i

ECONOMIC STUDY OF FARMLAND EROSION

CONTROL PRACTICES IN ENUGU STATE,
NIGERIA
 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - 1
1.1 Background of the Study - - - - - - - 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem - - - - - - - 5
1.3 Objectives of the Study - - - - - - - 7
1.4 Research Hypotheses - - - - - - - 7
1.5 Significance of the study - - - - - - - 7

CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review - - - - - - - - 9
2.1 Concept of soil erosion - - - - - - - 9
2.2 History of soil erosion - - - - - - - 12
2.3 Mechanism of soil erosion - - - - - - 14
2.4 Economics of soil erosion- - - - - - - 17
2.5 Factors responsible for erosion in Enugu state - - - - 20
2.6 Classification of erosion - - - - - - - 24
2.7 Erosion control - - - - - - - 30
2.8 Problems and effects of erosion - - - - - - 35
2.9 Documentation of erosion site in Enugu State - - - - 40
2.10 Review of existing erosion control practices - - - - 42
2.11 Theoretical framework - - - - - - - 47
2.12 Analytical framework - - - - - - - 54
2.12.1 Multinomial logit model - - - - - - 54
2.12.2 Partial budgeting - - - - - - - 57
2.12.3 Duncan’s multiple-range test - - - - - - 60

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Methodology - - - - - - - - 61
3.1 The Study Area - - - - - - - - 61
3.2 Sampling Procedure - - - - - - - 62
 iii

3.3 Data Collection - - - - - - - - 63

3.4 Data Analysis - - - - - - - - 63
3.5 Test of Hypothesis - - - - - - - 63
3. 6 Model Specification - - - - - - - 64
3.6.1 Multinomial Logit Model - - - - - - 64
3.6.2 Partial Budget Analysis - - - - - - - 66
3.6.3 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test - - - - - - 68
3.6.4 Likert rating scale technique - - - - - - 69
3.6.5 Profitability index - - - - - - - 69

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Results and Discussion - - - - - - - 70
4.1 The erosion control practices applied by farmers in the area - - 70
4.1.2 Combination of erosion control practices applied by farmers -- - 71
4.1.3 Description of Farmland Erosion Control practices applied by Farmers- 72
4.2 Costs and returns for the erosion control practice - - - 74
4.2.1 Multiple Cropping Partial Budget - - - - - 74
4.2.2. Construction of Bonds - - - - - - - 75
4.2.3. Ridging Across the Slope - - - - - - 76
4.2.4 Cover Cropping - - - - - - - - 77
4.2.5 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test - - - - - - 79
4.3 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Farmer’s use of Particular Erosion Control 80
4.4 Possible Causes of Erosion on the Farmland from the Farmers Perspective 84
4.4.2 Causes and extent of cause of erosion as perceived by the farmers - 87

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations - - - - 90
5.1 Summary - - - - - - - - - 90
5.2 Conclusion - - - - - - - - 92
5.3 Recommendations- - - - - - - - 93
REFERENCES - -- - - - - - - 95
APPENDIX - - - - - - - - - 115
 iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1.1 Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of

Farmland Erosion Control Practices. - - - 71

Table 4.1.2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Combination of

Erosion Control Practices. - - - - - 72

Table 4.2.1 Multiple Cropping Partial Budget - - - - 75

Table 4.2.2 Construction of Bonds Net Benefits - - - - 76
Table 4.2.3: Ridging Across the Slope Partial Budget - - - 77
Table 4.2.4 Cover Cropping Partial Budget - - - - - 78
Table 4.2.5.1 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Net-Benefit - - 80
Table 4.3.0 Result of Multinomial Logit Regression Analysis of the
Socioeconomic Characteristics Affecting the Farmers Use of Multiple
Cropping, Construction of Bonds, Ridging Across the Slope, and Cover
Cropping in Enugu State - - - - - - 83

Table 4.4.1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Possible Causes of

Erosion on the Farmland. - - - - - 86

Table 4.4.2.1: Mean and Standard deviation Distribution of the Perception of

Extent of Causes of Farmland Erosion by the Farmers. 89
 v

FIGURES

Fig. 1: Technology Options for Erosion Management on Newly Cleared Land 46

Fig. 2: Soil Erosion Map of South Eastern Nigeria - - - - 111

Fig. 3: Potential Erosion Map of South Eastern Nigeria - - - 112

Fig.4: Soil Type Map of Enugu State - - - - - - 113

 vi

ABSTRACT

An economic analysis of farmland erosion control practices was conducted in Enugu

State, southeastern Nigeria. The study aimed at identifying and describing the erosion
control practices applied by the farmers, determining the net-benefit of erosion control
practices, determining the socio-economic factors affecting the farmers’ use of a
particular erosion control practice and identifying from the farmers perspective the
possible causes and extent of cause of erosion on the farmland as well as making
recommendations based on the findings. An interview schedule and structured
questionnaire were used to elicit primary data from 168 farmers, randomly selected from
the three agricultural zones of the state. Analysis of the data were done using multinomial
logit model, partial budget analysis Duncan’s Multiple range test and descriptive
statistics. Four erosion control practices were used by the farmers: Multiple cropping, as
indicated by 41% of the respondents, Construction of Bonds, 20%, Ridging across the
slope, 18% and Cover cropping, as indicated by 21% of the respondents. The Partial
budget analysis showed the net-benefits of each of these erosion control practice as N393,
953.88k for Multiple cropping, N26, 115.30k for Construction of Bonds, N33, 741.66k
for Ridging Across the slope and N891.10k for Cover cropping. 7.36 (Multiple cropping),
1.59 (Construction of bonds), 1.14 (Ridging across the slope) and 1.10 (Cover cropping)
were shown as the profitability index for the erosion control practices. Duncan’s
comparison test showed that there was statistically significant difference in the means of
net-benefits of erosion control practices at 5%. The Multinomial logit Regression analysis
indicated a seemingly low explanatory powers of the factor as reflected by Pseudo- R 2 of
0.2449, but this is not uncommon in cross sectional analysis. The overall goodness of fit
as reflected by prob>Chi2 was however good (<0.0000). The age of the farmers
negatively and significantly affected the farmer's probability of using Cover cropping at
1% level of probability, all in comparism with Construction of bonds. Household size
positively and significantly affected the farmers probability of using Multiple cropping
and making ridges across the slope at 1% probability level. The Likert rating scale
technique showed six very serious causes of erosion on the farmlands. These were
Rainwater (mean = 2.42), Deforestation (mean = 2.26), Soil type (mean =2.49), Slope of
the farm (mean =2.37), Poor road construction (mean =2.35), Indiscrimate house
construction (mean =2.16). It also indicates two serious causes of erosion which include;
Population density (mean =1.99) and Poor farming system (mean =2.01). Others such as
Quarrying of sand (mean =1.64), Crops that attracts human traffic (mean =1.42), gods
(mean =1.16), Overgrazing (mean =1.74), and Cattle hooves were shown as not serious
causes of erosion by the Likert rating.
It is therefore recommended that government should encourage farmers with incentives
to cope with the challenges of erosion for a sustainable Agriculture and Environment.
 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

A dramatic acceleration in population growth has taken place in sub-Saharan

Africa since the 1960s (World Bank, 2006). The increasing demand to feed this growing

population has lead to resource use intensification (Junge, Birte, Abaidoo. Chikoye ,D.

Alabi ,T. and Stahrand Karl,(2006). and Non- adaptable land use practices which lead to

soil degradation (Hudson, 1995). In sub-Saharan Africa, soil degradation has already

become the most critical environmental problem (Mbagwu,Lal, and Scott,(1984) Eswaran

,,Lal and Reich,( 2001). Soil erosion is one manifestation of soil degrading processes that

results in reduced soil quality and productivity (Akamigbo, 2001, Morgan, 1995, Lal,

2001). There is an urgent need to combat the accelerating trend of soil degradation, to

maintain soil productivity and to contribute to the food security of current and future

generations (UNEP, 1997).

Ecological disasters rank high among factors which encourage inefficient

utilization of resources in Nigeria and limit the country’s development potential. They

occur in various forms but typically include droughts, soil and wind erosion, flooding, oil

pollution and bush fires. Soil erosion is one of the most important physical problems

affecting our development in this part of the world today. Apart from the fact that it

constitutes a menace to the environment and its destruction of our infrastructures-high

ways, big structures etc, it creates a major problem in our agricultural soils, thereby

interfering seriously with the mass food production campaign. We cannot afford to over-

look these problems created on our soils by soil erosion because there is no real evidence

that we may some day detach our lives from the soils. It is the soils that sustain us
 2

because soils are the foundation of our worldly goods-a basic wealth upon which our

existence as inhabitants of the earth depends (Akamigbo 1987).

The web definition of erosion says it is the wearing away of the earth’s surface by

running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, processes, including weathering,

dissolution. Akamigbo (1988) defined erosion as a systematic removal of soil, including

plant nutrients, from the land surface by the various agents of denudation. According

Ofomata (1988), soil erosion can be regarded as merely a geomorphologic process,

whereby the surface layer of weathering rock is loosened and carried away by wind or

running water and a lower horizon in the soil is exposed.

Soil erosion occurs in several parts of Nigeria under different geological, climatic,

and soil conditions. The degree of occurrence varies considerably from one part of the

country to the other. Soil erosion occurs all over southeastern Nigeria. The incidence of

soil erosion in southeastern Nigeria especially Enugu state is not new, as it has formed a

subject for serious consideration since the beginning of this century. For instance, the Udi

forest Reserve was created in 1922, followed by an Anti-Erosion plantation, also at Udi,

in 1928 (Sykes, 1940), all aimed at combating the nefarious effects of soil erosion as

highlighted by the general review of the state of soil erosion in Nigeria by late Sir.

Dudley stamp in 1938. Stamp’s review was followed by the special study of the

phenomenon by Grove (1951) in part of former Eastern Nigeria as well as by Ofomata in

some greater detail in parts of southeastern Nigeria (Ofomata, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967,

1973, 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1982, 1984, 1985a, 1985b and Stone, 1996). Soil

erosion is a major limitation to sustainable production in most farmland of Africa (Lal,

1995) in general and southeastern Nigeria (Enugu State) in particular. It ranks as one of
 3

the most serious problems on agricultural lands, threatening large populations with

starvation (Oti 2002). Studies have shown that soil erosions is by far the most severe

hazard affecting the lands of Nigeria, ravaging all of its bio-climatic regions as rill, sheet,

and gully erosion (Ofomata 1964,1980,1982,1984a, and b, Ologe, 1971: Oganuga 1978, ,

Anon, 1988). Soil erosion causes the loss of a tremendous amount of valuable soil, (Kio

and Okorie (1986). It has been estimated that about 30 million tones of soil are lost

annually throughout the country with the eastern states losing over 15million tones,

(Onyeagocha, 1980, Okorie and Adeola, 1985). The depletion of agricultural land

resources occurs through different forms of land degradation namely, leaching of

nutrient, erosion by water which has led to devastating gullies in some parts of the

country especially southeast, drought and wind erosion resulting in desert encroachment

in the northern parts of the country and wastage of land by flood and coastal erosion,

(Akamigbo, 2006). As soil becomes depleted by water erosion, people attempt to move to

other more productive land. Eventually, when there is no more land available they are

forced to adapt themselves to smaller amounts of food which require harder work to

grow. This condition lead to malnutrition and hopelessness. (FAO 1965). Erosion, as an

environmental hazard has numerous adverse economic effects on the lives and livelihood

of people. Generally it results in a degradation of the environment, and reduction in land

area available for habitation, agriculture, industry, recreation, road construction, as well

as loss of soil fertility. Furthermore, erosion also leads to pollution and blocking of

waterways, loss and destruction of social centers, and social amenities. (Ezebube, 1989

and Akamigbo, 1999). Soil erosion also leads to pollution and blocking of waterways,

loss and destruction of social complex process that depends on soil properties, ground

slope, vegetation, and rainfall amount and intensity (David, 2007).

 4

The major environmental cause of soil erosion in southern Nigeria is rainfall with the

mean annual rainfall reaching about 3000mm in some parts and with rainstorms often of

long duration and intensities which may be up to 200mm-1, it would be expected that the

erosivity factor plays a dominant role in the soil loss problem (Obi and Asiegbu, 1980).

Controlling erosion on productive land must usually be done while growing crop.

Therefore many control measures are closely related to ordinary methods of agriculture.

The common ones are land use, cropping systems, cover crops, fertilizers and

manures, ridging across the slope, construction of bonds, grassing of water ways, hedge-

row planting / vetiver grass and tillage practices (FAO, 1965., Akamigbo, 1988, 1998.,

Ofomata, 1988., Chude, 2005., Lal 1995., ENADEP, 2007). Management of soil for

water and wind erosion control is based on sensible soil conservation practices. The

majority of these practices are recognized components of good soil, crop, and water

management for effective erosion control. It is important to maintain good soil structure,

protect the soil surface by adequate crop and residue cover, and use special structural

erosion control practices where necessary. These factors often control both water and

wind erosion. Not all erosion control practices will fit into every farm management

scheme. However, each erosion problem can be remedied by choosing one or more of the

remedial practices appropriate to the problem. (Stone, 1996). Of all types of erosion the

most pernicious and serious on the farmland in the southeast is the sheet erosion. It

causes the gradual but significant losses of soil particles and mineral nutrients which are

carried away in surface run-off during rainfall or blown away as loose particles by strong

winds in drier areas. The activities of man and other land animals, which destroy

vegetation cover, predispose the soil to accelerated sheet erosion. For instant, the hooves
 5

of cattle in any fragile soil environment pulverize the soil as they move and render the

soil susceptible to both wind and water erosion, (Akamigbo, 2006).

1.2 Problem Statement

Farm land erosion poses a very serious set back to farmers in Enugu state and the

extent of the spread and damage have reached an alarming proportion that if efforts are

not intensified to remedy the ugly situation, it could cause untold hardship and put the

communities in a state of jeopardy. It has been estimated that available arable lands in

the states of the southeastern Nigeria have been reduced by 50% as a result of erosion

(Braide, 1982). Erosion leads to the pollution and destruction of the environment. Rural

water supply from streams is also constantly being polluted by heavy sediment load,

thereby adding health hazard to the problem of damage to infrastructure (Akamigbo,

1999). Some of the most ravaging erosion related environmental hazards are found in

many parts of the southeast, especially Anambra, Enugu and Imo states (Ofomata, 1985,

Akamigbo, 1988 and Ogbukagu, 1986). Many farmlands from which majority of the

households earn their livelihood are especially affected; a situation which has led to thigh

population pressure on the available land (Onuora, 1985, Ezebube, 1989, and Akamigbo

1999). This condition according to them have inflicted great losses in the production

potentials, crop land, crop quality, biodiversity, genetic resources as well as excessive

field fragmentations.

The economic cost of erosion is very difficult to quantify, but it is definitely very

large, Huge sums of money are spent each year repairing damage caused by erosion or

reinforcing existing structures and land against erosion, (Akamigbo, 1999).

Money that should be used by rural farmers in Enugu state for solving their family

problems is spent on erosion control.

 6

Erosion control is usually expensive and many efforts have been made by

successive governments to control erosion in southeastern Nigeria but not much success

have been achieved. This could be attributed to lack of proper understanding of the

techniques involved in handling erosion control. Agro-engineering findings indicate that

farmers in the rural southeastern Nigeria apply many techniques to conserve soil, control

erosion and prevent soil degradation. (Onuoha, 1985 and Ofomata 1982). Young (1989)

states that the costs or labour requirements of physical erosion control works necessary to

control run-off by such means as bunds and terraces were commonly found to be

expensive. “Conservation farming” or “integrated land use”, the emerging farming

systems approach to environmental conservation, has been practiced by Nigerian farmers

for a long time (Okoye, 2001).

Young (1989) advocated the use of simple methods of erosion control such as

mulching, bunding, and cover cropping, which are within the capacity of the farmers to

establish and maintain, and endorses external support for sound traditional farming

practices. Despite the awareness of these traditional techniques and management actions

of the local farmers to control erosion and protect the environment, they have remained

largely under studied, unexplored and neglected especially with regards to the economic

evaluation of these indigenous techniques. (Reiji 1990, Eboh 1991).

Although, Utazi (2002) carried out an economic study of farmland erosion control

practices in Imo state where he identified the different erosion control practices used by

farmers in the area and determined the cost benefits of erosion control practices, he failed

to describe from the farmers perspective the possible causes of erosion on the farmland as

well as determining the socioeconomic factors affecting the farmers use of a particular

erosion control practice. Another missing value is the difference in location of the study.
 7

This study therefore aims at addressing these missing links in Enugu state.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of this study was to conduct an economic analysis of

farmland erosion control practices in Enugu State. The specific objectives are to;

i. identify and describe the erosion control practices (or combination of practices)

applied by farmers in the area.

ii. determine the net benefit of erosion control practices.

iii. determine the socioeconomic factors affecting the farmer’s use of a particular

erosion control practice.

iv. identify from the farmer’s perspective the possible causes of erosion and extent of

cause on the farmland.

1.4 Hypotheses

In line with the specific objective this research was guided by the following null

hypotheses;

1. There is no relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers

and the type of erosion control practices used.

2. There is no significant difference between economic benefit of different erosion

control practices by the farmers.

1.5 Justification of the Study

The study will provide information to farmers on the net benefits of farmland

erosion control practices for increased crop productivity and food security. Measures

aimed at controlling farmland erosion will to a large extent save soil fertility, economic

trees and crops and farmland from being devastated. The knowledge of the economics of
 8

erosion control measures will guide the policy makers in quantifying the control practices

for future planning.

On the other hand, information on the economic analysis of farm land erosion

control practice will equip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),in formulating

appropriate environmental related policies in order to ensure environmental

sustainability. Achieving certain standards of erosion control, will provide information

about the value given to land in the market to erosion control, what will help investment

decision.

Finally, other researchers that are interested in searching for solutions of the

devastating effect of erosion will be assisted with the information that will be provided in

the study. It will invariably provide information on how best to increase the farm land

value in other to consequently increase its productivity and alleviate poverty.

 9

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature was reviewed under the following captions:

2.1 Concept of soil erosion

2.2 History of soil erosion

2.3 Mechanism of soil erosion

2.4 Economics of soil erosion control.

2.5 Factors responsible for erosion in Enugu state.

2.6 Classification of erosion

2.7 Erosion control

2.8 Problem and effects of erosion

2.9 Documentation of erosion site in Enugu state.

2.10 Review of existing erosion control practices

2.11 Theoretical framework

2.12 Analytical framework.

2.1 Concept of Soil Erosion

Several definitions has been given to erosion as a concept from different

perspective.

Definitions of erosion from the web: The wearing away of land or soil by the action of
wind, water or ice.
 10

The wearing away of land surface by water, intensified by land-clearing practices related

to farming, residential or industrial development, road building or logging. The gradual

diminishing of land or soil as a result of the action of water wind rain etc.

‘ Erosion’ comes from erodere, a Latin verb meaning “ to gnaw’ Erosion gnaws

away at the earth like a dog at a bone. This has given rise to pessimistic view of some

writers who see erosion as a leprosy gnawing away the earth until only a whitened

skeleton is left (Roose1996). Holy (1982), opined that erosion is manifested by the

deterioration of soil surface affected by exogenous forces. According to Mumel (1992),

erosion is the removal of surface material from the earth crust, primarily soil and rock

debris and the transportation of the eroded materials by natural agencies from the point of

removal. Goudre (1990), saw erosion as the most destructive process that acts to reduce

productive farmland. Wood (1995), defined erosion as the wearing away of the soil

surface by running water, wind, ice or other geological agents, including such processes

as gravitational creep, detachement and movement of soil and rock fragments by water,

wind, ice or gravity. Dike (1995) stated that erosion is a natural phenomenon which is the

wearing away of the earth’s surface by water, ice or other natural agents under natural

environmental conditions. Lal (1990) defined erosion as the washing and blowing away

of the top soil by running water and wind respectively. Middleton (1990) defined erosion

as detachment and transportation of soil particles by water and wind.

Erosion is a natural process which indeed wears down all mauntains ( also

referred to by the English school as the denudation rate, which is the lowering rate of the

soil level), however, at the same time erosion enriches valleys and forms the rich plains

that feed a large part of humanity, (Roose, 1996). It is therefore not necessarily desirable
 11

to stop all erosion, but rather to reduce it to an acceptable or tolerable level.Ofomata

(1988) categorized the factors of soil erosion in south-eastern Nigeria into two

components: Physical (geological or natural) and Anthropogenic (human or accelerated).

Close study has, however, revealed that the human component in soil erosion is often

exaggerated while the effects of the physical component are usually underestimated

(Ofomata, 1965 and 1978)

Roose(1996), stated that Normal or geological erosion (morphogenesis) is

generally defined as the process that slowly shapes hillsides, allowing the formation of

soil cover from the weathering of rocks and from alluvial and colluvial deposits

(pedogenesis). Roose (lbid) on the other hand, opined that erosion accelerated by human

activities, following careless exploitation of the environment, is 100 to 1000 times faster

than normal erosion.

Oradiegwu (1980) grouped soil erosion into two classes, gully and sheet erosion.

His classification was based on the depth to breadth ratio to the surface affected. When

the depth of the erosion is negligible in relation to its breadth, the erosion is referred to as

sheet erosion. On the other hand, when the depth of the erosion is significant in relation

to its breadth, it is called gully erosion. Whenever there is surface run –off, there must be

sheet as well as linear erosion. According to Forth (1984), the soil carried away by

erosion frequently ceases to be of value in crop production. Furthermore the remaining

soil denude of the surface or pillow layer is much decreased in productivity, in comparing

the nutrient losses through erosion and its uptake by plants, the loss of nutrients by

erosion even on a 4% slope, may easily exceed the removal of nutrients by crops
 12

occupying the land. Arakeri, (1959) also stated that the fertility losses by erosion have

been estimated to be 20 times greater than losses through the crop removal or leaching.

Ofomata (1981) evaluated the impact of erosion upon local environmental

knowledge and indigenous systems of management and organization. His general

consensus is that indigenous soil and water conservation practices forms an indispensable

starting point for the development of counter erosion projects.

The case of studying traditional erosion prevention and control practices in

southeastern Nigeria, is self evident. The failure of “top down” projects have led to

increased call for “bottom top” projects that would be farmer based, cost effective and

locally sustainable (FDALR, 1990).

2.2 History of Soil Erosion.

Erosion is an old problem. From the time land emerges from the seas, it is lashed

by the forces of wind, waves and rain, (Roose, 1996). Erosion is as old as agriculture,

(Amechi ,1997 and Edward, 1993). The Nigerian civil war 1967-1970 did not only take

its toll of human lives but left many plantations, forest reserves and farmlands devastated

and unprotected. Massive refugee camps usually constructed under thick forest covers

turned into gulling areas even when the inmates were still in settlement. The operations

of the ‘land army’ by farming on every available land space created an additional

favourable environment for serious sheet and rill erosion, both of which were precursors

to many of the present gullies in Anambra and Enugu state, (Akamigbo, 1988).The

decisive epoch of the development of soil erosion according to Holy (1980) began when

man settled down and began turning pasture land into farms. The intensive exploitation of
 13

the land disturbed the natural soil vegetation cover and exposed the surface to the effect

of erosion agents and introduced such forms of agriculture that did destroy the land.

The present land mass known as Anambra and Enugu state had been bedevilled

by the menace of gully and sheet erosion long before the arrival of the British colonial

Government. Gullies by their nature are more perceptible and spectacular. Those at udi,

Nanka, Adazi, Alor, Oraukwu and Agulu are older than 150 years, predating any living

human being in the areas concerned. The efforts of the colonial government in stabilizing

some of these degraded areas at Enugu and Udi (the capital territory of former Eastern

Nigeria) dated back to the 1920s. (Akamigbo, 1988).In 1928, erosion control work was

started in Udi by treating the badly eroded areas with simple mechanical devices

combined with planting of seeds of Actio barteri, Anacardium occidentale,

Erythrophleum svaveolens and Pentaclethra macrophylla, (Okafor,1986).

As early as 1944, the geographic harmony had clearly realized why “Africa is a

dying land”. It was dying as a result of the destabilizing methods of colonial systems

which intensified soil use, hastened removal of assimilable nutrients and mineralization

of organic matter, and pushed the indigenous people on the poorest and most fragile land,

reducing the length of fallow periods (Roose, 1996).

During the Biafran war, the cohesionless soil mass of southeast was subjected to

motar bombardments in addition to series of deep trenches which were not refilled. It was

not surprising then that the first environmental problem experienced by the people of

Anambra. Enugu, Imo and Akwaibom states immediately after the civil war was the

upsurge of serious sheet and gully erosions. (Akamigbo,1988).

 14

The deceptive sheet erosion was more devastative and crop yield was rapidly

decreasing. The cries for help spread quickly from one village to the other. The then

federal military Government in 1974, intervened by signing a contract with an Italian

firm of consultants, technical S. P. A. Rome and Nigeria techno Ltd Lagos to undertake a

per-feasibility study of the parts of the then East central state in order to determining the

cause and seriousness of soil erosion in the state.(Akamigbo, 1988).

Soil erosion menace in Enugu state has therefore continued unabated to take its

wants toll of indispensable soil and water resources, civil infrastructures, property and

life and has placed agriculture and the entire environment in a very serious jeopardy. The

situation continues to assume more catastrophic dimensions as the rains come and go

every year.

2.3 Mechanism of Soil Erosion.

Soil erosion requires energy, and the energy of an intense rainstorm is

tremendous. The energy from raindrops packs the bare soil surface and disperses soil

aggregates. The dispersion products (Mostly clay) are washed into surface voids and

along with the packing done by the raindrops form a film at the soil surface. The

permeability of this film is very low, and most of the water begins to run off in sheets

after it is formed. These sheets of water have virtually no carrying capacity for soil

because they are so thin. However, when the energy of raindrops is added to these sheets

in the form of turbulence, the carrying capacity is increased manifold. The dispersed

material released from the aggregates is carried off resulting in so-called sheet erosion,

which is responsible for most of the erosion from crop land soils, (FAO, 1965).
 15

Holy (1980), stated that erosion is manifested by the deterioration of soil surface

affected by exogenous forces, especially water, ice, wind and man as the significant

anthropogenic factor. He went further to state that the disturbance of the soil surface is

accompanied by the removal of detached soil particle by the forces of kinetic energy of

the erosion agent namely water and wind and the depositions of these materials with a

decrease in the energy.Erosion is basically an interactive process. The interactors are the

failing raindrop or flowing water on the land, and the soil on the other. The energy of the

raindrop or flowing water has the ability to detach and transport the soil particles. This

ability is referred to as Erosivity of the water. On the other side of the interaction is the

soil, whose particles may or may not yield to a given level of erosivity. The measure of

the ease or difficulty of detachment (and transport) of soil particles under erosive

influence is referred to as Erodability. Therefore for erosion to occur, the water must be

erosive and the soil must erodable, (Akamigbo 1998).Lal (1986) described soil erosion by

water as a work process involving two phases; detachment of soil particles and their

transport. He stated that soil detachment involves the removal of transportable fragments

of materials from a soil mass by raindrop impact or shearing forces of overland flow. On

the other hand, transport or entrainment of detached primary or secondary particles occur

through splash and overland flow.

The process of sheet erosion consists of two essential component; rain splash

erosion and surface wash. Rain splash erosion is due to the impact of raindrops on the

ground surface. As a rain drop hits the soil, it tears loose particles of soil and kicks them

into the air. Most of the soil particles land away from the point of impact with more of

them landing on its down slope than on its upslope side. Thus, the net result is the
 16

downward slope translocation of soil particles. The process is also important in aiding

surface wash by loosening the soil and making the particle available for transportation.

Surface wash is the process whereby water running down the slope as a turbulent sheet

removes particles of soil and carries them away. This surface runoff occurs during and

immediately after rain storms in which the rainfall intensity exceeds the soils infiltration

capacity (Ologe, 1986).Raindrop on striking the soil surface, expends its kinetic energy in

detaching soil particles. According to Wischmeier (1959), the erosion generating power

of the raindrop is the product function of the raindrop energy and the maximum 30-

minute rainfall intensity.

Running water is the main agent of erosion in the Enugu state and the process of

erosion depends on the manner in which runoff is organised over space. The mechanics

of erosion in the area also vary with the types/process. Sheet erosion occurs where runoff

is unconcentrated but rather flows as a thin sheet over the entire surface or over a good

proportion of that surface. Gully erosion occurs where runoff is concentrated along

definite channels. The gullies lengthened by headward erosion, also known as head-scarg

retreat and widens through basal sapping leading to the collapse of materials on gully

walls in the form of sliding and or slumping, (Ofomata, 1986).

Rain tends to run off surface of the soil in deforested or over-grazed areas,

thereby removing the top soil. Deforestation and over-grazing remove the original

vegetation which breaks the fall of rain and also supplies the topsoil with the humus

which allows rapid absorption of water. Rain which falls on unprotected soil tends to clog

the normal openings of the soil with bits of silt, so that the run off is increased. Run off is

the part of rainwater which does not sink into the soil, but flows away over the surface to
 17

steam or rivers or oceans, (Akinsanmi, 1975). The wind exercises a pressure on solid

particles in repose. This pressure is exerted above the centre of gravity on the surface

exposed to wind and is opposed by a friction centred on the base of the particles. The two

forces combined tend to lock particles (0.5 to 2mm) and make them roll, (Roose, 1996).

Moreover, the difference in speed between the top and bottom of particles means

that they are drawn upwards. The lighter particles rise vertically until the gradient of

velocity is too low to bear them, at which point, they fall back pushed by the wind,

following a sub-horizontal curve. As they fall, these grains of sand transmit their energy

to other grains of sand (as in a game of bowls) or degrade loamy clay aggregates,

releasing dust (Heusch 1988).

2.4 Economics of Erosion Control

It has become very clear in recent times that soil conservation schemes has

continued to reduce the amount of soil carried away by erosion and can answer the needs

of farmers in tropical region. Indeed, experts have been saying for a long time that soil

has to be conserved so as to maintain the productivity of land; thus the title of the fifth

ISCO conference (Bangkok, 1988) was “land conservation for future Generation”.

Farmers (not always of their own volition) have undertaken to devote considerable efforts

to schemes to control erosion on their land, but have been disappointed to see that their

land still deteriorated and crop yields still fell. The erosion control structures imposed

(drainage ditches, diversion channels, bunds) have often reduced the arable land area (by

3% to 2%) without any equivalent improvement in the productivity of “protected” plots.

If farmers are to be motivated, it is not enough to keep the soil in place, water must be
 18

managed and soil fertility restored in order to see a significant increases in yields from

these tropical soils, the majority of which are already very poor (especially tropical

ferralitic and ferruginous soils that are sandy on the surface) (Roose, 1996).

Soil erosion is a major environmental threat to the sustainability and productive

capacity of agriculture. During the last 40years nearly one third of the world’s arable land

has been lost by erosion and continues to be lost at a rate of more than 10 million hectares

per year. With the addition of a quarter of a million people each day, the world

population’s food demand is increasing at a time when per capita food productivity is

beginning to decline (David et al 2007).The brain behind conserving the soil is for

environmental sustainability and the survival of mankind. The implacable nature of soil

does not permit us to have a purely economic view point of soil conservation. Every

piece of land has a certain market value that is related to its present and potential

productivity. But actually, the intrinsic value of land is much greater than money, it lies

on its ability to feed and clothe man for countless centuries. This can not be expressed in

monetary terms (kohnke and Bertrand, 1959). The most important characteristic of land

resource is the relationship between the amount of soil lost and the land productivity

(Mbagwu, 1986).Gully erosions processes cause damage to many branches of the

economy of a nation and much of these damages especially the social consequences is

difficult to express in numerical values (Holy, 1980). One of the major contemporary

challenges facing environmental scientists and policy makers is the growing enormity of

resource degradation and related soil erosion problems in part of sub-Saharan Africa.

These challenges becomes more glaring considering that the region loses about six tons

of soil to erosion each year (steri-Younis, 1986).

 19

In Nigeria, some of the most devastating erosion related environment hazards are

found in many parts of the southeast especially Anambra, Enugu and Imo States

(Ofomata 1981 and Ogbukagu, 1986). Over half of the total land area is believed to suffer

different forms of erosion ranging from mild sheet wash, severe sheet wash to gulling

processes. Sheet erosion of the humose topsoil causes fertility decrease because the

topsoil contains most of the nutrients needed by the plants to grow. The cost of

replenishing these nutrients is quite high and when they are not replenished, poor crop

yields results (Akamigbo, 1999). According to Risser (1985), erosion is a massive

hidden” cost on the economy of any community and as erosion increases, so do food

costs. Farmers must then apply more chemicals to the land in order to compensate for the

fertility loss caused by erosion and must spend more money for tillage activities because

eroded soils are more compacted and difficult to till.

Conservation of soil and water has many benefits as enumerated by Winpenny

(1991) Viz,

 Avoided losses in crop yields from soil erosion, loss of soil depth and fertility, or

loss of land through gully erosion; alternative savings in fertilizer to maintain

yields on eroded soils.

 Value of wood production from tree planting (timber, poles, fuelwood, forage,

fruit etc);

 Value of enhanced livestock productions from restored or improved pasture,

better use of crop residues, or from fodder, trees (meat, milk, wool, dung)
 20

 Increased crop yields from ecological benefits of a managed mixed regime

(increased soil organic matter, more soil moisture retention, shading etc).

Farmland erosion control in Enugu state is crucial in order to avoid the

devastating consequences of soil and water degradation.

2.5 Factors Responsible for Erosion in Enugu State.

According to Onyeagocha (1980), the agent of soil erosion in Anambra and Enugu

state is water and Ude,N.C.,Uzuakpunwa,A.B.and Ezeike,G.O.I. (1980) agreed that

rainwater in any form is the most active agent causing erosion in the area but the causes

of .erosion in the old Anambra state were summarized by the form of consultants (Niger

Techno Ltd. And Technical International General Engineering, 1974) as concentrated run

off water within lithological units consisting of sands and sand-stone bed rocks covered

by a thick porous weathered layer, the disappearance of rain forest vegetations and civil

anthropogenic activities. Besides, these causative factors, other factors that play

significant role in soil erosion in Enugu and Anambra include topography (relif \slope),

climate and surface material (Ofomata 1985). Others are population density and

some .sociological life patterns such as land tenure system and local belief system of the

people.

Anthropogenic activities which either initiate or aggravate soil erosion in the

study area include poor road construction, indiscriminate house construction across

natural drainage routes, quarrying of sand and gravels, bush burning, indiscriminate tree

felling and poor farming techniques. Urbanisation, industrialization, unplanned location

of borrow sites and poor sanitary disposal measures also render the soil prone to soil
 21

erosion (Akamigbo, 1988). Human erosion action is made manifest on the earth’s surface

through his agricultural activities, especially through the clearing of the original

vegetation or the periodic forest regrowth. These activities in southeastern Nigeria

particularly in Enugu state have largely succeeded in replacing the former rain forest by

grassland (.derived) savannas. When man destroy the vegetation, it affects the soil very

adversely because, first, it interrupts the building up of organic matter, and secondly it

accelerates the decomposition of the humus inherited from the former vegetal cover.

This humus affects both the permeability of the soil and the rate at which water infiltrates

through it. Indeed it is thought that the humus content of soils explains in part the

generalized nature of the runoff in an area. (Ofomata, 1988)

Erosion is as old as agriculture. It is a process which is continually transforming

the earth’s surface and it is initiated by natural forces and intensified by human activity

which has been significant in the recent period as man began to step up the exploitation

of natural resources (Amechi, 1997 and Edward, 1993). Whitlow,(1987) and

Aneke,Obuji,and Nwafor,(1982), opined that erosion is due to. growing pressure on the

land from human and livestock populations while Gowon (1981) stated that erosion in

Nigeria is .caused by careless use of land for agriculture and other purposes.The common

farming practices that lead to soil erosion are; the ploughing of land up and down the

slope, clearing a piece of land by burring, continuous farming and cropping,

deforestation of forest especially on the higher slopes and the overgrazing of grasslands

especially by goats and sheep (Middleton, (1990) and Lal (1990). As long as vegetation

remains, there can be little if any erosion, because the roots of the plants bind the soil

particles together and the vegetation itself protects the soil from the action of wind and
 22

rain (Pitman, 1987).Lal (1990) noted that rainfall leads to leaching and runoff which is

the central agent in soil erosion system. When runoff is concentrated, it gives rise to gully

erosion and when it is unconcentrated it gives rise to sheet erosion.

According to Nigeria Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER, 1988),

the choice crop that are labour intensive or attract human traffic may cause severe soil

erosion. For instance cashew tree (Anacardium occidentale) was introduced in some

gullied areas in the southeastern Nigeria including the Agulu-Nanka gully axis, for the

purpose of reafforestation and stabilization of the gullies. Cashew suppresses .many

undergrowths and encourages overland flow and erosion. Manual harvesting of cashew

fruits and its transport action causes soil compaction and encourages gully erosion

(Okafor, 1986).

Going by Gobin,Campling,Deekers,Poesen,and Feyen,(1999), biophysical and

participatory research methods were combined to examine factors contributing to soil

erosion at field plot, village and regional scale on the sandstone dominated Udi-Nsukka

cuesta in southeastern Nigeria. At field plot scale, the properties of seven pedons were

related to soil erodibility. Very high infiltration rates measured with a double ring

infiltrometer and permeameter, were not in accordance to reported runoff and soil loss.

The effect of groundcover and canopy height was incorporated into rainfall erosivity for

plots under cashew, oil palm dominated forest and secondary natural vegetation.

Cropping systems and field management practices were compared for different positions

along a toposequence transversing the plateau and escarpment of the Udi-Nsukka cuesta.

Soil loss, calculated by a modified version of the universal soil loss equation, was 10 to

100 times higher on escarpment than on plateau plots. According to Gobin

 23

Campling,Deekers,Poesen,and Feyen (1999), Ravine and gully formations seemed

influenced by a combination of infrastructure, geohydrology, topography, vegetation and

land use.

The relationship between climate and soil erosion is fairly well known and for

south eastern Nigeria, especially Enugu state, rainfall and soil type constitutes the

dominant sub-factor. In the environment of south-eastern Nigeria, the rains come in the

form of intensive, violent showers of short duration, especially at the beginning and end

of rainy season. The erosive capacity of raindrops seems to result from three factors, the

amount and intensity of rainfall, the diameter of the drops and the velocity of the drops as

they strike the soil. Rainfall gives rise to runoff which is the central agent in the soil

erosion system and the nature of the concentration of the runoff leads to sheet and gully

erosion as the case may be (Ofomata, 1985,1988).The nature of surface materials

influence the rate of infiltration and thereby, of slumping and/ or sliding. Surface

configuration (relief/ slope) aids runoff, sheet erosion and gullying. Sheet erosion is

expected to be more common over fairly uniform and gentle slope, while gullying is

expected to be more characteristic of stepper slopes (Akamigbo(1999) and Ofomata

(1988).

In spite of the important role of the physical factors discussed so far, there can be

no doubt that almost unique dimension which soil erosion has attained in south eastern

Nigeria is related in very direct way to the lithological composition of the soils of the

area. This derives from their parent materials which are mainly soft sandstone formations

of cretaceous and tertiary age. Under the intensive chemical action resulting from the

high temperature and humidity conditions, of the area, these sandstone, mostly false-
 24

bedded and with a high Iron content, weather down to what are generally referred to as

“red earths”. Owing to the intensity of the chemical weathering, the red earths give rise to

soils which show a conspicuous absence of pebbles. Nonetheless, the predominant

component of the soils is sand, especially medium, grained sand (0.2 t0 0.5mm)

(Ofomata, 1988).

2.6 Classification of Soil Erosion

Soil erosion in south-eastern Nigeria can be classified into two major categories;

physical (geological or natural) and anthropogenic (human or accelerated) (Ofomata,

1988). The type of geology, soil, topography and climate of Enugu state predispose the

physical setting of the state to erosion of all types. Sheet erosion and gully erosion are

most devastating and prevalent (Akamigbo, 1988).

Several types of erosion exist in the study area. They include;

A. Natural erosion: Erosion is considered to be natural when the earths surface is being

removed by water, ice or natural agents under natural environmental conditions of

climate, vegetation and so on, undisturbed by man. This is synonymous with geologic

erosion, and its effect is not disastrous (Akamigbo 1986and 1998).According to

Chude(2005), natural erosion takes place all the time and is part of the natural process in

the formation of the landscape. This type of erosion is not a problem in agriculture

because as the soil is removed from a spot, some soil is being formed on the same spot.

B. Normal erosion: This is the gradual erosion of land used by man which does not

greatly exceed natural erosion. When we farm, it is the purpose of good soil conservation
 25

and management that the erosion that occurs in the farm land would not exceed normal

erosion. The loss here is very minimal (Akamigbo, 1986and 1998).

C. Accelerated erosion: This is the erosion much more rapid than normal natural

geological erosion. This is primarily as a result of the influence of the activities of man

or, in some cases, of animals and other factors (Akamigbo ibid and ibid). Man, made

erosion is the type of erosion which the quantity of soil lost and the rate of soil loss is far

higher than the natural erosion. It is induced by human activities such as deforestation,

bush burning, cutting of hills, harvesting of stones and sand etc and is therefore referred

to as anthropogenic (Chude, 2005).

D Splash Erosion: This is the process of the detachment of soil particles by raindrops.

This occurs when rain-drops hit on an exposed soil surface free from vegetative cover

and the surface is wet. On some soils, a very heavy rain can cause a soil particle to rise or

jump as high as 2ft above the ground and move up to 5ft horizontally. In terms of

quantity, as much as 224t/ha can be splashed up by a very heavy rainfall. Splash erosion

even on cropped land is evidenced by the presence of soil particles on the underside of

green vegetables. Splash erosion is directly related to the raindrop size and the type of the

soil structure. The defaced particles are removed by surface runoff as sheet erosion

(Akamigbo 1986 and 1998).

E. Sheet Erosion: This is the removal of a fairly, uniform layer of soil from the land

surface by runoff water, and other agents. This type of erosion is most dangerous for our

agricultural lands as it carries away the humus top soil. It often goes on unnoticed due to

its gradual, constant and uniform action. It renders the soil infertile and its disastrous
 26

influence lies in the fact that it is not easily perceptible by the farmer. It may finally result

in a complete removal of the arable parts of the top soil. Through this action of sheet

erosion, the topsoil is gradually swept clear of its finer elements and plant nutrients, and

only coarse, infertile materials are left behind (Akamigbo 1986 and 1998 and Chude,

2005).

UNEP (2008), opined that sheet erosion is a phenomenon whereby a large area of

surface soil is lost by almost even blanksheet flows of surface or mear surface water.

Sheet erosion occurs nation wide, but it is last perceived because of its “deceitful” slow

progress. It slowly removes the surface soil layers by rainfall runoff down slopes,

producing a devastating effect on agriculture.

F. Rill Erosion: This is an erosion process in which numerous small channels of only

several centimetres in depth are formed. It occurs mainly on recently cultivated areas

after a rain event. Rill erosion occurs when soil is removed by water from little streamlets

that run through land with poor surface draining. Rills can often be found in between crop

rows. Although its effects can be easily removed by tillage, it is the most often

overlooked and if it is not filled up, it could develop to gully erosion. Farmers can easily

handle it (Akamigbo 1998)

G. Gully Erosion: This is an erosion process whereby water accumulates in narrow

channels or rills or crevices and, over short periods, removes the soil from this channel to

considerable depths ranging from 30 to 60 centimetres to as much as 23 to 30 meters or

more. Gully erosion unlike sheet erosions is more obvious as it makes a remarkable

impression on the surface of the earth. The physical loss of the land is visibly manifested.
 27

Gullies can grow in both up hill and downhill directions. A heavy rainfall can enlarge a

small rill into a big gully overnight. Gully erosion is infact another term for accelerated

soil erosion and once it is formed it difficult to stop it from growing and it is very

expensive to rehabilitate the land. The process, in most cases, is related to the activities of

man, especially those connected with the destruction of vegetation cover (Akamigbo`

1986, 1998, Chude,2005``).

Gully erosion, in contrast to sheet erosion is very obvious because of it disastrous

nature and rapid progress. It is particularly severe in Abia, Imo, Anambra, Enugu, Ondo,

Edo, Ebonyi, Kogi, Adamawa, Delta, Jigawa and Gombe States. In the southeast,

Anambra and Enugu States alone have over 500 active gully complexes, with some

extending over 100 metres long, 20 metres wide and 15 metres deep (UNEP, 2008.)

H. Streambank Erosion: While sheet, rill and gully erosion are active only during or

immediately after rainfall, erosion along the river banks occurs even during and between

rainfall. Impact on surrounding arable soil is remarkable since alluvial soils damaged by

stream bank erosion are usually the more fertile soils (Akamigbo, 1998).

I. Wind Erosion: This is the movement of soil particles by the wind. The particles may

be as fine as sand, which can be moved by drifting at or close to the ground. There is

considerable wind erosion in West African dry tropical Zone where annual rainfall is

below 600mm, the dry season lasts more than six months, and steppe-type vegetation

leaves large stretches of bare soil. It can also develop else where when the soil is being

prepared and large amounts of surface matter are crushed fine. In the areas of Nigeria

which are most affected, wind erosion is most active during the dry season and in the
 28

early part of the raining season when the vegetation cover on the landscape is less (Ologe,

1986 and Roose, 1996)

According to Ologe (1986), indicators of wind erosion in the field include;

(i) Occurrence of dust haze: the dust- laden wind called the harmatan cover the

whole of Nigeria for long and short periods during the dry season. The dust

commonly settles on all exposed objects, including vegetations and ground surface.

(ii) Presence of drifting sand; In areas covered by sands and sandy soils, much

blowing of sand is often seen where the protective cover of vegetation has been

removed. This is common between the harvest and the beginning of the raining

season. The drifting sand may overwhelm, young crops, pile up against obstructions,

such as trees and tufts of grass or obstruct roads.

(iii) Occurrence of deflation hollows: These may be quite small measuring a fraction

of a square metre in area, or they may be several square metres in area. They are

typically surrounded by sharp edges which may still retain their cover of grass

vegetation.

Chude (2005), opined that wind erosions occurs when poorly covered soil is exposed to

winds higher than about 20km/hr. soil loss by wind erosion increases rapidly above the

normal wind level. Fine sand seem to be the most easily moved soil fraction relative to

sand and dry particles. He further stated that the process of wind erosion is as follows; a.

Wind abrasion detaches tiny soil particles. b. Soil particles begin pilling and sliding (soil

creep). c. Tiny particles are carried upward and transported to other places.
 29

Ofomata (1988), further classified erosion into two broad subheadings of Actual

erosion and Potential erosion. He stated that the importance of this approach is to

ensure that while we engage in activities aimed at dealing with the existing forms of

erosion, we do not lose sight of the great potentialities of the problem that could empty

any moment under inadequate management strategies. Actual erosion refers to the

different types of erosion on ground while potential erosion is the erosion that occur as

result of the susceptibility of the area to erosion of varying types and degrees.

Actual Erosion:

Fig 3 is the outline map of soil erosion and shows the general state of actual

erosion in south; eastern Nigeria, particularly Enugu state. Two broad types of erosion

are represented on the figure- gully and sheet erosion. The figure also reveals that sheet

erosion is the most widespread type of erosion in the area, the figure also reveals that

erosion in the areas is due mainly to the action of running water. The typology of erosion

outlined above reflects the manner in which this running water, especially its rainwater

run off component, is organized over space. Gully results where running water is

concentrated whereas unconcentrated run off leads to sheet erosion (Ofomata, 1988).

Potential Erosion:

A potential erosion map of the area is embodied in fig 4. The map reveals that all

parts of the area are susceptible to erosion of varying types and degrees. Generally, two

categories of susceptility to erosion could be identified: high susceptibility and moderate

susceptibility. The map is adapted and modified from a preliminary “map of Nigeria
 30

showing erosion susceptibility” produced by the Geological survey of Nigeria as GSN

2215 (Ofomata, 1988).

From the map it could be observed that Enugu state is susceptible to various erosion

types and degree (Ofomata 1988).

2.7 Erosion Control

Chude (2005) stated that if one wants to stop water erosion, he or she should have

the following in mind:

a. Reduce the force of rain impact: That is to protect the soil against direct force of

rain.

b. Improvement of soil stability: That is to improve the ability of soil structure to

resist deformation/disruption by rain impact.

c. Reduce the amount of water causing runoff by allowing more water to infiltrate

into the soil.

d. Reduce the speed (velocity) of flood water,

Erosion control is indispensable in view of the expanding economic activity of

society and the endavour to use natural resources purposefully and economically. The

objective of erosion control is to protect the two valuable natural resources (soil and

water) and to prevent the occurrence of the unfavourable consequence which

deterioration could have for various branches of the national economy which are

agriculture, water management and human environment (Middleton 1990).

 31

The method of erosion control measures to be adopted depends on the type of erosion

and there are two type or control; preventive control measures and curative control

measures. The prevention of erosion has always been a much easier, effective and

cheaper task than undertaking curative measures of eroded areas which is more

expensive. Preventive measures involve the use of conservation farming or cultural

practices that minimize raindrop impact, increase or enhance structural stability of the

soil and improve the water intake or infiltration. The curative measures involve

management of surplus water or overland flow for its safe disposal at low velocities

(Abarikwu 1988) , Akamigbo (1998), Ofomata (1982) and lal (1990). According to

Abarikwu (1988), capability classification of the land is an important feature of

conservation farming and conservation practices such as terracing, strip cropping, contour

strip cropping, crop rotation, mulching, minimum tillages, irrigation and drainage are

used depending on the land and the soil.

Erosion can also be controlled either by agronomic measures or soil management

measures or mechanical methods. A range of techniques is available and the decision on

which to adopt depends on whether the objective is to reduce the velocity of runoff,

increase surface water storage capacity or safely dispose of excess water. Mechanical

method are normally employed in conjunction with agronomic measure. Mechanical field

particle are used to control the movement of water over the soil surface. Agronomic

measure for erosion control are those concerned with the utilization of vegetation and

crop to provide cover on the surface to minimise and dissipate erosive forces (Akamigbo

1998, and Middleton 1990) .Akamigbo (1986) opined that erosion control can be carried

out in two broad measures, biological and engineering measures. He stated that biological
 32

measures are largely preventive and consequently cheaper. According him, engineering

measures are adopted especially when the erosion problem is already initiated and in

advanced stages and are much more expensive to apply.

Agricultural and forestry measures used for erosion control exist in the correct

location of cultures, a well designed layout of plots and communication system, correct

cultivation of field and forest soils and use of the preventive effective vegetative cover

(Lal, 1982). Use of vegetation for soil conservation involves the use of agricultural and

forest plants. The methods include soil conservation, crop rotation, strip cropping, grass

land farming, protective forest belt, alley cropping agroforestry and afforestation (Senft

1994).

Effects of Agroforestry practices on soil conservation:-

Agroforestry practices encompass an entire spectrum of land use systems in

which woody perennials are deliberately combined with agricultural crops and or animals

in some spatial or temporal arrangement(Lundgren and Raintree, (1982).The presence of

woody perennials in agroforestry systems may effect several bio-physical and bio-

chemical processes that determine the health of the soil substrate (Nair, 1993). The less

disputed of the effects of trees on soil include amelioration of erosion primarily through

surface litter cover and under story vegetation maintenance or increase of organic matter

and diversity, through continuous degeneration of roots and decomposition of litter,

nitrogen fixation, enhancement of physical properties such as soil structure, porosity, and

moisture retention due to the extensive roots systems and the canopy cover, and

enhanced efficiency of nutrient use because the tree root system can intercept, absorb and
 33

recycle nutrients in the soil that would otherwise be lost through leaching (Subhrendu and

Evan Mercer, 1996 and Sanchez, 1987).

Ojanuga (1986), advises that combating soil erosion in Nigeria requires a

judicious development and management of the land, based on sound scientists principles.

He continued by opining that it calls for judicious land use planning at national, state,

local and more importantly at individual farm level. Morgan (1980),also observed that the

impact of the soil erosion on the environment is not of primary concern to the individual

farmers alone, it is the responsibility of the national or regional authorities advised by

experts dealing with soil conservation.Akamigbo (1986), proposed the adoption of target

erosion control methods. According to him, certain areas are more prone to water erosion

than others. It is not feasible to move towns from their ancestral homes to other

ecological zones. He therefore advocated that such highly susceptible and already

devastated areas of Agulu/Nanka must form target areas for the federal government.

Measure to combat the soil erosion process and thereby save farmlands,

employment and income have for long been implemented by the federal, state and local

governments. The strategies were preventive as well as curative and include the Udi-

Forest consolidation Scheme established in 1922 by the former British colonial office, the

Agulu soil conservation scheme established in 1945 and the Ronasco Anti-Erosion

project executed between 1980-1984 in six designated erosion sites. These and many

other Anti-erosion Schemes were designed and implemented by government officials

without any consultations with the local people (Floyd, 1969).

 34

Limited information obtained from scattered sources, however indicate that the

native people of South-eastern Nigeria apply a wide range of traditional techniques to

conserve soil control erosion and prevent soil degradation. These techniques which range

from the agronomic and agroforestry to enthno-engineering (mechanical) aim at two

major results; to prevent as much runoff as possible from reaching the gullies and to

reduce the extent of bare soils susceptible to sheet and rill processes (Ofomata, 1982).

Reference could be made to the popular use of “mkpuruji” (Local mounding) “ekpe”

(contour bunds), “Ogwugwo” (pitting systems) and “Igba” (ridging systems) as anti

erosion practices in many parts of the region. These practices are sustained by a

communal works scheme under which household participation is mandatory (Lemchi,

1992).

Eventhough evidence shows that these traditional techniques are curtailing further

gullying, reducing sheet wash and managing run-off, they remain largely understudied,

unexplored and neglected (Reiji, 1990). Despite the fact that these indigenous anti-

erosion techniques provide indisputable starting point for a sustainable environmental

project in the area, local environment knowledge, skills, experiences and expertise cannot

be dismissed as irrelevant in the design and implementation of anti-erosion projects.

Rather, for them to be successful and sustainable, such projects would rely on indigenous

expertise and skill during planning, execution and evaluation (Lemchi 1992). The

environmental researchers and conversationalist have been drawing attention of policy

makers to the approach weakness of the top-down approach to soil conservation

(Reiji.1990, O’ Riordan, 1990, Showers and Malahcela, 1990).

 35

The challenges facing erosion researcher is to articulate, in collaboration with the

local peoples understanding of the technical, agronomic and organisational dimensions of

traditional anti-erosion compain. Therefore, there indigenous systems of anti-erosion

management could be built upon and improved for long term sustenance (Lemchi;

1992).We must strive to protect and enhance the nutrient cycle and to enhance soil

fertility. This means promoting and implementing sustainable technologies and

approaches like alley farming and agroforestry, while eliminating burning and other

wasteful practices. It also means supporting reforestation programs and community tree

planting efforts and letting land rest once every three or four years (Tacio, 2007).

It is our task to conserve the productive capacity of our soils. The wealth and

culture of any country depends upon its topsoil. Once this is gone no agricultural

manipulation will bring it back to full production. Improved methods may increase the

productive capacity of a worn out soil, but the same methods would have resulted in

much larger yields if the soil had not been degraded in the first place. Such soil

restoration becomes necessary in many cases, but our aim should be the conservation and

increase of soil productivity for present and future generations of Nigeria (Ali, 2006).

2.8 Problems and Effects of Soil Erosion.

According to Green (1982), the question of the proper use of agricultural land

touches on the livelihood of every citizen for it is an essential support of human life not

only in relation to food supply, but also for the production of fibre and shelter.

Erosion affect a number of branches of the natural economy and has a far

reaching effect on the social and cultural lives as well as health of the helpless inhabitants

of the affected areas. Agriculture is that branch of the national economy which is most
 36

affected by the erosion processes. Millions of hectares of farmland are being affected

these days by soil erosion.

Akamigbo (1998) reported that erosion, as an environment hazard has numerous

adverse effects on the lives and livelihood of people and that it generally results in a

degradation of the environment, and reduction in the land area that is available for

habitation, agriculture, industry, recreation, road construction and other uses. Topsoil

were lost to soil erosion, exposing the gravel layer and the less productive subsoil (Obi

and Asiegbu (1980) and Lal, 1979).Soil erosion is one of the problems menacing

agricultural soil and it results in degradation of soil physical characteristic such as

infiltration rate, soil structure and crusting. It also decreases the efficient use of fertilizers

by increasing the nutrient losses. Woomer and Muchena (1995) opined that soil erosion is

chronic depletion of the soil.Currently the biggest threat to meeting future agricultural

needs comes from soil erosion degradation which according to Douglas (1994) have the

following far- reaching consequence;

* Soil and vegetation: declining soil productivity means less vegetation cover to soil,

less return of organic matter and less biological and nutrient activity.

* Yield: as soil productivity declines, the useful economic yields from crops and pastures

will decline,

* Return to the farmers: declining productivity means that direct returns are reduced,

cost of production increased and sustainability of return is less.

Furthermore erosion also leads to pollution and blocking of water ways, loss and

destruction of social centres and social amenities (Ezeebube, 1989, Akamigbo,1999).

 37

FAO (1979) stated that 2.5m of top soil layer was lost in a matter of hours to days in

heavy storm or runoff where the soils were saturated. Soil erosion affects farming in

detrimental ways. Physical damage is the most visible form of soil loss, and most likely

to be remedied (Seafriends,2001).

Akamigbo (1984) reported that appreciable reduction in colloids and clays could

result from vertical erosion with a consequent reduction in fertility. FAO(1965) observed

that losses through water erosion were usually the most fatal, containing the plant

nutrient, humus and the fertilizer that the farmer had applied. Jungerius (1964) reported

that organic matter content was low in the erosion sites of soils of eastern Nigeria

particularly in Enugu state. Tropical soils have a higher concentration of nutrients in the

top soil as compared with temperate soils and this feature was greatest in the highly

weathered soils of intrinsically low fertility (Young, 1989).

Erosion may adversely affect the functioning of the trees themselves in an

agroforesty systems. Habte and Eleswaity (1986) noted in Hawii that stimulated erosion

removal of 7.5 to 37.5cm topsoil greatly reduced nodulation, nitrogenase activity,

nutrient uptake and growth of Sesbania gradifora. Dike (1995), opined that erosion

reduces yield and productivity of crop and soil through the various ways; loss of plant

avaiblewater, loss of plant nutrient, degradation of soil structure, non-uniform removal of

soil within a field and affecting timing of farming operations. Apart from the effects of

erosion on agriculture, rivers are filling rapidly with sediments of soil particles which

threatens both domestic and irrigation water supply (Cooke,,Doorkamp,Brunsden, and

Jones,(1995) and Mumel,(1995).

 38

The transportation of soil particles by wind erosion had adverse effects on whole

areas. Debris and soil removed by wind erosion are often deposited on vegetation and

they damage buildings, communication, canals, and ditches (Middleton, 1986). Skidmore

(1986) stated that blowing soil fills roads and ditches, reduces seedling survival and

growth, lowers the marketability of vegetable crops like asparagus, green beans, lettuce,

and okra, increases the susceptibility of plants to diseases and contributes to transmission

of some plant pathogens. Leather, (1981) reported that soil particles carried by wind

pollute the atmosphere causing health hazards to people and animals who suffer from

disease of the respiratory track and eye inflammation.Pye (1987) proved that about 310

tons of dust particles are in 1km3 of air in a dust storm and dust pollution obscures

visibility and causes antomobile and aircraft accidents.

Another grave danger of erosion to the society is the transportation of chemical

substances which infiltrates surface and underground water and limits the use of water

resource (Goudie, 1983). The fragment sources of these chemicals are chemical

fertilizers, and the different pesticides, herbicides and fungicides applied in large

quantities in agriculture as well as industrial and agricultural wastes discharged on or into

the soil. Also large scale atmospheric dust concentrations affects local meteorological

processes and may over long period lead to reduced rainfall (Middleton, 1989).

Deposition of chemicals on the sea, river, streams, oceans affects biological

balance in streams, rivers and other bodies of water leading to eutrophication (excess

nutrient) phenomenon in streams, rivers and lakes (Svatos,1975). Mellanby (1967),

noticed that polluted water especially by pesticides is a health hazard to man not only

directly through contact but also through food chain. Other problems of erosion as
 39

reported by Odoh (1995) and Akamigbo (1999) are destruction of roads, lives, houses,

flooding and starvation As far back as 1964, 47% of the soil of Eastern Nigeria was

affected by measurable sheet erosion while 20% suffered from severe sheet erosion

(Ofomata 1976). By 1990, gullies occupied 4% of the land area of Anambra, Imo, Abia

and Enugu states and the rate of gully formation and the extension of existing ones was

still increasing (World Bank, 1990).Soil erosion causes a reduction in available farm

lands (Chude, 2005).

The world loses the equivalent of five to seven million hectares of farmland

through erosion each year. This is equivalent to the land area of Belguim and the

Netherlands combined. Soil experts says there is nothing wrong with normal soil erosion,

which in even beneficial to man, but accelerated erosion usually caused by man himself

is harmful. Studies have shown that as much as 20 percent of eroded materials end up in

rivers, reservoir, and irrigation canal and siltation also cause serious damage to coral

reefs and coastal fisheries (Tacio, 2007). Soil erosion is main agricultural externality and

a main threat for sustainability in agricultural systems, as it reduces the potential for

agricultural production. The loss of topsoil affects main’s ability to grow food in two

ways. First, it reduces the inherent productivity of land, both through nutrient loss and

degradation of the soil’s physical structure, second, it increases the cost of food

production to maintain the level of agricultural production in the farm (Franco and

Calatrava-leyva (2006) and Tacio, (2007). Tacio (2007), and Akamigbo (1999)

concluded that if productivity drops tow low or cost rise too high farmers will be forced

to abandon their land. In both cases, soil erosion result in a land rent loss and in
 40

productive capital loss that may result in a decline in the market value of eroded land

(Franco and calatrvaa-leyra (2006) and Akamigbo, 1999).

Erosion has social and psychological impact on people’s lives. This impact is

incalculable (Onwueme and Asiabaka, 1992). Many villagers in gully- prone area live in

constant fear of their lives and properties, not knowing whether the buildings which they

occupy today will end up in the bottom of a gully the following day. There is high degree

of personal and communal insecurity. It results in social up heaval. Erosion also induces

superstition since some people claim that gully erosion is a retribution from the gods.

Quarrels and fighting often arise as the available uneroded land is fragmented to unviable

agricultural tracts for an agricultural community (Akamigbo, 1999).

Gully erosion has had and will continue to have destructive impacts in and around

southeast of Nigeria in the absence of immediate corrective and preventive measures

(Orabuchi, 2006).

2.9 Documentation of Farmland Erosion Sites in Enugu State.

Devastating erosion sites cut across the state . some of them are listed below.

EROSION SITES IN ENUGU STATE

1, Ajali Owa water Works - Major

2, 9th Mile by Ama on Road Leading to Eke in Ezeagu -Major

3, Agbani (Eke Market) Erosion Site

4, Akugo Ndiagu to Obuno Akpugo Erosion Site -Major

5, Ezimo Uno Erosion Site –Major

6, Obiekpo-Abor Erosion Site -Major

7, Umualor Mamu Forest Ugwuoba Erosion Site

 41

8, Ugwu Egbe Obollo-Afor Gully Erosion Site

Leading to Federal College of Education, Eha-Amufu -Major

9, Ugwugo- Opi Road Gully Erosion

10 Ebe Erosion Site

11, Ozalla Nkanu Erosion Site

12, Obinagu Gully Erosion Site

13 Eke Ogbaku Erosion Site

14 Ugbawka Erosion Site

15 Akegbe Ugwu Erosion Site

16 Agungwu Ugwuoba Gully Erosion Site -Major

17, Access Road to Ajali Water Workes/ Ajali Erosion Site -Major

18, Timber Shed Erosion Site

19 Agulu- Amokwe Road Erosion Site

20,Ukehe-Agukehe- Agu Umunko Erosion Site

21, Enugu-Port Harcourt Express Road Erosion Site (by Nyaba Bridge)

22, Umuokoloma-Affa -Major

23, Okwojo Ngwo/Agbaja Ngwo Erosion Site

24 Ogugu- Awgu Erosion Site

25 SEDES SPIENTIAE Oghe

26 Community Secondary School Amokwe

27 Airport-End of Run Way 26 by Niger Gas Emene Enugu

28 Obeleagu Umana Erosion Site. –Major

29 Coca Cola 9th Mile Corner Erosion Site - Major

30 Obimo Erosion Site -Major

 42

31 Ugwuoba-Nidukwuenu Awa -Major

32 Eke Oghe -Major

33. Onyeama Mine (Erosion-Onitsha Expressway) -Major

34 Egede Amozalla-Affa Road Erosion Site -Major

35 Lejja Nsukka Erosion Site -Major

36 Amokwu Affa Erkosion Site Major

Source: Enugu State Ministry of Environment, (2008).

2.10 Review of Existing Farm Management Erosion Control Practices.

1. Crop Rotation: This is the method of farming in which the same piece

of land is kept under cultivation every year in such a way that the crops follow a definite

order planned in such a way as to restore nutrients removed from the soil. The different

canopy formation and rooting patterns will prevent undue soil exposure thereby helping a

great deal in erosion control. A crop rotation that includes forages can reduce soil loss by

water erosion and, slow the buildup of insects and disease problems encountered with a

continuous cropping program (Stone, 1996). Akamigbo, (1998), opined that suitable crop

for use in rotations are legumes and grasses which provides good ground cover, help

maintain or even improve the organic status of the soil, thereby contributing to soil

fertility, and enable a more aggregate structure to develop in the soil.

2. Cover Cropping: Cover cropping is an agricultural practice in which crops with good

canopy formation are planted with other crops so that their canopy formation can shield

the soil from the effect of soil erosion causing agents. Cover crops control erosion by

intercepting the raindrop and absorbing their kinetic energy(Akamigbo,1998). Morgan

 43

and Rickson (1995), opined that the cover reduces the energy of the rainfall at the soil

surface which in turn reduces the rate of soil particle detachment by raindrop impact. A

good cover cropping species should have easy establishment, vigorous growth under

local condition, ability to cover weeds quickly, ability to either fix plenty nitrogen or

concentrate plenty phosphorus. Some food crops which can serve as excellent cover

crops are melon, groundnut, cowpea etc (Chude,2005).

The choice of an appropriate cover crops differs among soils, rainfall regimes and

agroecological environment. Suitable leguminous and grass cover crops include;

Pueraria phaseoloides, Calopogonium mucunioides, Centrosema pubescens, Panicum

maximum and Penmisetum purperum, (Akamigbo, 1998).

3. Strip cropping: This is the practice of growing alternate strips of different species of

crops on the same field. Planned strip cropping techniques provide protection from

erosion both by rain and surface flow (Uguru, 1981). It is also a conservation practice in

which crops are grown in a systematized arrangement of strips or bands that serve as

barriers to wind and water erosion. Surface run off moving down the slop is intercepted

by the strips, the velocity is slowed and silt deposited in the grass strip. This technique is

effective when the erosion is not severe (Akamigbo, 1998 and Chude, 2005).

4. Mulching: Mulching is the covering of the soil with crop residues such as straw,

maize stalks, palm fround or standing stubble. Mulches are used to protect soil surfaces

from erosion agents of rainfall, runoff and wind. They also help to reduce intense solar

radiation, suppress extreme fluctuations of soil temperatures reduces water loss through

evaporation and increase soil moisture which can assist in creating ideal conditions for

plant growth in many circumstance. Other gains of mulches include, suppression of

weeds thereby saving weeding costs, increase in soil organic matter, increasing
 44

infiltration rate and maintaining the exchange capacity at a level where nutrient leaching

losses are minimized and hydrogen saturation is kept within bounds (Sprague and –

Tripleft 1986, Akamigbo, 1998, Morgan and Rickson 1995 and Chude 2005). The

benefits of mulching are proportional to the adversity of the environment in which they

are applied (Jackobs,Andrews,Murdoch and Foote, 1967).

5. Terracing: Terraces are earth embankment constructed across the slope to intercept

surface runoff and convey it to a suitable outlet at a non erosive velocity and to shorten

slope length. They thus perform similar functions to contour bunds. Terraces can be

classified into three main types; diversion, retention and bench(Akamigbo (1998) and

Chude (2005). Terraces reduces slope length and prevent deposition of sediment

(Czapar,Laflen,McIIsaac and Mckenna,2006).

6. Fertilization: This is the application of organic fertilizers or organic manures such as

green manures, farmyard manures, animal dropping etc. These manures serve as cover

and improve soil fertility and increase the resistance of the soil to erosion (ie, they

improve aggregate stability of the soil (Akamigbo 1998 and Chude 2005).

7. Conservation Tillage: This is any tillage or planting system in which at least 30% of

the soil surface is covered by plant residue after planting to reduce erosion by water. By

this definition no-tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage and much tillage are all terms

synonymous with conservation tillage. The benefit of tillage includes, preventing loose

soil materials from forming a crust or being carried away by water, perventing runoff in

erosion sensitive surfaces and promoting easy entrance of water into the soil as well as

penetration of plant roots (Akamigbo Ibid and Chude Ibid and Stone ,1996).
 45

8. Afforestation: Afforestation involves planting of trees to help conserve the forest. It

controls soil erosion by slowing down run-off through rooting activities and in

intercepting raindrop thereby preventing both sheet and raindrop erosion.

9. Tied-Ridging: On silty and fine sandy soils, erosion may be further reduced by storing

water on the surface rather than allowing it to runoff. Limited increase in storage capacity

can be obtained by forming ridges. Greater storage is achieved by connecting the ridges

with cross-ties over the intervening furrow thereby forming a series of rectangular

depressions which fill with water during rain. As crop damage can occur if the water

cannot soak into the soil within 48 hours, this practice should only be used on well

drained soils. If it is applied to clay soils, water logging is likely to occur (Akamigbo,

1998).

10. Water ways: The purpose of waterways in a conservation system is to convey runoff

at a non-erosive velocity to a suitable disposal point. A waterway must therefore be

carefully designed. Water ways can be of three types, diversion channels, terrace

channels and grass waterways (Akamigbo Ibid).

11. Mixed cropping: According to Lal (1987), the subsistence farmer who risks famine

would consider a successful technology to be the one that produces some yield in the

worst year rather than one that produces a high yield in the best year. Mixed cropping

ensure that the soil is usually protected by a vegetative cover. Under such systems,

erosion hazard is less than in modem row crop production or in monocropping

(Akamigbo Ibid).

12. Contour Bunds: It entials a very big ridge built with earth for the purpose of erosion

control and the maintenance of soil control fertility. It is normally built on the contour to

delay moving water and allow soil to remain in place.

 46

13. Weeding: Weeding is one of the essential cultural practices in farming. By

controlling the population of weeds in the farm, reduction in evapo-transpiration is

achieved. After weeding, the physical properties of the soil are improved with the result

that infiltration is enhanced which implies less erosion.

Fig. 1: Technology options for erosion management on newly cleared land

Erosion management

Preventive Control
measure measure

Soil & crop Runoff & slope

management management

Soil Crop Slope Runoff

management management management management

.Conservation tillage . Cover crops & . Diversion channels . Vegetative

barries
. Mulch farming planted fallows . Graded channel . Water reservoirs
. Contour farming . Vegetative hedges terraces . Check dams
& barriers . Engineering
. Strip cropping Structures
. Multiple cropping
. Improved crop
Management
practices

Source-Lal(1995)
 47

2.11 Theoretical Framework

Biological and ecological processes create connections between the rates of

resources use in the present and the quantity and quality of resources available for future

generations. It is these connections that are the focus of what has come to be called

sustainability. A resources use rate that is “sustainable” is one that can be maintained

over the long run without impairing the fundamental ability of the natural resources base

to support future generations. Sustainability does not mean that resources must remain

untouched, rather, it means that their rates of use be chosen so as not to jeopardize future

generations (Field, 1997).

In the absence of rational and conscious sustainable exploitation of the physical

and natural resources, irreplaceable or probably irreversible damages inevitably result.

(Titilola,1998). According to Ress (1989,3) sustainable development is positive

socioeconomic change that does not undermine that ecological and social systems upon

which communities and social systems are dependent.

In relation to agriculture, sustainability means changing agricultural systems so

that farmers are able to produce indefinitely (Rodale, 1988). Hence, sustainable

agriculture should be based on approaches that reduce environmental degradation,

conserve resources, and provide an adequate and dependable farm income through

reducing poverty and associated problems.

The theory of sustainable use of natural resources is based on the theory of natural

resources scarcity and its effect on growth and partly on the principles of natural

resources conservation (Titilola, 1998). The theory, which is credited to some classical

economists like Malthus (1798), Ricardo (1821) and Mills (1963) holds the view that

scarcity of natural resources would eventually lead to diminishing social and economic
 48

returns to human efforts and ultimately to stagnation, retardation and cessation of socio-

economic growth. Natural resource such as soil, water, and vegetation, Livestock, and

minerals are specific in type, location, quality and relationships to one another.

There are several agricultural resources but in this case, implication of resources

management for food production and food security are illustrated by focusing on the

issue of land availability and usage. Land is perhaps the most important producing input.

Ownership affects land use, farming systems, institutional structures, ecological

conditions, adoption and usage of technology, food production and self sufficiency, and

overall wellbeing of the rural and urban population. Poverty and resource misuse is

linked because of the pattern of land distribution, which often favours the rich class. The

rich have access to land, which is less prone to degradation or erosion. In addition, the

rich class has the economic resource to invest in and improve the land. However, poor

farmers continue to till a marginal resource base despite increase in their number (Titilola

1998).

Land resource management is the actual practice of the users of the land by the

local human population, which should be sustainable (FAO/Nethelands, 1991). In a

boarder sense it included land-use planning, as agreed between stakeholders; legal,

administrative and institutional execution, demarcation on the ground, inspection and

control of adherence to decisions, solving of land tenure issues, settling of water rights,

issuing of concession. For plant and animal extraction (timber, fuelwood, charcoal and

peat, non-wood products, hunting), promotion of the role of women and other

disadvantaged groups in agriculture and rural development in the area; and the

safeguarding of traditional rights of indigenous peoples are essentials (FAO, 1995).

 49

Yudelman (1987) noted that the accelerating deterioration of the resource base in much

of sub-Saharan Africa threatens to reduce production.

Soil erosion is aggravated by such factors as the farming system, soil management

practices and poverty. The impact of resource management, especially by erosion

management on the farm size, farm output and value of output are deemed serious for the

Nigeria agricultural societies. Erosion has (a) reduced the areas farmed to about one third

of the original size (b) reduced physical output to about two third and (c) reduced the

monetary value as well. The implication of this study for agricultural resources

management in Nigeria is that farmers and other rural resource users are most important

factors in the prevention and management of erosion. These resource users dominate the

agricultural resource in terms of number of producers and proportion of output produced

given the economic situation, under which they operate. They place more emphasis on

short time planning, essentially minimizing risk and minimizing income. They can

therefore be motivated in soil livelihood. The measures that will adequately encourage

resource management must satisfy the following conditions; (a) it must be profitable in

the short run (b) it must include some aspects of existing farming system practices and (c)

it must not require farmers to donate their most limiting resources (Titilola, 1998).

In order to avoid the depletion of natural resources thus reducing the growth and

development propensity of nations, the need to use the most efficient production and

extraction system is essential. The conservation of natural resources, however, entails a

better knowledge of the limitations imposed by the natural and man- made misuse of the

environment as well as the need for ecological balance (Titilola, 1998). One area where

misuse of the environment is obvious is in the reduction of the quality of the land
 50

resources. A shortened fallow period leads to both overgrazing and over cropping

resulting in erosion degradation and impaired quality (Courier, 1984).

Improved land management that ensures better resource use and promotes long-

term sustainability is basic to future food production and to the economic welfare or rural

communities (USDA, 1994).

From an economic point of view the existence and persistence of soil erosion in

croplands is due to several market failure. The most important are the off-site water

pollution caused by erosion, the lack of information regarding the economic value of soil,

and the failure to in corporate long-time soil use (Weda and Heady, 1978, and Mc

Connell ,1983).

Regarding the social dimension of the problem, it is evident that there are clear

social benefits from soil conservation, which reduces externalities and off side damages

(such as reduction of sediment in rivers, chemical damage to fish etc). These social

benefits may warrant conservation even when private profitability is absent (Walker,

1982; 1982; Araya and Asafu-Adjaye ,1999). The main focus of studies about this issue

has been the analysis of the inter-temporal path of soil use and the conditions under

which private and social optima diverge (Calatrava-cayva et al 2005). Some authors

beginning with Mcconnell (1983), also gave insight about effective instruments of

erosion control. For Mcconnell (1983), if farmers were aware of the impact of soil depth

on those they would conserve it. What lays below this affirmation is that, in absence of a

market for soil depth, the market for agricultural land will play such role (Araya and

Asafu-Adjaye 1999). The impact of erosion control has been frequently studied using

hedonic land valuation techniques, despite the kind Examples are the papers by

miranowski and Hammes (1984), Gardner and Barrows (1989), Ervin and Mill (1985),
 51

King and Sinden (1988) and Palmquist and Danielson (1989). The aim of these studies is

to provide information to farmers about the value given to land in the market to erosion

control, what would help investment decisions, as well as policy-markers that design

policies aiming to achieve certain standards of erosion (Palmquist and Danielson, 1989).

The influence of the level of soil erosion on the value of agricultural land depend on the

area where it is studied (Miranowski and Hammes, 1984; Hertzler,Ibanez-Meier,and

Jolly, 1985). However in some cases it may even be not relevant at all (Gardner and

Barrows, 1985; Ervin and Mill, 1985)

The process of intensification in agricultural production has increased soil erosion

in agricultural systems up to a point in which it is a main agricultural externality and a

main threat for agricultural sustainability as it reduces the potential for agricultural

production. Soil erosion has a multiple dimensions (biological physical, economic,

ecological, social etc) that should be considered together in order to make advance in

solutions. The socio-economic side of the problem has often been neglected in most

technical studies. The economic analysis of soil erosion have mainly focused in two main

aspects of the problem, namely the decline of soil fertility and the resulting loss in

agricultural productivity and the pollution effect of sediment load in water courses

(calatrava-leyval,Franco and Gonzalenz-Roa, 2005). They finally opined that soil erosion

results in increased production cost, land rent loss and in a productive capital loss that

may result in a decline in the market value of eroded land.

Farmer perception of the problem of soil erosion, its costs and benefit is key to

determine the usage of soil erosion control practices. The literature shows that farmers

are aware of the problem, although there are many factors that cause farmers not to care

about soil loss in that they can substitute other inputs for soil depth (Wade and Heady,
 52

1978). This causes the failure to incorporate long term use benefits in their utility

function (Lee, 1980).

Farmers responses to soil erosion will depend of many diverging factors both

technical (cropping patterns, slopes, type of soil, etc) and socio-economic (farmers age,

skills, wealth, etc). One option is to do nothing maintain the same technology, practices

and level of input use, what leads to a continued soil loss and a decline in agricultural

production. A second option is to intensify production substituting other inputs (such as

fertilizers) for topsoil depth, what generally worsen soil loss and increase production

costs. A third option is to adopt new practices to conserve soil, what may have a negative

economic effect on the short run but positive one in the long run, although ambiguous

evidence exists in this sense. Last, he may regenerated topsoil, incurring even larger costs

(Franco and calatrava-layva, 2006).

An important group of factors effecting adoption of soil conservation practices

relate to soil characteristics and the time frame of adoption. Most studies show that in

deeper soils the incentive to conserve appears more on the long run, as top soil is lost and

the yield function exhibits diminishing marginal returns to topsoil depth. Incentives are

far more appealing for steeper slopes and more eroded lands (Walker, 1982). A second

main factor is the investment costs of adopting control practices, that are generally lower

in areas with smaller risk of soil erosion are more less steeped slopes, where benefits

usually surpass costs. Investment costs are also affected by aspects such as the loan

repayment conditions, interest rates etc. Another important factor is the relationship

between potential erosion and land productivity, and to which extent conservation

practices affect agricultural production and farm profits, are more likely to be adopted.
 53

This probability increases the more these practices reduce erosion (Franco and calatrava-

leyval, Ibid)..

Other factors commonly found in the literature to be related with the adoption of

soil erosion control practices are the level of non-farming income, labour and or

machinery availability, land tenancy issues (property incentives adoption and

investment), the level of risk aversion, continuity of sons/relatives in framing, and the

existence of public programmes. Last, lower income farmers are usually more concerned

with short term survival than with the long term benefits of soil conservation.

The socioeconomic factors affecting the use of a particular farmland erosion

control practices as a concept of resource use sustainability can best be captured using

multinomial logit model. The multinomial logit regression is used when the dependent

variable in question which is the erosion control practice is nominal and consist of more

than two categories.

Erosion control practice is an alternative decision facing a farmer in order to

ensure sustainability of resource use for increased productivity, food security and

environmental quality.

The costs and benefits of such an alternative of erosion control practices can be

measured using partial budget analysis as it is a veritable tool used to calculate the

expected change in profit for a proposed change in the farm business. The extent of

causes of erosion on the farmland can be assessed using a 3-point Likert scale rating. The

Duncan’s Multiple range test is a comparison test tool that can capture the significant

difference in the means of net-benefits of different erosion control practices.The details

are found in the analytical framework below.

 54

However, erosion control practices especially in Enugu State is one of the concept

of sustainable use of natural resources for food security and environmental sustainability.

2.12 Analytical Framework

Eboh (1998), reported that the frameworks of analysis adopted for any research

study depends on the available information and the purpose of research. He also stated

that while means, frequencies, rates and percentages may be adequate for some

exploratory studies, more detailed and higher level analysis will be required for case

studies and sample surveys especially those that deal with quantitative data.

2.12.1 Multinomial Logit Model.

In statistics, economics and genetics, a multinomial logit model is a regression

model which generalizes logistic regression by allowing more than two discrete outcomes

(Wikipedia, 2008). Multinomial logit regression is used when the dependent variable in

question is nominal (a set of categories which cannot be ordered in any meaningful way)

and consists of more than two categories. It belongs to the disaggregate choice models of

consumer research. The models is also appropriate in cases where the parallel regression

assumption of ordered logit regression is violated. Ordered logit regression is used in

cases where the dependent variable in question consists of a set of number (more than

two) of categories which can be ordered in a meaningful way (for example, highest

degree, social class) (Wikipedia, 2008c and Bartels, Boztup and Muller,(1999).

Assumptions.

The Multinomial logit model assumes that data are case specific; that is, each

independent variable has a single value for each case. The multinomial logit model also

assumes that the dependent variable can not be perfectly predicted from the independent
 55

variables for any case. Collinearity is assumed to be relatively low, as it becomes difficult

to differentiate between the impact of several variable if they are highly correlated. The

independence of irrelevant alternatives (11A) is another assumption which the

multinomial logit model makes. This assumption states that the odds do not depend on

other alternatives that are available (ie. That including additional alternative or deleting

alternatives will not affect the odds on the dependent variable among the alternatives that

were included originally) (Wikipedia, 2008).

Biercaire (1997), also saw this independence from irrelevant Alternatives (11A) as an
important property of the multinomial logit model which states that; the ratio of the
probabilities of any two alternatives is independent from the choice set. That is, for any
choice sets S and T such that S ⊆ T ⊆ C, for any alternative α1 and α2 in S we have

PS (α1) = PT (α1)
PS (α2) PT(α2)

If the error terms are independent and identically Gumbel distributed, with location

parameter Ο and scale parameter μ, the probability that a given individual choose

alternative ί within C is given by

PC(‫ =)ﺂ‬eμν ‫_____ﺄ‬

∑KECeμvk

Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985) proposed an equivalent definition of 11A: The ratio of

choice probability of any two alternatives is entirely unaffected by the systematic utilities

of any other alternatives.

 56

Usage:

When using multinomial logistic regression, one category of the dependent variable is

chosen as the comparison category. Separate relative risk ratio are determined for all

independent variable for each category of the independent variable with the exception of

the comparison category of the dependent variable, which is omitted from the analysis.

Relative risk ratios, the exponential beta coefficient, represent the change in the odds of

being in the dependent variable category versus the comparison category associated with

a one unit change on the independent variable (Wikipedia, 2008c).

The model:

Exp (Xί β‫)ذ‬

Pr (yί=j)= 1+Σ‫ﺯ‬J exp (X‫ ﺄ‬βj)

And

Pr (y¿=O)= 1+Σ‫ز‬J exp (Xί β‫’)ز‬

Where for the ίth individual yί is the observed of outcome and X ί is a vector of

explanatory variables. The unknown parameters β‫ ز‬are typically estimated by maximum

likelihood.

The multinomial logic model has been used by Nkamleu (2007) in modelling

farmers’ decisions or integrated soil nutrient management in sub-Saharan Africa, by

Enete (2003) to study resource use, marketing and Diversification Decision in Cassava

Producing Household of sub-Saharan Africa, by Onyekuru (2007) to study the impact of

 57

changes in cooking energy prices on product substitution and resource allocation a

comparative analysis of rural and Urban households in Enugu State, Nigeria and

Bartels,Boztup and Muller,(1999) to describe purchases of one type of health care

products over 104 weeks in a scanner panel data set.

As Multinomial logit model is a model that allows more than two discrete

outcomes, I deemed it necessary to use the tool to determine the socioeconomic factors

affecting the use of specific farmland erosion control practices in my study area.

2.12.2 Partial Budgeting

Partial budgeting is a planning and decision-making framework used to compare

the costs and benefits of alternatives faced by a farm business. It focuses only on the

changes that would result from implementing a specific alternative. Thus, all aspects of

farm profits that are unchanged by the decision can be safely ignored. In a nutshell,

partial budgeting allows you to get a better handle on how a decision will affect the

profitability of the enterprise and ultimately the profitability of the farm itself (Hyde and

Roth (2002)

When and how to use partial Budget;

The partial budget framework can be used to analyse a number of important farm

decisions, including;

 adopting a new technology

 changing enterprises

 choosing to specialize

 hiring custom work

 58

 leasing instead of buying machinery

 modifying production practices

 making capital improvements

The structure of the analysis depend upon the nature of the decision being analysed (Roth

and Hyde 2002).

Sections in a partial budget.

The partial budget compares the positive and negative effects of the proposed change on

net income. You then separate the positive and negative effects and list then in different

sections of the partial budget.

Income change

Additional Reduced
income income

Reduced Additional costs

costs

Present income

Fig. 2: An illustration of the partial budget.

The partial budget is illustrated above as a balance which measures the positive

and negative effects of a change in the business. The left side of the balance shows the

positive effects on net income including additional income and reduced cost. To
 59

counterbalance this .positive effect, the right side of the balance includes reduced income

and additional cost or the. Negative effects of the proposed change. Therefore the partial

budget has four categorical parts: additional income, reduced costs, reduced income and

additional costs (Lesley,Johnson,and Hanson,(1991). Summarize the net income or

effects.

Once you have identified the individual positive (steps1 and 2) and negative (steps 3 and

4) aspects of the alternative, these should be aggregated to determine a total cost and

total benefit of the alternative. The net benefit of the alternative is fund by subtracting

total costs from total benefits. IF the net benefit is positive, then that alternative may be

have some economic advantages However, if the net benefit is negative, the business

wild be better put off staying with the current situation or analysing a different alternative

(Roth and Hyde 2002).

Partial budgeting has been used by lessley,Johnson,and Hanson,(1991) to analyse

substituting one enterprise for another and custom Hiring or owning a combine, Roth and

Hyde (2002) in analysing the net benefit of raising heifer and Utazi (2002) in an

Economic study of farmland erosion control practices in imo state.

I therefore found it worthy to use the partial budget analysis to determine the net

benefit of farmland erosion control practices in Enugu state, Nigeria which is the third

objective of my study. Reason being that partial budgeting is an analytical tool that

compares the costs and benefits of alternatives facing a farmer.

 60

2.12.3 Duncan’s Multiple-Range Test

In statistics, Duncan’s new multiple range test (MRT) is a multiple comparison

procedure developed by David B. Dauncan in 1955. Duncan’s MRT belongs to the

general class of multiple comparison procedures that use the studentized range statistic q r

to compare sets of means (Wikipedia, 2008a).

This procedure is based on the comparison of a range of sample means in the

subset. If the range of the subset exceeds the least significant range, then the population

means can be considered as significantly different. It is a sequential test and so the

subject with the largest range is compared first, followed by smaller subset. Once a range

is found not to be significant, no further subsets of this group are tested. The least

significant range, Rp for subsets P sample means is given by:

Rp = rp S2
n
Where rp is called the least significant studentized range and depends upon the error

degrees of freedom and the numbers of means of the subset. Tables of these values can be

found in many statistics books, S2 is the error mean square from the analysis of variance

table, and n is the sample size for each treatment (Bewick,Cheek,and Ball, 2004).

David B. Duncan developed this test as a modification of the student-Newman-

Keuls method that would have greater power. Duncan’s MRT is especially protected

against type ll error at the expense of having a greater risk of making type I errors.

Duncan’s test is commonly used in agronomy and other agricultural research (Wikipedia,

2008).
 61

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Study Area

Enugu state which was the study area falls within the rainforest zone vegetation

and is located between latitudes 50561N and 70.051N and longitudes 6 0531E and 70551E

(Anyadike, 2002 and Wikipedia, 2008). Enugu state is one of the states affected with

erosion epidemic in Nigeria (Akamigbo and Ofomata, 1988). The state has a landmass of

approximately 1069km2 with a population of 3,257,298 (Male: 1,624,202, and female:

1,633,096) (Ajero 2006, and NPC, 2006).

Enugu state is made up of seventeen local government area and shares boundary

in the north with Benue and kogi state, south with Abia state, east with Ebonyi state and

west with Anambra state. The state is also divided into three agricultural Zones as shown

in the soil map. The zones include;

* North Agricultural zone-comprising Udenu, Igbo-Etiti, Nsukka, Igboeze south, Igboeze

North and Uzo-Uwani.

* East Agricultural zone-consisting of Isi-Uzo, Enugu-East and Enugu North, Enugu

South, Nkanu East and Nkanu west.

* West Agricultural zone-comprising Udi, Awgu, Ezeagu, Oji River and Aninri

(ENADEP, 2008 and ENMOI, 2005).

The predominant soil type in Enugu state as shown in the soil map is sandy

followed closely by gravel, loamy and a small amount of clay soil. This predominant
 62

sandy soil makes the area susceptible to sheet erosion which poses a major threat to

farmland.

3.2 Sampling Procedure.

The study made use of both purposive and random sampling techniques for

selection of the respondents. The first stage involved a purposive sampling of six (6) out

of the seventeen (17) local government areas, two (2) from each of the three agricultural

zones of the state. The sampling of the six local government areas was guided by the high

number of farmland erosion sites present in the area as well as the soil type map of Enugu

state such that two local government areas with the most predominantly sandy soil

structure were selected in each agric zone.

Stage two involved a random sampling of four communities from each

agricultural zone, two communities from each selected local government. This gave a

total of twelve communities.

Stage three involved a random sampling of fourteen crop farmers from each of the

twelve (12) sampled communities. Therefore in all, one hundred and sixty eight farmers

(168) were selected and interviewed. The list of farmers in each community was obtained

through the assistance of the community’s extension officer. The L.G.As selected were;

Udenu and Igboetiti for Enugu-north agricultural zone, Udi and Ezeagu for Enugu-West

zone and Enugu-East and Nkanu-West for Enugu-East zone. The communities selected

were Ezimo and Obolo-Orie for Udenu,Umunna and Ukeghe for Igboetiti LGA,Umuoka

and Ebe for Udi LGA, Oghe and Obinofia Ndiagu for Ezeagu LGA, Agbani and Ozala in

Nkanu West Local Government Area and Ibagwa and Ugwogo in Enugu-East Local

Government Area.
 63

3.3 Data Collection

A cross-sectional data was used for the study. The data was obtained by using a

combination of structured questionnaire, on farm observation and measurements. The

questionnaire elicited information on farmers farm resources, their usage of erosion

control, type of treatment, erosion affected field size,and agronomic characteristics.

Others include direct capital our lay in constructing and maintaining erosion control

structures, labour and material charges, production cost charges, yield and income.

3.4 Data Analysis

The data generated were analyzed using the following analytical tools.

Objective (i) and (iv) was realized using descriptive statistics such as mean; percentages

frequencies and Ranking and Likert scale rating

Objective (ii) was realized using Partial budget analysis and Profitability index.

Objective (iii) was achieved using Multinomial logit model.

3.5 Test of Hypotheses

Hypotheses (i) was tested using Multinomial logit model at 0.05 level of significance.

Hypotheses (ii) was tested using Duncan’s multiple range test at 0.05 level of

significance.
 64

3.6 Model Specification

3.6.1 Multinomial Logit Model

According to Akamigbo, 1998, Chude, 2005, Lal, 1995, Morgan and Rickson, 1995 and

Stone, 1996 and ENADEP,2007, there are about five soil erosion control practices. Hence

the multinomial logit model to realise this objective (III)

Four steps are distinguished in the household farmland erosion control practice

choice. A step is assigned one if a farmer uses Multiple cropping, assigned two if the

farmer uses Construction of bonds , assigned three if the farmer uses Ridging across

the slope assigned four if Cover cropping. With these four possible options, steps

1,2,3,and 4 defined for the different erosion control practices, Multinomial logit model

was used for the analysis.

According to Enete (2003) a set of coefficient β (1)

,β (2)
,β (3)
,β , corresponding to
(4)

each outcome can be estimated as:

Pr (z=1) = exβ(1)______________________ ...........................(1)

eβ(1)+ exβ(2) + exβ(3) + exβ(4)

Pr (Z=2)= ___ exβ(2)_________________ ………………….(2)

exβ(1) + exβ(2)+ exβ(3)+exβ(4)

Pr (Z=3) = ____exβ(3)___________________ ………………….(3)

exB(1) + exB(2) +exB(3) + exB(4)

Pr (Z=4)= ____exβ(4)____________________ ..............................(4)

exβ(1)+exβ(2)+exβ(3)+exβ(4)

The model however is unidentified in the sense that there is more than one solution to β ,
β,(2)β,(3)β, (4), that leads to the same probabities for z=1, Z=2, Z=3, Z=4. To
(1)
 65

identity the model, one of β(1),β(2), β(3),β(4), is arbitrarily set to 0. That is if we arbitrarily set
β(2), = 0 the remaining coefficients β(1),β(2),β(3),β,(4) would measure the change relative to
the Z=2 group. Setting β(2), = 0 the above equation become.

Pr (Z=1) = ___exβ(1)________________ ………………………(6)

exβ(1)+exB(2)+exβ(3) +1

Pr (Z=2) = _____1________________ ……………………...(7)

exβ(1) + exβ(2)+ exβ(3)+1

Pr (Z=3)= _______exB(3)______________ ……………………..(8)

exβ(1)+exβ(2)+exβ(3) +1

Pr (Z=4) = ______ exB(4)_______________ ……………………... (9)

exβ(1) + exβ(2)+exβ(3)+1

The relative probability of Z = 1 to the base category is

Pr(Z=1) =exβ(1) ………………………(11)

Pr(Z=2)
If we call this the relative likelihood and assume that X and βK(1) are vectors to

(X1, X2 ……..XK) and β1(1) β2(1), …….. βK(1) respectively. The ratio of relative likelihood
for one unite change in Xί relative to the base category is

then eβ1(1)x1+……+β1(1) (x1+1) +……+βK(1)xK = eβ1(1)

eβ1(1) x1+….+ β1(1) x1+…..+ βK(1)xK

Thus, the exponential value of a coefficient is the relative likelihood ratio for one unit

change in the corresponding variable (Statacorp .1999) Quoted by Enete (2003) and

Onyekuru (2007).
 66

Variable Definition

The type of erosion control practices used was a function of some socioeconomic

characteristics of the farmers as explanatory variable for the study.

These variables are:

• AGR= Age of the Farmers in (Years)

• INCM = Annual Income of the Head of Household (Naira)

• HSZ = Household Size (Numbers)

• LNDR = Land Tenure (1 Inherited, 0 Otherwise)

• TOPG =- Slope of the Farm (1= Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High)

• LBR = Labour (1 Hired, 0 Otherwise)

• SZFRM = Size of the Farm under Control (Hectares)

• RSK = Risk Attitude of the Farmers: Scale from 1= Very Risky,2=Little

Risky,3=Not Risky

• CSTER = Cost of each Erosion Control Practices (Naira)

• EROGV = Perception of the Gravity of the Soil Erosion Problem by the Farmers

as 1 = Very Seriously, 2= Little Serious. 3= Not Serious.

3.6.2 Partial Budget Analysis

The partial budget was used to address objective (ii). The partial budget was used

to calculate the expected change in profit for a proposed change in the farm business

resulting from the control of farmland erosion.

 67

PARTIAL BUDGET FORMAT

POSITIVE IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS

Unit of analysis Unit of analysis

Added Returns Added costs

Items 1 Nx Items 1 Nx

2 . 2 .

. . . .

. . . .

n Nn n Nn

Total Added Returns: Nx Total added costs: N X

Reduced Costs Reduced returns

Items 1 Nx Items 1 Nx

2 . 2 .

. . . .

. . . .

n Nn n Nn

Total reduced costs: N x Total Reduced Returns: N x

TOTAL POSITIVE IMPACTS NX TOTAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS NX

Net benefit= Total positive impacts –Total negative impacts.

The total positive impacts represents the total benefit while the total negative impacts

connotes the total cost.

 68

If the net benefit of the alternative is positive, then the alternative (farmland erosion

control practice) may have some economic advantages. However, if the net benefit is

negative then the alternative would be better put off as it has no economic

advantage( Roth and Hyde 2002).

-List of added returns-This involves identifying any possible means of generating new

revenue streams.

- Reduced Costs-This has to do with identifying the general areas where the choice might

lower expenses.

-Added Costs-This is arrived at by identifying all the general areas in which costs will

increased.

- Reduced returns- In this case, one will have to find out whether revenue will be

decreased or eliminated as result of choosing or using a particular alternative.

3.6.3 Duncan’s Multiple –Range Test

The Duncan’s multiple range test was used to test hypothesis II to compare the

means of net benefits of different erosion control practices.

The test is given by:

Rp = rp S2
n
Where rp = least significant studentized range which depends upon the error degrees of

freedom and the number of means of the subset of each erosion control practice.

S2 = Error mean square from the analysis of variance table.

 69

n = Sample size for each control practice treatment. (Bewick,V.,Cheek,L.and Ball,J

2004).

3.6.4 Likert Rating Scale Technique

The Likert rating scale was used to analyse objective(iv). To assess the extent of

causes of erosion on the farmland from the farmer’s perspectives, 3-point likert rating

scale was used. The 3-point likert rating scale was graded as Very Serious (VS) = 3,

Serious (S) = 2, Not Serious (NS) = 1. The mean score of respondents (farmers) based on

the 3-point rating scale was computed;

3+2+1 = 6
3 3
= 2.00 Cut off point

Using the interval scale of 0.05, the upper limit cut-off point was 2.00 + 0.05 =

2.05; the lower limit was 2.00 – 0.05 = 1.95. On the basis of the limit, mean scores below

1.95 were ranked “Not Serious; those mean value between 1.95 and 2.04 were considered

‘Serious’ while mean scores that were greater than or equal to 2.05 were considered

‘Very Serious’.

2.6.5 Profitability Index

Profitability index was used to address part of objective (ii). The more beneficial

and financial attractiveness of the farmland erosion control practices was captured using

Profitability indices. The index attempts to identify the relationship between the costs and

benefits of a proposed project through the use of ratio(Wiki Answer(2010).The

Profitability indices for each erosion control practice was assessed by calculating the ratio

of Net-benefit to Total cost(Total Negative Impact). Profitability index =

Net-benefit/Total cost.
 70

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 The Erosion Control Practices Applied By Farmers in the Area.

Agro-engineering findings indicate that farmers in the rural southeastern Nigeria

apply many techniques to conserve soil, control erosion and prevent soil degradation.

(Onuoha, 1985 and Ofomata 1982). To address objective one, table 4.1.1 presents the

frequency, percentage and rank distribution of the erosion control practices applied by

farmers.

From the result below, four erosion control practices were used by farmers in the

study area. They include Multiple Cropping, Construction of bonds, Ridging across the

slope and Cover cropping. Table 4.1.1 below shows that 69 farmers practiced Multiple

Cropping representing 41%, 34 practiced Construction of bonds representing 20%, 30

practiced Ridging across the slope representing 18% while 35 used Cover cropping

(21%). Muhamman and Gungula (2006), in line with this opined that Cover crop in a

mixed cropping system increases farmer’s insurance against crop failure and erosion.

Suyamto and Howeler (2001) in Indonesia concluded that cultural practices such

as Contour ridging combined with hedgerows could be recommended for planting

cassava, since such practice could reduce soil erosion and give a good cassava yield.

Copper (2008), also saw Multiple Cropping as a low-risk source of food and income for

families whose farm-size is small and who lack the capital to mechanize and expand their

farm.
 71

Table 4.1.1 Frequency, Percentage and Rank Distribution of Farmland Erosion

Control Practices.

Erosion Control Practices Frequency Percentage Rank

Multiple Cropping 69 41 1

Construction of Bonds 34 20 3

Ridging Across the Slope 30 18 4

Cover Cropping 35 21 2

TOTAL 168 100%

Source: Field survey 2009

4.1.2 Combination of Erosion Control Practices Applied by Farmers

In other to ensure a proper sustainable environmental and soil quality, farmers applied a

number of combination of farmland erosion control practices. According to USDA

(1994), Improved land management that ensures better resource use and promotes long-

term sustainability is basic to future food production and to the economic welfare or rural

communities. Table 4.1.2 therefore reflects the frequency and percentage distribution of

combination of erosion control practices applied by farmers in the area.

On the other hand, there were combinations of erosion control practices applied

by farmers in the area. The result of table 4.1.2 shows that 59 applied two of the control

practices representing 35.1%, 39 farmers applied three of the erosion control measures

representing 23.2% while 4 applied all four control practices in their farmland

representing 2.4%. However, though various combinations could be applied by the

farmers, one was in most cases used as the major control practice depending on the

amount of resources involved. The cost and return analysis discussed in the subsequent

sections was based on this premise.

 72

Table 4.1.2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Combination of Erosion

Control Practices.

Combination Frequency Percentage

Two 59 35.1

Three 39 23.2

Four 4 2.4

Total 168 100%

Source: Field survey 2009

4.1.3 Description of Farmland Erosion Control practices applied by Farmers

Farmers explored and described the four erosion control practices applied as follows;

(i) Multiple cropping – This according to the crop farmers involves the planting of

different crops in the farmland ranging from three to four crops per farmland. Crops

planted by farmers include, maize, yam, cassava, cocoa yam, groundnut, melon, black

beans and cowpea.

(ii) Construction of bonds – From the farmers perspective, the construction of bonds

was done by making cross bars in between ridges and mounds and then planting crops on

the bars or bonds. Their aim here was to hold in place run off in the farm and

consequently conserves soil. Crops planted by farmers in this control practice include

maize, cassava, tomatoes, bitter leave, Sugarcane and pepper.

(iv) Ridging across the slope – Farmers practiced this control measure by making

ridges across the slope to block runoffs flowing down the slope and planting crops

on it.
 73

Farmers also believed that this practice will help reduce the speed of runoff down the

slope.

(iv) Cover cropping – The respondents described cover cropping as the planting of cover

crops to cover the soil and prevent evapouration and reduce rainfall intensity on the soil.

Such crops planted by farmers to check erosion include; groundnut, cowpea, melon,

sweet potato, cocoa yam, black beans, pineapple etc.

In terms of ranking, Multiple cropping which has the highest frequency of 69

was ranked first seconded by Cover cropping with a frequency of 35. The third ranking

was construction of bonds with a frequency of 34. Ridging across the slope whose

frequency was 30 was ranked fourth and last. It was therefore observed that majority of

the farmers in the area applied Multiple cropping practice to control erosion on their

farmland. Collins (2001) noted that plants provide protective cover on the land and

prevent soil erosion with the following reasons; (a) Plants slow down water as it flows

over the land (runoff) and this allows much of the rain to soak into the ground. (b) Plant

roots hold the soil in position and prevent it from being washed away. (c) They break

the impact of a raindrop before it hits the soil, thus reducing its ability to erode. (d) In

wetlands and on the banks of rivers plants are of particular importance as they slow down

the flow of the water and their roots bind the soil, thus preventing erosion. Akamigbo

(1998) was also of the view that Multiple cropping ensure that the soil is usually

protected by a vegetative cover. The least erosion control practice applied by farmers in

the area (Ridging across the slope) could be because of low availability of sloppy

farmlands in the area.

 74

4.2 Costs and Returns for the Erosion Control Practice

The impact of resource management, especially by erosion management on the

farm size, farm output and value of output are deemed serious for the Nigeria agricultural

societies (Titilola 1998). The economic cost of erosion is very difficult to quantify, but it

is definitely very large, Huge sums of money are spent each year repairing damage

caused by erosion or reinforcing existing structures and land against erosion, (Akamigbo,

1999).

A partial budget analysis was conducted to compare the costs and returns of each

erosion control practice in order to ascertain which control measure had the highest net-

benefit.

4.2.1 Multiple Cropping Partial Budget

Table 4.2.1. Below presents the partial budget analysis for multiple cropping

erosion control practice. As shown in the table 4.2.1, the total Positive impacts of

Multiple cropping which include value added to crop output and reduced cost was

N44,7450.78k. The value added to crop output involved total annual income per hectare

from crop output. The reduced cost was nil. The total negative impacts of Multiple

cropping which was made up of added costs and reduced return was N53,496.90k. The

added costs involved the cost of labour and materials. The reduced cost was nil. The net-

benefit of Multiple cropping was therefore N393,953.88k. Applying for profitability

indices in this case, table 4.2.1 shows that the total cost which is the total Negative

Impacts was N53,493.90k, while the net-benefits was N393,953.88k. The profitability

index is hence the ratio of Net-benefit to total Negative Impacts (Total Cost). That is

N393,953.88k/ N53,493.90k. The profitability index was therefore 7.36 for Multiple

cropping. Muhamman and Gungula (2006) observed in northern Nigeria that farm
 75

produce obtained from the plots of Maize, Yam and Melon gave more economic returns

than the sole Maize.

Table 4.2.1 Multiple Cropping Partial Budget

POSITIVE IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS

Value added to crop output(N)= Added cost of (labour and materials) (N) =

44,7450.78k 53,496.90k

Reduced cost = NIL Reduced Return = NIL

TOTAL POSITIVE IMPACTS =N TOTAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS =

44,7450.78k N 53,496.90k

Net – Benefit = Total Positive Impact -

Total Negative impacts

N 44,7450.78 -N 53,496.90k

= N 393,953.88k

Source: Field Survey 2009

4.2.2 Construction of Bonds

Table 4.2.2 shows the cost and returns from construction of bonds. From the

table 4.2.2, the total Positive impacts for Construction of bonds was N42,474.10k while

the corresponding total Negative impacts was N16,358.80k. The net-benefit was N

26,115.30k. That is N42, 474.10 – N16, 358.80. The profitability index for Construction

of Bonds was 1.59. That is N26, 115.30k/ N16, 358.80k.

ASARECA-TUUSI (1998) in East Central Africa also used partial budgeting to reveal

that tie-ridging also called Construction of bonds gave the better net-benefit in maize

based cropping system.

 76

Table 4.2.2 Construction of Bonds Net Benefits

POSITIVE IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS

Value added to crop output(N) = Added costs of (labour and materials)

42,474.10k (N) = 16,358.80k

Reduced cost = NIL Reduced Return = NIL

TOTAL POSITIVE IMPACTS = TOTAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS

N 42,474.10k N 16,358.80k

Net – Benefit = Total Positive Impacts – Total Negative Impacts:

= N 42,474.10k - N16,358.80k

= N 26,115.30k

Source: Field Survey 2009.

4.2.3: Ridging Across the Slope

Table 4.2.3 below presents the net benefit of ridging across the slope. Table 4.2.3

shows that the total Positive impacts of Ridging across the slope which include value

added to crop output and reduced cost was N63,308.33k. On the other hand, the total

Negative impacts which was made up of the added costs of labour and materials and

reduced return was N29, 566.67k. Subtracting the total positive impacts from the total

negative impacts, a net-benefit of N33, 741.66k was observed. From table, the

profitability index for Ridging across the slope can be calculated as the ratio of Net –

benefit to total Negative Impact (Total cost). That is N33,741.66k/N29, 566. 67k.

Therefore the profitability index was 1. 14 for Ridging Across

 77

the Slope. Suyamto and Howeler (2001) also reported that terracing of sloping land is a

good way to control erosion even though it requires a lot of labour, time and capital.

Table 4.2.3: Ridging Across the Slope Partial Budget

POSITIVE IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS

Value added to crop output(N) = Added costs of (labour and materials)

63,308.33k (N) = 29,566.67k

Reduced cost = NIL Reduced Return = NIL

TOTAL POSITIVE IMPACTS = TOTAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS =

N 63,308.33k N 29,566.67k

Net – Benefit = Total Positive Impact -

Total Negative Impacts

N 63,308.33k - N 29566.67k

= N 33,741.66k

Source: Field Survey 2009

4.2.4 Cover Cropping

Table 4.2.4 present the partial budget for cover cropping erosion control. From

table 4.2.4, it was observed that the total positive impacts of Cover cropping was

N9,330.00k and the total negative impacts was N8, 438.90k. The net-benefit which is

total positive impacts – total negative impacts was N891.10k. This net –benefit was used

to capture the profitability index for Cover cropping. This was done by dividing the Net-

benefit by the total Negative Impacts. Hence N891.10k/N8,438.90k. The profitability

index of 0.10 was

 78

therefore captured for Cover cropping. Cover crops according to Muhamman and

Gungula (2006) and PENNSTATE (1995-2010), have a lot of economic benefits such as

controlling erosion, improving soil fertility, reduction in the use of inorganic fertilizers,

herbicides, weed and insect control cost, protecting ground water, scavenging residual

nitrate and high economic return to the farmers.

Table 4.2.4 Cover Cropping Partial Budget

POSITIVE IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS

Value added to cropoutput(N) = 9,330.00 Added costs of labour and materials(N)=

Reduced cost = NIL 8,438.90k

Reduced Return = NIL

TOTAL POSITIVE IMPACTS TOTAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS

= N 9,330.00 = N 8,438.90k

Net – Benefit = Total Positive Impacts – Total Negative Impacts:

= N 9,330.00 - N 8438.90k

= N 891.10k

Source: Field Survey 2009

The result of the Partial budget analysis for each erosion control practice showed

that the Net-benefits of Multiple cropping, Construction of bonds, Ridging Across the

slope and Cover cropping were N393, 953.88k, N26, 115.30k, N33, 741.66k and

N891.10k respectively. Multiple cropping therefore has the highest Net-benefit of

N393,953.88k compared to other control practices. Meanwhile, the Profitability indices

results for Multiple cropping, Construction of bonds, Ridging across the slope and Cover
 79

cropping were 7.36, 1.59, 1.14 and 0.10 respectively. It is therefore more beneficial to

invest in Multiple cropping than other forms of erosion control measures. Copper Wikki

(2008), concluded that Multiple Cropping uses renewable natural resources to control

erosion, provide food, income and livelihood for current and future generations.

4.2.5 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

The Duncan’s multiple range test is a comparison test tool that can capture the

significant difference in the means of net-benefits of different erosion control practices.

Duncan’s tests was used to test hypothesis II to compare the means of net-benefits of

different erosion control practices.

Table 4.2.5.1 compared the means of net –benefits of the erosion control practices

used by the farmers. From the analysis of variance table 4.2.5.1, below the P-value which

tests the overall model to determine if there is a difference in means between net benefits

of different erosion control practices, was small. In this case, since the P-value is small (P

= 0.0002), it can be concluded that there is evidence that there is statistically significant

difference in the means of net-benefits of erosion control practices.

In order to determine where the differences lie, that comparison was performed by

the Duncan’s Multiple Range test at the alpha = 0.05. Notice the grouping labels “A” and

“B” in the table above. There was only one mean associated with “A” group and that is

Multiple cropping. This indicates that the mean for Multiple cropping is significantly

larger than the mean of all other groups. There are three means associated with the “B”

group – they are Ridging Across the slope, Construction of bonds and Cover-cropping

erosion control.

Therefore, the Duncan’s comparison concludes that the mean for Multiple

cropping erosion control is significantly higher than the means of Ridging Across the
 80

slope, Construction of bonds and Cover-cropping erosion control and that there is no

significant difference between Ridging Across the slope, Construction of bonds and

Cover-cropping erosion control. Abu-Hamdeh (2003) also used Duncan’s Multiple Range

test to compare means of bean and barley yields by type of weed control system for four

tillage systems in Jordan. The details of the Duncan’s multiple range test are found in the

appendix.

Table 4.2.5.1 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for Net-Benefit

Duncan grouping Mean N Erosion control

A 252740 69 Multiple cropping

B 35242 30 Ridging across the slope

B 29456 34 Construction of bonds

B 6631 35 Cover cropping

Source: field survey 2009

4.3 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Farmer’s Use of Particular Erosion Control

Practices

The dependent variables (Y) were the erosion control practices which are

designated 1,2,3,4 for multiple cropping, construction of bonds, ridging across the slope,

and cover cropping respectively. These dependent variables are determined by maximum

likelihood.

The socioeconomic factors affecting the use of a particular farmland erosion

control practices as a concept of resource use sustainability can best be captured using
 81

multinomial logit model. The multinomial logit regression is used when the dependent

variable in question which is the erosion control practice is nominal and consist of more

than two categories. Farmer perception of the problem of soil erosion, its costs and

benefit is key to determine the usage of soil erosion control practices (Franco and Cala

Trava 2006).

Table 4.3 presents the results of Multinomial logit regression analysis of the

socioeconomic characteristics affecting the farmers use of multiple cropping,

Construction of bonds, Ridging across the slope and Cover cropping in Enugu State. The

explanatory powers of the factors as reflected by pseudo-R 2 seem low (24%), but this is

not uncommon in cross sectional analysis. The overall goodness of fit as reflected by

Prob>chi2 was however good (<0.0000).

In comparison with age, the probability that farmers engage in planting cover

crops (step 4) as against construction of bonds (step 2) was negatively and highly

significantly related with the age of the farmers. The coefficient and t-value was -0.117

and 3.03 for Cover cropping. The t-value was significant at 1% and consistent with a

prior expectations. As the age of the farmers increases, their probability of using Cover

cropping decreases compared with the use of construction of bonds. This suggests that

young farmers are more energetic to cope with the laborious nature of the erosion control

practice as against construction of bonds. This is in line with Ahmed, Atry and Elham

(2009).

Household size (Hhs): Household size positively affected farmers willingness to adopt

Multiple cropping, and Making ridges across the slope. The coefficient and t-value for

Multiple cropping are 0.56 and 3.390; while the values for making of Ridges across the

slope were 0.484 and 2.770. The t-values were significant at 1%. It implies that as the
 82

household size gets bigger, the probability that farmers will engage in Multiple cropping

and making ridges across the slope increases. Family labour could be an important

source of farm labour for execution of these operations that aid in erosion control. This is

in line with Franco and Calatrava-leyval, Franco Martinez and GonzalenzRoa, (2007)’s

view that continuity of sons and relatives in farming is an important factor in the

adoptions of soil conservation practices.

Cost of erosion control was positively related to Multiple cropping. Its coefficient and t-

value for Multiple cropping are 0.001 and 2.390 respectively. The t-value was

significant at 5%. It means that as the cost of erosion control increases, farmers will be

willing to engage in Multiple cropping. However, farmers are choosing multiple cropping

instead of construction of bonds as costs increases because Multiple cropping though

capital and labour intensive increases their insurance against crop failure and erosion as

well as optimization of production from small plots thus helping farmers cope with land

shortage since a variety of crops are grown on the same of piece of land. Diverse foods

outputs are also obtained through Multiple cropping, hence providing a chance of choice

for using food commodities. From the market point of view, as farmers are getting more

than one crop simultaneously, even if the selling price of one commodity is less in the

market, the other will be there to compensate. Omar (2011) also reported in Somali that

Multiple cropping requires a lot of capital for the smooth running of farming activities as

well as intensive labour that can be used in cultivation and management practices that

will be undertaken. He also concluded that Multiple cropping systems results in efficient

use of land resources thus providing year – round coverage of crop land hence reducing

erosion and sustaining top soil.

 83

Table 4.3.0 Result of Multinomial Logit Regression Analysis of the

Socioeconomic Characteristics Affecting the Farmers Use of
Multiple Cropping, Construction of Bonds, Ridging Across the
Slope, and Cover Cropping in Enugu State

Multiple cropping, Ridging across the slope, Cover Cropping

Variables 1 3 4

Age -0.062 -0.064 -0.117

(-1.850) (-1.760) (-3.020)***
Income 1.130 -2.970 -5.960
(0.820) (-1.300) (-1.840)
Hhs 0.562 0.484 0.299
(3.390)*** (2.770)*** (1.630)
Landtr -0.040 -0.079 -0.526
(-0.060 (-0.110) (-0.740)
Labour 0.677 -0.355 0.096
(1.110) (-0.570) (0.140)
Sfuctr -0.794 -0.446 0.148
(-1.350) (-0.446) (0.240)
Costec 0.0001 0.0001 -0.0001
(2.390)** (1.770) (-1.170)
Erogv 0.499 -0.945 -0.396
(0.940) (-1.710) (-0.700)
Intercept -1.237 2.571 5.475
(-0.570) (1.120) (2.280)**

Statistics: Ch2 = 108.91

Prob>Chi2 = 0.0000
Pseudo R2 = 0.2449
Numb of Obs =168
Note: Construction of Bonds (2) is the comparison category.

Figures in parentheses are Z-ratios.

 84

*** denotes P≤0.001,

** denotes 0.01< P≤0.05

Source Field Survey 2009

4.4. Possible Causes of Erosion on the Farmland from the Farmers Perspective.

The relationship between climate and soil erosion is fairly well known and for

south eastern Nigeria, especially Enugu state, rainfall and soil type constitutes the

dominant sub-factor (Ofomata 1985-88). Table 4.4.1 showed the percentage causes of

erosion on the farmland.

From table 4.4.1 below, 95.2 percentages of the farmers said yes to rainwater as a

possible cause of erosion on farmland while only 4.8 percent said no. Onyeguocha (1980)

stated that the agent of soil erosion in Anambra and Enugu state is rainwater. About 70

percent of them said no to deforestation. Ofomata (1988) observed that human erosion

action is made manifest on the earth’s surface through his agricultural activities,

especially through his clearing of the original vegetation.

For soil type, 94.6% of the farmers agreed that it was a cause of erosion while only 5.4%

of them said no to soil type. This goes with Ofomata (1988) who noted that the unique

dimension which soil erosion is attained by southeastern Nigeria is related in very direct

way to the lithological composition of the soils of the area. About 94% said yes to slope

of the farm as one of the causes of erosion. Ofomata (1985) also suggested that other

factors that play significant role in soil erosion in Anambra and Enugu state include

topography (relief/slope), climate and surface material. World Bank (2001) also noted in

China that, mass wasting which is the down slope movement of rock and sediments occur

mainly on a gentle slope.

 85

Further, 45.2% of the farmers indicated excessive bush burning as a cause of erosion. For

population density, 46.4% of farmers said yes while 53.6% said no. 58.3 of the farmers

said yes to poor road construction as a cause of erosion while the remaining 41.7% of the

farmers disagreed with it. As regards Poor farming system, 82.7% of the farmers were of

the view that it causes erosion on the farmland while 17.3% of them did not agree to poor

farming system. In the case of Quarrying of sand, 48.3% of the respondents said yes to it

as a cause of erosion but 51.8% said no that quarrying of sand does not cause erosion on

farmland. Akamigbo (1988), suggested that Anthropogentic activities which either

initiate or aggravate soil erosion in include poor road construction, indiscriminate house

construction across natural drainage routes, quarrying of sand and gravels, bush burning,

indiscriminate free felling and poor farming techniques.

The field survey also showed that 37.5% of the farmers in the area said yes that crops that

attracts human traffic can cause erosion while 62.5% of them disagreed that is cannot

cause erosion on farm. The Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic research (NISER,

1988) opined that the choice of crop that are labour intensive or attract human traffic may

cause severe soil erosion.

On the other hand, 88 farmers representing 52.4% believed that overgrazing could cause

soil erosion on the farm, but 47.6% said no to overgrazing as possible cause of erosion.

Other possible causes of erosion on the farmland as observed by the farmers include

cattle hooves of which 2.4% agreed to it while the rest 97.6% said no to overgrazing.
 86

Table 4.4.1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Possible Causes of

Erosion on the Farmland.

Causes of Erosion Frequency Percentage of Frequency Percentage of

of Yes Yes of No No

1. Rain Water 160 95.2 8 4.8

2. Deforestation 113 67.3 55 32.7

3. Soil type 159 94.6 9 5.4

4. Slope of the Farm 158 94 10 6

5. Excessive bush burning 76 45.2 92 54.8

6. Population Density 78 46.4 90 53.6

7. Poor Road Construction 98 58.3 70 41.7

8. Poor Farming System 139 82.7 29 17.3

9. Quarrying of Sand 81 48.2 87 51.8

10. Crops that attract human 63 37.5 105 62.5

traffic

11. Gods 13 7.7 155 92.3

12. Overgrazing 88 52.4 80 47.6

13. Others: Cattle hooves 4 2.4 164 97.6

Source: Field Survey 2009

 87

4.4.2 Causes and Extent of Cause of Erosion as Perceived by the Farmers.

The conservation of natural resources, however, entails a better knowledge of the

limitations imposed by the natural and man- made misuse of the environment as well as

the need for ecological balance (Titilola, 1998). The extent of causes of erosion on the

farmland can be assessed using a 3-point Likert scale rating.

Table 4.4.2.1 revealed that the effects of Rainwater, Deforestation, Soil type,

Slope of the farm, Poor road construction and Indiscrimate house construction on the
−

farmland in the area were very serious. This was reflected in their high mean ( x ) values

ranging from 2.42, 2.26, 2.49, 2.37, 2.35 and 2.16 respectively. The result also shows that

factors such as population density and poor farming system were serious causes of
−

erosion with moderate mean ( x ) values of 1.99 and 2.01 respectively.

Furthermore, other factors from the table as Excessive bush burning, Quarrying of sand,

Crops that attracts human traffic, Gods, Overgrazing and others like cattle hooves were
−

not a serious cause of erosion in the area. This was capture in their low mean ( x ) values

such as 1.54 (Excessive bush burning), 1.64 (Quarrying of sand), 1.42 (Crops that attracts

human traffic), 1.16 (Gods), 1.74 (Overgrazing and 1.02 (Cattle hooves).
−

In general, the high mean ( x ) values of the very serious causes of erosion on the

farmland from the farmer’s perspective were expected. This agrees with Lal (1990) and

Ofomata (1986) who noted that rainfall leads to leaching and run off which is the central

agent in soil erosion system. Amechi (1977), Edward(1993) and Copper Wikki (2009)

also reported that soil erosion is intensified by human activity which has been significant

in the recent periods as man began to step up the exploitation of natural resources such as
 88

deforestation. The unique dimension which soil erosion has attained in south eastern

Nigeria is related in very direct way to the lithological composition of the soils of the

area. This derives from their parent materials which are mainly soft sandstone formations

of cretaceous and tertiary age (Ofomata 1988). The opinions of Akamigbo (1999) and

Ofomata (1988) in line with this study stated that surface configuration (relief/slope) aids

runoff, sheet erosion and gulling. Soil loss due to erosion course is also dependent on the

amount and intensity of rainfall, the slope and the characteristics of the soil (Suyamta and

Howeler 2001).

A similar view of this study was shared with Akamigbo (1988) where her

submitted that Anthropogenic activities which either initiate or aggregate soil erosion in

the old Anambra State include poor raod construction, indiscriminate house construction

across natural drainage routes, quarrying of sand and gravels, bush burning, urbanization

and industrialization. Soil erosion is aggravated by such factors as poor farming systems,

soil management practices and poverty stricken farmers (Akamigbo and Titilalo (1998)

and Zhita and Xuezhen (2004). This study also agrees with the report of Ofomata (1985)

that besides civil anthropogenic activities, population density also play significant role in

soil erosion in Enugu and Anambra State.

Moreover when land is overused by animal activities, there can be mechanical erosion

and also removal of vegetation leading to erosion (Wikipedia 2009). Copper Wikki

(2009) also noted that cattle and sheep compact the soil and remove vegetation which

may lead to soil erosion.

 89

Table 4.4.2.1: Mean and Standard deviation Distribution of the Perception of

Extent of Causes of Farmland Erosion by the Farmers.

S/ Causes of Erosion X Std Dev Remarks

1. Rain Water 2.42 0.652 Very Serious

2. Deforestation 2.26 0.711 Very Serious

3. Soil type 2.49 0.683 Very Serious

4. Slope of the Farm 2.37 0.705 Very Serious

5. Excessive bush burning 1.54 0.733 Not Serious

6. Population Density 1.99 0.781 Serious

7. Poor Road Construction 2.35 0.735 Very Serious

8. Indiscrimate house construction 2.16 0.857 Very Serious

9. Poor farming system 2.01 0.774 Serious

10. Quarrying of Sand 1.64 0.719 Not Serious

11. Crops that attract human traffic 1.42 0.563 Not Serious

12. Gods 1.16 0.442 Not Serious

13. Overgrazing 1.74 0.798 Not Serous

14 Others: Cattle hooves 1.02 0.133 Not Serious

Source: Field Survey 2009

 90

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY

Soil erosion is one manifestation of soil degrading processes that results in

reduced soil quality and productivity. There is therefore the need for combating it so as to

halt the accelerating trend of soil degradation, to maintain soil productivity and to

contribute to the food security of current and future generations. This is the basis for this

study.

The specific objectives of the study are to; identify and describe the erosion

control practices (or combination of practices) applied by farmers in the area, determine

the net-benefit of erosion control practices, determine the socio-economic factors

affecting the farmer’s use of a particular erosion control practices, identify from the

farmer’s perspective the possible causes and extent of cause of erosion on the farmland

and make recommendations for improving erosion control practices based on the

findings.

The study was carried out in Enugu State, which is made up of three agricultural

zones. Two local government areas that have predominantly sandy soil were purposively

selected from each zone based on the soil type map of Enugu State. A random sampling

of two communities and fourteen crop farmers from each community in each local

government selected was done. This made the total sample size of 168 farmers. Primary

data were collected by the use of structured questionnaire and interview schedule. Data

were analyzed by the use of descriptive statistics, Multinomial logit model, Partial budget

analysis and Duncan’s Multiple range test.

 91

The result of the analysis showed that four erosion control practices were applied

by the farmers. These include Multiple cropping (41%), Construction of Bonds (20%),

Ridging across the slope (18%), and Cover cropping (21%). Some farmers combined two

or more erosion control practices but in most cases one was used as the major control

practice depending on the amount of resources involved. The combination rates were, one

– 39%, two 35.1%, three 23.2% and four-2.4%.

On the coverage, the Net benefit of Multiple cropping was N393,953.88,

Construction of Bonds – N26,115.30k, Ridging across the slope – N33,741.66k, and

Cover cropping N891.10k. The corresponding profitability indices for the erosion control

practices were; 7.36 for Multiple cropping, 1.59 for Construction of bonds, 1.14for

Ridging across the slope and 1.10 for Cover cropping.

There was statistical significant different between the means of net-benefits of

erosion control practices with that of Multiple cropping being significantly larger than the

means of all others at 5%.

The Multinomial logit Regression analysis showed a seemingly low explanatory

power of the factor as reflected by Pseudo- R2 (24%) which is not uncommon in cross

sectional analysis. The overall goodness of fit as reflected by prob> Chi 2 was however

good (<0.0000). The age of the farmers negatively and significantly affected the farmer’s

probability of using Cover cropping at 1% as against Construction of bonds. Household

size positively affected farmers willingness to adopt Multiple cropping and making ridges

across the slope at 1% probability level. However, household size is very importance in

adoption of erosion control practices as it provides family labour used in the control

measures. Cost of erosion control was positively and significantly related to Multiple

cropping at 5% probability level.

 92

Likert Rating Scale Technique showed high mean (X) values for rainwater (2.42),

Deforestation (2.26), Soil type (2.49), Slope of the farm (2.37), Poor road construction

(2.35) and Indiscriminate house construction as very serious causes of erosion in the

study area. The rating scale equally captured moderate mean (X) values for Population

density (1.99) and Poor farming system (2.01) as serious causes of farmland erosion.

Other factors like Excessive bush burning, Quarrying of sand, Crops that attracts human

traffic, gods, Overgrazing and Cattle hooves had low mean (X) values.

Possible causes of erosion on the farmland from the farmer’s perspective include

Rainwater – (160,95%), Deforestation – (133,67.3%), Soil type – (159, 94.6%), Slope of

the farm – (158,94%), Excessive bush burning – (76,45.2%), Population Density –

(78,46.4%), Poor road construction – (98,58.3%), Poor farming system – (139,82.7),

Quarrying of sand – (81,48.2%), Crops that attracts human traffic – (63,37.5%), gods –

(13,7.7%), Overgrazing – (88,52.4%), Cattle hooves – (4,2.4%).

5.2 Conclusion

The net-benefit and profitability index of Multiple cropping erosion control

practice was shown as the highest compared to Construction of bond, Ridging across the

slope and Cover cropping which had the lowest value.

The use of Cover cropping erosion control practices as against Construction of

bond was negatively and significantly related to the farmer’s age, as shown by

Multinomial logit model. Meanwhile, Household size positively and significantly

affected the farmer’s use of Multiple cropping and Ridging across the slope compared to

Construction of bonds. However the Cost of erosion control also influenced positively

and significantly the farmer’s use of Multiple cropping. The Likert scale rating captured

rainwater, deforestation, soil type, slope of the farm, poor road construction,
 93

indiscriminate house construction and poor farming system as the major causes of erosion

on the farmland as persived by the farmers in Enugu State.

Despite these challenges faced by the poor farmers in controlling farmland

erosion, the study revealed that it is still beneficial to practice the above erosion control

measures in Enugu State. It is therefore recommended that incentives, an extension

service and technical training be adequately provided to the farmers for increased

sustainable crop production and environmental quality.

5.3 Recommendations.

 Farmers should be encouraged to combine sound methods of soil management

with other methods and inputs of modern agriculture to obtain satisfactory

production on a sustained basis.

 The government should pass new legislation to establish a soil erosion control

agency and extension programme and fund the work at a high enough level to

obtain satisfactory results.

 Farmers should have a change of attitude in order to avoid the possible causes of

erosion on their farmland. This may be achieved by planting more trees, avoiding

deforestation, and overgrazing as well as encouraging the use of those sustainable

agricultural practices.

 In order to bridge the gap of understanding between government, policy makers

and farmers,there should be an organized co-operative association of landowners,

tenants and farmers that will lead ultimately to better conservation and land use.

 The poor farmers that dominate the area should be assisted by the government by

providing liberal agricultural credit, better seed and fertilizer, equipment hire and
 94

purchase assistance in order to either improve soil directly or make it possible for

farmers to use effective erosion control measures.

 Extension agents should provide more packages on farmland erosion control

practices that will equip the farmers with the technical know-how to face the

challenges of erosion on their farms.

 95

REFERENCES

Abarikwu, O.I. (1988) “Challenges of Erosion in Imo State” Paper Presented at the
International Symposium on Erosion in Southern Nigeria, At Federal University
of Technology, Owerri.

Abu-Hamdeh (2003) “Effect of Weed control and tillage system on net-returns from bean
and barley production in Jordan”. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, Vol. 45. P.4.
Assessed 29/12/2009 from
http://www.engr.usask.ca/societies/isue/protectedpapers/co233.pdf.

Ahmad,R., Atry,S. and Elham ,F.(2009). "Analysis of factors affecting adoption of

sustainable soil conservation practices among Wheat Growers" World Applied
Sciences Journal 6(5): 644-651. P.2 retrieved 25 / 2 / 2011 from
htt://www.Idiosi.org/wasj/wasj6(5)/11pdf.

Ajero, C.K. (2006) “Population Characteristics and the Utilization of Medical Facilities
in Enugu State” Unpublished Msc. Thesis, Department of Geography, University
of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Akamigbo, F.O.R (1986) “Pedological and Pedogenetic Components of Soil Formation

and Erosion” “Paper presented at a National Workshop on “Soil Erosion control,
land clearing and soil testing techniques” at the CRDC, UNN. February.

Akamigbo, F.O.R (1999) “Soil Erosion and Rural Development in Nnewi South Local
Government, Anambra State, Nigeria”, An Invited paper presented at the self-
Help projects seminar organized by the Dept. of Education and social
Development of Nnewi South Local Government Council, Held at Ukpor Town
Hall, Ukpor, November 26.

Akamigbo, F.O.R, (1986) “Soil Erosion and Changes in Soil Properties” Paper presented
at National Workshop on Soil erosion held at F.U.T. Owerri, 5 – 12th Sept.

Akamigbo, F.O.R. (1988) “Erosion Menace in Anambra State. Government Effort in

Combating it” Paper presented at the International symposium on “Erosion in
S.E Nigeria” at F.U.T Owerri, April 12 – 14.

Akamigbo, F.O.R. (1998) “Method of Water Erosion control on farm land for sustainable
Agriculture” An invited paper presented during the four-Day Training Workshop
on “Soil Conservation and Sustainable Land use in the sub-Humid Agro-Ecology
 96

of Nigeria” Organized by the dept of soil science, University of Agriculture

Makurdi, Benue state, Held June, 23 – 26 pp 1-32.

Akamigbo, F.O.R. (2001) “Effective control and Management of various Agricultural

Disasters”. An invited paper presented at a three –Day workshop on “poverty
Eradication through Agricultural programmes” Organized by faculty of
Agriculture, University of Nigeria, in Collaboration with Global Management
consult, Enugu, at Modotel Hotels, Okpara Avenue, Enugu Held between
February 7 – 9. pp 8 – 9.

Akamigbo, F.O.R. (2006) “Land Degradation Types and Magnitudes for Land Use
Policy for Nigeria” Paper presented at the meeting of the National land use policy
(NLUP) consultants, held at FAO/NSPFS Office, plot 223D, Mabushi District
cadastral zone B6 FMARD Agricultural Science Building, Abuja, April 5 – 6 pp 1
– 10.

Akamigbo. F.O.R (2000) “Nigeria Agriculture and the challenges of the 21 st century
Nigeria Soils” Agro-Science,, Journal of Tropical Agriculture, food, Environment
and Extension Vol. 1 pp 62 – 67.

Akinsanmi, V.O. (1975) “Certificate Agricultural Science” Longman Group Ltd pp 54 –

58.

Ali, A. (2006). “The Need for Introduction of Conservation Agriculture to Nigerian

Farmers.” Paper Presented at the Training Workshop on Principles and Practices
of Conservation Agriculture, Organized by Federal Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development. Department of Agricultural land Resources, Oyo State ADP.
August 28 -29. pg 1 -11.

Amechi (1997). “Erosion Problems in Delta State” Energy and Environment. 10: 9 – 15.

Aneke,O.,Obuji,J.and Nwafor,U.(1982) “Gully Erosion Survey in Imo

State”FDACR,Siol Cons Centre,Owerri,pp3-12,18-23,32.

Anon, Y.L.T. (1988). “A Report by the Inter-ministerial Committee on Soil Erosion

Control is Anambra State”. Cabinet Office, Enugu. Pp.57.

Anyadike, R.N.C. (2002) “Climate and Vegetation” in Ofomata, G.E.K [ed], A Survey of
the Igbo Nation. African first Publishers Limited Onitsha: pp. 73.

Araya, B and Asafu – Adjaye, J. (1999), “Returns to farm level soil conservation on
Tropical steep slopes; The case of the Eritrean Highlands”. Journal of
Agricultural Economics 50 (3); 589 -605.

ASARECA Technology Uptake and Up-Scaling Support Initiative (TUUSI) (2007). "Soil
Moisture Conservation in Maize based Cropping Systems using tied-ridges in
ECA region" Assesed 25 / 2 / 2011 from http://www.asareca.org/tuusi/index.php?
 97

option=com...act=View...

Bartels K. Boztup, Y and Muller, M. (1999). Testing the Multinooomial Logit Model
Retrieved 8/08/08 from http//. www edoc. hu-berlin.de/series/sfb– 373 –papers
11999 – 19/PDF/19.pdf. pg 1-12

Ben – Akiva, M. and Lerman, S.R. (1985). “Discrete Choice Analysis”. The MIT Press.

Bewick, V., Cheek, L.and Ball J. (2004) ‘Statistics review: One-way analysis of variance
– Duncan’s multiple-range test. ‘The critical care forum, pub med central, Journal
list> crit care > v.8 (2): 130 – 136 pp4. Retrieved on 2/12/2008 from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid = 420045

Bierlaire, M. (1997). “Multinomial logit Model” Retrieved /8/08/08 from

www.rosoeptl.ch/mbi/papers/diserectedchoice/nodel 13.html.

Braide, I. (1982) “Soil Problems Militating against Agricultural Production in the South –
east Zone (Rivers, Cross River, Imo, Anambra and Benue States)" In ‘Efficient
use of Nigeria land Resources,’ Proceedings of the first National Seminar on
agricultural Land Resources, Held at Kaduna, Sept. 13 -18.

Calatrava – Leyva J, France. J, and Gonzalenz – Roa. M.C. (2005). “Adoption of Soil
Conservation Practices in Olive grooves; The case of Spanish mountainous
Areas,” Paper prepared for presentation at the XI International congress of the
European Association of Agricultural Economics (EAAE); The future of Rural
Europe in the Global Agric food system; copertragen, Denmark, August 24 – 27th
pg 1 -7.

Calatrava – Leyva J, France. J, and Gonzalenz – Roa. M.C. (2007). “Analysis of the
Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Olive grooves; The case of
mountainous Areas of southern Spain,”. In Ahmad, Atry and Elham edition
Analysis of factors affecting adoption of sustainable soil conservation practices
among Wheat Growers". Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(3):249 –
258. Available at www.inia.es/sjar

Chude, V.O (2005) “Soil and Water Conservation”. Handbook for Extension workers,
federal Department of Agricultural Land Resources in Collaboration with
National Special Programme for food Security. F.A.O Publication (2005) p.2 -36.

Cooke, R.U, Doorkamp D.D, Brunsden; D and Jones, D.K.C. (1995). “Urban
Geomorphology in Dry Lands”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.pp 325.

Copper Wiki (2008). “Multiple Cropping”. P. 1-4, Retrieved 15 / 2 / 2010 from

http://www.copperwikiorg/index.php?title-multiplecropping.
Copper Wiki (2009). “Soil erosion”: P. 1-5. Retrieved 25 / 2 / 2010 from
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php?title-soilerosion. Business and Politics /
Agriculture.
 98

Courier, (1984). “Environment and Development” in Environment and Sustainable

Agricultural Development in Nigeria. No.87.

Czapar, G. F.,Laflen, J.M., Mclsaac, G.E. and Mckenna, D.P. (2006) “Effects of Erosion
Control Practices on Nutrient Loss”. Retrieved on 7/3/2008 from
htt//www.epa.gov/msbasin/tasforce/2006symposia/9'Erosion czapar.pdf htm.

David, P, Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K. Kurz, D., McNair, M. Crist, S.,
Shpritz, L., Fitton, L., Saffouri, R., and Blair, R. (2007). “Environmental and
Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits”. Article Tools,
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 5126 Comstock Hall, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York. Pp2.

David, R.M. (2007).“Soil Erosion and Agricultural Sustainability”. Department of Earth

and Space Sciences, University of Washington. PP1-3. Retrieved on 6/2/08 from
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0611508104vilmaxshow$HITS=10$hits
=10RESULT FORMAT.$fulltext……….HINCIT.

Dike, M.C. (1995). “Effective Method of Soil Erosion Control in Farm Land”. Tropical –
Agric.pp 202 – 240.

Douglas; M.(1994). “Sustainable Use of Agricultural Soils”. A Review of the of the

prerequisites for success or failure for Development and Environment (GDE),
Institute of Geography, university of Berne, Switzerl and. (2nd ED). The McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc. New York. Pp102-03,406-07.

Eboh, E.C. (1991) “An Economic Study of Indigenous Farmland Erosion Management in
Rural Anambra” Research Paper Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria Nsukka.

Eboh, E.C. (1998). “Social and Economic Research: Principles and Methods” Lagos:
Academic Publications and Development Resource Ltd.

Edward,B. (1993) “Environmental Aspects of Agriculture”,In Agriculture for Verterians,

Lydia.B. Ed Pargmon Press New York.pp57-67.

Enete, A.E. (2003). “Resource Use, Marketing and Diversification Decisions in Cassava
Producing Household of Sub-Saharan Africa”. A. Ph. D dissertation, submitted to
the Department of Agricultural Economics, Catholic University of Louvain,
Belgium.
Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme (ENADEP) (2008) “Soil Types Map
of Enugu State”
 99

Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme (ENADEP) (2007). “On –farm

adaptive Research”. Ministry of Agriculture Enugu State.

Enugu State Ministry of Environment (ENME), (2008) “Erosion Sites in Enugu State”

Enugu State Ministry of Information (ENMOI) (2005) “Enugu State Government”

Ervin, D. E and Mill, J.W. (1985). “Agricultural land Markets and Soil Erosion: Policy
Relevance and Conceptual Issues”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
67 [5]. Pg 938 – 42.

Eswaran, H., Lal and P.F Reich, (2001) “Land Degradation: An overview” In: Bridges,
E.M., I.D. Hannam, L.R Oldeman, F.W.T. pening de vries, S.J. Scherr, and S.
Sampatpanit (eds). Responses to land Degradation Proc. 2nd International
conference on land degradation and desertification, Khon kaen, Thailand.
Oxford press, New Delhi, India.

Ezebube, C.M. (1989). “An Analysis of Gully Erosion in Agulu-Nanka Erosion

Complex” Unpublished Bachelo’s Thesis, Dept of Agric Econs. UNN.

FAO (1979) “Reprot on the Agro – Ecological Zones Project”. Vol. 2. Results from
South – West Asia. World Soils Resources Report. 48/2 FAO. Rome.

FAO (1995). “Planning for Sustainable Use of Land Resources Toward a New
Approach”. Background paper to FAO’s Task managership for chapter 10 of
Agenda 21 of the United Nations conference on environment and development,
(UNCED). FAO land and water Bulletin 2, Rome p 60.

FAO and Netherlands (1991). “Conference on Agriculture and the Environment”, S-

hertogenbosin, Netherlands, 15 – 19 April, Report of the conference, vol 2.

FAO(1965).”Soil Erosion by Water;Some Measures for Its Control on Cultivated

Lands”.Agricultural Development Paper.No 81.Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nation,Rome.pp 2-65.

Fed.Dept. of Agriculture and Land Resources,(FDALR), (1990). “Land Use and Erosion
Problems in Southeastern Nigeria, Action so far”, Paper Presented at a seminar
on Erosion Ravages in Southeastern Nigeria: Quest for solution” Held at
F.U.T.Owerri May 29 -31.

Field, B. (1997). “Environmental Economics; An Introduction”.pp 102-103,406-07.

Floyd, B. N. (1969). “Eastern Nigeria; A Geological Review”. Macmillan Press, London.

Franco, J.A and Calatrava – Leyva J (2006). “Adoption of Soil Erosion Control Practices
in Southerm Spain Olive groves” Poster Paper prepared for presentation at the
 100

international Association of Agricultural Economist Conference,Gold

Coast,aAstralia,August 12-18. pp1-5 .Retrieved on 10/3/08 From
http//www/ageconsearch.umn-edu/bitstream/25787/1/pp0610711 pdf.

Gardner, K. and Barrows, R. (1985). “The Impact of Soil Conservation Investments on

Land Prices”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 [5]: 943 – 47.

Gobin A.M; Campling. P, Deekers, J.A,Poesen J, Feyen. J. (1999), “Soil Erosion

Assessment at the Udi – Nsukka Cuesta (Southeastern Nigeria)”. WILEY
Interscience Journal, volume 10, Issue 2. pp 141.

Goudie, A.S. (1990) “Desert Degradation”. In: Technologies for Desert Reclamation (Ed.
A.S. Guodie), John Wiley and Sons. New York.pp 1-25.

Gowon, D.T (1981). “Soil Erosion Control, a Catalyst to Food Production Sufficiency in
Nigeria”: National Seminar on Agricultural and Food Production, University of
Port – Harcourt.

Green, K. (1982) “Efficient use of Nigerian Land resources” ‘An Address by the
Honorable Minister of State for agriculture..

Grove, A.T. (1951): “Land Use and Soil Conservation in parts of Onitsha and Owerri
Provinces”. Bulletin No. 21, Geological Survey of Nigeria.

Guodie, A.S. (1983) “Dust storms, Space and time”. In: Physical Geograph, 7: 502 – 30.

Habte, M and EL– Swaify, S. A (1986). “Stimula Fed Erosion’s Effects on Nitrogen
Fixation and Growth of Sesbania”. NETA Research Report. 64 – 65.

Hertzler, G., Ibanez-Meier, C.A, and Jolly, R.W. (1985). “User Costs of Soil Erosion and
Their Effect on Agricultural Land Process”: Cost variables and Capitalized
Hamiltonians. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Holly, M (1982). “Erosion and Environment”. Pergamon Press New York. 405pp.

Holy, M. (1980). “Erosion and Environment”, Pergaman Press Ltd, England.

Hudson, N. (1995). “Soil Conservation”. Batsford limited London, 391 pp.

Jackobs, J.A., Andrews Jnr, O.N. Murdoch, C.L. and Foote, L.E. (1967). “Turf
Establishment on Highway Right of Way Slopes – a review”. Highway Res. Rec.
No 161, Highway Res. Bd. Publ. 1439, Washington, D.C PP.71 -103.

Jocelyn Collins (2001). Soil Erosion P.I retrieved 28 / 12 / 2009 from

WWW.tutorvista.com/...11/soil erosion ph p. United States.

..
 101

Junge, Birte, Abaidoo, R. Chikoye; D. Alabi, T.and Stahrand karl, (2006). “Monitoring of
Land Use Intensification and Linkage to Soil Erosion in Nigeria and Benin”.
Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development. Tropentag
2006, held at University of Bonn. from October 11–13.

King, D.A and Sinden, J.A. (1988). “Influence of Soil Conservation on Farm Land
Values Land Economics” 64[3]: 242 – 255.

Kio, P.R.O. and Okorie (1986). “Forestry Practices in Erosion Control”

Konke, H. and A.R Bertrand (1959) “Soil Conservation” M.C. Graw-hill book company,
Inc, New York.

Lal, L . (1995). “Technological Options for Erosion Management on Newly Cleared

Land: Runoff Management and Erosion Control” in Sustainable Management of
Soil Resources in the Humid Tropics. Pp.1. Retrieved on 29/2/2008 from
http//www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu27se09.htm.

Lal, R. (1979) “Physical Properties and Moisture Retention Characteristics of Some

Nigeria Soils”. Geoderma: 209 – 223.

Lal, R. (1995) “Erosion Crop Productivity Relationship for Soils of Africa”. Soil Science
society Journal 59:661 -667.

Lal, R. (2001) “Soil Degradation by Erosion”. Land Degradradation Development 12:

519 – 539.

Leather, C.R. (1981). “Plant Components of Desert Dust in Arizona and the Significance
for Man”. In: T.C. Pewe (ed). Desert Dust. pp191 – 206. Geological.Society of
America, Special Paper 186.

Lee, L.K. (1980). “The Impact of Landownership Factors on Soil Conservation”.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 [5]: 1070 -1076.

Lemchi, J. I. (1992) “Traditional Anti-Erosion Practices as Bases for Project Intervention

in Arresting the Degradation of Land Productive Base; Diagnostic case studies in
Anambra and Imo State”. Research proposal Submitted to African Development
foundation.

Lessley, B.V., Johnson, D.M. and Hanson, J.C. (1991) “Using the Partial Budget To
Analyze Farm Change”. Retrieved 8/8/2008 from http//www.extension.
umd.edu/publications/PDFS/FS 547.pdf.

Lundgren, B.O. and Raintree, J.B. (1982) “Sustained Agroforestry”. In B. Nestel (ed)
Agricultural Research for Development: Potential and Challenges in Asia;
ISNAR, The Hague, Netherlands.
 102

Madedor, A.O. (1988) “Simple Soil Properties and the Soil Erosion Process” Paper
Presented at the 1st short course on soil erosion, slope failure, shoreline
recession management and control’ held at CRDC. UNN.

Malthus, T.R. (1798) “An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future
Improvement of Society” Methuen and co. ltd, London.

Mbagwu, J.S., Lal, R. and Scott, T.W. (1984): “Effects of Desurfacing of Alfisols and
Utisols in Southern Nigeria, in Crop Performance”, Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 48:828-833.

Mbagwu, J.S.C. (1986) “Effect of Social Degradation and Methods of Quantifying the
Effect on Productivity of Agricultural Lands”. and Soil Testing Techniques,
Paper Presented at National Workshop on Soil Erosion Control, Land Clearing at
the CRDC UNN. Feb.

McConnell, K.E. (1983). “An Economic Model of Soil Conservation”. American

Journal Agricultural Economics. 65 [1]: 83 -89.

Melanby, K (1967). “Pesticides and Pollution”. Collins, London. 661.pp.

Middleton, N.J. (1986). “Dust Storms in the Middle East”. Journal of Arid Environments.
10:83 -96.

Middleton, N.J. (1989). “Desert Dust”. In D.S.G. Thomas (ed). Arid Zone
Geomorphology, pp 262 – 83, Belharen, London.

Middleton, N.J. (1990). “Wind Erosion and Dust Storm Control”. In A.S Goudie (Ed)
Techniques for Desert Reclamation pp 89 – 105, John Wiley and Sons. New
York.
Middleton, N.J. (1990). “Wind Erosion and Dust Storm Control”. In A.S Goudie (Ed)
Techniques for Desert Reclamation pp 89 – 105, John Wiley and Sons. New
York.

Mills, J.S (1963) “Collected works”. Toronto University Press.

Miranowski, J.A, and Hammes, B.D. (1984). Implicit Process of Soil Characteristics for
Farm Land in Iowa”. American Journal ofAgricultual Economics. 66[5]: 745 -49.

Morgan, R.P.C. (1980). “Soil Conservation, Problems and Prospects”. John Willey and
Sons, New York.

Morgan, R.P.C. (1995) “Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation” Longman, Maloysia.
198pp.
 103

Morgan, R.P.C. and Rickson, R.J. (1995) “Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control: A
Bioengineering Approach”. E and FN Spon,2-6 Boundary Row, London. PP. 100
-157.

Muhamman M.A. and Gungula D.T. (2006). "Cover Crops in Cereals Based Cropping
Systems of Northern Nigeria: Implication on Sustainable Production and Weed
Management". Journal of Sustainable Development in Agriculture and
Environment Vol. 2(1) P. 9. Retrieved 28 / 12 / 2009 from
http://www.josdae.com./pappers/cpVol204.pdf.

Mumel, P. (1995). “New paper reporting of erosion adverse effects in Abavo

Community, Delta State”. Daily Times, April: 20, p. 4.

Nair, P.K.R, (1993). “An Introduction to Agroforestry”. Kluwer, Boston.

National Population Commission (2006) “Nigeria 2006 Population Census
arranged by State” Retrieved 28/12/2008 from
http://www.nigerianmuse.com/200708200636122g/.../nigeria-2006population

Niger Techno Ltd; Lagos and Technical S.P.A Rome (1974). “Prefeasibility Study of Soil
Erosion in the East Central State of Nigeria”.

NISER (1988) Nigeria Institute of Social and Economic Research. “An Assessment of
the Effectiveness of Expansion, Soil and Fertility Loss, of Agulu - Nanka Erosion
Control Measures”. Interim report 1.

Nkamleu, G.B (2007). “Modelling Farmer’s Decisions on Integrated Soil Nutrient

Management in Sub-Saharan Africa”. A multinomial logit analysis in cameroon
In Advances in Integrated Soil fertility management in sub- Saharan Africa:
Challenges and Opportunities Springer Link Nether Lands. Pg 891.

O “Riordan, T. (1990). “Sustainable Agriculture, Implications for Africa” Paper

presented at the SSRC Workshop, in Harare, Dec. 2-7.

Obi, M.E, and Asiegbu, B.O. (1980). “The Physical Properties of Some Eroded Soil of
South –Eastern Nigeria”. Soil Sc. 130:39 -48.

Odoh, I. (1995). “Newspaper Report: Oko to raise N 50 million over erosion manance”.
Daily Champion, April 13 p.2.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1985): “Man’s Role in the Evolution of the Physical Environment in
the Forest Zone of Nigeria”. Paralelo 37o. No. 8-9, Reista de Estudios
Geograficos, pp. 105-113.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1964): “Soil Erosion in the Enugu Region of Nigeria.” African Soils,
IX, No. 2, pp. 284 – 348.
 104

Ofomata, G.E.K (1965): “Factors of Soil Erosion in Enugu Area of Nigeria”.Nigerian

Geographical Journal, 8, pp. 45-59.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1966): “Quelques Observations sur l’eboulement d’Awgu, Nigeria

oriental”. Bulletin de l’IFAN. Serie A, XXVIII. Pp. 433 – 443.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1967): “Some Observations on Relief and Erosion in Eastern Nigeria.”
Revue de Geomorph. Dynamique. XVII, pp. 21 – 29.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1973): “Village Erosion at Ozuitem. East Central State of Nigeria.”
Ikenga, II No. 1. pp. 64 – 74.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1978): “Man as a Factor of Soil Erosion in South-eastern” Geo-Eco-

Trop., Vol. 2, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 143 – 154.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1980): “Perspective on Environmental Deterioration in Nigeria”. The

Tropical Environemnt. Vol. 1, pp. 6.19.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1981a): “The Management of Soil Erosion Problems in Nigeria” Paper
Presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Geographical
Association, Kano, April 6 – 10, 1981 (In Press).

Ofomata, G.E.K (1981b): “Actual and Potential Erosion in Nigeria and Measures of
Control”. Soil Science Society of Nigeria, Special Publication Monograph, No. 1
pp. 151 – 165.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1981c): “Impact of Road Building, Urbanization and General

Infrastructural Development on the Nigeria Rainforest Ecosystem”. Landscape
Planning, 8, pp. 21 – 29.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1982): “Use and Misuse of Nigeria’s Agricultural Land Resources”.
Chapter 3/2 pp. 119 – 130 of F.O.C. Ezedinma et al (eds.): Efficient Use of
Nigerian Land Resources. Federal Department of Agric. Land Resources,
Kaduna.

Ofomata, G.E.K (1987): “Soil Erosion in Nigeria: The Views of a Geomorphologist”.

Inaugural Lecture, University of Nigeria. University of Nigeria Press.

Ofomata, G.E.K. (1985b) “Soil Erosion in Nigeria: The Views of Geomorphologist”,

Inaugural Lecture, University of Nigeria.

Ofomata, G.E.K. (1986). “Soil Erosion Characteristics in the Forest Zone of South
Eastern Nigeria”. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Ecological Disasters,
Soil Erosion; Owerri; sept.8-12 pp 50-68.

Ofomata,G.E.K,(1988). “The Management of Soil Erosion Problems in Southeastern

Nigeria”Paper presented at the proceedings of the International Symposium on
 105

‘Erosion in South Easthern Nigeria’,held in the Federal University of

Technology Owerri,April 12-14,pp3-10.

Ogbukagu, I.N. (1986) “The Geology of Agulu/Nanka Gullies and Environs”.

Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis, Dept. of Geology, UNN.

Ojanuga, A.G. (1978). “Study of Soil Erosion in Bauchi and Gongola States”; National
Conservation Committee Report, FDA, Lagos. In: Okoye, C.U. (ED). Estimating
Farm-level Soil Erosion Control and Damage costs in Enugu State, Nigeria,
Proceedings of the Farm Management Association of Nigeria (FAMAN), 20th
Annual Conference, theme, Technology and Agricultural Development in
Nigeria, held at Federal College of Forestry (forestry Research Institute of
Nigeria) Jos, Plateau State from 18th - 21st. PP. 521.

Ojanuga, A.U. (1986) “Soil Erosion, Nature’s Response to Land Misuse in Nigeria”.
Paper presented at the National Workshop on soil Erosion Control, Land clearing
and soil Testing Techniques at the CRDC, UNN February.

Okafor, J.C.(1986): “Soil Erosion Problem in Anambra State” Invited Paper Presented at
the Geological Science Seminar, at the Auditorium, Anambra State University of
Technology, Enugu.

Okoye C.U.(2001). “Modifications of the Application of Soil Erosion Control

Technologies in Subsistence Agriculture.” Journal of Tropical Agriculture, food,
Environment and Extension, Agro-Science Vol 2 No.2 62 -63.

Ologe, K.O. (1986) “Soil Erosion Characteristics, Processes and Extent in the Nigerian
Savanna”. Proceedings of the National Workshop or Ecological Disaters: Soil
Erosion Owerri, Sept.8 -12.pp 26 -43.

Omar H.D. (2011). "Multiple Cropping" News and Society / Environment / Multiple
Cropping. P. 1, 3-4. Assesed 23 / 7 / 2011 from
http://www.articlesbase.Com/environment_articles/multiple_cropping_4831668.h
tml.

Onuora, F. O. (1985) “Techniques of Crop Production and Erosion Control Among Small
Scale Sole Farmers in Anambra State”. Unpublished Bachelor thesis, Dept of
Agric. Econs. UNN.

Onwueme, I.C. and Asiabaka, C.C. (1992) “Erosion As an Interactive Force in the
Human Environment”. Paper Presented at an exhibition on Erosion and the
Environment at the British Council, Enugu, on May 6.

Onyeagocha, S.C. (1980). “The Role of Forestry in Erosion Control and Water shed
Management in Nigeria”. Project working Document No. 4 of United Nations
Dev. Programme, FAO of United Nations Ibadan.
 106

Onyekuru, A. (2007). “Impact of Changes in Cooking Energy Prices on Product

Substitution and Resource Allocation: A Comparative Analysis of Rural and
Urban Households in Enugu State, Nigeria”. A Ph.D – MSc. Theisis, presented to
the Department of Agricultural Economics, UNN. Pp. 94 -96.

Orabuchi, A. (1006) “Erosion in Nigeria: Calamity in the Waiting”. Kwenu, our culture
Our future. Assessed 27/5/2008 from
http//www.kwenu.com/publications/orabuchi/2006/3 erosion- calamity. Htm.

Oradiegwu, E.I. (1980) “Design of a Drainage Scheme for the Faculty of Engineering to
Control Erosion” Unpublished Bachelor Dept. of Civil Engineering UNN.

Oti, N.N. (2002) ‘Discrminant Functions for Classifying Erosion Degraded Lands at
Otamiri, Southeastern Nigeria”. Agro-Science, Journal of Tropical Agriculture,
food, Environment and Extension, Vol 3. No. 1 Jan pp 34.

Palmquist, R.B and Danielson, L.E. (1989). “A Hedonic Study of the Effects of Erosion
Control and Drainage on Farmland Values”. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 71[1]: 55 -62.

PENNSTATE (1995 – 2010). “Cover vrops and Conservation Tillage for Soil Erosion
Control on Cropland” Crops and Soil Sciences, Cooperative Extension, Living
Mulch. p1. Retrieved 19/2/2010 from http://www.cropsoil. psu.ed/extension/
livingmulch/sec92a.cfm.

Pitman, J. (1981). “Erosion Control: How does it Change Farmer’s Income”: Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation. (4264) 265 – 267.

Reiji, C. (1990) “Indigenous soil and water conservation in Africa; An Assessment of

Current Knowledge” Paper Presented at the SSRC Workshop in Harare, Dec. 2-
7.

Ress, W. (1989) “ Sustainable Development Myths and Realities; in Environment and

Economic Partners for the Future”. Conference Proceeding, Winnipeg,
Government of Manitoba.

Ricardo, D, (1821). “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” 3 rd edition
London.

Rodale. R. (1988) “Agricultural systems: The importance of Sustainability” in National

forum, summer.

Roose, E. (1996). “Land Husbandry: Components and Strategy” F.A.O. Soils Bulletin 70.
Rome P.11-246.
 107

Roth, S and Hyde, J. (2002) “Partial Budgeting for Agricultural Businesses”. Pennstate
college of Agricultural Science. Retrieved 8/8/2008 from http//www.ext.
colostate. Edu/PUBS/Farming /03760.html.

Sanchez, P.A (1987). “Soil Productivity and Sustainability in Agroforestry Systems”. In

H.A. Seppler and P.K.R. Nair (eds), ‘Agroforestry: A Decade of Development;
International Council for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya. PP. 205 -
223.

Seafriends,(2001)“Soil Erosion and Conservation”. .pp1-7 Retrieved on 16/7/2008 from

http://www.Seafriends. Org.nz/enviro/soil/erosion.htm.

Senft, D. (1994). “Erosion Study Crosses the Borders”. Agricultural Research, Sept p.2.

Showers, K.B. and Malawene, G. M. (1990). “Pilot Study for the Development of
Methodology To Be Used in Historical Environmental Impact Assessment of
Colonial Soil Conservation Schemes In Lesotho Southern Africa” Paper
Presented at the workshop on conservation in Africa, Indigenous knowledge and
Government Strategies Organised by Social Science Research Council, New York
and held in Harare, Dec. 2-7.

Skidmore, E.L (1986). “Wind Erosion Control”. Climatic change. 9:209 – 212.

Skyes, R.A. (1940) “A History of Anti-Erosion Work at Udi”. Farm and Forest, Vol.I,
pp.3 -6.

Sprague, M.A. and Triplett, G.B. (1986). “Tillage Management for A Permanent
Agriculture,” in No – Tillage and Surface- Tillage Agriculture (eds M.A Sprague
and G.B Triplett). Wiley, Chichester.

Stamp, L.D. (1938): “Land Utilization and Soil Erosion in Nigeria.” Geographical
Review, 28, pp: 32 – 45.

Steir – youlis, a. (1986) “Soil Conservation in Developing Countries” A Background

report, the World Bank, Washington D.C.

Stone, R. P. (1996) “Control of Soil Erosion” pp.1 -6 Assesed 31/05/2008 from

http://www . omatra. Gov. on. ca/english/engineer/facts/95 -089.htm.

Subhrendu, P and Evan Mercer, D. (1996). “Valuing Soil Conservation Benefits of

Agroforestry Practices”. Southeastern Centre for forest Economics Research,
Research Triangle Park, NC, The forestry Private Enterprise Initiative (FPEI)
Working Paper, No. 59. P. 21. Retrieved 10/3/08 from
http//www.srs.fs.usd.a.gor/econ/pubs/fpeia59.htm.

Suyamto and Howeler R.H. (2001). "Cultural Practices for Soil erosion control in
cassava-based cropping systems in Indonesia" International Erosion control
 108

Association, Ground and Water Bioengineering for the Asia-Pacific Region. P. 3-

4 Retrieved 24 / 2 / 2010 from
http://ciat-Library.ciat.cgiar.Org/articulos-ciat/culturalpratices_for_soilpdf.

Svatos, J. (1975) “Principles of the Organized Development of the Intensification of

Larger Scale Agricultural Production as Limited by Water Resources”. Material
of the Commission for water management.CSAV pp 105 – 107.

Tacio, H. (2007). “Soil Erosion”. People and Planet. Net, People and Food and
Agriculture. Pg. 1. Retrieved 27/5/2008 from http//www.saharacarehouse.com.

The Web definition of Erosion Retrieved on 20/3/2008.

Titilola, S.T. (1998) “Environment and Sustainable Agricultural Development in Nigeria”

pp 1-.11.

Ude, N.C., Uzuakpunwa, A.B. and Ezeike, G.O.I. (1980) “Gully Erosion Survey in
Anambra State”. Fed, Dept. of Agriculture and Land Resources. Soil
Conservation Centre. Owerri.

Uguru, O.O. (1981). “A Guide to Practical Agricultural Science for Schools and
Colleges”. Macmillan Edu. Ltd. Nigeria.

UNEP (1997): “Convention on Biological Diversity”. UNEP/CBD/COP/3/38. Report of

the Third meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological
diversity. Buenes Aires, Argentina, 4 – 15 . 11. 137 pp.

UNEP (2008). United Nations Environment Programme, “Country Environmental Profile

Information System; Nigeria” – State of the Environment-Portal.pp.1-3.

USDA, (1994) “Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators”. US Department

of Agriculture, Economic Research service, Natural Resources and Environment
Division Agricultural handbook No. 705. Washington, D.C. pp 25 – 33.

Utazi C.D. (2002) “An Economic Study of Farmland Erosion Control Practices in Imo
State”. An Msc dissertation presented to the Department of Agricultural
Economics. UNN, PP. 34.

Wade, J.C. and Heady, E.O. (1978). “Measurement of Sediment Control Impacts on
Agriculture”, Water Resources Research 14 [1]: 1-8.

Walker, D.J. (1982). “A Damage Function to Evaluate Erosion Control Economics”.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 64 [4]: 690-698.

Whitlow, R. (1987). “A National Soil Survey for Zimbabwe”. Journal of soil and water
Conservation. 52(4). 239 – 243.
 109

Wikianswers (2010) “What is a profitability Index” P.I. Retrieved 21/4/2010 from

http://www.wikianswers.com/Q/whatis-a-profitability-index-cached.

Wikipedia (2008a) “Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test” Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia 2nd june 2008. Retrieved on 2/12/2008 from
http//www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan’s new-multiple-range-test.

Wikipedia (2008b). “Enugu State ENUDNEN Flight and Airport Guide”. Retrieved on
8/8/2008 from htt://www.airport fact.com/c11026 – ENU-DNEN—enugu-Enugu-
State.html.

Wikipedia (2009). "Causes of Erosion" P. 2-6. Retrieved 28/12/2009 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion.

Wikipedia, the free emeyclopedra, (2008c). “Multinomial Logit” Retrieved 8/08/08 from
http:// www. En.wikipedia. org/wiki/multinomial Logit.

Winpenny, J.T. (1991). “Values for the Environment a Guide to Economic Appraisal” in
Mgbenka,R.N.(Ed),Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) Perception Among
Farmers and Extension Agents in SouthEastern Nigeria.An M,Sc dissertation
Presented to the Department of Agricultural Extension,University of Nigeria
Nsukka.pp9.

Wood, M. (1995). “Steep Solution to Soil Erosion”. Agricultural Research, August. p.

10.

Woomer, P. and Muchena, F.N. (1995). “Overcoming Soil Constriants in Crop

Production in Tropical Africa”. In V. Aherkoral, E. OWSU-bennoal, G.N.N.
Dowuona (editors). Sustaining Soil Productivity in Intensive African Agriculture.
Technical Certer for Agriculture and Rural Co-Operation, Wageningen, The
Nethelands pp. 45 – 56.

World Bank (1990). “Towards the Development of an Environmental Action Plan for
Nigeria”. West Africa Department, December.

World Bank (2006)“Population Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa” Retrieved on 20/3/2008

from http//www.lakewhatcom.Wsu. Edu/ display. Asp,
worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRCAAEXT/NIGERIA
EXT/0,,menu PK: 368902-pagePk:141559-piPk 141110 – the
SitePk:368896,00.htmi EXTN. Web definition of Erosion Retrieved on 20/3/2008
from www.md –md-re. com/real- estate Glossary/ E. Php.

www.wef.org/learn about water/for the public/water terms.htm.

www; cnrberkeley. Edu/departments/ espm/ extension/ Gloss. H.T.M.

 110

Young, A. (1989). “Agroforestry for Soil Conservation”. London. CAB, International

council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF).

Yudelman, M.(1987). “Prospects for Agricultural Development in sub – saharam Africa”.

Occasional paper, Winrock International institute for Agricultural Development.
(April). Little Rock, Arkansas.

Zhifa C. and Xuezhen .Y. (2004). "Soil Conservation Farming System Practices on
Sloping Land on the South-Eastern Coast of China" Conserving Soil and Water
for Society: sharing solutions. Paper presented at the 13th International soil
conservation conference - Brisbane, July P.3. Retrieved 24 / 2 / 2010 from
http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/ISCO/ISCO13/PAPER%20RZ/ZHIFA.Pdf.
 111

Fig 2: SOIL EROSION MAP OF SOUTH EASTERN NIGERIA.

Source: Ofomata, (1988)

LEGEND

Slight sheet Erosion

Moderate Sheet Erosion
Severe Seheet Erosion
Slight Gullly Erosion

Severe Gully Erosion

Coastal Erosion
 Adapted and modified from GSN 2215 112
Fig.3: POTENTIAL EROSION MAP OF SOUTH EASTERN NIGERIA.

Source: Ofomata, (1988)

LEGEND
A HIGH POTENTIAL

Unconsolidated Sediments of Quaternary Alluvium

Unconsolidated Sediments of Quaternary Coastal plains Sands

Weak Quaternary Sediment of Tertiary to Cretaceous Lignite Formation

Crystalline Rocks of the Basement Complex and Associated Younger Intrusive Igneous Rock
B MODERATE POTENTIAL
Cretaceous Sediments of the Niger and Benue Valleys and Cross Rive Plains
 113

SOIL TYPES IN ENUGU STATE

Fig. 4: SOIL TYPE MAP OF ENUGU STATE

Source: ENADEP, (2008).
 114

APPENDIX

4.2.5 ANOVA Procedure for Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

The ANOVA Procedure

Class Level Information

Class Levels Values

=Erosion_control 4 Construction_of_Bonds Cover_cropping Multiple_cropping

Ridging_Across_the_scope

Number of observations 168

08:03 Friday, January 22, 2010 2

The ANOVA Procedure

Dependent Variable: Net_benefit Net_benefit

Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Model 3 2.1587666E12 719588850467 6.48 0.0004

Error 164 1.8209026E13 111030649146

Corrected Total 167 2.0367793E13

R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Net_benefit Mean

0.105989 283.7305 333212.6 117439.8

Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Erosion_control 3 2.1587666E12 719588850467 6.48 0.0004

08:03 Friday, January 22, 2010 3

The ANOVA Procedure

Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Net_benefit Variance

ANOVA of Squared Deviations from Group Means

Sum of Mean
Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F

Erosion_control 3 2.645E24 8.818E23 7.09 0.0002

Error 164 2.04E25 1.244E23
08:03 Friday, January 22, 2010 4
 115

The ANOVA Procedure

Level of ---------Net benefit---------

Erosion_control N Mean Std Dev

Construction_of_Bonds 34 29455.882 101638.653

Cover_cropping 35 6631.143 3850.502
Multiple_cropping 69 252739.855 512289.872
Ridging_Across_the_slope 30 35241.667 27314.617
08:03 Friday, January 22, 2010 5

The ANOVA Procedure

Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Net_benefit

NOTE: This test controls the Type I comparisonwise error rate, not the experimentwise error rate.

Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 164
Error Mean Square 1.11E11
Harmonic Mean of Cell Sizes 37.80387

NOTE: Cell sizes are not equal.

Number of Means 2 3 4
Critical Range 151333 159289 164593

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

 116

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Dear Respondent,

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a post-graduate student of the above named department and university,
currently carrying out an M.Sc Research works on “Economic Study of Farmland
Erosion Control Practices in Enugu State”.
You have been selected as one of the respondents to supply the required
information for the study to ensure its success.
It is purely an academic research work and all information supplied by you will be
treated confidentially.
I therefore solicit for your honest co-operation to respond as objective as possible
to the questions.
Thanks for your anticipated co-operation
Yours Sincerely,

Eze, Silas .O.

Instruction-Please Tick (√) for any correct option you have chosen.

SECTION A: SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

RESPONDENTS AND EROSION CONTROL.
1. Agricultural Zone……………………………………………………………………
2. Local Government Area……………………………………………………………….
3. Village/Community………………………………………………………………….
4. Date of Interview………………………………………………………………………
5. Name………………………………………………………………………………….
(if possible)

6. Age…………………………………………………………………………………
 117

7. Gender. Male Female

8. Marital Status: Single Married Widow Divorced

9. Educational level of the farmers:

None Primary

Secondary Tertiary

10. What is the size of your household…………….……………………………………..

11. What is your major occupation……………………………………………………......
12. How much is your annual income from primary and major occupation
N……………………………………………………………………………………….
13. How did you acquire land: Inherited Otherwise

14. What is the slope of your farm: Low Medium High

15. What is the size of your farmland under Erosion control; (hectares)………………….
16. How do you perceive the gravity of soil erosion problem: 1 = Very serious
2 = Little serious 3 = Not serious

17. How would you describe the risk nature of the erosion control: 1 = Very risky
2 = Little risky 3 = Not risky

18. What is the source of labour: 1 = Hired 2 = Otherwise

SECTION B: IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF EROSION

CONTROL PRACTICES OR COMBINATION OF
PRACTICES BY FARMERS
1. Do you observe any form of Erosion on your farmland: Yes No
2. Are you willing to pay for erosion control on your farm land: Yes No
3. Do you practice any of the following erosion control measures?
 118

Erosion Control Practice Yes No

Construction of bond
Grassing of waterways
Multiple cropping
Hedge-row planting
Ridging across the slope
Cover cropping
Others: specify

--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

4. If yes how do you practice any of the following?

Erosion Control Practice How (Description)
Construction of bond
Grassing of waterways
Multiple cropping
Hedge – row planting
Ridging across the slope
Cover cropping
Others: specify

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
 119

SECTION C: POSSIBLE CAUSES OF EROSION ON THE FARM LAND FROM

THE FARMERS PERSPECTIVE
1. Do you believe there are factors responsible for erosion on the farmland:
Yes No
2. Does the following cause erosion on the farmland
Cause Yes No
Rain water
Deforestation
Soil type
Slope of the farm
Excessive bush burning
Population density
Poor road construction
Poor farming system
Quarrying of sand
Crops that attracts human traffic
Gods
Overgrazing
Others: specify
--------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

3. To what extent do the following cause erosion on the farmland

Causes Not Serious Serious Very Serious
A Rain water
B Deforestation
C Soil type
D Slope of the farm
E Excessive bush burning
 120

F Population density
G Poor road construction
H Indiscriminate house construction
I Poor farming system
J Quarrying of sand
K Crops that attracts human traffic
L gods
M Overgrazing
N Others: specify

SECTION D: COSTS AND RETURNS

1. How much do you pay for hired labour per day
(Mondays)……………………………………………………………………..........
2. How much do you pay for inputs such as:
a. Seeds (N)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Fertilizer (N)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Materials (N)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How much do you pay for the following control practices: per year/hectare
S/N EROSION CONTROL PRACTICE COST (N)
I Construction of Bond
II Multiple cropping
III Hedge-row planting
IV Ridging across the slope
V Cover cropping

4. How much do you realize from the following practices: per year/hectare
 121

S/N EROSION CONTROL PRACTICE INCOME (N)

I Construction of Bond
II Multiple cropping
III Hedge-row planting
IV Ridging across the slope
V Cover cropping

5. How much does each of the control practice add to crop output per year/hectare
S/N EROSION CONTROL PRACTICE VALUE ADDED TO OUTPUT
I Construction of Bond
II Multiple cropping
III Hedge-row planting
IV Ridging across the slope
V Cover cropping

6. How much do you sell a unit of crop

output?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
7. If land is not inherited how much do you pay per year/hectare?-----------------------
8. Do you use machineries in your farming operations? 1 = Yes 2 = No

9. Are you aware of any public programmes on erosion control?, -1- yes
2 No
10. Do you have any contact with Extension Agents? 1-yes 2-No 2. No

11. If yes how often per year? 1 not often 2-often 3 very often