| Literature DB >> 36033335 |
Eyayu Molla1, Kassie Getnet2, Mulatie Mekonnen1.
Abstract
Evidence on land use/land cover (LULC) change and its effect on soil properties are important for sustainable land management interventions. Hence, this study was conducted to analyze LULC change over a period of 31 years and to evaluate the effects of land use on soil properties in the Ganzer watershed, northwest Ethiopia. Landsat satellite images (1988, 2002 and 2019) were used as a source of information image analysis and LULC classification were done using ERDAS imagine 2010 software. About 24 composite soil samples were collected from four land use types (natural forest, plantation forest, cultivated and grazing lands) at two soil depths (0-20 and 20-40 cm) to determine soil properties. Standard soil analytical methods were used in carrying out soil analysis. The result revealed that the study site has undergone extensive land use changes where cultivated and grazing lands declined by 5.4% and 22.6%, respectively. However, the settlement and forest lands increased by 7.9% and 20%, respectively (1988-2019). The soil physicochemical properties differed significantly (p < 0.05) across the land use types and with soil depth. Higher contents of clay, pH, organic carbon (OC), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), exchangeable bases (Ca, Mg, K, Na) and CEC were recorded in the natural forest than in the other land use types. Similarly, pH, clay, BD and exchangeable bases increased with an increase in soil depth across all land use types. Generally, LULC change in the study area showed a significant increase in settlement and forest lands due to population pressure and expansion of eucalyptus plantation forests. These inappropriate land use changes have a negative effect on soil properties. Therefore, an appropriate and effective intervention in the land use systems should be implemented to amend soil properties.Entities:
Keywords: Ganzer watershed; Land management; Land use type; Landsat; Soil depth
Year: 2022 PMID: 36033335 PMCID: PMC9399169 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Location map of the study area.
Figure 2Mean monthly distribution of rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature (2000–2019) (BDMS, 2019).
Satellite image type, resolution, acquisition date and number of bands.
| Satellite image/Sensor | Path/row | Cloud cover (%) | Resolution (pixel size) | Acquisition Date | No of Bands |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landsat 5 TM | 170/52 | 0 | 30 m × 30 m | 1988-01-25 | 6 |
| Landsat 7 ETM+ | 170/52 | 0 | 30 m × 30 m | 2002-01-23 | 6 |
| Landsat 8 OLI | 170/52 | 0 | 30 m × 30 m | 2019-01-30 | 7 |
LULC changes of Ganzer watershed (1988–2019).
| LULC class | 1988 | 2002 | 2019 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area (ha) | % | Area (ha) | % | Area (ha) | % | |
| Forest land | 86.85 | 9.88 | 174.51 | 19.84 | 262.71 | 29.87 |
| Grazing land | 340.56 | 38.73 | 280.71 | 31.92 | 141.93 | 16.14 |
| Cultivated land | 408.42 | 46.44 | 363.69 | 41.36 | 361.35 | 41.09 |
| Settlement | 43.56 | 4.95 | 60.48 | 6.88 | 113.4 | 12.90 |
| Total | 879.39 | 100.00 | 879.39 | 100.00 | 879.39 | 100.00 |
Figure 3LULC change map of Ganzer watershed in 1988, 2002 and 2019.
Percentage change of LULC change of Ganzer watershed.
| LULC class | LULC change area | in (ha and %)gain (+) | and loss (-) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988–2002 | 2002–2019 | 1988–2019 | ||||
| Area (ha) | % | Area (ha) | % | Area (ha) | % | |
| Forest land | +87.66 | +9.97 | +88.2 | +10.03 | +175.86 | +20.00 |
| Grazing land | −59.85 | −6.81 | −138.78 | −15.78 | −198.63 | −22.59 |
| Cultivated land | −44.73 | −5.09 | −2.34 | −0.27 | −47.07 | −5.35 |
| Settlement | +16.92 | +1.92 | +52.92 | +6.02 | +69.84 | +7.94 |
| Total | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Annual percentage LULC change of Ganzer watershed.
| LU/LC Class | Annual change in the area (ha and %/year) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988–2002 | 2002–2019 | 1988–2019 | ||||
| Area (ha) | % | Area (ha) | % | Area (ha) | % | |
| Forest land | +6.26 | +0.71 | +5.19 | +0.59 | +5.67 | +0.65 |
| Grazing land | −4.28 | −0.49 | −8.16 | −0.93 | −6.41 | −0.73 |
| Cultivated land | −3.20 | −0.36 | −0.14 | −0.02 | −1.52 | −0.17 |
| Settlement | +1.21 | +0.14 | 3.11 | +0.35 | +2.25 | +0.26 |
| Total | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Accuracy assessments of classified images.
| LULC Class | 1988 | 2002 | 2019 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | |
| Forest land | 89.80 | 93.62 | 92.11 | 92.11 | 97.06 | 92.56 |
| Grazing land | 82.35 | 77.78 | 96.77 | 85.71 | 93.33 | 93.68 |
| Cultivated and | 90.00 | 86.54 | 97.14 | 89.47 | 82.73 | 95.24 |
| Settlement | 77.25 | 82.56 | 90.00 | 89.23 | 85.71 | 86.67 |
| Over all accuracy | 88.33 | 89.26 | 90.83 | |||
| Kappa coefficient | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.86 | |||
UA is user accuracy; PA is producer accuracy.
Main effects of land use types and soil depths on soil physical properties.
| Treatments | Particle size (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand | Silt | Clay | Textural Class | BD (g cm−3) | |
| Land use types | |||||
| Natural forest | 32.17a | 29.67 | 38.17a | CL | 1.06c |
| Grazing land | 35.83b | 30.17 | 34.00b | CL | 1.18b |
| Cultivated land | 36.83b | 31.67 | 31.50b | CL | 1.31a |
| Plantation forest | 36.67b | 31.83 | 31.50b | CL | 1.17b |
| LSD (0.05) | 2.68 | 2.74 | 2.89 | 0.11 | |
| P-value | ** | NS | ** | ** | |
| SEM (±) | 1.00 | 0.82 | 1.12 | 0.03 | |
| Soil depths (cm) | |||||
| 0–20 | 36.75a | 31.17 | 32.08a | CL | 1.16 |
| 20–40 | 34.00b | 30.50 | 35.50b | CL | 1.20 |
| LSD (0.05) | 1.89 | 1.94 | 2.04 | 0.074 | |
| P-value | ** | NS | ** | NS | |
| SEM (±) | 0.76 | 0.65 | 1.01 | 0.03 | |
| CV (%) | 6.12 | 7.18 | 6.91 | 7.20 | |
Mean values followed by different letters were significantly different at **p < 0.01 and *p < 0.05; NS = not significant; CL = clay loam; LSD = least significant different; SEM = standard error of mean; CV = coefficient of variation.
The main effects of land use types and soil depths on soil chemical properties.
| Treatments | pH (H2O) | OC (%) | OM (%) | TN (%) | AP (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land use types | |||||
| Natural forest | 6.42a | 1.75a | 3.02a | 0.16a | 9.37a |
| Grazing land | 5.93b | 1.48b | 2.56b | 0.13b | 6.46b |
| Cultivated land | 5.69c | 1.20c | 2.06c | 0.09c | 6.60b |
| Plantation forest | 5.51c | 1.22c | 2.11c | 0.11cb | 5.90b |
| LSD (0.05) | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.36 | 0.025 | 1.87 |
| P-value | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
| SEM(±) | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.01 | 0.54 |
| Soil depth (cm) | |||||
| 0–20 | 5.76a | 1.59a | 2.73a | 0.15a | 7.43 |
| 20–40 | 6.01b | 1.24b | 2.13b | 0.11b | 6.73 |
| LSD (0.05) | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.017 | 1.32 |
| P-value | ** | ** | ** | ** | NS |
| SEM(±) | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.55 |
| CV (%) | 3.29 | 11.99 | 11.99 | 16.07 | 21.31 |
Mean values followed by the different letters were significantly different **P < 0.01 and *P < 0.05; Ns = not significant; LSD = least significant different; SEM = standard error of mean; CV = coefficient of variation.
Main effects of land use types and soil depth on exchangeable bases and CEC.
| Treatment | Exchangeable bases (cmol (+) kg−1) | CEC (cmol (+) kg-1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ca | Mg | Na | K | ||
| Land use types | |||||
| Natural forest | 32.07a | 8.24a | 0.68a | 1.06a | 46.93a |
| Grazing land | 22.67b | 3.56b | 0.46b | 0.58b | 41.80b |
| Cultivation land | 18.56cb | 3.48b | 0.37cb | 0.42cb | 33.17c |
| Plantation forest | 16.37c | 3.17b | 0.33c | 0.35c | 36.68c |
| LSD (0.05) | 3.41 | 1.24 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 3.71 |
| P-value | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
| SEM(±) | 1.44 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 1.11 |
| Soil depth (cm) | |||||
| 0–20 | 21.11a | 4.13a | 0.43 | 0.53a | 40.78 |
| 20–40 | 23.72b | 5.10b | 0.49 | 0.67b | 38.52 |
| LSD (0.05) | 2.41 | 0.88 | 0.093 | 0.14 | 2.62 |
| P-value | * | * | NS | * | NS |
| SEM(±) | 2.08 | 0.71 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 1.75 |
| CV (%) | 12.27 | 21.74 | 23.07 | 26.16 | 7.55 |
Mean values followed by different letters were significantly different **p < 0.01 and *p < 0.05. NS = not significant where SEM = standard error of mean; LSD = least significant different; CV = coefficient of variation.