Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
https://doi.org/10.54517/ama2964
1
Article
Land use effects on soil properties and carbon stocks of agricultural and
agroforestry landscapes in a rainforest zone of Nigeria
Abel Ogunleye, Samuel Agele*
Plant Physiology and Ecology Group, Department of Crop, Soil & Pest management, Federal University of Technology, Akure +234-340106,
Nigeria
* Corresponding author: Samuel Agele, soagele@futa.edu.ng
Abstract: This study examined the impacts of land use on the physical and chemical properties
of soils of land use types along agroforestry and agricultural landscapes in a rainforest zone of
Nigeria. The land use systems are forest, agroforestry, fallow, and ornamental plant fields in
addition to permanent crop fields (cocoa, oil palm, and citrus) and annual crop fields (maize).
Profile pits were dug on the land use types and samples were collected 0–20 cm and 20–50 cm
for laboratory analysis. Soil samples were collected from undisturbed soil and profile pits for
bulk density and moisture content determination following standard analytical procedures.
Among the land use types, physical properties (sand, clay, soil bulk density) and chemical
properties (soil pH, SOC, total N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and CEC) differed significantly. Bulk density,
pH, SOC, total, and stocks of SOC and N differed statistically for 0–20 and 20–50 cm soil
depths with downward increases in N and SOC stocks along sampling depth. Permanent
croplands (forest and agroforestry fields) had higher soil pH, SOC, total N, and CEC, while
arable crop fields had relatively lower pH, SOC, TN, P, K, Ca, Mg, and CEC. Arable fields
had significantly lower C and N stocks within 50 cm compared with permanent crop fields,
which may be attributed to continuous tillage by the smallholder farmers and soil erosion-
enhanced SOC and N removal from top soil. For both permanent and annual crop fields, SOC
and total N stocks ranged from 5.75 to 3.12 kg/m2 for 0–20 cm depths and 2.44 to 1.93 kg/m2
for deeper (20–50 cm) layers. Relative to forest soil, stocks of SOC in the surface soils (0–20
cm) decreased in the order: agroforestry > ornamental plant field > cocoa > fallow land >
citrus > oil palm > annual cropping system. Following this decreasing order, soil deterioration
indices are equivalent to 27% > 28% > 30% > 31% > 32% > 34% > 38% compared with forest
soil, respectively. Strong significant correlations (p < 0.05) were observed between SOC and
TN stocks and some soil properties (bulk density, clay contents, pH, and CEC) with R2 values
ranging from 1.0 to 0.85. It is concluded that the soil's physical and chemical properties and
carbon storage potential differed among the land uses of the study site.
Keywords: land use; vegetation cover; biogeochemistry; degradation; ecosystem; rainforest;
sustainability
1. Introduction
Agriculture is a major source of food, raw materials for industries and
livelihoods, and overall economic development of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In
Nigeria, agriculture contributes about 30% of the GDP to the economy, offers
employment for up to 70% of the labor force, contributes over 70% of non-oil exports,
and provides over 80% of the food requirements for citizens [1,2]. Of the over 98
million hectares of land, about 74 million hectares is useful for agriculture [2,3].
Cultivated lands occupy 45% of the land area, of which 37.3% and 7.4% are cultivated
CITATION
Ogunleye A, Agele S. Land use
effects on soil properties and carbon
stocks of agricultural and
agroforestry landscapes in a
rainforest zone of Nigeria. Advances
in Modern Agriculture. 2025; 6(2):
2964.
https://doi.org/10.54517/ama2964
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 17 January 2025
Accepted: 20 February 2025
Available online: 29 April 2025
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2025 by author(s).
Advances in Modern Agriculture is
published by Asia Pacific Academy
of Science Pte. Ltd. This work is
licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY)
license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
2
to arable and permanent crops, forest cover occupies 10%, and 13% is for other land
uses [2,4].
In West Africa, land use types are mostly forest, agroforestry, fallow, permanent
(plantation) and arable crop cultivation and grazing lands especially by smallholder
farmers. Land use and management practices have influence on physical, chemical
and biological properties of soils [5–8]. Such influence may be attributed to
anthropogenic activities such as tillage, livestock trampling, harvesting, planting,
application of agrochemicals. Thus, land use produces changes in soil properties,
climate, and socio-economic opportunities [6,8]. Land use systems impact temporal
and spatial variations of soil processes with consequences on the distribution of water,
sediments and organic materials in the soil [9–11] and organic matter stabilization [12–
14]. Changes in land use and land cover transform landscapes and alter ecosystem
processes (nutrient cycling, water use, evaporation, evapotranspiration and heat) and
microclimate. Literature reports that ecosystem processes of carbon, water balance and
energy fluxes in landscapes can change or affect land use, land cover, and vegetation
dynamics [15–17]. Land use and agricultural practices impact the environment
including biogeochemical processes and climate modifications [17–19]. Land use and
management practices have potential to resolve adaptation challenges to climate
change and variability of weather through provision of ecosystem services and
functions. Knowledge of land use effects on vegetation cover and biogeochemistry of
landscapes is important to design practices to promote sustainability of ecosystems,
improve performance of agriculture and strategy for climate change mitigation
(adaptation and resilience building). There is inadequate information from the
rainforest agroecology, the influence of land use practices (agroforestry, fallowing,
plantation and arable/annual cropping) on vegetation land cover along agricultural and
agroforestry landscapes. The continual evaluation of dynamics of soil properties under
different management practices will foster the development of strategies for improving
soil and crop productivity and sustainability.
Land is an important natural resource and a spatial carrier of human socio-
economic activities. The activities have implications for ecosystem functions and
services [20,21]. Land use and associated changes in soil and ecosystem properties
and functions reflect the impact of human activities on the natural environment and
the modification of surface structure (i.e., water bodies, climate, and ecology) and
ecosystem services [22,23]. There is growing concerns for environment degradation
by human activity including land use and the quality of life of citizens. Therefore, it
becoming increasing important to continuously monitor and assess land use changes
and associated effects on ecosystem services. This exercise is crucial to sustainable
planning, management of soil and vegetation resources and to avert accelerated
degradation of the environment [21]. Sustainable land use planning and management
is fundamental instrument for socioeconomic development. It fosters prosperity of the
people and nation, especially, the quality of life of local inhabitants and can arrest
social imbalances and spatial inequalities [22,24]. Sustainable land use planning may
positively impact the environment by preserving natural resources, enhancing
ecosystem resilience [22,25]. Unsustainable land use practices result in the destruction
of natural resources, reduced quality of life of local population as well as climate
resilience. The role of policy and regulatory frameworks to development of strategies
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
3
and approaches for sustainable ecosystem cannot be over emphasized. Poorly
developed and implemented policy would lead to unsustainable use and management
of natural resources, changes in natural land surfaces and ecosystem structure, function
and services.
Various studies had highlighted the capacities of tropical soils to store carbon and
nitrogen, the potentials of rainforest soils for carbon sink and sequestration under
various land use systems are poorly reported [19,22,26]. Information is also limited
from the rainforest agroecology with respect to the influence of land use practices
(agroforestry, fallowing, plantation and arable/annual cropping) on vegetation cover
patterns, soil physical and chemical properties, stocks of soil N and organic carbon
and fertility deterioration along agricultural and agroforestry landscapes from the
rainforest zone of Nigeria.
Studies on changing dynamics of land use systems will provide information
important to guide decision makers to factor in such changes for developing strategies
and approaches to attain sustainable ecosystem [27,28], and to evaluate the footprint
of human activities on ecosystem services and function [21,24]. Such information is
paramount to the design of sustainable strategies and planning for ecosystem
management [21,23].
The objectives of the present study are to evaluate the effects of land use and
vegetation cover patterns on soil properties, stocks of soil N and organic carbon and
fertility deterioration of agricultural and agroforestry landscapes in the rainforest zone
of Nigeria. The study provided information on the changes in soil properties under
some widely practiced smallholder land use and management practice in the rainforest
zone of Nigeria. The findings will foster development of strategies for improving soil
and crop productivity, ecosystem sustainability and potentials and relevance of land
use practices to resolve adaptation challenges to climate change.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site of study and conditions
The site of study, Akure, a rainforest zone of southern Nigeria, is geo-referenced
on 734393 E, 808614 N coordinate lines, western flank of meridians. Figure 1
presents the research methodology chart while Figure 2 is the map of Nigeria showing
Ondo State and experiment site as insert.
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
4
Figure 1. Research methodology chart.
Figure 2. Map of Nigeria showing Ondo State and experiment site as insert.
In the study site, land use systems constituted by forest, agroforestry, fallow and
ornamental plant field in addition to permanent crop fields constituted by cocoa, oil
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
5
palm and citrus and annual crop (arable crop: maize) field were evaluated for impacts
on soil texture, bulk density, pH, CEC, stocks of SOC and total N.
2.2. Soil analysis
Soil profile pits were dug on the land use types from which samples were
collected at two depths (0 to 20 and 20–50 cm) for physical and chemical analysis.
Soil sample were collected by drill insertion of core samplers into walls of pits.
Samples were collected from the lowest point followed by top in order to reduce
contamination of the two layers. Approximately, 1 kg of sample was collected from
each soil depth, air-dried at room temperature, sieved (2 mm and 0.5 mm sieves) and
subjected to laboratory analyses
Total nitrogen was determined by Kjeldahl method [29] and available phosphorus
using Olsen et al. [30] method from sample extracts using 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate
extraction solution (pH: 8.5). Exchangeable cations (K+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and Na+) were
determined from sample extracts using 1 M ammonium acetate at pH (7.0) and cation
exchange capacity (CEC) from ammonium acetate saturated extracts. The
exchangeable cations (Ca2+ and Mg2+) were determined using atomic absorption
spectrophotometry (AAS) while K+ and Na+ were determined by flame photometer.
Soil pH was measured using a glass pH meter in supernatant solution of 1:2.5 soil to
water solution. Soil organic carbon was determined following the wet oxidation
method of Walkley and Black [31]. Particle size distribution was determined by
hydrometer method. Soil water content was determined by the gravimetry method
after oven drying to a constant weight at 105 ℃. Bulk density and moisture contents
of soil were determined from undisturbed soil samples from soil 0–20 and 20–50 cm
depths and calculated as the ratio of weight of oven-dried soil and volume of corer.
Soil hydrological properties were calculated using soil water characteristic equations
derived by Saxton et al. [32] modified by Saxton and Rawls [33]. The variables of soil
texture and soil organic matter were deployed based on the relationships of tension
and conductivity using the predictive system of soil water characteristics for
agricultural water management and hydrologic analyses [32]. The program based on
graphical computerized model of predictive system for rapid solutions was adopted
(http://hydrolab.arsusda.gov/soilwater/Index.htm).
2.2.1. Soil organic carbon stocks
Soil carbon stocks of the land use types were calculated following method of
Wairiu and Lal [34].
Carbon stock (kg ⋅ m−2) = [% C × BD × Depth (m) × 10 4 m2 ha−1] / 100
(1)
where BD is bulk density (g/cm3) of each sample depth, percentage C is Walkley-
Black carbon. Subsequently, SOC and TN contents were summed to determine total
SOC and TN stocks for the land use types.
Carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) was calculated using the formula:
C:N ratio = SOC (%) × TN (%)
(2)
where C:N is the ratio of carbon to nitrogen, SOC is concentration of carbon (%) in
the soil and TN is the concentration of total nitrogen (%) in the sample.
Bulk density, the density of the fine soil component is calculated as:
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
6
Bulk density = Bulk mass (g)− coarse fragment (g)
Bulk soil volume (cm3)− coarse fragment volume (cm3)
(3)
2.2.2. Soil deterioration index (SDI)
Soil deterioration indices were calculated on the assumption that the status of
individual soil properties under a particular land use types (permanent crop fields,
agroforestry fallow, and cropland) were once the same as adjacent soils under natural
forest before conversion to present land uses. Differences in mean values of soil
properties of the land use types were compared with values under well-stocked natural
forest taken as 100%. Soil deterioration index (SDI) was thus computed as percentage
of the means of individual soil properties under the land uses. Thus, soil deterioration
index of the land uses was determined following the method of Adejuwon and
Ekanade [35].
SDI (%) = [PSL − PRL] × 100
(4)
where PSL is mean value of individual soil property (P) under specific land use (SL),
PRL is the mean value of individual soil property (P) under reference land use (RL).
The cumulative sum obtained is the SDI for the identified land-use types. The higher
the total value, the better the soil quality and/or health of for a particular land-use
system.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Data collected on soil physical and chemical properties and carbon and total N
stocks of the land use types were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
while significant treatment means were separated for pair wise comparison using
Tukey Honestly Significance Difference (THD) test at 5% level of probability.
Pearson correlation coefficient was used to test the relationship among soil properties
of the land use types (clay, bulk density, pH, SOC and TN).
3. Results
3.1. Effect of land use on soil physical and hydrologic properties
The land use type affected particle size classes (Sand, Clay and Silt), the textural
class is generally sandy-clay-loam (Table 1). Cocoa field had the highest sand
percentage, followed by oil palm, maize, ornamental plant field, agroforestry, citrus
and fallow land. Bulk density range around 1.40 to 1.47 while lowest values were
found for permanent crop fields and values were recorded for MF and OPF. Soil
porosity values above 50% were found for OPF and MF and approximately 50% for
most others. The highest porosity was recorded for oil palm followed by citrus, cocoa,
agroforestry, fallow land and maize. Porosity values would have followed from soil
compaction indicated by bulk density (Table 2). Field capacity (Fc) moisture was
highest for oil palm followed by Maize, Ornamental, citrus, Cassava and Cocoa and
agroforestry while the least values was obtained for fallow. High field capacity (FC)
water content (0.47) was recorded for OPF closely followed by MF land use (0.36).
lower values ranging between 0.22 and 0.27 were recorded for other land use types.
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
7
Permanent wilting point (PWP) was highest for oil palm followed by Maize, Citrus,
Cassava, Cocoa, Agroforest and fallow fields. Permanent wilting percentage of the
soil under the land use types range between 0.13 to 0.34. highest value was obtained
for oil palm followed by maize with lowest under agroforestry (Table 2). Plant
available water (AW) value was lowest for forested and agroforestry and oil palm and
values were close for other land use types. The permanent crop fields had lower bulk
density values compared with arable crop field in addition to hydraulic conductivity
which had implications for PWP and FC moisture contents and thus plant available
water contents of the land use types (Figure 3). Hydraulic conductivity (Ks) values
was highest for fallow land followed by agroforestry, Cocoa, Citrus, Ornamental, Oil
palm and Maize field respectively. The available water (AW) in soil was highest for
Oil palm followed by ornamental plant field, Agroforestry, Maize, Cocoa and Citrus
field (Figure 3). Highest values of hydraulic conductivity (indicator of soil water
transmission property) above 70% were for four of the land use types and lowest for
MF and OF (less than 30%).
Table 1. Soil physical properties of land use types.
Land use
Sand (%)
Clay (%)
Silt (%)
Textural Class
GFF
16.80
63.20
20.00
Clay loam
OPF
56.80
27.20
16.00
Sandy clay loam
CF
58.00
27.00
15.00
Sandy clay loam
CTF
52.20
27.80
20.00
Sandy clay loam
AF
54.80
25.20
20.00
Sandy clay loam
MF
36.80
43.20
20.00
Clay loam
CSF
56.80
27.20
16.00
Sandy clay loam
OF
56.80
27.20
16.00
Sandy clay loam
Note: GFF: Grass fallow; OPF: oil palm; CF: cocoa; CTF: citrus; AGF: agroforestry; MF: maize; CSF:
cassava; OF: ornamental plant field.
Table 2. Soil hydrological properties of the land use classes.
Soil hydrological properties
Land Uses
Porosity
PWP
FC
Ks
AW
BD
CTF
0.469
0.150
0.257
0.563
0.107
1.407
CF
0.461
0.136
0.245
0.786
0.109
1.430
MF
0.512
0.244
0.355
0.163
0.111
1.294
OPF
0.542
0.337
0.469
0.226
0.132
1.215
AF
0.460
0.131
0.244
0.836
0.113
1.432
GFF
0.446
0.127
0.220
0.937
0.094
1.470
CSF
0.465
0.135
0.251
0.727
0.117
1.418
OF
0.476
0.155
0.267
0.458
0.112
1.389
LSD (0.05)
0.053
0.013
0.008
0.035
0.003
0.026
Note: GFF: Grass fallow; OPF: oil palm; CF cocoa; CTF: citrus; AGF: agroforestry; MF: maize; CSF:
cassava; OF: ornamental plant field.
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
8
Figure 3. Hydrological properties of soils of the land use types. PWP (permanent wilting percentage), FC (field
capacity moisture), KS (hydraulic conductivity), AW (available water), BD (bulk density).
3.2. Effect of land use on soil chemical properties
The differences among the land uses for soil pH were not significant (P ≥ 0.05)
although highest soil pH value was recorded for ornamental plant field followed by
cocoa, agroforestry, maize, citrus, cocoa and oil palm fields respectively while the
least mean value was recorded for grass fallow (Table 3). Among the land use types,
total N was highest for Citrus followed by Ornamental, Maize, Cocoa field,
Agroforestry, Cassava and Oil palm fields had the least N value. The highest value of
K was recorded on Ornamental field followed by Maize, Grass fallow, Cassava,
Citrus, Cocoa and Agroforestry respectively while the least mean value was recorded
on Oil palm tree (Table 3). The highest P value was recorded on Citrus followed by
Agroforestry, Ornamental, Maize and cassava, Cocoa and oil palm field respectively
while the least mean value was recorded on grass fallowed field. Cocoa field had
highest Ca followed by Citrus field, Ornamental field, Grass fallowed field, Maize
field, Agroforestry and Cassava field respectively. Oil palm field had the least mean
value (Table 3). Cocoa field also had highest Mg in soil followed by Citrus field,
Agroforestry, Grass fallowed field, Ornamental field, Maize field and Citrus field
respectively. However, Citrus field had highest value, followed by Cocoa field, Maize
field, Grass fallow, Cassava field, Ornamental and Agroforestry plots respectively
while the least mean value was recorded on Oil palm field (Table 3) Soil pH differed
significantly among land use types, soil pH were highest for OF, CSF MF and AF and
lowest values for GFF and close values for OPF and CF. soil organic matter (SOM)
values also differed significantly among land use types. CTF, MF. And OF recorded
highest SOM whereas lowest values were found for OPF and CF. Similar trends was
observed for SOM, total N in soils differed among land use types. CTF recorded
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Porosity PWP FC Ks AW BD
Values of hydrological variables
Soil hydrological properties
CTF CF MF OPF AGF GFF CSF OF
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
9
highest values followed by OF, MF and CF while lowest were found for GFF and
OPF. The records of soil K values differed from those of SOM, significantly higher K
was obtained for OF, values were close for CF, CTF and AF and lowest for oil palm
field. Total P in soil were differed significantly. Significantly higher values were
recorded for cocoa, agroforestry and oil palm which had close values while lowest soil
P were found for oil palm field. Calcium contents of soil under the land use types
differed, CF and CTF were not different, OF, GFF and MF which were not different
while lowest Ca values were recorded for OPF and CSF. Soil contents of Mg differed
among land uses, CF and CTF were not different in values and lowest were recorded
for oil palm. Highest CEC values were found for CTF while values were close for
agroforestry, cocoa and maize fields (Table 3).
The effect of season was significant on chemical properties of the land uses. In
the rainy season, pH of soil under the land uses was lower significantly compare with
values for the dry season. SOM follow the observations on soil pH for the seasons
while values for soil N, K and P, Ca and Mg and CEC occurred in contrast to those of
soil pH and SOM, the rainy season recorded higher values compare with the dry season
for these nutrient elements. Soil pH, OC, SOM and total N were higher in values for
permanent cultivation compared to arable (annual crop) fields. however, soil K was
higher for arable fields. Other measured chemical variables had higher values for
permanent cultivation.
Table 3. Chemical properties of soils of land use types.
Chemical properties
Land use
pH (1:2 in H20)
OC (%)
OM (%)
N (%)
K
(cmol/kg)
P
(mg/kg)
Na
(cmol/kg)
Ca
(cmol/kg)
Mg
(cmol/kg)
CEC
(cmol/kg)
GFF
5.296a
0.94a
1.632a
0.182a
0.556a
8.680a
0.411a
3.650a
1.381a
8.999a
OPF
5.471a
1.04a
1.805a
0.232a
0.343a
9.240a
0.4219a
3.004a
1.098a
8.189a
CF
5.453a
1.52a
2.627a
0.385a
0.448a
10.090a
0.430a
3.892a
1.618a
9.848a
CTF
5.504a
1.79a
3.094a
0.472a
0.487a
12.440a
0.455a
3.813a
1.532a
12.260a
AF
5.738a
1.54a
2.671a
0.346a
0.445a
12.090a
0.441a
3.417a
1.415a
8.840a
MF
5.672a
1.68a
2.909a
0.407a
0.604a
11.069a
0.539a
3.621a
1.249a
9.522a
CSF
5.812a
1.58a
2.729a
0.308a
0.518a
10.530a
0.507a
3.242a
1.166a
8.921a
OF
5.886a
1.68a
2.906a
0.434a
0.671a
11.940a
0.513a
3.730a
1.332a
8.897a
LSD (0.05)
0.095
0.214
0.242
0.026
0.113
0.723
0.009
0.057
0.07
0.4268
Note: a Values bearing same letters along the column are not significantly different (P < 0.05).
3.3. Soil carbon and total nitrogen of land use types
Agroforestry recorded the highest SOC stocks followed by Maize, Oil palm,
Citrus, Cocoa, fallow land and maize. Significantly higher SOC values were obtained
for agroforestry, ornamental plant and oil palm fields compared with cocoa, citrus and
fallow land. Maize field recorded significantly higher SOC compared with citrus,
cocoa, cassava and grass fallow. Soil organic carbon values were higher significantly
for agroforestry and oil palm while maize field recorded significantly higher value
compared with citrus, cocoa, cassava and grass fallow. The stocks of SOC and total N
differed significantly among land uses: forest based and permanent crop fields
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
10
compared with the annual (maize) field and between 0–20 cm and 20–50 cm soil
depths (Table 4). Between permanent and annual crop fields, the stocks of SOC and
total N at 0–20 cm depth ranged from 5.75 to 3.12 kg/m2 and 2.44 to 1.93 kg/m2 for
20–50 cm depth (Table 4a). Trends in nitrogen stocks for the subsoil (20–50 cm
depths) were similar to observations for 0–20 cm depth. The permanent land uses had
highest total N stocks compared to annual crops and highest values were recorded for
0–20 compared with 20–50 cm soil. Forest, fallow land, agroforestry and permanent
crop fields had highest stocks of organic carbon and total nitrogen compared with
annual cropland (Table 4b).
Table 4a. Soil chemical properties at 20 and 20–50 cm depths of land use types.
Land uses
Soil depth
(cm)
Soil organic carbon
(%)
Carbon stocks
(kg/m2)
Total N
(%)
Total N stocks
(kg/m2)
Soil pH
(water)
Clay
Bulk density
(g/cm3)
Forest soil
0–20
2.33
8.14
0.28
8.51
6.53
28.4
1.20
20–50
0.01
3.67
0.14
5.13
6.13
35.8
1.31
Fallow land (Grass
spp. dominant)
0–20
1.07
6.12
0.16
7.22
5.62
33.2
1.28
20–50
0.59
2.83
0.06
3.84
5.21
42.4
1.33
Oil palm
0–20
1.04
5.75
0.25
6.33
5.48
30.2
1.32
20–50
0.56
2.44
0.12
3.05
5.11
41.5
1.43
Cocoa
0–20
0.93
4.25
0.12
6.53
5.53
30.3
1.30
20–50
0.42
2.11
0.74
2.84
5.15
40.4
1.42
Citrus
0–20
0.95
4.46
0.15
6.71
5.51
37.1
1.33
20–50
0.46
2.14
0.78
3.08
5.08
44.2
1.44
Agroforestry
0–20
1.73
6.52
0.18
7.91
5.74
31.3
1.29
20–50
0.68
3.33
0.08
4.32
5.27
38.6
1.41
Crop land
0–20
1.21
3.12
0.10
4.13
5.45
34.3
1.37
20–50
0.53
1.93
0.63
1.82
5.06
40.4
1.45
Ornamental field
0–20
1.71
6.44
0.19
8.12
5.89
32.2
1.33
20–50
0.65
3.31
0.08
4.44
5.33
37.8
1.44
Table 4b. Soil properties of land use types (means of 0–20 and 20–50 cm depths).
Soil depth
(cm)
SOC (%)
Carbon stocks
(kg/m2)
Total N
(%)
Total N Stocks
(kg/m2)
Soil pH
(water)
Clay
Silt
Sand
Bulk density
(g/cm3)
0–20
1.25
8.14
0.21
7.18
6.47
17.65
19.3
60.27
1.28
20–50
0.11
3.67
0.13
4.13
6.27
22.34
21.6
51.34
1.43
Regression analysis showed significantly strong correlations between SOC
stocks and some soil physical (clay and bulk density) and chemical (pH and CEC)
properties. Strong but negative relationship was obtained between bulk density and
SOC (0.63; p = 0.05) while positive relationships between SOC and clay content, pH
and CEC were positive and highly significant (Table 5).
Table 5. Correlation equations and coefficients of some soil physical and chemical
properties.
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
11
Variables
Equations
r2
SOC vs Clay
y = 0.3689x − 9.1896
0.92
SOC vs TN
y = 0.8449x − 0.4857
0.91
SOC vs CEC
y = 1.9833x − 14.703
0.92
SOC vs pH
y = 5.5791x − 25.987
0.95
TN vs pH
y = 5.4477x − 24.086
0.85
SOC vs BD
y = −18.208x + 28.88
0.50
TN vs BD
y = 18.703x − 19.829
0.41
3.4. Soil deterioration indices
Relative to forest soil, soil organic carbon stocks for surface soils (0–20 cm)
decreased in the order: agroforestry > ornamental plant > cocoa > fallow land > citrus >
oil palm > annual cropping system (Table 4b). Soil deterioration indices of were 0%,
−27%, −28%, −30%, −31%, −32%, −34% and −38% for forest, agroforestry,
ornamental plant, cocoa, fallow land, citrus, oil palm and maize crop fields. Hence,
stock of SOC within 0 to 50 cm soil were 73%, 72%, 70%, 69%, 68%, 66% and 62%
for the respective land use types (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Deterioration Indices (0–20 cm) of land use types.
4. Discussion
4.1. Land use and soil physical properties
The analysis of particle sizes showed that soil of the land use types were
predominantly sandy clay loam in texture. This result is consistent with those of
Omotade and Alatise [36] and Agele et al. [37]. Soil texture is influenced by the parent
material and topography from which the soil is derived. The soil of the study area is
characterized by high sand fractions which can be attributed to the nature of parent
material. The study area is characterized by high rainfall which is known to promote
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
12
illuviation or leaching of soil particles (silt and clay particles) which might have
contributed to the high sand fractions of soils of the land use types.
4.2. Land use and soil hydrological properties
Soil hydrological properties are parameters that determine soil quality and its
capacity to sustain plant growth and ecosystem services [37]. The results showed that
soil porosity differed among land use types, permanent crop fields had higher values
compared with arable crop field. The observation supports the findings of Mefin and
Mohammed [38], Theobald et al. [39] and Nnaji et al. [40]. Field capacity, available
water, permanent wilting point and hydraulic conductivity were higher in values
compare with the cultivated/agricultural land uses. These results confirmed the
findings of Oguike and Onwuka [41] on permanent land uses which had higher soil
moisture contents and hydraulic conductivity. Our results contradicted those of
Mandel et al. [42] who reported that cultivated land uses were better in hydrological
properties compared with forest, agroforestry and permanent crop fields. The
contradictions can be attributed to differences in soil type and climatic conditions of
sites of study. Bulk density of soils showed that the permanent land uses had lower
values compared with annual crop field, observation that is consisted with those of
Ryan et al. [43] who obtained lower bulk densities for soils of forest and agroforestry
compared with annual (arable) crop field. Management practices of the land use types
differed and can explain differences in bulk density, total porosity and moisture
contents of the soils [44].
Soil hydrological properties are important parameters that determine soil quality
and function within the ecosystem [37]. The higher values of hydraulic conductivity
(K) recorded for permanent land uses can be linked to lower disturbance, improved
soil structure (high microporosity), organic matter contents as well as microbial
activities [45]. High microporosity is known for ability to improve hydraulic
conductivity (K); lower k value for arable crop field may be due to the loose, less
coherent nature of soil caused by disturbance during land/seedbed preparation [46,47].
However, Mander and Meyer [48] reported that cultivated land had better hydrological
properties compared to agroforestry and crop-based permanent land uses.
Bulk density is an indicator of soil compaction. Kakaire et al. [49] reported the
influence of bulk density on soil water infiltration ad water holding/retention
properties. The bulk density of soil of forest, agroforestry and crop-based permanent
land uses were lower compared with annual crop field. Ryan et al. [43] obtained lower
bulk density for forested soils compared with crop land. High bulk density of soil
under arable land use can be attributed to compaction from tractorization activities due
to machinery heavy weight [45]. In addition, crop cultivation exposes surface soil to
agents of erosion which promote washing away and removal of fine soil particles
[46,47]. Agricultural activities differ on the land uses and may explain the
observations on soil moisture, porosity and bulk density. In addition, crop cultivation
exposes surface soil to agents of erosion which promote washing away and removal
of fine soil particles [50,51]. Agricultural activities differ on the land uses and may
explain the observations on soil moisture, porosity and bulk density. Bulk density
values among the land use types were not above 1.63 g/cm−3 and such value would not
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
13
constitute severe hindrance to root penetration, seed germination and plant growth
[49–51] It is therefore important to report that soil under more stable permanent land
uses such as agroforestry, cocoa and oil palm fields have good properties which can
be adduced to minimal disturbance and higher soil organic carbon [52–54]. The
significantly higher bulk density of soil of annual crop field compared to forest, and
permanent crop-based land uses may stem from intensities of ploughing plus
harrowing/ridging and raindrop-enhanced soil water erosion [51]. Bulk density values
were higher in subsoils compared to the topsoil of the land uses. The redistribution of
soil carbon during tillage operation and increased soil evaporation from arable crop
land may produce upward movement of dissolved inorganic C from the subsoil to the
surface soil [55,56]. Bulk density of soils has influence on other physical properties
and processes such as soil-water dynamics, aeration, mechanical resistance to root
growth and development.
4.3. Chemical properties of soils of land uses
Land use types especially agroforestry, cocoa. citrus and oil palm including
fallow land, had higher values of soil pH, exchangeable bases and CEC compared with
arable land use. This can be attributed to differences in soil water erosion, litter
retention, biological population and activities. Smallholder farmers in the study area
commonly use fertilizers (including livestock manure and plant residues, domestic
wastes (ash from firewood and bush burning) and other biodegradable materials. Ash
serves as liming material and thus, the high soil pH recorded in arable crop field and
the enhanced exchangeable bases of this land use. Soil pH values across the land uses
for this study showed that the soil is slightly acidic. This result agreed with the findings
of Olubanjo and Ayoola [57] reported soil pH of soils of the study area range from
5.65 and 5.72. Hassan et al. [58] reported that favorable pH enhances availability of
nutrients in the soil. Soil pH for most crops lies within 6.0 and 7.0 within which
nutrient availability in soil is enhanced. This result showed that the study area was
fairly suitable for plant growth as the pH values fall around the optimum value of 6.0.
The organic matter of soils of the land use types differed This result confirmed the
findings of Olubanjo and Ayoola [57]. The organic matter of the study site varied from
2.88% to 3.97%. The cultivated crop fields tend to produce lower organic matter
compare to permanent crop land uses an observation also conformed to those of
Biernbaum [59] that the organic matter of loam soil ranges from 1% (low) to average
of 2% to 4%. Kazilkaya [60] and Panwar et al. [61] opined that organic matter modifies
water retention capacity and other physical properties which contribute to carbon
accretion into soil pool.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and cation-exchange capacity did not
differ significantly among the land use types. This observation agreed with the
findings of Biernbaum [59] and Akintokun and Owoeye [62] that soil chemical
properties of soil cultivated for arable crop production are lower than under permanent
land uses. The land use types had undergone different practices involving engagement
of tractorized operations for tillage, sowing and agrochemical application. White [63]
and Haddaway et al. [64] reported the effects of such activities on the mineralization
of organic materials in the soil. Citrus field had highest value of organic matter, N and
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
14
P in addition to high cation exchange capacity compared with other permanent land
uses. The high contents of nutrient elements of citrus soil can be adduced to the
abundance of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) on the field. Elephant
grass has been known for soil erosion prevention and enhancement of soil fertility
[65,66]. Results showed that soil acidity is higher in dry season than the wet season
which would influence soil nutrients availability for crop use [67,68]. The seasons
differed in soil nutrient status: higher nutrient availability was found for wet season
compared with dry season. This observation conforms with those of Guizani et al. [69]
that rain remove significant amount of salts that accumulate in the soil during previous
cultivation period from the soil. Hence the low nutrient status of soils during the rainy
season (leaching losses). From this study, it is observed that permanent land uses
recorded higher values of the essential nutrient elements for plant growth enhancement
compared with arable crop field [70–72].
4.4. Land use and stocks of soil organic carbon and nitrogen
The use types differed in stocks of SOC and total N. Agroforestry and oil palm
fields had highest SOC stock. Oladoye et al. [73] reported that forest soil had high
carbon stocks and will thus sequester higher carbon compared with than other land
uses especially arable crop land. However, Nyawira et al. [74] reported high SOC
stocks of land use with good soil management such as reduced or no tillage soil
management. The permanent crop lands (cocoa, citrus, oil palm) including
agroforestry ecosystem are associated with high biodiversity and ability to sequester
carbon in the soil than frequently cultivated (arable crops) crop lands [75]. The
mechanisms of SOC stabilization appear to differ among land uses an observation
attributable to soil and crop management intensity. Soil management practices is
significant to SOC dynamics and global carbon [76].
Soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks were obtained from the product of organic
carbon concentration (g/kg) and soil bulk density [77]. The land uses differed in SOC
stocks: agroforestry and oil palm fields had highest SOC stock. Oladoye et al. [73]
reported that forest land soil sequester higher carbon than other land use. Nyawira et
al. [74] opined that SOC stocks can be increased for agricultural land uses with good
soil management such as reduced/minimum or no tillage soil management practice.
Maize field from this study had high SOC stocks not significantly different from other
land uses. This can be attributed to soil management practiced over the years [78,79].
Agroforestry is an example of ecosystem with high biodiversity has ability to sequester
more carbon in the soil than those with reduced biodiversity [73]. Therefore,
understanding mechanisms of SOC build up of land uses and management intensity
adopted are relevant for understanding their carbon sequestration and contributions to
global C cycle [76]. Forest and permanent crop fields had significantly higher stocks
of SOC and total nitrogen compared with annual crop field. Soil carbon concentration
influences the retention of nutrients, buffer pH, microbial activity, structure (formation
of micro-aggregate and water infiltration and retention. Higher litter accumulation
promotes build up in permanent crop fields which can be attributed to high above and
below-ground biomass (root biomass) and lower litter breakdown (decomposition)
rate [80–82]. Tillage enhance oxidation of organic materials and expose surface soil
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
15
exposure increases water erosion and washing away of nutrients including organic
matter, this can explain the low SOC and total N in arable crop field. In addition, the
susceptibility of micro-aggregate held organic carbon to microbial degradation due to
seasonal shift in moisture and temperature regimes would have promoted SOC loss on
arable lands. In the forest, the favorable micro-climate would have enhanced nutrient
transformation and accelerated decomposition of organic matter. Delegan et al. [82]
reported that fine root biomass from forest and crops are primary source of carbon and
nitrogen to soil making huge contributions to the stocks of SOC and total N. High
plant root and shoot biomass turnover and decomposition by soil microbes and
exudates from mycorrhizal fungi in the rhizosphere of forest ecosystem is known
[82,83]. This process contributes to nutrient build-up in soils in forest and permanent
crop fields.
The SOC and total N stocks in the topsoil of the land use types (forest, permanent
and annual croplands) decreased with depth. The larger N stock in forest and
permanent crop fields can be adduced to deep root systems of tree crops which may
promote porosity and nutrient transfer processes in soil [82,83]. The differences
observed for stocks of SOC and total N of the land uses may be attributed to the length
of fallow [17,84,85]. Soil organic carbon plays important for provision of ecosystem
services such as carbon sequestration, climate regulation, nutrient cycling, and
provision food, fiber, fuel, and water [85]. The stabilization of stocks of SOC and TN
in landscapes is affected by land use, geographical area, climate and dominant
vegetation composition [86,87]. Factors such as climate and vegetation are important
soil-forming factors influencing C and N storage in agroecologies [88]. The high
stocks of SOC and total N for forest and permanent crop lands compared with annual
(arable) cropland can be attributed to high litter decomposition, and carbon turnover
which may serve as carbon sinks
4.5. Relations of land use, SOC and total nitrogen concentration and
stocks
The relations between SOC stocks and soil physical (clay and bulk density) and
chemical (pH and CEC) properties were negative (bulk density and SOC, total N
concentrations and stocks with bulk density) and positive (SOC and clay content, pH
and CEC). These relationships indicated the influence of bulk density on high clay
content and SOC accumulation [89]. These observations are consistent with the
findings of Tsui et al. [86], Yu et al. [89] and Seifu et al. [90]. These authors opined
that bulk density enhanced soil compaction is detrimental to SOC and soil organic
matter accretion. Bulk density promotes reduction in soil water infiltration and
drainage capacity consequent causing aeration-related challenges in soil.
4.6. Soil deterioration index (SDI)
The land uses influenced soil quality properties (physical and chemical) which
deteriorated more for arable crop field compared with forest and permanent crop lands
in particular, the. degradation of SOC and TN stocks and essential nutrients. Soil
deterioration index (SDI) values for the land use types compared with forest soil
showed net degradation of soil C and N stocks. Low SDI observed from annual
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
16
cropland compared to permanent cropping systems affirmed that most smallholder
farmers practice results in soil quality degradation [90,91]. Land use change alters the
stocks of vegetation biomass and plant species diversity with consequences on input
of organic residues and hence soil SOC stock and carbon storage potential [92]. Land
use differ in potential to sequester and/or capture atmospheric carbon. Carbon
sequestration is important for climate mitigation in the long term [17,73]. Adoption of
sustainable land use practices especially incorporating climate-smart options can
enhance the potential of smallholder land use systems to sequester carbon, and reduce
emissions to the atmosphere [93]. Adoption of sustainable land use practices will
enhance smallholder farmers’ adaptation capacity in the frame of climate change. Such
practices may include soil re-carbonization (enhancing soils capacity for carbon
storage) using restoration strategies to reintegrate smallholder agricultural activities
into the global produce and carbon market [2,3]and for policymakers at local, national
and international levels.
5. Conclusions
The effects of land use and associated changes in vegetation and biogeochemistry
were analyzed in a rainforest zone of southern Nigeria and the results discussed in
relation to similar works with respect to land use changes, patterns and trends of
vegetation cover from other parts of the world. There were differences between the
permanent land use types (forest land, agroforestry, fallow land, cocoa, citrus, oil
palm, ornamental plant field) and arable (annual) crop fields for soil organic matter,
available nitrogen, bulk density and clay content. Among the land use types,
differences were found for values of SOC, total N, P, K, Ca, Mg. Soil pH was highest
for forest and permanent crop fields and the soils under forest and permanent crop
fields had higher SOC, total nitrogen, available P, carbon and nitrogen stock compared
to annual crop field. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen contents of the land use
types differed within soil depths: higher values of soil organic carbon and total
nitrogen contents and stocks were found for upper soil layers (0–20 cm) compared
with 20–50 cm depths. Generally, the permanent land use systems (agroforestry and
permanent crop lands) had more favorable soil biophysical and chemical properties,
while annual (arable) crop field had degraded the soil physical and chemical
properties. Decreasing order of SOC and total N stocks were: forest > agroforestry >
fallow > ornamental plant field > cocoa, citrus > oil palm > maize field. Lower SOC
and TN were found for maize field indicate soil fertility depletion, whereas compared
with higher soil nutrients and stocks of SOC and total nitrogen under forest and
permanent land use types which suggests relevance of these land use types for
addressing soil nutrient depletion and carbon storage in soil.
Strategies for restoration of degraded lands or avert trends of soil degradation
may benefit from findings from this study. The low input continuous cultivation of
annual crops (such as maize), would require soil conservation and fertility
management measures to address the trends of soil degradation and nutrient depletion.
Practices for mitigating loss of nutrients and degradation of soil properties under
continuous annual cropping may include crop residues retention, manure use, crop
rotation. These practices would enhance soil pH, SOC and N stocks and carbon
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
17
sequestration. The carbon stocks of the land uses can be traded in the frame of carbon
markets for ecosystem services, for additional income and incentives to resource-poor
farmers to invest in sustainable soil management. Trends obtained for carbon stocks
of land uses can serve as baseline for establishing large-scale inventory of SOC for
while the carbon sequestration potentials of forest-based land use systems can serve
as useful input for emission reduction targets for Nigeria.
The study advance understanding of the interplay of human activities and
environment which has important implications for land use decisions and
sustainability of the environment, functions and services. The findings will be pivotal
to address barriers and opportunities to foster sustainable land use practices, build
recommendations and guidelines for planning, and create policy frameworks for
sustainable use and management of natural resources in the study area. Recommended
are innovative policy frameworks, science, knowledge, and practice to protect,
preserve, and conserve ecosystem services and functions in landscapes in the different
regions of the country. Sustainable use of natural resources is crucial for achieving the
target and vision for development and growth.
Author contributions: Conceptualization, AO and SA; methodology, AO; software,
AO; validation, AO and SA; formal analysis, SA; investigation, AO; resources, SA;
data curation, AO; writing—original draft preparation, AO; writing—review and
editing, SA; visualization, AO; supervision, SA; project administration, SA; funding
acquisition, SA. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Institutional review board statement: Not applicable.
Informed consent statement: Not applicable.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Enisan G, Adeyemi AG. Effect of Agricultural Practices on Residential Land Use in Ipinsa Town, Akure, Nigeria.
International Journal of Education and Research. 2013; 1(7).
2. FAO. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Yearbook 2020. FAO; 2020.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Available online:
https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook (accessed on 12 September 2024)
4. FAO, ITPS. Recarbonizing Global Soils—A Technical Manual of Recommended Management Practices. Volume 2:
Hotspots and Bright Spots of Soil Organic Carbon. FAO; 2021.
5. Abera Y, Belachew T. Effect of Land Use on Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in Soil of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia.
Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystem. 2011; 14: 229–235.
6. Getahun HA, Abbadiko H, Mulige G. Sustainable Agriculture: Agroforestry for Soil Fertility and Food Security. Journal of
Equity in Sciences and Sustainable Development. 2018; 2(1): 44–53.
7. Ketema H, Yimer F. Soil property Variation under Agroforestry Based Conservation Tillage and Maize Based Conventional
Tillage in Southern Ethiopia. Soil and Tillage Research. 2014; 141: 25–31. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2014.03.011
8. Negasa T, Ketema H, Legesse A, et al. Variation in soil properties under different land use types managed by smallholder
farmers along the toposequence in southern Ethiopia. Geoderma. 2017; 290: 40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.021
9. Young FJ, Hammer RD. Soil–Landform Relationships on a Loess‐Mantled Upland Landscape in Missouri. Soil Science
Society of America Journal. 2000; 64(4): 1443–1454. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2000.6441443x
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
18
10. Brumer AC, Park SJ, Ruecker GR, et al. Catenary Soil Development Influencing Erosion Susceptibility along a Hillslope in
Uganda. CATENA. 2004; 58(1): 1–22.
11. Babur E, Süha Uslu Ö, Leonardo Battaglia M, et al. Studying soil erosion by evaluating changes in physico-chemical
properties of soils under different land-use types. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2021; 20(3): 190–
197.
12. Romkens PFAM, Van der Pflicht J, Hassink J. Soil Organic Matter Dynamics after the Conversion of Arable Land to
Pasture. Biology and Fertility of Soil. 1999; 28(3): 227–284.
13. Six J, Conant RT, Paul EA, Paustian K. Stabilization mechanism of Soil Organic Matter; Implication for C-Saturation of
Soils. Plant and Soil. 2002; 241: 155–176.
14. Byrnes RC, Eastburn DJ, Tate KW, Roche LM. A Global Meta‐Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators.
Journal of Environmental Quality. 2018; 47(4): 758–765.
15. Yimer F, Messing I, Ledin S, Abdelkadir A. Effects of Different Land Use Types on Infiltration Capacity in a Catchment in
the Highland of Ethiopia. Soil Use and Management. 2008; 24(4): 344–349. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1475-2743.2008.00182.x
16. Ekero D, Haile W, Lelago A, Bibiso M. Effects of different land use types on soil physico-chemical properties in Wolaita
zone, Ethiopia. Polish journal of Soil Science. 2022; 55(1). doi: 10.17951/pjss/2022.55.1.19-35
17. Samuel A, Kayode A, Friday C, et al. Impacts and Feedbacks of Land Use and Land Cover Patterns in Landscape on
Ecosystem Processes and Microclimate: Case of a Cacao-Based Agroforestry System. Current Journal of Applied Science
and Technology. 2017; 22(3): 1–11.
18. Ito A, Hajima T. Biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts of land-use change simulated by MIROC-ES2L. Prog Earth
Planet Science.202; 7: 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-020-00372-w
19. Tellen VA, Yerima BPK. Effects of land use change on soil physicochemical properties in selected areas in the North West
region of Cameroon. Environmental Systems Research. 2018; 7(1). doi: 10.1186/s40068-018-0106-0
20. Manuel Naranjo Gómez J, Carlos Loures L, Alexandre Castanho R, et al. Assessing Land Use Changes in European
Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012. In: Land Use-Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future. IntechOpen;
2018.
21. Lousada S, Manuel Naranjo Gómez J. Analyzing the Evolution of Land-Use Changes Related to Vegetation, in the Galicia
Region, Spain: From 1990 to 2018. In: Vegetation Dynamics, Changing Ecosystems and Human Responsibility. IntechOpen;
2022.
22. Maes J, Jacobs S. Nature-based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development. Conservation Letters. 2017; 10(1): 121–124.
doi: 10.1111/conl.12216
23. Lousada S, Cabezas J, Castanho RA, Manuel Naranjo Gómez J. Land-Use Changes in Insular Urban Territories: A
Retrospective Analysis from 1990 to 2018. The Case of Madeira Island—Ribeira Brava. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24): 16839.
doi: 10.3390/su142416839
24. Castanho RA, Lousada S, Manuel Naranjo Gómez J, et al. Dynamics of the land use changes and the associated barriers and
opportunities for sustainable development on peripheral and insular territories: The madeira Island (Portugal). In: Land Use-
Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future. IntechOpen; 2018.
25. Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: Requirements, approaches,
and impacts. Landscape Ecology. 2014; 29(8): 1277–1285. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0
26. Fentie SF, Jembere K, Fekadu E, Wasie D. Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics and Properties of Soil under Different Land
Uses in the Tejibara Watershop, Ethiopia. The Scientific World Journal. 2020; 2020: 1–12. doi: 10.1155/2020/1479460
27. Botezan CS, Radovici A, Ajtai I. The challenge of social vulnerability assessment in the context of land use changes for
sustainable urban planning—case studies: Developing cities in Romania. Landscape. 2022; 11(1): 17. doi:
10.3390/land11010017
28. Tesfaw AT, Pfaff A, Golden Kroner RE, et al. Land-use and land-cover change shape the sustainability and impacts of
protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018; 115(9): 2084–2089. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716462115
29. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall INC; 1958. p. 498.
30. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of Available Phosphorous in Soil by Extraction with Sodium
Bicarbonate. U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1954.
31. Walkley AJ, Black IA. Estimation of Soil Organic Carbon by the Chromic Acid Titration Method. Soil Science. 1934; 37(1):
29–38.
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
19
32. Saxton KE, Rawls WJ, Romberger JS, Papendick RI. Estimating generalized soil water characteristics from texture. Soil
Science Society of America Journal. 1986; 50(4): 1031–1036. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000040039x
33. Saxton KE, Rawls WJ. Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions. Soil
Science Society of America Journal. 2006; 70(5): 1569–1578. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0117
34. Wairiu M, Lal R. Soil organic carbon in relation to cultivation and topsoil removal on sloping lands of Kolombangara,
Solomon Islands. Soil and Tillage Research. 2003; 70(1): 19–27.
35. Kahsay A, Haile M, Gebresamuel G, Mohammed M. Developing soil quality indices to investigate degradation impacts of
different land use types in Northern Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2025; 11(1): e41185. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41185
36. Omotade IF, Alatise MO. Spatial Variability of Soil Physical and Chemical Properties in Akure, South Western Nigeria.
Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: Agriculture and Veterinary. 2017; 17(5).
37. Horel Á, Tóth E, Gelybó G, et al. Effects of Land Use and Management on SoilHydraulic Properties. Open Geosciences.
2015; 7(1). doi: 10.1515/geo-2015-0053
38. Wubie MA, Assen M. Effects of land cover changes and slope gradient on soil quality in the Gumara watershed, Lake Tana
basin of North–West Ethiopia. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 2020; 6: 85–97. doi: 10.1007/s40808-019-00660-
5
39. Venter ZS, Hawkins HJ, Cramer MD, Mills AJ. Mapping soil organic carbon stocks and trends with satellite-driven high
resolution maps over South Africa. Science of The Total Environment. 2021; 771: 145384. doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145384
40. Nnaji GU, Asadu CLA, Mbagwu JSC. Evaluation of Physico-chemical Properties of Soil under Selected Agricultural Land
Use Types. Agro-Science. 2002; 3(1): 27–33.
41. Oguike PC, Onwuka BM. Moisture Characteristics of Soils of Different Land Use Systems in Ubakala Umuahia, Abia State,
Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP). 2018; 8(4).
42. Ramesh T, Bolan NS, Kirkham MB, et al. Soil organic carbon dynamics: Impact of land use changes and management
practices: A review. Advances in Agronomy. 2019; 156: 1–107. doi: 10.1016/bs.agron.2019.02.001
43. Davari M, Saeidpoor B, Khaleghpanah N. et al. Impacts of land use/cover change on soil hydrological properties, runoff, and
erosion: results from micro-plots in Western Iran. Environment and Earth Science.2024; 83: 508.).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11813-w
44. Mulatu K, Hundera K, Senbeta F. Analysis of land use/ land cover changes and landscape fragmentation in the Baro-
Akobo Basin, Southwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2024;10 (7): e28378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28378.
45. Lousada S, Iyer-Raniga U. Land-Use Management–Recent Advances, New Perspectives, and Applications. IntechOpen;
2024. p. 232.
46. Nwite JN. Effect of Different Urine Sources on Soil Chemical Properties and Maize Yield in Abakaliki, Southeastern
Nigeria. International Journal of Advance Agricultural Research (IJAAR). 2015; 3(3): 31–36.
47. Amanze CT, Oguike PC, Eneje RC. Land Use Effects on Some Physico-Chemical Properties of Utisol at Ndume-Ibeku,
Southeastern Nigeria. International journal of scientific and research publications. 2017; 7(9).
48. Patiño S, Hernández Y, Plata C, Domínguez I,. Dazan M, Oviedo-Ocaña R, Buytaert W, Ochoa-Tocachi BF.. Influence of
land use on hydro-physical soil properties of Andean páramos and its effect on streamflow buffering. CATENA. 2021; 202:
105227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105227.
49. Kakare J, George LM, Majalina M, et al. Effect of Mulching on Soil Hydro-Physical Properties in Kibaale Sub-catchment,
South Central Uganda. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 2015; 3(5): 127–135.
50. Lousada S, Manuel Naranjo Gómez J, Loures L. The Evolution of Land-Use Changes in the Alto Tâmega Region, Portugal:
From 1990 to 2018—A Vision of Sustainable Planning. In: Sustainable Regional Planning. IntechOpen; 2023.
51. Bizuhoraho T, Kayiranga A, Manirakiza N, Mourad AK. The Effect of Land Use Systems on Soil Properties; A case Study
from Rwanda. Sustainable Agriculture Research. 2018; 7(2): 30. doi: 10.5539/sar.v7n2p30
52. Puget P, Drinkwater LE. Short-Terms Dynamics of Root- and Short-Derived Carbon from a Leguminous Green Manure.
Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2001; 65(3): 771–779.
53. Bununu YA, Bello A, Ahmed A. Land cover, land use, climate change and food security. Sustainable Earth Reviews. 2023;
6(1). doi: 10.1186/s42055-023-00065-4
54. Bailey KM, McCleery RA, Binford MW, Zweig C. Land-cover change within and around protected areas in a biodiversity
hotspot. Journal of Land Use Science. 2015; 11(2): 154-176. doi: 10.1080/1747423x.2015.1086905
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
20
55. Sainju UM, Stevens WB, Caesar-Tonthat T, Jabro JD. Land Use and Management Practices Impact on Plant Biomass
Carbon and Soil Carbon Dioxide Emission. Soil Science Society America Journal. 2010; 74(5): 1613–1622.
56. Wang Q, Lu C, Li H, et al. The Effect of No-tillage with Subsoiling on Soil Properties and Maize Yield: 12-Year Experiment
on Alkaline Soils of Northeast China. Soil and Tillage Research. 2014; 137: 43–49. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2013.11.006
57. Olubanjo OO, Ayoola SO. Assessment of Spatial Variability of Physico-chemical Properties of Soil at Crop, Soil and Pest
Management Research Farm, FUTA. Applied Research Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2020; 3(1): 1–20. doi:
10.47721/ARJEE20200301020
58. Hassan MK, Sanchez B, Yu JS. Financial Development and Economic Growth: New Evidence from Panel Data. The
Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 2011; 51(1): 88–104. doi: 10.1016/j.gref.2010.09.001
59. Biernbaun J. Organic Matters: Feeding the Soil and Building Soil Quality. Organic Matters. 2012; 1–7.
60. Kizilkaya R, Dengiz O. Variation of Land Use and Land Cover Effects on Some Soil Physico-chemical Characteristics and
Soil Enzyme Activity. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture. 2010; 97(2): 15–24.
61. Samuel A, Peter A, Babadele F, Olufunke O. Effects of Tractor Wheel Passes-induced Compaction and Organic
Amendments on Soil Properties and Yield of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Warp) in an Alfisol of the Rainforest Zone of
Nigeria. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2016; 13(4): 1–16.
62. Akintokun PO, Owoeye OO. Effect of Land-Use Pattern on Phosphorus and Potassium Fixation and Maize Performance.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Environment. 2011; 11(1). doi: 10.51406/jagse.v11i1.1309
63. White JG, Lindbo DL, Hardy D, et al. Mineralization, Plant Availability, and Water Quality Consequences of Nitrogen and
Phosphorus in Land-Applied Municipal Biosolids. WRRI; 2017.
64. Haddaway NR, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, et al. How does Tillage Intensity Affect Soil Organic Carbon? A System Review.
Environmental Evidence. 2017; 6(1).
65. Funk JM, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Baldwin-Cantello W, et al. Securing the climate benefits of stable forests. Climate
Policy. 2019; 19(7): 845–860. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1598838
66. Velastegui-Montoya A, Montalvan-Burbano N, Peña-Villacreses G, et al. Gricelda Herrera-Franco Land Use and Land
Cover in Tropical Forest: Global Research. Forests. 2022; 13(10): 1709. doi: 10.3390/f13101709
67. de Andrade Carvalho Pereira G, Primo AA, Meneses AJG, et al. Soil Fertility and Nutritional Status of Elephant Grass
Fertilized with Organic Compost from Small Ruminant Production and Slaughter Systems. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do
Solo. 2020; 44: e0200031.
68. Ogbona PC, Nzegbule EC, Okorie PE. Seasonal Variation of Soil Chemical Characteristics at Akwuke Long Wall
Underground Mined Site, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management. 2018; 22(8): 1303–1310.
69. Neina D, Nii G, Dowuona N. Short-term effects of human urine fertiliser and wood ash on soil pH and electrical
conductivity. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics.2013; 114 (2:, 89–100
70. Ufot UO, Iren OB, Chikere Njoku CU. Effect of Land Use on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties in Akokwa Area of Imo
State, Nigeria. International Journal of Life-Sciences Scientific Research. 2016; 2(3): 273–278.
71. Senjobi BA, Ogunkunle AO. Effect of Different Land Use Types and their Implications on Land Degradation and
Productivity in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and Sustainable Development. 2011; 3(1): 7–18.
72. Geisen V, Sánchez-Hernández R, Kampichler C, Hernández-Daumás S. Effects of land-use change on some properties of
tropical soils — An example from Southeast Mexico Geoderma. 2009;151: 3-4 DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.03.011
73. Oladoye AO, Adedire MO, Amoo AO. Carbon Stock Estimate under different Land-Use in the Federal University of
Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. Ife Journal of Science. 2013; 15(2).
74. Nyawira SS, Hartman MD, Nguyen TH, et al. Simulating Soil Organic Carbon in Maize-based Systems under Improved
Agronomic Management in Western Kenya. Soil and Tillage Research. 2021; 211: 105000. doi: 10.1787/22260935
75. Lal R. Climate Change and Soil Degradation Mitigation by Sustainable Management of Soils and other Natural Resources.
Agricultural Research. 2012; 1: 199–212.
76. Zeng R, Wei Y, Huang J, et al. Soil Organic Carbon Stock and Fractional Distribution across Central-South China.
International Soil and Water Conservation Research. 2021; 9(4): 620–630.
77. Chaudhuri S, Pena-Yewtukhiw EM, McDonald LM, et al. Land Use Effects on Sample Size Requirements for Soil Organic
Carbon Stocks Estimations. Soil Science. 2011; 176(2): 110–114.
78. S Sharma R, Rimal B, Baral H, et al. Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested
Landscape. Resources. 2019; 8(1): 18. doi: 10.3390/resources8010018
Advances in Modern Agriculture 2025, 6(2), 2964.
21
79. Chidowe OA, Blessing AD, Olaleken OJ, et al. Tillage, Desmodium Intortum, Fertilizer Rates for Carbon Stock, Soil Quality
and Grain Yield in Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. America Journal of Climate Change. 2019; 8(2): 325–341.
80. Bationo A, Kihara J, Vanlauwe B, et al. Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics, Functions and Management in West African Agro-
Ecosystems. Agricultural Systems. 2007; 94(1): 13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.011
81. Girmay G, Singh BR, Mitiku H, et al. Carbon Stocks in Ethiopian Soils in Relation to Land Use and Soil Management. Land
Degradation and Development. 2008; 19(4): 351–367. doi: 10.1002/ldr.844
82. Delelegn YT, Purahong W, Blazevic A, et al. Changes in land use alter soil quality and aggregate stability in the highlands of
northern Ethiopia. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14128-y
83. Samson ME, Chantigny MH. Vanasse A, et al. Response of subsurface C and N stocks dominates the whole-soil profile
response to agricultural management practices in a cool, humid climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2021; 320:
107590.
84. Lal R, Negassa W, Lorenz K. Carbon Sequestration in Soil. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015; 15: 79–
86. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.09.002
85. Vos C, Don A, Hobley EU, et al. Factors controlling the variation in organic carbon stocks in agricultural soils of Germany.
European Journal of Soil Science. 2019; 70(3): 550–564.
86. Tsui CC, Tsai CC, Chen ZS. Soil organic carbon stocks in relation to elevation gradients in volcanic ash soils of Taiwan.
Geoderma. 2013; 209–210: 119–127. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.06.013
87. Awoonor JK, Adiyah F, Dogbey BF. Land-Use Change on Soil C and N Stocks in the Humid Savannah Agro-Ecological
Zone of Ghana. Journal of Environmental Protection. 2022; 13(1). doi: 10.4236/jep.2022.13100
88. Tsozué D, Nghonda JP, Tematio P, Djakba Basga S. Changes in soil properties and soil organic carbon stocks along an
elevation gradient at Mount Bambouto, Central Africa. CATENA. 2019; 175: 251–262. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.12.028
89. Yu P, Li Q, Jia H, et al. Effect of Cultivation on Dynamics of Organic and Inorganic Carbon Stocks in Songnen Plain.
Agronomy Journal. 2014; 106(5): 1574–1582.
90. Seifu W, Elias E, Gebresamuel G, Khanal S. Impact of land use type and altitudinal gradient on topsoil organic carbon and
nitrogen stocks in the semi-arid watershed of northern Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2021; 7(4): e06770.
91. Bekunda M, Sanginga N, Woomer PL. Chapter Four—Restoring Soil Fertility in Sub-Sahara Africa. Advances in
Agronomy. 2010; 108: 183–236. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(10)08004-1
92. Bhattacharyya R, Pandey SC, Bisht JK, et al. Tillage and irrigation effects on soil aggregation and carbon pools in the Indian
sub-Himalayas. Agronomy Journal. 2013; 105(1): 101–112. doi:10.2134/agronj2012.0223
93. Toru T, Kibret K. Carbon Stock under Major Land Use/Land Cover Types of Hades Sub-Watershed, Eastern Ethiopia.
Carbon Balance and Management. 2019; 14(1). doi: 10.1186/s13021-019-0122-z
