4.6 Article

Can degraded soils be improved by ripping through the hardpan and liming? A field experiment in the humid Ethiopian Highlands

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 31, 期 15, 页码 2047-2059

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.3588

关键词

deep ripping; hardpan soil; liming; runoff; soil amelioration; soil loss

资金

  1. Cornell's IGERT in Food Systems and Poverty Reduction
  2. First Presbyterian Church of Ithaca
  3. Richard Bradfield Research Award
  4. SUNY Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land degradation in developing countries is exacerbating hardpan development that causes the formation of perched watertable, which in turn results in increased runoff and erosion. To reduce overland flow and erosion, percolation through the hardpan needs to be improved. One successful way to achieve this is ripping off the hardpan and plausibly liming. However, in the highlands of Ethiopia, there is little information available on these two techniques. The objectives of this study were, therefore, to determine the effects of ripping off degraded soils on runoff and erosion rates and whether liming would improve the effectiveness of ripping. A field study was conducted in the Anjeni watershed. Thirty-two experimental runoff plots were installed across the watershed. Conventional tillage at 15 cm depth and ripping to 30, 45, and 60 cm depths were applied with and without lime amendments. Results showed that ripping to 60 cm depth resulted in a significant reduction of runoff. However, liming increased runoff response, on average by 10%. In contrast to the reduction in runoff amounts, an increase in ripping depth increased the amount of soil loss especially during the first storms at the beginning of the monsoon rainy season. Liming significantly decreased soil loss by up to 35%. Although plots with deep ripping plus liming had greater runoff production than other plots, soil loss was less. Overall, the findings suggest that deep ripping has promise but more research is needed before widely implemented.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据