spatial variability in soil nutrient availability in an oak–
pine forest: potential effects of tree species NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjfr.nrc.ca on
19 November.
Watanabe, Y., T. Masunaga, O.O. Fashola, A .Agboola, P.K. Oviasuyi, and T. Wakatsuki .2009.
Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Pinus caribaea growth in relation to soil physico-chemical
properties in plantation forests in Northern Nigeria. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 55:132-
141.

81
Wezel A, Rajot JL and Herbrig C (2000) Influence of shrubs on soil characteristics and their function in
Sahelian agro-ecosystems in semi-arid Niger. Journal of Arid Environments 44:383- 398.
Wiedenhoeft AC.2006 Plant Nutrition. Chelsea publisher, New York (2006).
Wood, J. 2018. Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago – but there is a huge catch. World
Economic Forum. Accessed on 6/9/2019 from https://www.weforum.org.
Yage et al 2001 Effects of Tree Species and Soil Enzyme Activities on Soil Nutrients in The Dryland
Plantations DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-681222/v1.
Yengwe J, Gebremikael MT, Buchan D, Lungu O, De Neve S (2018). Effects of Faidherbia albida
canopy and leaf litter on soil microbial communities and nitrogen mineralization in selected
Zambian soils. Agroforestry Systems 92:349.
Yin, Z. Wang and W. Fan, 2014. Interaction between decomposing litter and soil fauna of the Betula
ermanii forest floor of the Changbai Mountains, China. Can. J. For. Res., 44: 1507-1514.
Yohannes U (1994). The effect of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur on the yield and yield
components of Ensete (Ensete ventricosum W.) in Southwest of Ethiopia. PhD dissertation,
Gießen, Germany.
Young A (1997). Agroforestry for Soil Management. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Zachar, D., 1982. Soil erosion. Development in Soil Science 10, Forest Research Institute,Zoolen,
Czechoslovakia, Elsevier Publication Company, Amsterdam, UK., pp: 9-11
Zhang D., Hui D., Luo Y. and Zhou G. (2008). Rates of litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems:
global patterns and controlling factors. Journal of Plant Ecology 1:85-93.
Zhang Y., Wei L., Wei X., Liu X. and Shao M. (2018). Long-term afforestation significantly improves
the fertility of abandoned farmland along a soil clay gradient on the Chinese Loess Plateau.
Land Degrad Dev 29:3521–3534. doi:0.1002/ldr.3126.
Zhao, Y.; Krzic, M.; Bulmer, C.E.; Schmidt, M.G 2008. Bulk Density of British Columbia Forest Soils
from the Proctor Test: Relationships with Selected Physical and Chemical Properties. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 442–452.
Zinke, “The pattern of influence of individual forest trees on soil properties,” Ecology, vol. 43, pp. 130–
133, 1962.
Zou, C.; Penfold, C.; Sands, R.; Misra, R.K.; Hudson 2001, I. Effects of air-filled porosity, soil matric
potential and soil strength on primary root growth of radiata pine seedlings. Plant Soil 2001,
236, 105–115. [CrossRef].

82