Study

Soil erosion on Alfisols in western Nigeria. IV. Nutrient element losses in runoff and eroded sediments

  • Published source details Lal R. (1976) Soil erosion on Alfisols in western Nigeria. IV. Nutrient element losses in runoff and eroded sediments. Geoderma, 16, 403-417.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Change tillage practices

Action Link
Soil Fertility

Add mulch to crops

Action Link
Soil Fertility
  1. Change tillage practices

    A replicated experiment in 1970-1974 on sandy-clay to clay soil in Nigeria (Lal, 1976), found lower nutrient loss in maize Zea mays-cowpea Vigna unguiculata under no-till (4.3 kg/ha) compared to conventionally ploughed cowpeas- maize (12 kg/ha), continuous maize (17 kg/ha) and bare fallow (55 kg/ha). Slopes of 1, 5, 10 and 15% received the following treatments: bare fallow (conventionally ploughed); continuous maize (conventionally ploughed, mulched); continuous maize (conventionally ploughed, no mulch); maize-cowpea rotation (zero-tillage); and cowpea-maize rotation (conventionally ploughed). Maize received 120, 26 and 60 kg/ha nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium respectively. Plots were 25 x 4 m and were replicated five times on each slope. Soil and runoff water was collected from each plot after every rainstorm using a water collection system below ground level downslope of the plots.

  2. Add mulch to crops

    A replicated experiment in 1970-1974 on sandy-clay to clay soil in Nigeria (Lal, 1976), found lower nutrient loss in continuous maize Zea mays with mulch (2.3 kg/ha) continuous maize no mulch (17 kg/ha) and bare fallow (55 kg/ha). Slopes of 1, 5, 10 and 15% received the following treatments: bare fallow (conventionally ploughed); continuous maize (conventionally ploughed, mulched); continuous maize (conventionally ploughed, no mulch); maize-cowpea rotation (zero-tillage); and cowpea Vigna unguiculata-maize rotation (conventionally ploughed). Maize received 120, 26 and 60 kg/ha nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium respectively. Plots were 25 x 4 m and were replicated five times on each slope. Soil and runoff water was collected from each plot after every rainstorm using a water collection system below ground level downslope of the plots.

     

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust