Int. J. Biosci.

2024

International Journal of Biosciences | IJB |

ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222-5234 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 25, No. 3, p. 117-128, 2024

RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Effects of Selected Physical Soil and Water Conservation

Structures on Wheat Crop Yield: The Case of Lemo District in
Central Ethiopia

Yohannes Horamo*1, Mulatu Chernet1

1*
Department of Natural Resources Management Wachemo University, Ethiopia

Key words: Soil bund, Fanya juu bund, Effects, Wheat, Yield

http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/25.3.117-128 Article published on September 07, 2024

Abstract
The soil loss in Ethiopia in general and particularly in Central Ethiopia has becoming critical to be considered as
burning issue in relation to crop production. In Central Ethiopia, the need for physical soil and water
conservation is high and farmers are constructing both soil bund and fanya juu on their farms. With this fact the
pragmatic approach based research was conducted to investigate the effects of soil bund and fanya juu bund on
crop (wheat) yield of the farmers. Randomized complete block design (RCBD) three position (lower, middle and
upper) with seven levels of replication and the wheat crop as a test were used for this investigation. Data on plant
height, 1000 seed weight, number of seed per spike, grain yield and day to 50% spiking were taken in
consideration and of data collected. Considering the seven levels of replication treated plots of fanya juu bund
showed 50.9% and treated plots of soil bund showed 43.2% greater yield than the control plots. Correlation
analysis result showed significant correlation with most of the agronomic characteristics on level soil bund and
fanya juu bund whereas showed insignificant correlation with control plot. The soil bund and fanya juu bund
improved the yield of wheat crop in the study area. It appears important to suggest that further study should be
conducted under different agro-ecological zones to attain more comprehensive results.
* Corresponding Author: Yohannes Horamo  [email protected]

117 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

Introduction Lemmo district where these soil conservation

Recent estimate indicate annual soil loss in Ethiopia practices by government programme is carried out.
is between 1.5 and 3 billion tons (Bogale et al., 2020) According to AaNRDD (Agriculture and Natural
of this about 50% occurs in cropland where soil loss Resource Development Department) (2017) in Hadiya
has been reported to be very high (296 tons/ha/year) zone 15000 hectares was covered by soil and water
on a 16% slope with teff crop (Eragrostis abasinica) conservation structures in between 2006 to 2012.
on nitisols (Tilahun, and Belay, 2019 and Hailu, Even if so much amount of land was covered by soil
2019). The Ethiopian High Land Reclamation Study and water conservation structures their benefit by the
(EHRS) estimated that about 50% of the high lands farmers was not known and the effects brought by soil
are already significantly eroded of which about 14 and fanya juu bund on yield of crops are not yet
million hectares are severely eroded. In Ethiopia two investigated. Hence this research conducted to
millions hectares have reached a stage of irreversible investigate the effectiveness of soil bund and fanya
destruction and cannot sustain cropping in the future juu bund on wheat crop yield in comparison with
(Mushir and Kedru, 2012). unprotected land, where no physical soil and water
conservation measures are taken.
The effects of soil degradation can be described as:
Flood hazard, decreases in productivity of the land as Materials and methods
well as production per unit area and the regulatory Description of the Study Area
capacity of the mountains is drastically reduced and This study was conducted in Lemo District in the
the overall effect is frequent drought, famine, and Hadiya zone, Central Ethiopia. Geographically the
related disasters (Wolka et al., 2013; Adimassu et al., study area is located in 07041'N Latitude and 037031'E
2017). Ethiopia has a long history of following Longitude. Topography of the study area is rugged
traditional conservation methods. These are high land and hilly areas with range of slope from 2-
numerous examples of certain parts of the country 35 percent. Generally the terrain is mountainous,
where these techniques can be seen. For example, undulating and broken type that is very much prone
stone terracing in Konso, Gomugoffa, random bench to soil erosion. As stated by Dunn et al. (2016) land-
terraces in North Shoa and Hararge, contour bench use planning the soil types or the distribution of soil
terraces and tied ridges in Konso, drainage furrows of units in study area is sand sandy loam, loam and clay.
North-East Shoa, and sod rotation, trash bunds, trash As it has been indicated above, the most widely
heap composting and fallowing. To date, these distributed or that covers large area is loam. They are
techniques have not been evaluated nor has there distinguished by high amount of clay and these soils
been any attempt to improve them or popularize are high fertile and probably well-drained. The
them (Subhatu et al., 2017; Lal, 2020). The scientific District is found in ‘Woina Dega’ agro-climatic zone
conservation programme is a recent phenomenon. A with altitudinal range of 1950-2400 meter above sea
start was made in early 1970s. But serious attempts level. It has a temperature range of 15-180C and an
on a large scale were delayed until the early 1970s, average rainfall is 1150mm. In the study area there
when assistance of the WFP and UNDP/FAO become are a number of rivers and seasonal streams that
available. The Ethiopian high lands saw probably the drain to the area. They supply water for both drinking
most extensive soil conservation activity in 1970s and and sanitation purposes. The interventions of human
1980s (Melaku et al., 2018). Between 1980 and 1990, being have influenced the natural vegetation in the
about 2.3 million ha of land was covered by hill side study area greatly. Farmers are already adapted to
terraces for a forestation of steep slope; about 1 planting of some tree species in the District, to meet
million hectare was planted with different tree the demands for wood need. This is actually
seedlings (Lakew, 2018; Guadie et al., 2020). One of dominated by different types of Eucalyptus species
these high land areas of Ethiopia is Hadiya zone (AaNRDD, 2017).

118 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

(Source: Survey result)

Fig.1. Location of Lemo District in Hadiya zone, Central Ethiopia.

The District has a population of 207,469, of which observations per variable that is 7 replications, 3
103,576 are male and 103,893 female. The dominant treatments, 3 positions and plot size of 378m2 (Fig.
land-use types in the District are sedentary mixed 2). Throughout the crop season, all the experimental
farming, whereby the cultivated land accounts for plots were observed closely and seen that there was
89% of the total land area. This in turn indicates that serious control of disease and pest incidence noticed
there is great pressure on land. The area practices on the plant and not considered to be a factor in
complete integration of trees, crop and animal affecting growth or yield of the crop. When the crop in
production that is similar to (Singh et al., 2013). the experiment plot was ready for harvest it was
harvested and collected from each of the plot
Research experimental design separately using a new sack. After threshing the grain
The type of the study governs the choice of the study from each plot were weighed and the value was
design. In this study, the pragmatic (matter of- extrapolated for the total crop yield per hectare basis.
factual) world outlook or rational approach was Days to 50% spiking and plant height were recorded
suitable since it is factual-world practice-oriented and on the same day when 50% of the plant in the plot
problem-centered (Creswell and Clark, 2011). In this reaches the respective phonological stage. Plant
study a mixed methods design that is, a mix of height of wheat crop was measured in cm from the
quantitative and qualitative approach were employed three position one farmer plot 72 plants which are
for collection of data and data analysis. This study randomly taken from each plot 10 days before
adopted the pragmatic philosophic approach harvesting. At harvest time spikes were taken
(Creswell, 2009. The experiment was done on manually and thousand grains were counted and
farmers’ field using level soil bund, fanya juu bund weighed from the bulk of shelled grain at moisture
and control plot as treatment and wheat as a test content 12% level and expressed in grams. Seed
crop. Neither farm yard manure nor mineral fertilizer moisture was determined in Van, (2013) seed quality
was applied in all the treatments during testing by oven dry method rather than the quick
experimentation. The experiment was laid out in method in order to avoid errors during reading of the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 63 meter which was less precise than the results

119 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

determined with the air-oven method (Munkholm et Data analysis

al., 2013). In this method the wheat was grinded by The data collected for different parameters regarding
grinding machine and after grinding a sample of 4gm crop yield were analyzed statistically using analysis of
was taken and put in the oven of 133oC for two hours variance for 7 replications of RCBD was computed
after two hours it was taken from the oven and placed using the SAS to show if there was significant
in the desiccators for cooling and after ten minutes it difference among the treatment means for the
was measured to obtain the weight and calculate for different parameters. Least significance difference
the moisture. was used to separate means from each other among
the replications using 5% probability level. Pearson
Data collection correlation coefficient was used to show the
For each experimental plot all parameters (grain yield relationship and significance of the recorded yield of
(kg/ha, days to 50% spiking and maturity, plants wheat.
height in (cm) and thousand grain weight (kg) crop
yield was collected using an appropriate sampling Results and discussion
technique. When the crop in the experiment plot was Impacts of Soil and Water Conservation Structures
ready for harvest, it was harvested and collected by on Wheat Yield
sacks from each plot separately in order to avoid grain From each treated conservation structure and
loss during threshing. The grain was weighed and untreated plots, plant height in centimeter (cm),
recorded as grain yield in kg per hectare. Days to 50% number of seed per spike, 1000 seed weight in gram
spiking and maturity of wheat was recorded when (gm), day to 50% spiking and grain yield in quintal
fifty percent of the plant in a plot reach the respective per hectare were recorded during the growth period
phonological stage. Plant height of wheat is measured and harvest time from plant samples taken from the
in cm from twenty four plants from each position plots. The data on wheat yield and agronomic
(upper, middle and lower) sampled randomly from characteristics as affected by different soil and water
left, right and center of each plot one week before conservation treatment at seven replications is shown
harvesting. Thousand grain weights was measured in Table 1. The soil and water conservation structures
after sampling from the bulk of shelled grain moisture displayed a statistically significant effect (P≤0.05) on
content of 12% level for all samples and expressed in wheat plant height, number of seed per spike, days to
grams. 50% spiking and grain yield.

Table 1. Wheat yield versus treatments.

Replications/replications Yield increment qt/ha in (%) over the control plot
Control plot Soil bund Fanya juu bund
North Ballesa sample one (R1) 14.71 4.74 10.08
North Ballesa sample two (R2) 22.99 13.06 2.8
Ana-Ballesa sample three (R3) 20.14 4.67 13.5
Ana-Ballesa sample four (R4) 19.43 2.67 4.21
Ana-Ballesa sample five (R5) 15.86 8.43 10.19
Amibicho sample six (R6) 13.07 13.94 12.36
Ambicho sample seven (R7) 17.15 5.95 10.17
Mean 17.6 7.64 9.04
(Source: Survey result).

In order to display the different effects of the soil and The relative average mean of 9.04 quintal/hectare
water conservation structures on agronomic (55%) was recorded on fanya juu bund and 7.64
characteristics and yield a comparison of the averages quintal/hectare (45%) increment were recorded on
of the seven replications were made on wheat crop. soil bund and the highest mean yield increments due

120 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

to conservation structures was recorded on Ambicho- over the control plots (Table 1). But in the overall
six with soil bund (13.94 quintal/hectare), and Ana- mean increment the highest percent increment was
Ballesa three fanya juu bund (13.5 quintal/hectare) recorded on fanya juu bund (Table 1).

Table 2. Wheat yield and yield parameters.

Treatments Number of seed per spike Plant height in cm 1000 seed weight (gm) Grain yield in
Quintal/hectare
Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
Soil bund 31.19a 8.76∗ 95a 10∗ 40a 7∗ 26.39a 7.96∗
Fanya juu bund 30.81a 8.38∗ 97b 12∗ 42a 9∗ 27.82a 9.39∗
Control 22.43b - 85c - 33b - 18.43 -
CV (%) 16.05 5.31 11.2 15.9
LSD (0.05) 2.82 3.08 2.66 2.4
CV =Coefficient of variance LSD= least significant difference means significantly different at (P≤0.05) (Source:
Survey result).

This high yield increment may be due to organic sorghum yield than the control plots. The same is true
matter and nutrient availability on treated plots for the study of Assefa et al. (2020) which indicated
relative to the control plot. This finding was in that, estimated yields of wheat and faba bean grown
agreement with Adgo et al. (2013) and Lampurlanés on soil accumulation and soil erosion segments of
et al. (2016) which showed that bean yield was terraces and on un-terraced (up slope) areas in the
increased because of fanya juu bund. Study by Tembien (same plots as used by Amare et al. (2013)
Bazongo et al. (2015) also estimated that on the that indicated yields were higher than non-terraced
average field protected by bunds have higher fields.

Table 3. Wheat yield on seven replications of the experimental plot.

Conservation Measures Wheat grain yield quintal/hectare on seven replications
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Means
Level soil bund 19.45 40.05 24.81 22.1 24.29 31.01 23.1 26.4
Fanya juu bund bund 24.79 27.79 33.64 23.64 26.05 29.43 27.32 27.52
Control 14.71 26.99 20.14 19.43 15.86 17.07 17.15 18.76
Means 19.68 32.28 26.2 21.72 22.07 25.84 22.52

*R1 to R7 = Replications one to seven (Source: Survey result).

The possible reason of yield decrease on the control bund and fanya juu bund in terms of number of seeds
plot is due to less amount of organic matter, nitrogen, per spike, grain yield and 1000 seed weight.
phosphorous, organic carbon, which is decreased and Considering the mean yield on the seven replications
washed away because of water erosion (Table 2 and wheat produced under the influence of soil bund was
7). Similar to the study of Taye et al., (2013) found a 26.39 quintal/hectare which is greater by 43.2 % than
yield increment of 7.43% in fields treated with soil the control plot and fanya juu bund 27.82
bunds compared with untreated plot. A significantly quintal/hectare that is (50.9%) higher than the
higher (P≤0.05) plant height, 1000 seed weight of control plot (Table 2). The average wheat yield
wheat, number of seed per spike was observed in both obtained in fanya juu bund was higher than the soil
soil bund and fanya juu bund compared to control bund and control plot followed by the soil bund. At
plots (Table 2). Both soil bund and fanya juu bund the same time fanya juu bund treated plots had
produced a significantly higher (P≤0.05) yield than gained an increase in plant height and 1000 seed
the untreated plot. However, no significant weight of wheat which is 12cm (14.1%), 9gm (27.3%)
differences (P≤0.05) were observed between soil over the untreated plots respectively.

121 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

Table 3. Average wheat yield as measured on conservation structure.

Treatments Plant height Number of seeds 1000 seed weight Days to 50% Grain yield in
in (cm) per spike in (gm) spiking quintal/hectare
Level soil bund 95 31 39.63 66.6 26.39
Fanya juu bund bund 97 31 42 67.4 27.82
Control 85 22 32.55 70.85 18.43

(Source: Survey result).

It is difficult to formulate a one-to-one, cause and quintal/hectare) and the lowest (14.71
effect relationship between crop yields on the one quintal/hectare) grain yield of wheat was recorded on
hand and soil erosion and erosion induced soil the soil bund treated plot at North Ballesa-two and on
degradation on the other (Teshome et al., 2013). control plot North Ballesa-one respectively.
Under field condition it will be difficult to relate crop
yield to any individual factor which is an integrated On considering the average of all conservation
response of many parameters. According to Sörlin measures on all replications the highest (32.28
and Wormbs (2018), the vast quantity of our soil quintal/hectare) grain yield was obtained at North
washed away every year contains 92,172 and 300 tons Ballesa-two and the lowest (19.68 quintal/hectare) is
of phosphorus, Potassium, Nitrogen, Calcium and recorded at North Ballesa-one (Table 3). In general,
Magnesium as computed from the average analysis of all the average grain yield and agronomic
389 samples of surface soil collected throughout the characteristics displayed the lowest record in the
United State. As shown in Table 3 the highest (40.05 control plot in all seven replications.

Table 5. Correlation between wheat yield and different conservation structures.

Soil/crop characteristic Soil bund Fanya juu bund Control
∗∗
Number of seed/spike -.466 -.925 -.453
∗
1000 seed weight .577 .683 -.280

Plant height .419 -.464 -.348

N.B **Correlation is significant at (P≤0.01). *Correlation is significant at (P≤0.05). (Source: Survey result).

The 1000-seed weight in soil bund and fanya juu recorded on control plot. This implies also low level of
bund was significantly higher (P≤0.05) than the organic matter and nutrients on the location. A
control plot. There is no significant difference statistically significant difference (P≤0.05) was also
between soil bund and fanya juu bund treated plots. observed on the number of seeds per spike between
The mean 1000-seed weight of wheat grown under soil bund, fanya juu bund and the control plot (Table
soil bund and fanya juu bund treated plots were 7 gm 2). The mean difference of number of seeds per spike
(21.2%) and 9 gm (27.3%) higher respectively than on soil bund was (8.76) and on fanya juu bund (8.38)
the control plot. This implies that 1000-seed weight is higher than the control plot (Table 2). There was no
one of the important components of wheat yield. significant difference between soil bund and fanya juu
bund. The average1000 seed weight recorded on soil
Among the seven replications the highest average bund and fanya juu bund was (21.75%) and (29.03%)
1000-seed weight was recorded (42.11gm) at North- greater than the control plot respectively. The mean
Ballesa-three and the smallest (33.46gm) was at Ana- highest number of seeds per spike among replications
Ballesa-five. Statistically significant difference was 35 recorded at North-Ballesa-two and the lowest
(P≤0.05) was also observed on 1000-seed weight 22 at Ana-Ballesa-five. A greater degradation of
(Table 2). The lowest average 1000 seed weight physical and chemical properties on the control plot
observed in Ana-Ballesa-five was due to low value greatly affected the wheat yield and agronomic

122 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

characteristics. This may be due to increased erosion (2015) showed that small reduction in soil organic
and erodibility on the control plot may be because of matter content markedly increased erodibility and
the reduction of organic matter. Plot studies at Hilton erosion. The same findings by the study of (Donjadee
experimental sites, Ball and Munkholm and Tingsanchali, 2016; Lakew et al., 2019).

Table 4. Correlation between wheat yield, and soil chemical properties.

Soil/crop characteristic Soil bund fanya juu bund Control
Total nitrogen -.501 -.662 .403
Organic matter .305 .596 .159
Organic carbon .433 .594 .152
CEC -.568 -.282 -.213

(Source: Survey result)

As shown in Table 4 the average value of days to 50% highest (107cm) and the smallest plant height (81cm)
spiking for soil bund was 66.6 and fanya juu bund was observed at Ana-Ballesa-three and Amibicho-six,
was 67.4 whereas for control plot was 70.85. This respectively. This is due to different physical and
show those days to 50% spiking was delayed on chemical properties of soil in the replications and lack
control plot; because of nutrient deficiency on the of conservation structures on the control plot. As
control plot due to erosion by water. Similar shown in (Table 4) the smallest plant height is
observations stated plants grow slowly when nitrogen observed on control plot (85cm). This may be due to
is deficient; they also appear spindly, stunted and lower content of nutrients on the control plot which is
pale when compared with healthy plants. The pale similar to study by (Sharma et al., 2018) and Adgo et
green color of nitrogen-deficient plants results from a al. (2013) observed a decrease in plant height with
shortage of chlorophyll because chlorophyll is needed loss of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium and soil
for carbohydrate production by photosynthesis (Taye organic matter by erosion which is usually followed
et al., 2013; Dimtsu et al., 2018). A tentative by reduction in soil pH. Soils may be deficient in
identification of a phosphorus deficiency made on the organic matter leading to shortage of nitrogen,
basis of such symptoms as stunting, delayed maturity, phosphorus and potassium. These deficiencies
dark green coloration, and purple spots or streaks retarded plant growth, cause poor color and affect the
were observed. Among the seven replications, the eminence of crop productivity.

Table 7. Correlation between wheat yield and soil physical characteristics.

Soil/crop characteristic soil bund fanya juu bund Control
Bulk density -.482 -.449 -.397
∗
Total porosity .575 -.806 .389
water holding capacity .715* .486 .340
Clay -.728∗ -.748∗ .182
∗
Sand .723 .546 -.327
N.B. *Correlation is significant at (p≤0.05) (Source: Survey result).

Correlation of Wheat Yield and Soil Properties on the one hand and the soil physico-chemical
Correlation analysis was used to describe the strength proprieties and yield on the other. Table 5 and 6 show
and direction of the linear relationship and to show the correlation between wheat yield and some of the
the properties most affected by erosion and the agronomic characteristics and soil physico-chemical
quantity of the detail predominant relationship properties with the soil and water conservation
among the agronomic characteristics of the wheat structures which Pearson’s correlation (r) ranges in
crop and the soil and water conservation structures between -1 to 1. This value indicates the strength of

123 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

the relationship between variables. Study by scholars bund (r=0.683∗) whereas it showed negative and
Nyangena and Köhlin (2009) and Demelash and small correlation with control plot (r=-0.280). wheat
Stahr (2010) had suggested the following guide line of yield correlated negatively on all treated and
interpreting Pearson’s correlation (r). The negative untreated plots with number of seeds per spike and
sign according to the guide line applies only to the showed significant and large correlation on fanya juu
direction of the relationship not the strength. bund treated plot (r=-0.925∗∗) (P≤0.01) whereas
plant height showed positive and medium correlation
As indicated in the Table 5, wheat yield showed on soil bund (r=0.419) and negative correlation on
positive and significant correlation values with fanya juu bund and control plot (r= -0.464) and (r = -
1000seed weight on soil bund (r=0.577), fanya juu 0.348) respectively.

Fig. 2. Experimental layout of plots.

Organic carbon and organic matter showed a medium from 3% to1.9%, 31kg/acre to 20kg/acre and 7.4% to
relationship on soil bund whereas, total nitrogen and 3.6% respectively which in-turn affects productivity of
cation exchange capacity showed large relationship. the land.
On the other hand, total nitrogen, organic carbon,
organic matter and cation exchange capacity showed Among the soil physical properties clay, sand and total
large relationship on fanya juu bund whereas the porosity have a large correlation because they have the
relationship on untreated plot was small and value greater than 0.5 and -0.5. This was due to soil
insignificant. Organic matter loss not only results in erosion which changes the texture of the plough layer by
reduced water holding capacity and soil degradation washing away the organic fine textured and fertile soil
but also the loss of plant nutrients which are used to and exposing the sand particles in the lower horizons.
increase yield. This was confirmed by the study Clay has got a negative and significant correlation with
results of Yaekob et al. (2020) and Adimassu et al. wheat yield (r= -0.728∗ and r= -0.748∗) with soil bund
(2017) which states that, the major problem to the and fanya juu bund whereas it has a positive and
farm associated with soil erosion come from loss of insignificant correlation with control plot (r=0.182)
nutrients and reduced water holding capacity, which is showing a small correlation (Table 7). Sand has
accounting 50 to 70% of productivity loss. Zhao et al. a positive and significant correlation with soil bund
(2019) also showed that the effects of erosion from (r=0.723*) and a positive correlation (r=0.546) with
slight to severe on organic matter soil phosphorus fanya juu bund, negative and insignificant correlation
level, and plant available water reduces their content with control plot.

124 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

A small and insignificant correlation on the control number of seed per spike, days to 50% spiking and
plot was due to erosion problem which has taken the grain yield. The relative average mean of 55% was
finer topsoil from untreated plot and left behind the recorded on the fanya juu bund and 45% increment
coarser soil that reduces the organic matter content was recorded on soil bund.
and plant nutrient casing yield reduction on the
control plot. Total porosity has got a positive and Soil bund and fanya juu bund which are widely used
large correlation with wheat yield on soil bund (Table in the area showed an increment in crop yield. Soil
7). It has negative, significant and large correlation on erosion affects crop production primarily because it
fanya juu bund, whereas, it has got a positive and affects (a) soil nutrients (b) the soil water holding
medium correlation on the control plot. The other capacity (c) bulk density (d) soil tiles (e) infiltration of
texture related soil physical property such as bulk the soil and others. These facts were shown on the
density has got a negative and large correlation on study area on the control plots. The overall results of
soil bund and fanya juu bund. It has also got a this study indicated that soil and water conservation
negative and medium correlation with control plot. structures increased crop yield which may be because
Available water holding capacity showed a positive; of improved soil properties.
large and medium correlation with wheat yield on soil Recommendations
bund and fanya juu bund respectively and a positive
and medium correlation on the control plot. Available
Soil and water conservation measures should have to
water showed significant correlation with soil bund.
be exercised on cultivated land where there is soil
This was due to clay content and structural
erosion problem. Raising yield per hectare and
arrangement of the soil. It varies also with soil
improving the quantity of product will increasingly
treatment because the size and distribution of pores
difficult without a steady use of soil and water
in the top soil reflects surface exposure, normal
conservation technologies by the farmers. Hence the
seasonal wetting and drying and management. Lal
government should encourage the respective offices
(2020) and Rashid et al. (2016) studied the water
to extend soil and water conservation technologies to
content of soil samples found that the available soil
be used by all farmers of the area in order to achieve
water of well-structured soil was one third twice as
the goal intended in agricultural crops.
large as that in poorly structured or degraded soil.
Lakew et al. (2019) and Kumar et al. (2020)
A greater work should have to be done to increase
confirmed that significant differences in porosity and
farmers’ source of information and technical
water holding capacity occurs only when exposed soil
assistance that will help those increases their
material are intensively cultivated and the soil are
awareness and recognizes soil erosion as a problem
structurally degraded.
on their own farm. The "mass media," especially farm
Conclusion magazines, should be used in greater amounts for the
The use of crop management practices like mulching, dissemination of conservation information in the
and leaving crop residues on the field to control soil farmers training center, day of farmers’
erosion was difficult in the study area, because of the demonstration and by written leaflets. The role soil
absence of crop cover when it is most needed, as they and water conservation should be clarified, as
are mainly used for animal feed. Consequently common goals among the stakeholders should be
mechanical conservation measures are of great firmly established, and a team work approach of
importance. Much of the present efforts of public and private organizations at the local level
conservation are based on the building of cut-offs and should be emphasized. Obstacles to soil and water
in construction of soil bunds and fanya juu bund. Soil conservation should be identified at the local level
conservation treated plots in the area showed and dealt with as part of the program implementation
significant difference (P≤0.05) on wheat plant height, process.

125 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

Acknowledgements Bazongo P, Traore K, Traore O, Yelemou B,

We would like to forward our gratitude to Wachemo Sanon KB, Kabore S, Hien V, Nacro BH. 2015.
University for funding and to all who has made of any Influence of Jatropha hedges on the yield of a
enhancement for the success of this study sorghum crop (Sorghum vulgare) in the western
region of Burkina Faso: case of Torokoro

References locality. International Journal of Biological and

Aa NRDD. (Agriculture and Natural Chemical Sciences 9(6), 2595-2607 p.

Resources Development Department). 2017.

Five Years Development Report. Bogale M, Regassa A, Tilahun A. 2020. Inter-
structural Space Effect of Fanya juu and Soil Bund
Soil and Water Conservation Structures on Selected
Adgo E, Teshome A, Mati B. 2013. Impacts of long-
Soil Properties: In the Case of Habru District, North
term soil and water conservation on agricultural
Ethiopia.
productivity: The case of Anjenie watershed,
http://dx.doi.org/10.7176/JEES/10-3-01
Ethiopia. Agricultural Water Management 117, 55-61
p.
Creswell JW. 2009. Editorial: Mapping the field of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.026
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 3(2), 95-108 p.
Adimassu Z, Langan S, Johnston R, Mekuria
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15586898
W, Amede T. 2017. Impacts of soil and water
08330883
conservation practices on crop yield, run-off, soil loss
and nutrient loss in Ethiopia: review and
Creswell JW, Clark VP. 2011. Designing and
synthesis. Environmental management 59(1), 87-
conducting mixed methods research. Retrieved on
101.
July, 25, 2014 p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0776-1

Demelash M, Stahr K. 2010. Assessment of

Amare T, Terefe A, Selassie YG, Yitaferu B, integrated soil and water conservation measures on
Wolfgramm B, Hurni H. 2013. Soil properties and key soil properties in South Gonder, North-Western
crop yields along the terraces and toposequece of Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Soil Science and
Anjeni Watershed, Central Highlands of Environmental Management 1(7), 164-176. p
Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science 5(2), 134 p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v5n2p134 Dimtsu GY, Kifle M, Darcha G. 2018. Effect of
soil and water conservation on rehabilitation of
Assefa T, Jha M, Reyes M, Worqlul AW, Doro degraded lands and crop productivity in Maego
L, Tilahun S. 2020. Conservation agriculture with watershed, North Ethiopia. Journal of Degraded and
drip irrigation: Effects on soil quality and crop yield Mining Lands Management 5(3), 1191 p.
in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Soil and Water http://dx.doi.org/10.15243/jdmlm.2018.053.1191
Conservation 75(2), 209-217 p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2489/jswc.75.2.209 Donjadee S, Tingsanchali T. 2016. Soil and water
conservation on steep slopes by mulching using rice
Ball BC, Munkholm LJ. eds. 2015. Visual Soil straw and vetiver grass clippings. Agriculture and
Evaluation: Realizing potential crop production with Natural Resources 50(1), 75-79 p.
minimum environmental impact. CABI. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anres.2015.03.001

126 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

Dunn BW, Dunn TS, Orchard BA. 2016. Melaku ND, Renschler CS, Flagler J, Bayu W,
Nitrogen rate and timing effects on growth and yield Klik A. 2018. Integrated impact assessment of soil
of drill-sown rice. Crop and pasture Science 67(11), and water conservation structures on runoff and
1149-1157 p. sediment yield through measurements and modeling
https://doi.org/10.1071/CP16331 in the Northern Ethiopian highlands. Catena 169,
140-150 p.
Guadie M, Molla E, Mekonnen M, Cerdà A. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.05.035
2020. Effects of Soil Bund and Stone-Faced Soil Bund
on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield Munkholm LJ, Heck RJ, Deen B. 2013. Long-
under Rain-Fed Conditions of Northwest term rotation and tillage effects on soil structure and
Ethiopia. Land 9(1), 13 p. crop yield. Soil and Tillage Research 127, 85-91 p.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9010013 https://doiorg.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/10.1016/j.still
.2012.02.007
Hailu L. 2019. Effects of Soil and Water
Conservation on Selected Soil Physicochemical Mushir A, Kedru S. 2012. Soil and water

Properties and Its Implication on Soil Productivity in conservation management through indigenous and

Ethiopia. A Review. traditional practices in Ethiopia: A case

https://doi.org/10.7176/JEES study. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies

and Management 5(4), 343-355 p.

Lakew W, Baartman J, Flesken L, Selassie Y, http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v5i4.3

Ritsema C. 2019. Measuring and modelling the

Nyangena W, Köhlin G. 2009. Estimating returns
impacts of soil and water conservation measures on
to soil and water conservation investments-an
soil erosion and sediment yield in North-Western
application to crop yield in Kenya.
Ethiopian highlands. Authorea Preprints.

Rashid M, Alvi S, Kausar R, Akram MI. 2016.

Kumar S, Singh DR, Singh A, Singh NP, Jha
The effectiveness of soil and water conservation
GK. 2020. Does Adoption of Soil and Water
terrace structures for improvement of crops and soil
Conservation Practice Enhance Productivity and
productivity in rainfed terraced system. Pakistan
Reduce Risk Exposure? Empirical Evidence from
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 53(1).
Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT),
https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/16.1502.
India. Sustainability 12(17), 6965 p.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176965
Sharma KL, Reddy KS, Chary GR, Indoria AK,
Srinivas K, Chandrika DS, Lal M, Prabhakar
Lal R. 2020. Soil organic matter content and crop
M, Prathiba G, Thakur P, Vasavi M. 2018. Effect
yield. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 75(2),
of surface residue management under minimum
pp.27A-32A.
tillage on crop yield and soil quality indices after 6
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.75.2.27A
years in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)-
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) system in rainfed
Lampurlanés J, Plaza-Bonilla D, Álvaro- Alfisols. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural
Fuentes J, Cantero-Martínez C. 2016. Long-term Research and Development 33(1), 64-74 p.
analysis of soil water conservation and crop yield
under different tillage systems in Mediterranean Singh G, Singh B, Rathore TS. 2013. Effects of
rainfed conditions. Field Crops Research 189, 59-67 agroforestry land use on microclimate modification
p. and productivity in dry areas. Indian Journal of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.02.010 Agroforestry 15(2), pp.68-78.

127 Horamo and Chernet

 Int. J. Biosci. 2024

Sörlin S, Wormbs N. 2018. Environing Van Jaarsveld E. 2013. Waterwise gardening in

technologies: A theory of making South Africa and Namibia. Penguin Random House
environment. History and Technology 34(2), 101-125 South Africa.
p.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2018.1548066 Wolka K, Moges A, Yimer F. 2013. Farmers’
perception of the effects of soil and water
Subhatu A, Lemann T, Hurni K, Portner B, conservation structures on crop production: The case
Kassawmar T, Zeleke G, Hurni H. 2017. of Bokole watershed, Southern Ethiopia. African
Deposition of eroded soil on terraced croplands in journal of environmental science and
Minchet catchment, Ethiopian technology 7(11), 990-1000.
Highlands. International soil and water conservation https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2013.1529
research 5(3), 212-220 p.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.05.008 Yaekob T, Tamene L, Gebrehiwot SG,
Demissie SS, Adimassu Z, Woldearegay K,
Taye G, Poesen J, Wesemael BV, Vanmaercke Mekonnen K, Amede T, Abera W, Recha JW,
M, Teka D, Deckers J, Goosse T, Maetens W, Solomon D. 2020. Assessing the impacts of
Nyssen J, Hallet V Haregeweyn N. 2013. Effects different land uses and soil and water conservation
of land use, slope gradient, and soil and water interventions on runoff and sediment yield at
conservation structures on runoff and soil loss in different scales in the central highlands of
semi-arid Northern Ethiopia. Physical Ethiopia. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
Geography 34(3), 236-259 p. 1-15 p.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000010
Teshome A, Rolker, D, de Graaff J. 2013.
Financial viability of soil and water conservation Zhao J, Yang Z, Govers G. 2019. Soil and water
technologies in northwestern Ethiopian conservation measures reduce soil and water losses in
highlands. Applied Geography 37, 139-149. China but not down to background levels: Evidence
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.11.007 from erosion plot data. Geoderma 337, 729-741 p.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.023
Tilahun A, Belay F. 2019. Conservation and
production impacts of soil and water conservation
practices under different socio-economic and
biophysical setting: a review. Journal of Degraded
and Mining Lands Management 6(2), 1653 p.
https://doi.org/10.15243/jdmlm.2019.062.1653

128 Horamo and Chernet