AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF ANIMAL GRAZING ON SOIL QUALITY

IN GWAGWALADA, FCT ABUJA.

BY

ESEMUZE LUCKY

(REG. NO. 10292001)

Being a Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements’ for the Award of B.Sc (Hons) Degree in Geography

And Environmental Management,

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF ABUJA,

ABUJA, NIGERIA.

SEPTEMBER, 2015.

1
 CERTIFICATION
I certified that this research was carried out by Esemuze Lucky. Registration Number 10292001
of the Department of Geography University of Abuja.

This Research project is hereby approved for acceptance in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the award of B.Sc. in Geography

Prof. M.M. ALHASSAN Date

Project Supervisor

Prof. S.P. EJARO Date

Head of Department

EXTERNAL EXAMINER Date

2
 DECLARATION
I declare that this project titled “An Assessment of the Impact of Animal Grazing on Soil
Quality” is written by me and it is a product of my research. It has not been presented for the
award of a degree in any university. All quotations are indicated and have been duly
acknowledged.

ESEMUZE LUCKY DATE

3
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this research project to the Almighty God, who in his infinite mercy has made it
possible for me to achieve my aspiration and attained this great height.

This research is further dedicated to my parent Mr. and Mrs. Esemuze Friday, and to my Aunty
Miss. Otunyo Victoria.

4
 ACKNOLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest appreciation and sincere gratitude’s to my project supervisor
Prof. M.M. Alhassan, who has the attitude and the substance of a genius; for wealth of wisdom
and experience, academic excellence, hard work, understanding, patience and guidance all
through the process of writing this project.

My special thanks also extend to the entire lecturers of the Department of Geography and
Environmental Management, University of Abuja. For making this dream of mine accomplished.
Most especial, the H.O.D. Prof. S.P. Ejaro., Dr. Ishaya S., Dr. Edicha J.A., Dr. Akanbi., Miss.
Mercy Ade., Mrs. Oluyori., Mrs. A. Hadiza., Mrs. Sa’adatu., Mr. Kato, among others.

I am also grateful to the family of Mr. and Mrs. Ajayi, for their parental advice that guided me all
through my undergraduate days.

In addition, my appreciation further goes to my brothers and sisters, and to my cousins for their
care and support all through the course of this work. And to my entire friends; Rabiu, Fatai,
Aliyu, Abdulfatai, Abdulrazaq, Abdullahi, Grace, Maisamari, Blessing2, Augustine, and my
entire course mates and the entire members of National Association of Geography and
Environmental Management Student (NAGEMS).

May God continue to reward you all for affecting my life positively.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page

Title Page……………………………………………………………………………. i

Certification…………………………………………………………………………. ii

Declaration………………………………………………………………………….. iii

Dedicatio……………………………………………………………………………. iv

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………... v

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………… vi

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………… vii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 General Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study………………………………………………………… 1-3

1.2 Statement of Research Problem…………………………………………………. 4-5

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the study………………………………………………… 5-6

1.4 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………. 6

1.5 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………….. 6-7

1.6 Scope and Limitation……………………………………………………………. 7

1.7 Geography of the Study Area…………………………………………………… 8

1.7.1 Location of the Study Area……………………………………………………. 8

1.7.2 Climate………………………………………………………………………… 11-12

1.7.3 Soil…………………………………………………………………………….. 12

1.7.4 Drainage……………………………………………………………………..… 12-13

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Definition of Soil………………………………………………………………... 14-16

6
2.2 Definition of Soil Properties…………………………………………………….. 16-17

2.2.1 Soil Physical Properties……………………………………………………….. 17

2.2.2 Soil Chemical Properties……………………………………………………… 17-18

2.2.3 Soil Biological Properties…………………………………………………..… 18-19

2.3 Soil Fertility…………………………………………………………………….. 19-20

2.4 Factors Affecting Soil Fertility…………………………………………………. 20

2.4.1 Climatic Factors Affecting Soil Fertility……………………………………… 20-21

2.4.2 Soil Properties Affecting Soil Fertility………………………………………... 21

2.4.2.1 Physical Properties Affecting Soil Fertility…………………………………. 21

2.4.2.2 Chemical Properties Affecting Soil Fertility……………………………...... 21-22

2.4.2.3 Biological Properties Affecting Soil Fertility………………………………. 22

2.4.2.4 Soil Mineralogy……………………………………………………………... 23

2.5 Definition of Grazing and Factors Affecting Grazing………………………….. 23-25

2.6 Effect of Grazing on Soil……………………………………………………….. 25-26

2.7 Importance of Grazing………………………………………………………….. 26-17

2.8 Grazing as it affect Soil Quality………………………………………………… 27-28

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 29

3.2 Pre Fieldwork……………………………………………………………………. 29

3.2.1 Site Selection………………………………………………………………….. 29

3.2.2 Source of Data………………………………………………………………… 29

3.2.3 Primary Data………………………………………………………………….. 30

3.3 Fieldwork……………………………………………………………………….. 30

3.3.1 Soil Sample Collection……………………………………………………….. 30

7
3.4 After Fieldwork (Laboratory Analysis)…………………………………………. 31

3.4.1 Physical Properties……………………………………………………………. 31

3.4.2 Chemical Properties…………………………………………………………… 31

3.4.3 Biological Properties………………………………………………………….. 31

3.5 Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………… 31-32

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Result Presentation and Discussion

4.1 Soil Physical Properties…………………………………………………………. 33

4.1.1 Soil PH ………………………………………………………………………… 33

4.1.2 Soil Porosity…………………………………………………………………… 35

4.1.3 Soil Particles Size Analysis…………………………………………………… 36-37

4.2 Soil Chemical Properties………………………………………………………… 40

4.2.1 Total Organic Carbon…………………………………………………………. 40

4.2.2 Total Nitrogen………………………………………………………………… 42

4.2.3 Available Phosphorus…………………………………………………………. 43

4.2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity……………………………………………………. 45

4.2.5 Electrical Conductivity……………………………………………………….. 46

4.3 Soil Biological Properties………………………………………………………. 48

4.3.1 Total Caliform………………………………………………………………… 48

4.3.2 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria………………………………………………….. 49

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Summary………………………………………………………………………… 51-52

5.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. 52

5.4 Recommendation………………………………………………………………... 52
8
LIST FIGURES

1.1Map of Nigeria Showing FCT,Abuja………………………………………… 9

1.2Map of Abuja, Showing Gwagwalada…………………………………………... 10

3.1 Sample Plot………………………………………………………………………. 30

4.1 Soil PH of Grazing Track…...…….……………………………………………… 34

4.2 Soil PH of Controlled Site………………………………………………………... 34

4.3 Soil Porosityof Grazing Track…………………………………………………... 35

4.4 Soil Porosityof Controlled Site………………………………………………..… 36

4.5 Sand value of Grazing Track..……………………………………………………. 37

4.6 Sand value of Controlled Site…………………………………………………….. 38

4.7 Silt value of Grazing Track..……………………………………………………... 38

4.8 Silt value of Controlled Site……………………………………………………… 39

4.9 Clay value of Grazing Track…………………………………………………….. 39

4.10 Clay value of Controlled Site…………………………………………………… 40

4.11 Total Organic Carbon of Grazing Track………………………………………… 41

4.12 Total Organic Carbon of Controlled Site……………………………………….. 41

4.13 Total Nitrogen of Grazing Track……………………………………………….. 42

4.14 Total Nitrogen of Controlled Site……………………………………………….. 43

4.15 Available Phosphorus of Grazing Track……………………………………….. 44

4.16 Available Phosphorus of Controlled Site……………………………………..... 44

4.17 Cation Exchange Capacity of Grazing Track…………………………………... 45

4.18 Cation Exchange Capacity of Controlled Site………………………………….. 46

4.19 Electrical Conductivity of Grazing Track……………………………………… 47

4.20 Electrical Conductivity of Controlled Site……………………………………… 47

4.21 Total Caliform of Grazing Track……………………………………………….. 48

9
4.22 Total Caliform of Controlled Site………………………………………………. 49

4.23 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria of Grazing Track………………………………… 50

4.24 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria of Controlled Site………………………………... 50

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

10
 ABSTRACT
This study focuses on the impact of animal grazing on soil quality in Dukwa
District of Gwagwalada, FCT Abuja. Soil samples were collected from eight (8)
controlled and grazing site respectively. Physiochemical parameters of sampled
soil such as pH, porosity, electrical conductivity, total organic carbon, total
organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, particles size analysis, cation
exchange capacity, total caliform and total heterotrophic bacteria were analyzed.
The result which was used as index for assessing the effect of grazing on soil
quality was analyzed using standard methods. Significant effect of grazing was
observed on soil properties along the grazing track when compared to the
controlled sites, which was statistically justified at 95% confidence limit (p ≤ 0.05).
There were considerable decreases ranging from 4% to 53% at p ≤ 0.05 in the
values of pH, porosity, total organic carbon, total organic matter, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, total caliform and total heterotrophic bacteria on the grazing
track when compared to the controlled sites; except for electrical conductivity
where an increase of 92% at the grazing track was observed when compared to the
controlled sites. The sand, silt and clay parameters were observed not to have been
affected by grazing activities. The findings of this study revealed significant
impacts of grazing by animals on soil quality along the grazing tract as compared
with that of the controlled sites. As a consequence, mitigation measures should be
put in place by herdsmen and concerned agencies to avoid excessive grazing so as
not to further expose the natural quality of ecosystem to the devastating effect of
grazing activities and to ensure environmental safety.

11
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

1.1 Background to the Study

The concept of soil quality integrates the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil for
a specific land use. The universally accepted definition of soil quality remains elusive, but it is
generally accepted that it relates to the functional roles of soil in the landscape (carter, 1996),
Which serve as a medium for the physical, chemical and biological processes that support plant
growth, in partitioning water flow through the landscape and as a buffer for environmental
change (National research council, 1999). Among the various land use types, agricultural
activities (Livestock farming) is one of the land use types that have imposed a greater
impediment on soil quality regardless of its importance in nation building. Livestock farming in
Nigeria has a crucial economic, functional and cultural significance. Various functions of
livestock include dairy production, draught, labor and transportation. Economically, livestock
production accounts for about 70% of farmer’s income in the country. In addition, livestock
serves as a "saving account" or a way of building assets. Culturally, in many parts of the country,
ownership of livestock denotes social status.

Considering the great importance of livestock farming in Nigeria, assessing ways of improving
livestock management and decreasing pressure on natural resources (grazing system) is
imperative.

Animal grazing extremely affects soil, as it tends to affect other component of the ecosystem.
Soil as vital and basic physical resources in rangeland, if lost excessively, the potentials of the
site will change thus, avoidance of accelerated erosion and nutrient lost in land management
should be the underlying objective (Society For Range Management, 1995).

Grazing animals primarily affects rangeland and arable field soils by direct impact through
trampling and dumping (Smoliak et al., 1972). This in turn increase the rate of soil compaction
which will, no doubt affect root penetration and movement of soil air and water (Tisdale et al,
1985). Heavy livestock such as cattle, compact soil structure and destroys vegetation on part of
the field they often tread upon. The pressure on soil from moving cattle has been estimated to be
12
about 1.7 and 4.2 kg/cm2, with regards to cattle weight of about 500kg or more (Holechecketal.,
1995). Animal grazing also affects soil indirectly by altering plant community structure (Thurow
et al., 1988; Dormaar et al., 1997). Under high rate of stocking, grazing has demonstrated
positive effect on species composition and diversities (Janzen, 1982), affecting vegetation in
terms of land cover removal. With this, species richness is therefore altered. This effect is mostly
associated to pig production, because part of pig behavior’s is to dig into soil with the snout thus
destroying vegetal cover while sheep on the other hand graze on root cover crops, rendering the
soil bare. On wet soils, short term treading by sheep is however found to be less damaging than
treading by cattle (Betteridge et al., 1979).

As a result of vegetal loss due to excessive animal grazing, other issues like global warming
could be brought to bear upon the earth surface because vegetation (biosphere) serves as carbon
sinks, reducing excess carbon in space. Moreover, soil also tends to lock up a considerable
amount of carbon of which if exposed can be released into space thus increasing the amount of
terrestrial carbon.

Animal grazing have been found to significantly alter virtually all aspect of soil physical,
chemical and biological properties in Gwagwaladada due to poor management of foliage land
among livestock farmers in the said area. A number of studies have shown that heavy grazing
leads to plant composition change, a reduction in the total organic cover changes in the physical
and chemical properties of the topsoil layer with resultant reduction in infiltration rate (Smoliak
et al., 1997).

Ranching as part of livestock farming system in which animals are kept in an area (paddock,
farmland) to graze, until they have removed up to 90% of the above ground biomass
(Biodinietal., 1998) leaving the soil bare and susceptible to direct impact of rainfall (climatic
element), could result to the washing away of topsoil nutrient (erosion) as well as down washing
away of soil minerals (leaching), destroying the organic nutrient of the A' horizon and also leads
to high rate of evaporation, thus reduces the soil water depth. Generally, grazing activities
reduces soil water up to a depth of about 15cm in rainfall region and 7.5 in spring region as
reported by (Belsky and Blumenthal 1995; Fleischner, 1995), that erosion increases
progressively with increase in animal grazing thus impair the soil future in natural and

13
agricultural productivity.

Grazing of pasture and rangeland as an integral component of livestock production system in

many counties (Jihanstone et al., 1996), without any doubt has contributed extremely to
desertification and depletion of soil nutrient as well as land degradation. In recent study, 91% of
subsistence pastoralist adept at recognizing land changes reported that rangeland conditions have
worsened in recent years and identified overgrazing as one of the three main causes. This may be
as a result of the absence of pasture management and forage production exercise by small
holders’ farmers in Gwagwalada.

Cattles sometimes spread pathogenic organism that may tends to affect soil nutrient quality by
picking them up from a point source and urinating or defecating them elsewhere. Weeds, plant
disease and E. coli 0157 are all thought to be spread in this way. Furthermore, urine from
animals is harmful in the soil, affecting soil microbes and contains some toxic compounds that
can pollute the soil water, and toxic to plant roots which cannot immediately recover to take up
nitrogen. Both calcium and magnesium are also lost in substantial amount from urine patches on
pasture soils (Carly et al., 1998).Adverse effect of urine is mostly pronounced in areas where
animals are congregated. The amount of urine delivered to soil by a grazing cow is of the order
of about 2 liters applied to an area of about 0.4m2(Addiscoltet al., 1991). This represent an
instantaneous application of 400-1200kgNha-1, such an amount burns vegetation which can take
up to 12 months of recovery.

Nevertheless droppings from animal also improved the fertility of soil as well as animal remnant.
moreover animal trampling also do accelerate the mixing up of soil organic matter together and
thus speed up the rate of soil decomposition, a process by which humus is produced resulting to
the production of humus rich soil (mull), bursting up the productive potentials of soil.

Without much emphasis, it has been discovered by several researchers that animal grazing have
brought to bear upon the quality of the soil and its productive potentials an adverse negative
effect, with regards to soil physical properties, chemical composition and biological component
and also alters the resilience potentials, which is the capacity of soil to recover its functional and
structural ability after been disturbed (Sybold et al., 1999).

14
1.2 Statement of Research Problem

The need for food production continue to increase spontaneously as population growth in the
country increases beyond prediction and this has led to the over utilization of our natural
resources. Most human activities in life are anchored on soil and no doubt the natural resources
have been of utmost value to the economy of any nation. Inappropriate land use and land
management practice contribute to land quality problems such as increase rate of wind and water
erosion, accelerated rate of soil acidification, nutrient decline and carbon losses (Smalingetal.,
1997; UNEP, 1999; FAO, 2000; Bridges et al., 2001).

Agricultural activities such as grazing is considered to be the major cause of soil degradation
worldwide (Oldemannet al., 1991), accounting for about 35.8% of all forms of degradation.
(Zhungetal., 2001) state that heavy grazing cause’s deterioration of soil due to heavy defoliation
and treading. However, the effect is mostly pronounced in developing countries within Africa
where it account for about 49.2% respectively (Warren and Khogali, 1992).

Grazing activities leads to loss of vegetation and thus rendering the soil bare. most soil
sometimes refers to as "sheet erosion" (Whitflow, 1988) are created by animals at small breaks
of slope where they initiate scares by rubbing against vegetation, meanwhile the scars are
extended by constant disruption of soil surface by their hooves (Evans, 1997). This adverse
effect are much more pronounced in areas where animals are kept (paddock, farmland) as well as
animal tracks where they regularly tread on along fence and river bank.

Animal feces and urine affect the chemical composition of soil by changing the element content
of the soil. Possible effect of grazing includes the removal of dead growth, the opening of canopy
which allows early soil warming. Thus, increasing the soil temperature, moisture loses from soil
surface and the removal of some older leaves about to be decomposed to increase the humus
content of the soil and the interception of significant amount of rainfall (Pai, 2004), that may
have reduced or prevent erosion and leaching which have a great capabilities of rendering the
soil nutrient less productive. Moreover soil micro-organism capable of mixing up the soil
materials plays a significant role in developing soil fertility and is influenced by water content

15
and storing capacity, texture, size and rate of pores (Kaˊtai, 2003). However, treading may
decrease habitable pore space and increase soil bulk density which negatively affects soil quality
(Kaˊtai, 2003).

Furthermore, increased livestock numbers in an area causes overgrazing which could affect soil
physical properties. Inappropriate cattle grazing practices such as overgrazing damage the quality
of structural pasture and soil properties(Villamilet al., 2001). Soil such as peat if exposed,
becomes so unstable and erodible that vegetation can no longer easily take hold.

Nevertheless, soil structural degradation in upper horizons is approved by high bulk density
values, high dry mechanical resistance and low structural stability in comparison with the climax
situation. Topsoil horizon shows a reduction in depth in grazed site mainly as a result of soil
compression caused by animal hooves (Villamilet al., 2001). This fact is especially true in areas
where animals have grazed for a long period of time (Kaˊtai, 2003).

A significant portion of grassland in developing countries like Nigeria, are over-utilized by

animal grazing. However, soils within this region have not been extensively studied and their
properties are still not well understood. One area in Nigeria where such assessments have not
been previously conducted is Gwagwalada, an important town in Nigeria, Federal Capital
Territory. Thus, the need to assess the effects of animal grazing on land degradation constitutes
the main thrust of this research.

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study

The main aim of this study is to analyze the impact of animal grazing on soil quality in Dukwa
district of Gwagwalada area council of the FCT, Nigeria, with a view of recommending a
suitable mitigation measures for any of the adverse effects. The aim of this research was
achieved through the following objectives:

i. To determine the physical, chemical and biological properties of sampled soil along
grazing track;

ii. To determine the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil in a controlled site;

iii. To compare the values obtained in (i) and (ii) above in other to identify the impact of
16
 animal grazing on soil quality in the area; and

iv. To determine if there is significant variation in the values of physical properties of

sampled soils along grazing track with those from control sites.

1.4Hypotheses

The following null hypothesis guided the conduct of this research

HO1: there is no significant variation in the values of physical properties of sampled soil with
those of the controlled;

HO2 there is no significant variation in the values of chemical properties of sampled soil with
those of the controlled;

HO3 there is no significant variation in the values of biological properties of sampled soil with
those of the controlled.

1.5 Significance of the Study

Livestock is a major type of farming across various parts of Nigeria, including rainfall zones,
table land zones with steeper topography and limited opportunities for crop production and
mixed farming zones where livestock co-exist with cropping enterprise. It is not possible to
remove all livestock from landscape, so management strategies need to be employed in the
knowledge that impacts are likely to occur.

For land evaluation, a soil quality approach is most useful if soil quality criteria are linked to soil
type, Land use and land capabilities. In this regard, key performance indicators of condition and
trend can be identified and monitored and livestock values of soil performance can be identified
in conjunction with the particular needs and capabilities of the user (Ridley et al., 2003; The
report card approach suggested by Walker et al., 1996). In respect to this, degradation of soil
structure has been observed since shortly after the introduction of agriculture to the landscape of
Australia and Africa and has been described as one of the most serious forms of land degradation
within the region (Chan and Pratley, 1998). But yet, several authorities are claiming that
construction activities are the major cause of land degradation.

17
Crop cultivation is a common cause of soil physical property decline, but the impact of livestock
is however, still poorly understood. Heavily grazed land takes up to two years to regenerate and
withstand climatic effect than arable land. This is because various agricultural practice related to
farming are employed to improve the quality of arable land such as terrace and Tungya farming
to control erosion, fallowing, shifting cultivation, crop rotation and mixed cropping to ameliorate
soil fertility, whereas management practices for grazing activities have not been employed.

Soil on which pig and sheep manures are continuously applied at high rates accumulate heavy
metals, jeopardizing the good functioning of the soil and contaminate crops thus posing human
health risk (Conway and Pretty, 1991). Yet, the rates of this effect are however under discussion.

Animal grazing has significantly contributed to the increased level of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases during the past 250 years (Darwin, 2000). About 40% of emitted methane is produced by
agricultural activities predominantly by ruminant animals (Rosenzweig and Hillel, 1998). In
respect to this, cases of excessive increase in temperature have not been related to grazing effect
on soil, despite the potentials of soil to store large amounts of carbon (Pouyatetal., 2006).

A lot of livestock farmers in Nigeria are careless about the nature of soil after been grazed and
this neglect is highly pronounced in Gwagwalada area of the FCT where farmers are not well
enlightened about various ways and management practices of soils. As such, the need for this
study.

1.6 Scope and Limitation

The conceptual scope for this research include: physical properties of soil, chemical properties of
soil, biological properties of soil, soil degradation, soil quality, soil characteristics, all within the
context of environmental assessment.

The spatial scope covered Dukwa District in Gwagwalada Area Council of the Federal Capital
Territory of Abuja.

The temporal scope is that it is not time bound. The study can be carried out at any time of the
year.
18
The limitations of the study include the fact that heavy metals were not assessed. And not all the
physical, chemical and biological components were assessed in this study.

1.7 Geography of the Study Area

1.7.1 Location of the Study Area

Gwagwalada is a suburb of the federal capital territory, Abuja. It is situated along Abuja-Lokoja
road at about 55 kilometers away from FCT and centrally located between latitudes 8O55' N and
9O 00'N and longitudes 7O 00' E and 7O 04' E (Ishaya, 2013). With a population of about 157,770
at the 2006 census, the region covers a total landmass of about 65 km2 out of the 8,000 km2 of
the total FCT land mass and located at the center of very fertile area with abundance of grasses
(Ishaya, 2013). The area is bordered by Kuje area council to the East, Abaji area council to the
West, Kwali area council to the south and Abuja municipal area to the Northeast and to the North
by Suleja local government area of Niger state (Balogun, 2001).

19
 Source: NASRDA (2015)
Figure: 1.1 Map of Nigeria Showing Abuja

20
 Source: NASRDA (2015)
Figure: 1.2 Map of Abuja Showing Gwagwalada

21
1.7.2 Climate

The climate at Gwagwalada just like most climate in the tropics have various climatic element in
common, most especially the wet and dry season characteristics (Balogun, 2001). It has a
tropical sub-humid climate, with two distinct seasons, namely a wet and dry season. The wet
season lasts for seven months starting from April and ends in October. Its major elements have
regimes that are transitional from those of the southern and northern part of the country.

The temperature of Gwagwalada is generally high during the day and falls sharply at night.
Changes in temperature of about 17OC have been recorded between the highest and lowest
temperature in a single day. During the rainy season, the maximum temperature is lower due to
dense cloud cover; Diurnal annual range is also much lower sometimes not more than 7OC in
July and August. The mean maximum monthly temperature ranges between 28OC– 30OC and the
mean minimum monthly temperature ranges between 25OC– 27OC. The area records an average
maximum and minimum daily temperature ranging between 30OC- 21OC during the dry season
and 37OC -16OC during the rainy season respectively, resulting to an average annual temperature
of 27.2OC varies by 4.7OC. Over the last twenty years the highest temperature is recorded in the
month of April with about 37OC this occurs during the dry season of the year due to the general
cloudless of the period. The minimum temperature occurs in the month of December with about
17OC during the harmattan wind period.

The area also records relative humidity of about 25% in the dry season of the year which often
falls in the afternoon (Abuja master plan, 2000). Although, the relative humidity is recorded as
50% during the beginning of the rainy season.

The rainy season usually begins in March and ends in the middle of October in the north and
early November in the south. About 60% of the rain falls during the month of July to September,
during which flood occur within the area lying around the floodplain of River Usuma (Adakayi,
2000; Balogun, 2001). The highest rainfall is recorded in the month of August with rainfall
amount of about 1400mm, while the least amount of rainfall is recorded in December, which
records an average amount of 1mm. With an average of 258mm, the most precipitation occurs in
September. The variation in precipitation between the driest and wettest months is about 257mm
annually.
22
As a result of its location on the windward side of Jos plateau, there is frequent rainfall and a
noticeable increase in mean annual total from the south to the North of the area with a mean
annual rainfall of about 1400mm per annum (Adakayi, 2000). This has placed a pivotal role with
respect to agricultural activities, since agriculture within the area is highly dependent on rainfall.

Finally, the major causes of rainfall in the area are the conventional rising of air containing water
vapor with the combination of other factors (Adakayi, 2000; Balogun, 2001).

1.7.3 Soil

The soil in the study area shows a high level of variability comprising mainly of sand, silt, clay
and gravel. Alluvial soils are predominantly found in the valleys of the various Rivers within the
area but highly concentrated at the valley of River Usuma. The water table around the area where
this soil type dominates is usually very high. It has well decomposed organic matter content in
the surface layer; its texture is heavier with depth as the weathered parent material is approached.
The soils within this area are generally moist and poorly drained almost all year round and to a
great extent support farming due to its various natures (FCDA, 2007;Balogun, 2001).

The soil at the upper slope occupies the largest landscape as a result of which they are not mostly
freely and severely drained. The soils at the valley side also differ in a number of ways with
respect to their profiles. Soils at the summit are predominantly reddish brown in the top layer and
reddish in the sub layer, whereas soils within the valley side have tick cover of sand-wash
materials, characterized with palest colors and loamy sand soil texture at the topsoil which is
highly vulnerable to erosion when land covers are removed (FCDA, 2007; Balogun, 2001).

1.7.4Drainage

The study area is drained by River Usuma, an important tributary of River Gurara and is the
largest and major river within the study area (Balogun, 2001). The River Usuma around
Gwagwalada is quite shallow at almost all times of the year with exception during the peak of
the rainy season and the river slope gradient also ranges between 2O- 6O although steeper in areas
which have witnessed stream incision on rock outcrops and inselbergs. The drainage texture is
coarse and valley density ranges between 1 and 2 km2.

23
Several mature profile rivers also drains the area westward to the River Usuma, running south to
join River Gurara which empties its content into River Niger (Balogun, 2001).

24
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definition of Soil

Soil is the most basic of all natural resources. It is a biological active complex mixture of
weathered mineral materials, organic matter, organisms, air and water which provides the
foundation for life in terrestrial ecosystem. But, however it is not merely the sum of minerals,
inorganic matter, water and air, but a product of their interactions (Juma, 1999).

Early attempt towards the definition of soil date back to the ancient period of great philosophers
like Aristotle and Theopharastus, from which soil scientists draw out their views towards the
concept of soil as those horizons of rock, which daily or near daily change their relationship
under the joint influence of water, air and various forms of organism, living and dead
(Dokuchaev, 1899).

Detailed analysis of soil within the scope of Dokuchaev approach; see’s soil as a natural “exon”
which has properties developed as a result of the influence of autotrophic and heterotrophic
organisms on soil constituent, resulting from exogenic transformation (Dmitrieve, 1996). This
definition of soils was based on the concept of soil as a medium for plant growth,
“edaphological” concept of soil. This view prevailed in soil science early in the 20th century and
is still being emphasized where soil fertility is the primary concern and the focus is on the
physico-chemical attributes of soils important for plant growth with little regards for conditions
external to the rooting medium (Lyon and Buckman, 1922).

Furthermore, soil can be viewed as a mantle of loose and weathered rock (Shaler, 1891; Hilgard,
1906; Coffey, 1912; Ramann, 1928 andTargulian, 2001). This view can further be expanded as
the excited skin of the sub-aeriel part of the earth crust (Nikiforoff, 1959). Chesworth (1973) also
viewed soils as a systems spontaneously moving toward a state of equilibrium.

Soil is viewed as a landscape system of storing, transforming and transmitting power plants
whose inputs are material and energy and whose output includesclastic sediment, colloids, and
soluble material (Huggett, 1975). An importance component of Huggett’s model is the
perspective of the soil as a body larger than a pedon or poly pedon, within which the lateral
25
down-slope migration of dissolved and suspended constituents in temporally percolating water is
a key component. Other proponent such as Targulian and Sokolova (1996) described soil as a
reactor, memory and regulator of biosphere interactions. Following the ideas of Vernadskii
(1926) and Kovda (1990), Dobrovolskiietal., (2001), considered soil as a component of the
biosphere with ecological functions responsible for biodiversity and productivity. This concept
was further expantiated, viewing soil as an abiotic system with numerous biospheric functions
and emphasized that a soil act as an habitat, accumulator and source of substances for all
terrestrial organisms, as a link between the biological and geological cycles of matter, and as a
planetary membrane (productive barrier and buffer system) that maintains suitable conditions for
normal development of the biosphere (Nikitin, 2001).

Nevertheless soil can be seen as a three-phase system, (gas, liquid and solid) (Hillel, 1998) and
that a column of soil is composed of gas filled pores, soil water and soil solids with different
characteristics components depending on a wide range of influencing variables(Hillel, 1998).
More precisely, soil definition diverges into the direction of interest and need, which is mostly
referenced to agriculture. In this view, soil is seen as a dynamic natural body on the surface of
the earth in which plants grows, composed of mineral and organic material and living form
(Brady, 1990). Accordingly,Spangler and Handy (1982) also defines soil as the collection of all
fragmented mineral materials at or near the surface of the earth, the moon or other planetary
body plus the air, water, organic matter and other substances which may be included therein.
This concept is basically for engineering purpose.

All these approaches have led to more recent application of thermodynamics in modeling soil
processes. Today soil is recognized as a complex system that changes in entropy and controlled
by convergent and divergent developmental pathways (Phillips, 2000).

The most common view of soil from a pedological perspective is that it is an independent natural
evolutionary body that can be subdivided into sub-compartments and that has formed under the
influence of the five soil forming factors (climate, organisms, parent materials, relief and time).
This view was initially proposed by Dokuchaev(1899) and supported by sibirtsev (1990). New
ideas and concept towards the definition of soil, no matter how sound, probably would not be
immediately accepted if they differ profoundly from currently prevailing views (Ableiter 1949).

26
According to soil taxonomy (soil survey staff, 2005), the soil is a natural body composed of
solids (minerals and organic matter), liquid and gases that occur on the land surface occupies
space and characterized by horizons or layers that are distinguishable from the initial materials.

From this view, key concepts regarding the definition of the soil include the following:

i. The soil is a medium for plant growth

ii. The soil is a mantle of loose and weathered rock
iii. The soil is an independent, natural evolutionary body
iv. The soil is the “exited skin” of the sub aerial part of the earth’s crust and a key concept of
the biosphere
v. The soil is a natural body composed of solids (minerals and organic matter), liquids, and
gases that occur on the land surface, occupies space, and is characterized by horizon or
layers that are distinguishable from the initial materials.

2.2 Definition of Soil Properties

Soils are characterized by physical, chemical and biological attributes, which all forms the three
main component of soil fertility (Abbott and Murphy 2003). Soil properties are the characteristic
that enables the differentiation of one type of soil from another (Arthuret al., 2002). These three
attributes of soil determines the ability of soil to perform functions of value to human (Bohn,
2001), specifically to its capacity to produce biomass and moderate the environment (Brown,
1994).

These attributes differ among soils due to their development and formation from specific parent
materials, climate, predominant vegetation, soil moisture regime, drainage intensity and position
on the landscape (Brown et al., 1998).

Although soil in general contains the same component (minerals, organic matter, water and air)
which interact together to produce a distinctive soil properties, however they differ in their
properties, fertility and productivity. These differences affect or determine the management
practice of soil, but however in Gwagwalada, livestock farmers are not concerned about this
principle.

27
2.2.1 Soil Physical Properties

Soil functions within the landscape can be defined by their ability to allow water and gaseous
movement, which is influenced by soil texture, aspect and landscape position (Gary et al., 2005).
Soil physical properties are defined on the basis of their diameter, although these particle rarely
exist as a spherical object (Gary etal., 2005), but they include particle size distribution, especially
the amount of clay content and nature of clay minerals, degree and stability of aggregate and
total porosity and pore size distribution. These properties determine the relative proportion of
solid, liquid, gaseous phase and water retention and transmission (Brown et al., 1998).

Soil particle sizes often differ between classification schemes used by different groups (soil
survey staff, 2005). There are twelve textural classes that are defined by the relative proportion
of the sand, silt and clay which makes up a soil sample (soil survey staff, 2005).

Soil particles held together by chemical and physical forces form stable aggregates. The type of
soil aggregate or peds, which defines soil structure influences the amount of water that enters a
soil (infiltration) and gas diffusion at the surface (Gary etal.,2005). Other physical properties of
soil includes soil color, consistency, porosity, bulk density and among others. Important
processes governed by soil physical properties are gaseous exchange between soil and the
atmosphere, root growth and development, soil erosion, and among others (Lal, 2002). However
adequate studies of these processes are still not known in Dukwa area of Gwagwalada,
particularly along grazing track.

2.2.2 Soil Chemical Properties

Mineral solubility, soil reaction (PH), cation and anion exchange buffering effect and nutrient
availability are major chemical properties of soil, which are determined primarily by the nature
and quantities of the clay minerals and organic matter present (Gary et al., 2005). Clay minerals
and organic matter are the primary factors contributing to the chemical reaction of soil (Gary
etal., 2005). High surface area and electrical charge characteristic are the reason for soil
chemical dynamism (Gary etal., 2005).

Colloidal mineral and organic particles have extremely high charge to area ratio that make them
important processesthat includes water retention, cation and anions exchange, sorption of organic
28
and inorganic compounds, PH buffering as well as creating numerous other dynamic physical
and chemical and biological attributes that are essential to soil fertility, structure and quality of
soil environment (Gary et al., 2005).

Factors associated with acidity, salinity and sodicity plays significant roles in soil chemistry and
have been labeled “master variables” alongside with soil redox (oxidation-reduction), (Garyet
al., 2005 and Lal, 2002). Soil chemical properties have a profound influence on agricultural
productivity, soil quality and health as well as on the overall sustainability of the soil ecosystem
(Gary et al., 2005). Knowledge of the chemistry of soil solution is important in understanding
how best to handle by-product materials such as animal manure, municipal bio-solids and food
by-products.

Evidence has shown that little understanding about soil chemistry is known in the study area.
However it is against this gap that this study was carried out.

2.2.3 Soil Biological Properties

Biological community vary from soil to soil and ranges from plant roots, rodents, worms and
insects, all of which are visible to the eye, and to microorganism (bacterial, actinomycetes, fungi,
algae and protozoa) that are often so small, a microscope is required to see and examine them
Gary et al.,2005). Soil biological properties relates to the microbial and fauna activities in the
soil (FAO, 2001).

Soil biological attributes with strong impact on physical and chemical properties includes
quantities and quality of soil organic matter,total and microbial biomass carbon, activities and
species diversity of soil fauna (Lal, 2002).

Soil processes associated with biological attributes are mineralization fluxes of trace of gases
from soil to the atmosphere, purification of water and detoxification of chemical and other
pollutant (Lal, 2002).

Management of soil physical, chemical and biological attributes is the goal of adopting a
judicious landuse and appropriate management system (Lal, 2002). However basic statistical
knowledge about soil properties in Dukwa district of Gwagwalada, FCT is still based on

29
assumption. Thus, the need for empirical research analysis, in which this study is aimed at
achieving.

2.3 Soil Fertility

Africa is a very large continent with extremely wide range of soils (Bationoet al., 2006). The
soils range from shallow meager life sustaining capacities to deeply weathered profile that
recycle and support large biomass. In many parts of Africa, inappropriate land use, poor
management and lack of inputs have led to soil erosion, salinization and loss of vegetation
resulting to a decline of agricultural productivity (Bationoet al., 2006). In most part of Africa,
limiting factor to agricultural productivity is soil fertility (Ramaruet al., 2000).

Soil fertility refers to the inherent capacity of a soil to supply nutrient to plants in adequate
amount and suitable proportions (Brady, 1990). Soil fertility is also defined as the condition of a
soil that enables it to provide nutrients in adequate amount and in proper balance for growth of
specified plants when other factors such as light, water, temperature and physical conditions of
soil are favorable (Van der watt and Rooyen, 1995). In other literatures, the concept of soil
fertility denotes the quality of a soil that enables it to provide essential chemical elements in
quantities and proportions for the growth of a specified plant (Brady and weil 2004).

Large areas of sub-saharan African (SSA) soils, in particularly Nigeria, are affected by various
types of degradation, including fertility decline (FAO, 2001). Soil fertility decline is a
deterioration of chemical, physical and biological soil properties. The main contributing
processes, besides soil erosion, are decline in organic matter and soil biological activity,
degradation of soil texture and loss of other soil physical qualities, reduction in availability of
major nutrient (N,P,K) and micro nutrient, and increase in toxicity due to acidification or
pollution (FAO, 2001).

Inadequate supply of nutrient due to decline in soil fertility is a major barrier to crop production
faced by small holder farmers in Africa (Ramaruet al., 2000). This phenomenon coupled with
shortage of rainfall could result in a compounded problem of food shortage and famine. Thus soil
fertility and its management plays important role in farm productivity. For soil fertility to be
sustained, extracted soil nutrients must equate replenished soil nutrient, but in large area of

30
Africa, more soil nutrient are extracted than replenished (Ramaruet al., 2000). This had led to
food insecurity and declining soil fertility across much of sub-sahara Africa particularly in
Nigeria. The above literatures sited in the context of soil fertility based their views towards crop
yield. However, environmental impact assessment is not their concern and this will also be
examined in the course of this study.

2.4 Factors Affecting Soil Fertility

Soil fertility is a complex process that involves the constant cycling of nutrient between organic
and inorganic forms, which are affected by several factors such as climate, rainfall, soil
biological, chemical and physical properties (Ramaru, et al., 2000).

2.4.1 Climatic Factor Affecting Soil Fertility

Climatic element (Rainfall and temperature), are the key factors affecting soil fertility. Rainfall
affects horizon development factors such as translocation of dissolved ions through the soil
(Maiha, 2006). Areas with sufficient rainfall will however have greater weathering and leaching
of soil nutrients and organic matter, and enhance decomposition of organic materials in soil.

Extreme rainfall affects ground water exchange which could result to soil lacking much organic
matter in their horizons and therefore resulting in soil with low fertility status.

Temperature on the other hand influences vegetation cover, which in turn affects soil organic
matter and activities of organism in the soil. According to Sharchanet al., (2007), Hot, dry
regions usually lacks organic matter.

No doubt climatic parameters affect soil fertility, mostly through reduced rainfall and seasonal
changes (Regmi, 2007).

2.4.2 Soil Properties Affecting Soil Fertility

Soil different properties which include (physical, chemical and biological), greatly influence soil
fertility. To manage soil fertility, knowledge and understanding of these properties as they affect
soil need to be known.

2.4.2.1 Soil Physical Properties Affecting Soil Fertility

31
Although the physical properties affecting soil fertility are numerous, but soil texture is arguably
the single most important physical properties of soil in terms of soil fertility (Moberget al.,1999).
This is because it influences several other soil properties such as porosity, water and nutrient
retention, rate of organic matter, density, infiltration, CEC, among others. The size of particle
grains of soil determines the water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil (Brady and Weil,
2004).

As postulated by Miller and Donahue (1992), clay particles are so fine with a large surface area,
which attracts and hold positively charged ions (calium, magnesium and potassium), which
constitute plant nutrient. Furthermore the way soil particles (sand silt and clay) are grouped into
aggregate (Rowell, 1994), greatly influenced soil fertility (Forth and Ellis, 1997). The structure
of a solid determines also and affects the infiltration rate of the water in the soil, sealing and
crusting of the soil surface, together with aeration and structural stability (Brady and Weil,
2004).

The expression of the mass volume ratio of a soil which include particles volume, inter particles
void volume and internal poor volume (Bulk density) depend greatly on the degree of universal
make-up of the soil and soil compaction also affects the fertility of soil as stated by (Brady and
Weil, 2004).

2.4.2.2 Chemical Properties Affecting Soil Fertility

Chemical attributes of soil also affects the fertility of the soil, although this could be as a result
of the parent material from which the soil were formed.

Soil pH which refers to the measure of the acidity and alkalinity of the soil as stated by Bohn
(2001), is an important soil property that affects soil reaction and processes. It is also the most
characteristic soil fertility which has a direct impact on nutrient availability in the soil (Bohn,
2001). Exchangeable cation in the soil also aid soil fertility by way of increasing nutrient
retention capacity and the capacity to protect ground water from contamination (Brady and Weil,
2004). It also buffers fluctuations in nutrient availability and soil pH (Bergayya and Vayer,
1997). The higher the cation exchange capacity of a soil, the more nutrient it is likely to hold and
the higher will be its fertility level (Fullen and Cah, 2004).

32
Finally the plant nutrient in the soil which includes Nitrogen, Carbon, and Phosphorus among
others is an essential element that determines soil fertility (Brady and Weil, 2004). Most of these
are required in vastly different amount differentiated by their importance to plant growth (Brady
and Weil, 2004).

Deficiency of any of these essential nutrients will alter the fertility ratio of soil (Brady and Weil,
2004). Thus, determines plant development.

2.4.2.3 Biological Properties Affecting Soil Fertility

Soil micro-organism, excrete by-product which are either products of respiration or compound in
food supply makeup the biological nutrient in soil (Brady and Weil, 2004). Most of these by-
productsare inimical to plant growth, constituting toxic substances that may impair soil fertility.
However, macro organisms like earthworm helps to develop soil by mixing up organic content
and soil together, spreading up the rate of decomposition and humificationof dead and remains of
plant residuals in the soil, which increases the rate of soil fertility.

According to Mikkuta (2006), soil organic matter holds considerable amount of water which
determines nutrient movement from soil to plant roots. With this regard, organic matter is
considered to be the most important indicators of soil fertility and productivity (Rowell, 1994),
consisting primarily of decayed or decaying plant residues, which when synthesized increases
the humus content in the soil (Ashman and puri, 2002).

2.4.2.4 Soil Mineralogy

Soil mineralogy plays a vital role in soil fertility, because it serves as potential sites for nutrient
storage (Tucker, 1999). Different types of minerals holds and retain specific amount of nutrient,
which could either be primary or secondary minerals. Soil minerals are the actual mineral
characteristics of parent rocksfrom which soils are formed (Pal et al., 2000). Soil minerals is
extensively important in soil as they provide a mechanism for retaining essential nutrients
through ion exchange, thereby enhancing fertility and also buffer soil against rapid changes in
acidity and alkalinity (Dixon and Schulze, 2002).

33
Deficiency and toxicity of nutrients in soil causes low fertility in soil, poor growth, yellowing of
leaves and possibly the death of plant (Ahmed et al., 1997).

Therefore proper nutrient management is required to achieve healthy soil, for optimum
environmental impacts. However little or no literature on how land use and management
practices could help improve soil fertility is a major characteristics of soil users in Nigeria,
particularly in Dukwa district of Gwagwalada, FCT.

2.5 Definition of Grazing and Factors Affecting Grazing

Grazing is a method of feeding in which anherbivore feeds on plant such as grasses or other
multicellular organisms such as algae (Begonet al., 1976). Although grazing is usually associated
with mammals feeding on grassland or specifically livestock in pasture, ecologist sometimes use
the word in a broader sense to include any organism that feeds on any other species without
ending the life of the prey organism (Begonet al., 1976). For terrestrial animals, grazing is
normally distinguished from browsing as such, grazing is eating grasses or forbs and browsing is
eating woody twigs and leaves from trees and shrubs (Concise Oxford Dictionary 6th Edition
1976).

The level of intake can be considered by the characteristics of the forage, such as flavor (taste
and smell), appearances, and texture and by the post ingestive feedback occurring after its intake.
In other terms, “if forage taste good, animals tend to eat it more” (Baumout, 2000). For grazing
and more for browsing ruminant, numerous plants contain secondary metabolites like tannins,
terpenes that can affect digestibility, causing emetic effect and as a consequence, reduce the
voluntary intake. Tannins may reduce the grazing of some forage legumes such as lotus
pedunculatus by negatively affecting the ruminal fermentations (Reed, 1995).

Sward characteristic in terms of blade morphology, such as hair occurrences, thickness of cuticle
and leaves size (Loneyet al., 2006), and stem physical properties and dead material ratio can
stimulate, limit or inhibit animal forage behavior (Provenza, 2003a). More precisely, these
parameters have a huge influence on bite size and intake rate (Pracheet al., 1997).

Explanations of the influence of plant morphology characteristic on grazing intake are numerous.
According to Benvenuttiet al., (2006), stems can have a barrier effect on bite size and
34
instantaneous intake rate. The higher the stem density, the smaller is the bite area and the slower
is the biting rate. This leads to a decrease of instantaneous grazing rate. (Bovalet al., 2007),
confirms that stem heights and proportion in the sward have a negative impact on grazing rate
with correlation of, respectively -0.67 and -0.40.

Intake during grazing does not depend only on diet quality. Short term intake rate is also directly
correlated to forage distribution and availability (Garcia et al., 2003). This can partly explain the
lower level of grazing observed under tropical rangeland, where forage resources can be
scattered and heterogeneous with, as consequence, a reduction of the biting frequency and intake
rate due to the time spent by animals from one favorable site to another (Roguetet al., 1998).

Climate conditions can play an important role in grazing hours. Grazing by sheep is heavily
reduced when temperature rise during the middle of the day (Black and Kenney, 1984). If
temperature is higher than 250c, animals adapt their grazing behavior (early morning, late
evening and night grazing), in order to avoid the warmest period with as possible consequence, a
decrease of the time spent grazing by animals and a decrease of daily intake (Baumout et al.,
2000).

Topography and nature of landscape also have a significant effect on grazing. Although the
ability of cattle to graze in specific environment such as mountains, and slopes depends more on
the rearing practice than on the animal breed (Meuretet al., 2006). Interaction between animals in
the herd is sometimes sited to explain differences in animal grazing behavior, but however in the
study areas, herdsmen are not aware about the major factors necessary for intake by animals, but
basically relies on changes in seasonal pattern (wet and dry season).Thus, the need to conduct
this research.

2.6 Effect of Grazing on Soil.

Trampling, pawing and wallowing by ungulate disturb the soil and in some cases completely
destroy soil crust (Fleischner 1994;Belskey and Gelbard, 2000). Micro biotic soil crust plays an
important role in regulating nutrient cycling, biomass production, soil stability and water
infiltration (Belnap, 1994). In ecosystem that evolved from frequent grazing disturbance, soil
crust disruption maintains natural ecosystem processes and biological communities. However,

35
some authors argued that in Arid and semi-arid ecosystem, loss of micro biotic crust can have a
detrimental long-term effect on soil (Belskey and Gelbard 2000; fleiscner, 1994). The most
severe effect of trampling may be compaction of soils (Dormaar and Willms, 1998). Which
damage plant roots (Watkinsand Clemens, 1978), and causes roots to become concentrated near
the soil surface, in about 5cm depth of the soil, but can extend as deep as 30cm (Greenwoodand
Mckenzie,2001).These changes may prevent plant from acquiring sufficient resources for
vigorous growth (Belskey and Gelbard2000).

Grazing associated with heavy cattle is known to alter the hydraulic and mechanical properties of
soil, compacting the top soil layer, indicated by increase in bulk density (singleton et al., 2000).

Grazing leads to soil deformation by the exertion of high ground contact pressures under animal
hooves (Youg-Zhonget al., 2005; Zhao et al., 2007).

Beside soil compression, shear stress further destroys soil structure due to kneading and
homogenization, which could cause a change in macro porosity and connectivity of the pore
system (singleton et al., 2000). Such changes depend not only on the magnitude of applied
stresses, but also on aggregate stability at the time of trampling, which depends on soil moisture
(Zhao et al., 2007). This may result in a decrease in infiltration capacity of the soil (Pietolaet al.,
2005) and consequently increase the occurrence of overland flow (Heathwaiteet al., 1990),
which is considered to be an important nutrient loss pathway, as argued by (Kurtz et al., 2005).

Generally, grazing has been found to profoundly affect the physical conditions of soil near the
surface because of the hoof action and nutrient storage and cycling potentials through grazing
intensity and urine and dung deposition (liebiget al., 2006).

Overgrazing causes a decline in soil physical, chemical and biological properties, resulting in a
dramatic change in vegetation. Moreover, modification in nutrient cycling led to permanent
degradation of land productivity and destruction of the ecosystem (Pie et al., 2008). Lowering
above and below-ground organic matter is a consequence of grazing (Smith and Kooijman, 2000;
Steffens et al., 2008). Compaction and trampling by animals affect infiltration and impair plant
germination, regeneration and growth (Xie and Wittig, 2004). These processes may lead to low
water storage capacity and loss of soil fertility (Zhoaet al., 2007). The consequence of grazing on
36
soil is yet to be discussed in most literatures in Nigeria, particularly inDukwa district of
Gwagwalada, FCT.

2.7 Importance of Grazing

Reduced vegetation cover and disturbed soil surfaces may result in increased wind and water
erosion (Belnap and Girellete, 1998). However, organic components of feces and urine from
grazing animals can build up soil organic matter reservoirs resulting in soils having increasing
water holding capacity, increased water infiltration rate and improved structural stability. These
changes can decrease soil loss by wind and water erosion (Hubbard et al.,, 2004).

The density, activities and subsequently decay of pasture roots provide some resistance to soil
structural decline and opportunities for structural recovery (Greenwood and Mckenzie, 2001),
and the associated microbial activities will encourage greater aggregate stability, under pasture
compared to cropping system, particularly where tillage is employed (Tisdall and Oades, 1982).
The continuous supply of organic residues as might be expected from active grazing system is
necessary to maintain structural integrity in soil where organic matter is the primary stabilizing
agent. (Skjenstadet al., 1998).

Ungulate plays a major role in regulating primary production (energy produced by

photosynthesis) in grazing ecosystem (Huntly, 1991). Defoliation as a result of grazing can
promote shoots growth and enhance light level soil moisture and nutrient availability (Frank et
al., 1998).

Grazing activities also influence seed dispersal by transferring seed in their coats (fur, Fleece or
hair), feet or digestive tracts (Wallanderet al., 1995), and facilitate seed germination by
trampling seed into the soil.

As stated by Grace et al., (1994), soil organic matter serves as a precursor for sustainability with
the soil microbial biomass being an important part of the ‘‘labile pool’’. In this regards,
management practice that influence this component becomes important. Several studies shows
that soil total carbon, Nitrogen and microbial biomass, all increase or at least remain stable under
pasture, compared to cropping system. This trend benefits soil aggregation and stability (Chan

37
and Pratley, 1998). However, knowledge of the importance and benefit of grazing on soil is not
well known in the study area.

2.8 Grazing as it affect Soil Quality.

Grazing of vegetal cover by animals leads to an alteration in soil properties and in several cases,
to environmental degradation (Bewket and Stroonijdeb, 2003;MunizMadar et al., 2011). This
phenomenon calls for a concept of soil quality, which is regarded as the capacity of a soil to
function within the limits of an ecosystem, interacting positively with the environment external
to that ecosystem (Larson and Pierce, 1991). And integrate both the physical, chemical and
biological attributes of soil for a specific land use. A universally accepted definition of this
concept remains elusive, but is general accepted that it relates to the functional roles of soil in the
landscape (Carter, 1996).

The concept of soil quality assessment has to be based on the use of indicators and indices that
reflects soil processes, integrate differences in soil properties and are sensitive to environmental
changes (Doran and Parkin, 1994). Many soil properties can be included in such quality indices
(Larson, pierce, 1991; Doran and Parkin, 1994; Islam and Weil, 2000; Geissen and Guzman,
2006; Clemenset al.,2010). However, the heterogeneous characteristic of soil most also be taken
into consideration; intrinsic soil properties such as particles size distribution, type and content of
oxide may vary among land use, especially under grazing system, which have a profound effect
on soil properties, (Miralleset al., 2001), this therefore affects soil quality.

According to Meleet al., (1996), a general reduction in pasture productivity, associated with
change in the botanical composition of native perennial to annual species, is caused by grazing
system. In South- eastern Australia, this transition has also been associated with degrading soil
quality, as indicated by acidification, less efficient water and nutrient limitations (kemp and
Dowling, 2000).

Excreta returns as an integral characteristic of pasture grazing also contributes to soil quality.
The grazing and camping behavior of livestock, redistribute nutrient and organic matter
contained in both dung and urine into the soil (Packer, 1998).

38
There are several studies carried out by packer (1998), relating grazing intensity to reduction in
soil fauna activities, Concluded by Greenwood and Mckenzie (2001), that management practices
that influence soil water content, soil temperature and soil organic matter, influence soil
biodiversity and abundance which have a greater impact on soil quality.

A soil with good quality fulfills a number of functions (Carbon storage, water reservoir, nutrient
cycling, growth medium and among others), while simultaneously protecting other
environmental component and sustaining human health (Doran and Parkin, 1994). In this sense,
assessing the soil quality is one of the main tasks of soil scientist (Basher, 1997). However, in
many regions there is still a lack of studies on soil quality relating to grazing activities (Reichert
et al., 2003). One of these areas is Nigeria, Dukwa district in particular, FCT Abuja. And with all
these gabs discussed above in this literature proper examination and assessment of soil quality as
regards to grazing is the primary objective of which this study was carried out.

39
 CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1Introduction

This chapter deals with procedures and methods used in order to obtain and analyze the data. The
chapter entails the description of the sources of data, the data collection procedures and method
of data analysis and interpretation.

As mentioned to problem definition and objectives, the method adopted here was based on
selecting appropriate ways for reaching the objectives and achieving the aim. The main target of
this research is to compare soil samples of grazing areas and that of the controlled site. The
activities performed and steps followed in this study are divided into three main phases:
1. Pre-fieldwork
2. Fieldwork (Ground observation and data collection)
3. After fieldwork (laboratory data analysis)
3.2 Pre Fieldwork
These precisely involve library research which includes edited books, seminars and conference
papers. Reviewing of literatures about basic knowledge’s of grazing and the evaluation methods
of soil properties, assessment procedures of soil characteristics and preparing methods of
analysis.
3.2.1 Site Selection
A reconnaissance survey was carried out in both the grazed and controlled site. This took about a
week, between 11th and 17th of May 2015. This survey enabled me to have a firsthand knowledge
of the area and assistant on how to collect soil samples. This also enabled me to know areas that
constitute my sampling points within the grazing tracks and those that constitute my sampling
points for the controlled.

3.2.2 Sources of Data

Basically in the course of this research, primary data were employed to analyzed all necessary
empirical studies.
3.2.3Primary Data

40
These principally are samples taken from grazing tracks and controlled site for the analysis of the
physico-chemical and biological properties of soil.
3.3 Fieldwork
This basically entails the activities carried out on the field, in order to obtain the primary data.

3.3.1 Soil Sample Collection

Soil samples were representatively collected with a soil auger at surface (0-15cm) and subsurface
(15- 30 cm) depth, from plots measuring 15m by 15m along grazing track and a controlled site in
the study area as shown in figure (3.1) respectively. In each of these sampled plots, grid lines
were superimposed. Samples were taken at the point of intersection of the grid lines. A total of
sixteen top soils and sixteensub-soils were obtained from each plot. The soil samples collected
from both sites were bulked and represented with regards to each site. The samples collected
were further stored in clean polythene bags prior to laboratory analysis.

Source: Fieldwork: (2015).

Figure: 3.1 Showing Sampled Plot

41
3.4 After Fieldwork (Laboratory Analysis)
This encompasses all scientific laboratory analysis as well as the method used and parameters
tested
3.4.1 Physical Properties
The soil physical properties analyzed include soil texture;particles size analysis (sand, silt and
clay), porosity and soil PH
3.4.2 Chemical Properties
The chemical characteristic analyzed includescation exchange capacity, total organic carbon,
total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and electrical conductivity.
3.4.3 Biological Properties
The biological attributes analyzed includes total caliform and total heterotrophic bacteria.
3.5 Statistical Analysis
The data obtained were analyzed empirically with the use of measures of central tendency, mean,
bar and chart graph were used to present the individual values of the variables.
Student t-test was used to determine if variations between samples from grazing tracks and that
of the controlled site are significant or not.

T-test formula

t=

= mean variable one (lowland sample)

= mean variable two (upland sample)

= the square of the standard deviation of variable one

42
= the square of the standard deviate on of variable two

= total number of values in variable one

= total number of values in variable two

43
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULT PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Soil Physical Properties

4.1.1 Soil PH

The PH values of soils studied along the grazing track ranges from 5.00 to 6.10 as shown in
figure 4.1, with mean value of 5.46 and a standard deviation of ±0.33. The PH level indicates that
the soil may not have serious acidity problem and it may not really have influence on the nutrient
level in the soil, compared with the PH values of soil studied in all the controlled sites which
were in the range of 6.80 to 7.45 as shown in figure 4.2 respectively, with mean value of7.1 and
standard deviation of ±0.35. This indicates that the soils were neutral. The aim in managing soil
PH is not to achieve a particular PHvalue, but to adjust the hydroxyl ions to the point where there
are no toxic metals in solution and the availability of nutrients is at its maximum. This condition
is usually achieved when the soil PH is between 5.8 and 6.5, as in the case of the soils along
grazing track. However, some plants have special acidity requirement (Agro Service
International, 2014).

The fertility of soil decreases with decrease in pH which can be induced by acidifying nitrogen
fertilizer, nitrate leaching and by clearing and agricultural practices (Mckenzie et al., 2004).

44
 Soil PH
7
6
5
Soil PH 4
3
2 PH
1
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.1: Soil PH of Grazing Track

Soil PH
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
Soil PH

7.2
7
6.8
6.6 SOIL PH
6.4
6.2

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015

Figure 4.2: Soil PH of Controlled Site

45
4.1.2 Soil Porosity

The porosity values at various location along the grazing track ranges between 37.5 to 38.5as
shown in figure 4.3, with a mean value of 37.94±0.33. while in the controlled site, the values
varies between 37.0 to 38.1 with a mean value of37.5±0.41 (figure 4.4). This data show that the
porosity vaule of the controlled and grazing track are fairly the same.

the porosity of soil can vary widely depending on particles size proportion of the soil. The
porosity of loose soil can be about 50%, while the porosity of compact soil is about 30%. Soil
porosity is important as it indicate the percentage of oxygen, water and nutrient movement found
within the soil pore space and the ability of soil to hold water (Mckenzie, et al.,2004). However,
a well-aerated soil is important for growing crops.

Porosity
38.6
38.4
38.2
Porosity%

38
37.8
37.6
37.4 Porosity
37.2
37

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.3: Soil Porosity of Grazing Track

46
 Porosity
38.5
38
Porosity% 37.5
37
Porosity
36.5
36

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.4: Soil Porosity for Controlled Site

4.1.3 Soil Particles Size

The value of sand fraction ranges between 50% to 69% with mean values of 65.5 and standard
deviation of ±6.10 across the grazing track as shown in figure 4.5. While it varies between 58%
to 69%, with mean value of 66.13 and standard deviation of ±3.33 across the controlled site as
shown in figure 4.6 respectively.

The silt value ranges between12% to 25% with mean value of 18.63 and standard deviation of
±3.94across the grazing track as shown in figure 4.7. While it varies between 11% to 23% with
mean value of 18±4.18 across the controlled site as shown in figure 4.8 respectively.

The value of the clay fraction ranges between 10% to 36% with mean value of 16 and standard
deviation of ±7.89 across the grazing track as indicated in figure 4.9. While it varies between
11% to 30% with mean value of 15.88 and standard deviation of ±6.25 across the controlled site
(figure 4.10).

This indicates thatthe soils are generally sandy which could probaly be due to the nature of the
underlying rock that generally underlies the area (granitic gnesis that is rich in quartz). The
47
variation in sand values between the grazing track and controlledsite is not very much wide,
which perhaps reflect the similarity in the underlying parent materials (which is rich in quartz
that is resistant to weathering and gives rise to the development of sandy soils over basement
complex rock in norh central Nigeria). The silt and clay content of both grazing track and
controlled site are fairly equal which is obviously shown from the data provided.

Sand
80
70
60
Sand%

50
40
30
20 Sand
10
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.5: Sand value of Grazing Track

48
 Sand
70

65
Sand%
60

55 Sand

50

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.6: Sand value of Controlled Site

Silt
30
25
20
Silt%

15
10
Silt
5
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.7: Silt value of Grazing Track

49
 Silt
25
20
Silt% 15
10
Silt
5
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.8: Silt value ofControlled Site

Clay
40
35
30
25
Clay%

20
15
10 Clay
5
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.9: Clay value of Grazing Track

50
 Clay
35
30
25
Clay% 20
15
10 Clay
5
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.9: Clay value of Controlled Site

4.2 Soil Chemical Properties

4.2.1 Total Organic Matter

Organic carbon content ranges between 0.70 to 1.30 in the grazing track with mean value of 1.08
and standard deviation of ±0.26 as shown in figure 4.11. While it varies between 0.08 to 0.92 in
the controlled site with mean value 0.46 and standard deviation of ±0.29 (figure 4.12)
respectively. The values indicate that soil is low in organic carbon content which is true for a
tropical region such as Nigeria ( Miller and Donahue, 1992). The total organic carbon (TOC) is
the carbon stored in soil organic matter (SOM). Oragnic carbon enters the soil through the
decomposition of plant and animal residues, root exudates, living and dead microorganism, and
soil biota. Total organic carbon is one of the most important constituent of the soil due to its
capacity to affect plant growth as both a source of energy and a trigger for nutrient active pool, It
also tend to aggregate stability, nutrients and water holding capacity (Edward et al,1999 ). The
high rate of organic matter presence on the grazing site as indicated by the analysis above could
be attributed to feces and animal droppings.

51
 Total Organic Carbon
1
0.8
TOC% 0.6
0.4
TOC
0.2
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.11: Total Organic Carbon of Grazing Track

Total Organic Carbon

1
0.8
TOC%

0.6
0.4
TOC
0.2
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.12: Total Organic Carbon of Controlled Site

52
4.2.2 Total Nitrogen

Total Nitrogen (TN) values varies between 0.021 to 0.098, with mean value of 0.072 and
standard deviation of ±0.029 in the grazing track as shown in figure 4.13. while the valuesof the
controlled site ranges between 0.013 to 0.074 with mean values of 0.039 and standard deviation
of ±0.019, as indicated in figure 4.14 respectively. The grazing track tend to have high total
nitrogen values than the controlled sites. This fact is true because animal and plant residues is the
second most largest source of nitrogen in the soil (Lamb et al., 2014 ), this is obviouslytrue from
the values presented in figure 4.13 and 4.14 respectively. Nitrogen is needed for crop growth in
larger quantites than any other nutrient and sandy soil in high rainfall areas are most subsceptible
to nitrate loss through leaching (Anderson, 2000 ).

Excess of nitrogen in the soil can result in rapid, lush growth and a deminish root system.
However, despite the role of nitrogen in the soil, in extreme cases too much quick release of
nitrogen into the soil can cause burning of leaf tissue, and plant death (Anderson, 2000 ).

Total Nitrogen
0.14
0.12
Total Nitrogen%

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04 Total Nitrogen
0.02
0
Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Min
Max

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.13: Total Nitrogen of Grazing Track

53
 Total Nitrogen
0.08
0.07

Total Nitrogen%
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02 Total Nitrogen
0.01
0

Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Max
Min
Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.14: Total Nitrogen of Controlled Site

4.2.3 Available Phosphorus

The amount of available phosphorus ranges between 17.21 to 37.20 with mean value of 24.85
and standard deviation of ±5.52 in the grazing trackas shown in figure 4.15. While it varies
between 35.06 to 38.53, with mean values of 37.18 standard deviation of ±1.10 in the controlled
site (figure 4.16) respectively. This value suggests that soil reaction is favourable for phosphorus
availability in both site (Aibom, 2000).

Phosphorous is a component of the complex nucleic acid structure of plants, which regulates
protein synthesis, cell division and development of new tissue (Buckman et al,1960).

Adequate amount of (AP) in the soil stimulate plant growth. Despite its importance,
mismanagement of soil (AP) can pose a threat to water quality, impeding the available amount of
nutrient in the soil (Lowell etal., 2009).

54
 phosphorus
40

Phosphorus (MgKg-1)
35
30
25
20
15
10 phosphorous
5
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.15: Available Phosphorous of Grazing Track

phosphorus
39
Phosphrus(MgKg-1)

38
37
36
35
phosphorous
34
33

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.16: Available Phosphorous of Controlled Site

55
4.2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) values of the and grazing track and controlled site ranges from
(cmolkg-1)5.50 to 16.24 and 6.09 to 8.47 with mean value of 12.55 and standard deviation of
±3.33 and 7.51 with standard deviation of ±0.78. and, as shown in figure 4.17 and 4.18
respectively. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) gives the soil a buffering capacity which may
slow down the leaching of nutrient cations and positively charged pollutants because they affect
both soluble and exchangeable metal levels (Yoo and James, 2002).

Soils with a low CEC are more likely to develop deficiencies in potassium(K+), magnesium
(Mg2+) and other cations while high CEC soils are less susceptible to leaching of these cations
(CUCE, 2007).

Cation Exchange Capacity

10
CEC(Mmolkg-1)

8
6
4
CEC
2
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.17: Cation Exchange Capacity of Grazing Track

56
 Cation Exchange Capacity
20

CEC(molkg-1)
15

10

5 CEC

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.18: Cation Exchange Capacity of Controlled Site

4.2.5 Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Electrical conductivity (EC) values for the grazing track were found to range between 52.80 to
91.90 with a mean value of 67.63 and standard deviation of ±11.65 (figure 4.19), and the control
sites having values which ranges between 50.10 to 95.70 with mean value of 45.18 and standard
deviation of ±24.69 as shown in figure 4.20 respectively. Electrical conductivity has generally
been associated with determining soil salinity; however, EC also can serve as a measure of
soluble nutrients (Smith and Doran, 1996) for both cations and anions and is useful in monitoring
the mineralization of organic matter in soil (De Neve et al., 2000). The electrical conductivity of
soil varies depending on the particles size. It determines the rate of soil water holding capacity,
as well as soil functions(Adamchuk et al,. 2000).

57
 Electrical Conductivity
100
80
EC(µS/cm ) 60
40
EC
20
0

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.19: Electrical Conductivity of Grazing Track

Electrical Conducivity
120
100
EC(µS/cm)

80
60
40 electrical conducivity
20
0
min
mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

max

Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.20: Electrical Conductivity of Controlled Site

58
4.3 Soil Biological Properties

4.3.1 Total Caliform

The total caliform values ranges between22 to 29 with mean value of 26 and standard deviation
of ±2.3 in the grazing track as shown in figure 4.21, and 14 to 20 with mean value of 18 and
standard deviation of ±2.3in the controlled site as shown in figure 4.22 respectively. Coliform is
defined as rod-shaped gram-negative non-spore forming and motile or non-motile bacteria which
can ferment lactose (American Public Health Association, 2005).

They are universally found in large numbers in the soil, with regards to the drop of feces by
warm blooded animals. Their presence is used to indicate other organism of fecal origin in the
soil (APHA, 2005). Availability of caliform in the soil determines the rate of microbial activities
in the soil and therefore determines the fertility rate of the soil (APHA, 2005). With this, grazing
tracks are said to have more biological function than the control site and that it is more fertile.

Total Caliform
35
30
TC(cmol/g)

25
20
15
10 Total Caliform
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Min
Max
Mean

Site

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.21 Total Caliform of Grazing Track

59
 Total Caliform
25
20
TC(cmol/g) 15
10
Total Caliform
5
0

Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Min
Max
Sites

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.22: Total Caliform of Control Site

4.3.2 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria

The total heterotrophic bacteria values ranges between 163 to 170 in the grazing track and 155 to
162 in the control site respectively. The mean values also range between 167 with standard
deviation of ±2.3 for the grazing track and 159 with standard deviation of ±2.3 for the control
siteas shown in figure 4.23 and 4.24 respectively.

Heterotrophic bacteria in the soil are species of bacterial (aerobic and anaerobic), which
determines the soil respiration. Heterotrophic bacteria take an active part in the natural recycling
of substances in the soil (APHA, 2005).

From the figure bellow (figure 4.23 and 4.24), it is glaring that the control site possess more
heterotrophic bacteria indicating that grazing affect the rate of bacterial in the soil.

60
 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria
172
170

THB(cmol/g)
168
166
164
162 Total Heterotrophic
Bacteria
160
158

Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6

Min
Max
Site

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.23 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria of Grazing Track

Total Heterotrophic Bacteria

164
162
THB(cmol/g)

160
158
156
154 Total Heterotrophic
Bacteria
152
150
Mean
7
1
2
3
4
5
6

Min
Max

Site

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

Figure 4.24 Total Heterotrophic Bacteria of Control Site

61
 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary

The result of the research findings shows that:

 The pH values of soils studied in the entire grazing track were in the range of 5.00 to 6.10
and the controlled sites ranges from 6.80 to 7.45. This indicates that the soils were
moderately acidic.
 The porosity values at various location in thegrazing trackranges between 37.5 to 38.5
and the controlled site ranges from 37.0 to 38.1. This indicate that the porosity values of
the grazing tracks are fairly the same to that of the control.
 The value of sand fraction ranges between 50% to 69%across the grazing track and 58%
to 69%across the controlled site. While Thevalue of silt fraction ranges between 12% to
25% along the grazing track and 11% to 23% in that of the controlled. The value of clay
fraction ranges between 10% to 36%, compared to that of the controlled which were in
the range of 11% to 30%. This result shows that the particles size are fairely uniform in
both site. Hence, this indicates thatthe soils are generally sandy
 The total organic carbon content ranges between 0.70 to 1.30 in the grazing track and
0.08 to 0.92 in the controlled site respectively. This indicate an increase in the level of
organic carbon content on the grazing track.
 The nitrogen values ranges between 0.021 to 0.098 in the grazing track and 0.013 to
0.074in the controlled site respectively. This indicate that soils in the grazing tracks tends
to have high total nitrogen values than those of the controlled sites.
 The amount of available phosphorus of the grazing track ranges between 17.21 to 37.20
and 35.06 to 38.53 in the controlled site. This value indicate that soil reaction is
favourable for phosphorus availability in both site.
 The cation exchange capacity values of the grazing track ranges from5.50 to 16.24 and
6.09 to 8.47 in the controlled site respectively. This indicate that soils in both site are less
susceptible to leaching

62
  The electrical conductivity valuesin thegrazing trackwere found to range from 52.80 to
91.90, while that of the controlled site ranges from 50.10 to 95.70. this result indicate that
the soils in both site have much available water in pure state.
 The total caliform values ranges between22 to 29 in the grazing track and 14 to 20 in the
controlled site respectively. This indicates the presences of high biological function in the
grazing track, than that of the controlled site.
 The total heterotrophic bacteria values ranges between 163 to 170 in the grazing track
and 155 to 162 in the control site respectively. This result indicates the high rate of
natural recycling of substances in the soils of both sites.

5.3Conclusion

Based on the analysis obtained, it can be concluded that the presence of grazing cattle has a more
lasting effect in soil physical, chemical and biological attributes. The data also suggest that the
presence of cattle has a more lasting influence on the drainage characteristics of the soils studied
on the grazing track, as compared to the control site.

5.4 Recommendation

Bassed on the result obtained and the conclusion arrived at, the following recommendations are
considered appropriate:

 Awareness of the long-term environmental importance of maintaining balanced

ecosystems and resilience, including maintenance of biodiversity and soil, should be
provided to local herdsmen on a long time basis.
 Farming along grazing track should be employ with the use of NPK fertilizer, to
moderate the soil acidity level to the point where soil fertility will be attained.
 Adequate provision of rangeland should be provided to farmers.
 Grazing reserves should be provided by law against encroachment by sedentary farmers.

63
 REFERENCE

Abbott, L.k., and Murpy, D.U. (2003). “Soil Biological Fertility”. A Key to Sustainable Land use
in Agriculture. Kluwer academic publishers, the Netherland. Pp 264 printed 2007.

Ableiter, J.K., (1949). Soil Classification in the United States. Soil Sci. 67, 183–191.

Abuja Master Plan (2000). Development Control Regulation Manual of FCT.

Adakayi, P. E. (2000). Climate. In Dawan, P. D. (ed.). Geography of Abuja Federal Capital

Territory. Famous/Asanlu Publishers, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria, pp. 9-23.

Adamchuk, V.I., and Jasa, P.J (2006). On-The-Go Vehicle Based Soil Sensor. University of
Nebraska, Cooperative Extention, EC 20-178.

Addiscott, T.M., Whitmore, A.P., and Powlson, D.S.(1991). Farming, Fertilizers and the Nitrate
problem. Pp 170. C.A.B. International, Wallingford,UK.

AgroServices International Inc. (2012). What is Soil Analysis? Retrieved

fromhttp://www.agroservicesinternational.com/Soil%20Analysis/What%is%20Soil
%20analysis.html on June 9, 2012.

Ahmed, M.M., Rohrbach, D.D., Gono, L.I., Mazhangana, E.P., Mugwira, L., Maseudeke, D.D.,
and Alibaba, S., (1997). Soil Fertility Management in Communal Areas of Zimbabwe;
current practice, constraints and opportunites for change Result of a diagonistic
survey. Southern eastern Africa Region working paper, number 6, intervention crop
research institute for the semi- Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Bulanayo, Zimbabwe.

Aibom. U., (2000). “Characteristic and Classification of Soil of Major Toposequence at the
University of Agric, Abeokuta, Nigeria”.SSSN Book pioc1 11.
American Public Health Association (APHA) (2005). Standard Method for the Examination of
Water Wastewater. Washington: American Public Health Association

Anderson .W.K., and Carlinge. .J.R., (2000). “The wealth Book; Principle and Practice”.
Agriculture western Australia Bulletin 4443, Agdex 112/01.

64
Arthur G., Judith G., and Jerome D.F (2002). Introduction to Geography 8 th edition, Mcgraw-Hill
New York.

Ashman, M., and Puri, G., (2002). Essential Soil Science: A Clear and Concise Introduction to
Soil Science. Wiley. Black well publisher (1st edition), United Kingdom.

Balogun, O. (2001).The federal capital territory of Nigeria: Geography of its Development.

University of Ibadan; Ibadan University Press.

Basher, L.R., (1997). Is Pedology Dead and Buried? Aust. J. soil Res., 35:979-994.

Bationo A., Hertemink A., Lungu O., Naimi M., Okoth P., smailing E., and thiombiano I., (2006).
African Soils, their Productivity and Fertilizer use. Background Paper Prepared for
the African Fertilizer Summit, Abuja, Nigeria, 9-3 June 2006.

Bationo, A., Waswa, B., and Kimetu, J., (2006b). Nutrient cycling in Agroecosystem. Advantages
in integrated soil fertility management in sub-sahara Africa. Challenges and
opportunities, (Spriger, edu), vol 76/2-3 November 2006.

Baumont R., prache S., Meuret, M., and Morhand, F.P., (2002). How Forage Characteristics
Influence Behavior and Intake in small Ruminant: A Review. Livestock Prod. Sci., 61
(1), 15-28

Baumont, R., (1996). Palatabiliteet comportment alimentaire chez le ruminant. WRA prod. Anim.,
9(5), 349-358.

Begon, M., J.L. Harper and C.R. Townsend (1996). Ecology 3 rd Edition. Blackwell Science ltd.
Oxford. Bioscience, June 1996 vol. 46 No.6 pp. 401-453

Belnap and Gillete DA.,(1998). Vulnerability of Desert Biological Soil Crusts to wind Erosion:
The Influence of Crust Development, Soil Texture, and Disturbance. Journal of Arid
environments 39:133-142.

Belnap S. (1994). Potential Role of Cryptobiotic Soil Crusts in Semi-Arid Rangelands. In:
Monsen S.B., and Kitchen S.G. Editors Procedings of the Ecology and Management of

65
 Annual Rangelands. General technical report INT-GTR-313. US Forest Service,
Intermountain Research station, Ogden (Ut).

Belsky, A.J., and Blumenthal D.M., (1995). Effect of Livestock Grazing on Upland Forest. Stand
Dynamics and the Interior West: Livestock and the “Forest Health” Crisis.
Conservation Biology. In press.

Belsky A.J., andGelbard J.L., (2000). Livestock grazing and Weed invasions in the Arid West
Bend (OR): Oregon Natural Desert Association, 31p.

Benvenutt,i M.A., Gordon I. and Poppi D.P., (2006). The Effect of the Density and Physical
Pproperties of Grass Stems on the Foraging Behavior and Instantaneous Intake Rate of
Cattle Grazing on Artificial Reproductive Tropical Sward. Grass Forage Sci., 61,272-
281.

Bergayya, E., and vayer, M., (1997). CEC of Clays, Measurement by Adsoption of a Cooper
Athylenediamine Complex. Applied Clay Science, 12, 275-280.

Betteridge, K., mackey, A.D., shepherd, T.G., Banker, D.J., Budding, P.J., Devantier, B.P., and
costal, D.A., (1999). Effect of Cattle and Sheep Treading on Surface Configuration of
a Sedimentary Hill Soil. Australian journal of soil Research 37, 743-260.

Bewket, W., and stroognijdeb, L., (2003). Effects of Agro-ecological Land Use Succession on
Soil Properties in Chemoga Water Shed, Blue Nile basin, Ethopia. Geoderma, II:85-98

Biodini, M.E., Patton, B.D., and Nyren P.E., (1998). Grazing Intensity and Ecosystem
Proccesses. Northmixed-grassPrairie, USA. Ecol.Appl.8:469- 479.

Black, J.L., and Kenney P.A., (1984).Factors Affecting Diet Selection by Sheep. Height and
density of pasture. Aust.J.Agric. Res. 35:565-178.

Bohn, H., (2001). An organic soil carbon and Co2. Tellus 30; 473-475 (33).

Boval, M., Fanchone, A., Archimide, H., and Cubb, M.J., (2007). Effect of structure of tropical
pasture on ingestive behavior, digestibility of diet and daily intake by grazing cattle.
Grass forage Sci, 62, 44-54

66
Brady N.C, (1990). The Nature and Properties of Soils, 10th edition. Macmillan, New york.

Brady, N.C., and Weil, R., (2004). Element of the Nature and Properties of Soil. Pearson
Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New York.

Brown L.R., Gardner, G., and Halweil, B., (1998). Beyond malthius. Sixteen Dimensions of the
Population Problem. Worldwatch Paper 143, Washinton, D.C., 87 pp (55)

Brown, L.R., (1994). Can China Starve the World? Its Booming Economy is Consuming Global
Food Supplies. Washinton Post, 28 August 1994 (50)

Buckman, H.L., Brady, N.C.,(1960). “The Nature and Properties of Soils”. 6th Ed.,
TheMacmillian Company, Nigeria.
Carly, J. S., Nancy, B. D., Mountford, O.J., and Gowing J.D., (2004). Impact of Nitrogen
Deposition on the Species Richness of Grass Land

Carter, M.R., (1996). Concepts of Soil Quality. In 'Soil Quality is in the Hands of the Land
Manager'. Symposium Proceedings Eds : RJ MacEwan, M.R Carter, University of
Ballarat, Ballarat.

Chan, K.Y., and Pratley, J., (1998). Soil Structure Decline- Can the Trend be Reviewed? In
Pratley, J., and Robertson, A. Publishing, Charlsessturt University, pp. 129-163.

Chesworth, W.,(1973). The Residual System of Chemical Weathering: A Model for the Chemical
Breakdown of Silicate Rocks at the Surface of the Earth. J. Soil Sci. 24,69–81.

Clemens, G., Feidler, S., long, N.D., Van Dung, N., schuler, U., and stahr, k., (2010). Soil
Fertility Affected by Land Use History, Relief Position, and Parent Material under a
Tropical Climate in New-Vietnam. Catena 81:87-96.

Coffey, G.N., (1912). A Study of the Soils of the United States. USDA Bur. of Soils Bull., vol. 85.
U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC.

Concise Oxford Dictionary 6 ed. (1976). ISBN 0-19-861122-6.

Conway, G.R., and Pretty, J.N., (1991). Unwelcome harvest: Agriculture and pollution. London:
Earthscan Publisher.
67
Dawam, P.D., (2000). The Geography of Federal Capital Territory. Famous/Asanlu publishers,
minna.

De Neve, S., Van De Steene, J., Hartman, R., and Hofman, G., (2000.). Using Time Domain
Reflecto- Metry for Monitoring Mineralization of Nitrogen from Soil Organic Matter.
Eu. J. Soil Sci. 51: 295-304.

Dixon, J.B., and Shulze, D.G., (2000). Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications. Soil
Science Society of America, Journal of Agricultural Science, 140. 125-127. Cambridge
University Press, UK.

Dmitriev, E.A., (1996). Soils and Soil-like Bodies. Eurasian Soil Sci. 29, 275– 282.

Dobrovolskii, G.V., Nikitin, E.D., Karpachevskii, L.O., (2001). New Approaches to the Concept
of Soil Place in the Biosphere. Eurasian Soil Sci. 34 (Suppl. 1), S1– S5.

Dokuchaev, V.V., (1899a). A Contribution to the Theory of Natural Zones: Horizontal and
Vertical Soil Zones (in Russian). Mayor’s Office Press, St. Petersburg, Russia. 62 pp.

Doran, J.W., and parkin, T.B., (1994). Defining and Assessing Soil Fertility. In: Doran, J.W.,
Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., and Stewart, B.A eds. Defining Soil Quality for a
Sustainable Environment. SSSA Spec. Publ. 35. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI. p. 3–
21.

Dormaar, J.F., and Willims, WD., (1998). Effect of Fourty Four Years of Grazing on Fescue
Grassland Soils. Journal of range management 52:122-126.

Edwards. J.H., Wood. C.W., Thurlow. D.L., and Ruf. M.E., (1999). “Tillage and crop rotation
effects on fertility status of a Hapludalf Soil”. Soil Science, soc.Am.J. 56:1577-1582.
Evans, R., (1997). Some Impacts of Overgrazing by Reindeer in Finnmark, Norway. - Rangifer
16: 3-19.

F.C.D.A., (2007). Gwagwalada Master Plan: Department of Urban and Regional Planning.

68
FAO., (food and agricultural organization) (2001). Effect of Compaction and Pudding On soil
Physical properties and rice growth. Food and agricultural organization of the United
Nations, pp. 68-73.

Fleischer, T.L., (1994). Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America.
Conservation Biology 8:629-644.

Foth, H.D., and Ellis, B.A., (1997). Soil Fertility. CRC press, inc, Boca Ration FL.

Frank, D.A., McNaughton S.J., Tracy B.F., (1998). The Ecology of the Earths Grazing
Ecosystem. Bioscience 48:513-521.

Fullen, M.a., and Cah, J.A., (2004). Soil Management Problems and Solutions. Arnold Vondon.

Garcia, F., Carrere, P., Soussana, J.F., and Boumont, R., (2003). How do Severity and Frequency
of Grazing Affect Sward Characteristics and the Choice of Sheep during Grazing
Season? Grass Forage Sci., 58, 138-150.

Gary, M., pierzynski, J., Thomas, S., George, G.K., Vance F., (2005). Soil and Environmental
Quality, CRC Press USA.

Geissen, v., and Guzzman, G.M., (2006). Fertility of Tropical Soils under Different Land Use
System; A Case Study of Soils in Tabasco, Mexico. Appl. Soil Ecol., 31:169-178.

Grace, J., Lloyd, J., MClnlgre, J., Miranda, AC., Meir, P., Nobre, C., Moncrieft, J., Massheder, J.,
Malhi, Y., Wright, I., (1994). Carbondioxide Uptake by an Undisturbed Tropical
Rainforest in Southwest Amazonia, 1992-1993. Science 270: 177- 780

Greenwood, K.L., and Mckenzie., (2001). Grazing Effect in Soil Physical Properties and
Consequences for Pasture: A review. Augt J ExpAgric 41:1231-1250.

Heady, F.H., and Child, R.D., (1994). Rangeland Ecology and Management West view Press,
Boulder, Colorado.

Heathwaite, A.L., Burt, T.P., Trudgill, S.T., (1990). The Effect of Land Use on Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Suspended Sediment Delivery to Streams in a small Catchement in

69
 Southwest England. In: Thornes, J.B., (Ed), Vegetation and Erosion. John wiley and
Sons ltd, Chichester, pp. 161-177.

Hilgard, E.W., (1906). Soils: Their Formation, Properties, Composition, and Relations to Climate
and Plant Growth in the Humid and Arid Regions. Macmillan, NY.

Hillel, D., and Rosenzweig, C., (2005). The Role of Biodiversity in Agronomy. Adv. Agron., 88,
1-34, doi: 10.1016/50065-2113(05), 88001-0.

Hillel, D., (1998). Environmental Soil Physic. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Holecheck J (1995). Livestock Grazing Impact on Rangeland Ecosystem. Journal of Soil Water
conservation. 35:162-164.

Hubbard., R.K., Newton, G.L., and Mill, G.M., (2004). Water Quality and the Grazing Animal.
Journal of Animal Science 82:E255-E263.

Huntly, N., (1991). Herbivores and the Dynamics of Communities and Ecosystems. Annual
Review of Ecology and systematic 22:477-503.

Ishaya, S., Grace, M., (2007). Assessment of People Perception on the linkage Between
Environmental Sustainable and Socio-economic Development in G wagwalada Town,
FCT.Ecol.Ev.Cons.14(1):227-234.

Ishaya, S., (2013). Flood Vulnerability Mapping in Gwagwalada Urban Area, Abuja, Nigeria.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Abuja,
Nigeria.

Islam, K.R., and Weil, R.R., (2000). Soil Quality Indicator Properties in Mid-Atlantic Soil Water
Conserve. 55:69-78.

Janzen, D.H., (1982b). Removal of Seed from Tropical Rodents: Influence of Habitat and
Amount of Dung. Ecology 63:1887–1990.

Johanston, P.W., McKeon, G.M., and Day, K., (1996). Objective ‘Safe’ Grazing Capacities for
South-West Queensland, Australia: Development of a Model for Individual Properties.
Journal of Rangelands 18:244–258.
70
Juma, N.J., (1993). Interrelationships Between Soil Structure/Texture, Soil Biota/Soil Organic
Matter and Crop Production.Geoderma 57:3–3

Kaˊtai, J., (2003).Relationship Between the Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological

Characteristics on Grassland Experiment. Proc, of the 17th General Meeting of the
EGF,Debr,77-81.

Kemp, DR., and Dowling, PM., (2000). Towards Sustainable Temperate Perennial Pastures.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 343-356.

Kovda, V.A., (1990). The Role and Functions of the Soil Cover in the Earth’s Biosphere.
Problems of Soil Science. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 5 – 10.

Kurtz, L., Coxon, C., Tunney, H., and Ryan D., (2005b). Effect of Grassland Management
Practice on Nutrient Losses to Water: Data on the Effects of Soil Drainage
Characteristics. Water Science and Technology 51, 73-81.

Lal, R., (2002). Agricultural Sciences vol. 1 Soil and its Life Support Systems.

Lamb, J.A., Fabian, G., Farnandez, and Daniel, E.,(2014). Understanding Nitrogen in Soil.
University of Minnesota, USA

Larson, W.E., and pierce, F.J., (1991). Conservation and Enhancement of Soil Quality. In:
International Workshop on Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the
Developing World, p. 175-203

Liebig, M.A., J.R. Gross, S.L., S.L. Kronberg., J.D. Hanson., A.B Frank and R.L Phillips (2006).
Soil Response to Long-term Grazing in the Northern Great Plains of North America.
Agric. Ecosy. Environ., 115,270-276

Loney, P.E., Arthur, M.C potts, Y.C., and Jordan G.J., (2006). How Does Ontodeny in a
Eucalyplus species Affect Patterns of Herbivory by Brushtail Possums? Funct.Ecol.,
20(6), 982-988.

Lowell, B., Jolhi, L., Gyles, R., George, R., and Michael, S., (2002), The Nature of Phosphorus in
Soils, Phosphorus in the Agricultural Environment. Ww-06795-90.

71
Lyon, T.L., Buckman, H.O., (1922). The Nature and Properties of Soils: A Textbook of
Edaphology. Macmillan, NY.

Maiha, S., (2006). Temperature and Rainfall in PNC,PNG National Weather Service Publication.
Port Moresby.

Master plan for Abuja the New Federal Capital of Nigeria., (2000), Canadian International
development agency.

McNaughton, S.J., Banyikwa, F.F., McNaughton, M.M. (1997). Promotion of the Cycling of Diet
Enhancing Nutrient by African Grazers. Science 278, 1798. 1800.

Meuret M., Debit.S. Agreil C and Osty P.L., (2006). Eduquersesveauxetsesgenisses: “un Savoir
empirique pertinent pourlagroenvironmentenmontagne”? Nat. Sci. Soc., 14, 343-352.

Mikkuta, R., and Mikkuta, C., (2006). “Stabilization of Organic Matter at Micropores (<2nm) in
Acid Forest Subsoil”. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70(6): 2049-2056.

Miller, R.W., and Donahue, R.L., (1992). Soil. An Introduction to Soil and Plant Growth.
Prentice-Hall, Inc, Eugle Wood Cliffs, N.J., USA.

Miralles, I., Ortega, R., Almendros, G., Sanchez- maranon, M., and Soriano, M., (2001). Soil
Quality and Organic Carbon Ratios in Mountain Agroecosystems of South-East Spain.
Geoderma, 150: 120-128.

Morberg, J.P., Petersen, L., and Rasmussen, K., (1999). Constituent of Some Widely Distributed
Soils in Denmark. Georderma 42, 295-316.

Muniz, L.C., Madari, B.E., Trovo, j.B.F., Cantahede, I.S.L., Machado, P.L.O.A., Cobucci, T., and
Franca, A.F.S., (2001). Soil Biological Attributes in Pastures of Different Ages in
Crop-Livestock Integrated System. Pesq. Agropec. Bras 46:1262-1268.

National Research Council (NRC). (1993). Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture.
National Academy Press,Washington, D.C. 516 pp Soil Sci. 34 (Suppl. 1), S1– S5.

Nikiforoff, C.C., (1959). Re-Appraisal of the Soil. Jounrnal of Soil Science 129, 186–196.

72
Nikitin, E.D., (2001). Soil as a Bio-Abiotic Polyfunctional System. Eurasian Soil Sci. 34, S6–S12.

Oldemann L.R., Hakeling, R.T.A., and Sombroek W.C (1991). World Map of the Status of
Human-Induced Soil Degradation, An Explanatory Note , 2nd Revised Edition.
International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Nairobi, United Nations
Environmental Programme, Wageningen.

Packer, I.J., (1988) The Effects of Grazing on Soils and Productivity: A Review, Technical Report
No 4, Soil Conservation Service of New south wales.Madison, Soil Science Society of
America, p. 3-21.

Pai., (2004). Plant and Animal Interaction, Colorado State University Cooperation Extension.
Retrieved November 10th 2004.

Pal, D.K., Sarma, V.A.K., Datta, S.C., (2000). Chemical Composition of Soil Science, New
Dehli, pp. 243-268.

Phillips, J.D., (2000). Signatures of Divergence and Self-organization in Soils and Weathering
Profiles. J. Geol. 108, 91– 102.

Pie, S., H.Fu and C.Wan., (2008). Changes in Soil Properties and Vegetation Following Enclosure
and Grazing in Degraded Aixa Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia,
China.Agri.Ecosy.Environ., 124, 33-39

Pietola, L., Horn, R., YLI-Halla, M., (2005). Effect of Trampling by Cattle on the Hydraulic and
Mechanical Propreties of Soil. Soil and Tillage Research 82, 99-108.

Pouyat, R.V., Yesilonis, I.D., Nowak, D.J. (2006). Carbon Storage by Urban Soils in the United
States. J. Environ. Qual. 35:1566-1575.

Prache, S., and peyraud J.L, (1997). Prehensibilite de I herbepaturee chez les bovinset les ovins.
WRA prod. Amm., 10(5), 377-390

Provenza, F.D., (2003a). Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in a World of Change.

Washington, DC., USDA.

73
Ramann, E., (1928). The Evolution and Classification of Soils (Translated by C.L. Whittles). W.
Heffer& Sons, London.

Ramaru, J., Mamabolo, Z., and Lekgoro, J., (2000). Improving Soil Fertility Management in
South Africa: Leaning Throug Participatory Extention Approach. Managing African’s.
N0. 19. Russell Press, Nottingham, UK.

Reed, J.D., (1995). Nutritional Toxicology of Tannins and Related Poly Phenols in Forge
Legumes. J. Anim. Sci., 73, 1516-1528.

Regmi, H.R., (2007). Effect of Unusual Weather on Cereal Crop Production and Household Food
Security. Journal of Agriculture and environment, 8 (0) 20-29.

Reichert, J.M., Reinert, D.J., and Braida, J.A., (2003). Qualidade dos solos e sustentabilide de
sistemasagricolas. R.Ci. Amb., 27:29-48

Richard, H., Sarah, L., Helen G., and Kate R (2004). Physical Geography, A Human Perspective:
Oxford University Press Inc, New York.

Roguet, C., Dumont, B., and prache., S., (1998). Selection et Utilization des Ressourcesfourageres
par les Herbivores: Theories et Experimentations a Lechelle du site et de la Stallion
Alimentaires. INRA prod. Anim., 11 (4), 273-284.

Rowell, D.L., (1994). Soil Science. Methods and Applications, Longman Scientific and
Technical, UK.

Seybold, CA., Herrick JE., Brejda JJ., (1999). Soil Resilience: a Fundamental Component of Soil
Quality . Soil Science 164(4),224-234.

Shaler, N.S., (1891). The Origin and Nature of Soils. In: Powell, J.W. (Ed.), 12th Annual Report
of the U.S. Geol. Surv. 1890–1891. U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC, pp.
219–345.

Sherchan, DP.,Bajracharya, R.M., Tiwari, K.R., (2007). Soil Survey Report of PokhareKholaub.
Water Shed. Himalayan Degradation Project, Nepal.

74
Sibirtsev, N.M., (1900). In: Skorokhodva, Y.N. (Ed.), Pochvovedenie. YN.Skorokhodov, st.
Petersburg, Russia, 212pp

Singleton, P.L., Botes, M., Addison, B., (2000). Effect of Treading by Dairy Cattle on Top Soil
Physical Conditions for Six Contrasting Soil Types in Waikato and Northland, New
Zealand, with Implication for Monitoring. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
Research 43, 559-567

Skjemstad, JO.,Jank, LJ., Taylor, JA., (1998). Non-living Soil Organic Matter: What Do We
Know About It? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38, 667-80.

Smith, A., and Aim Koojman., (2001). Impact of Grazing on the Input of Organic Matter and
Nutrients to the Soil in a Grass-Encroached Scots Pine Forest. Ecol. Manage., 142, 99-
107

Smith, J.L, and Doran, J.W., (1996). Measurement and Use of pH and Electrical Conductivity for
Soil Quality Analysis. In: Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (Eds.), Methods for Assessing
Soil Quality, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Special Publication 49. SSSA, Madison, WI.

Smoliak, S., J.F., Dormaar and A. Johnston, (1972). Long-term Grazing Effect on
StipaboutelouaPraire Soil. Journal of Range Management . 25:246-250

Society for range management (2005). Evaluating Rangeland Sustainability:S the Evolving
Technology. SRM Tasks Group on Unity in Concept and terms. Rangeland 17(3): 85-
92.

Soil Survey Staff, (2005). New York City Reconnaissance Soil Survey. United State Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Staten Island, NY.

Spangler, M.G., and Handy, R.L., (1982). Soil Engineering. Newyork: Haper and Row. 819 pp.

Steffens, M., Kolb, A., Totsche, K.U., andKogel-Knabner, I., (2008). Grazing Effects on Soil
Chemical and Physical Properties in a Semi-arid Steppe of inner Mongolia (P.R
China). Geoderma, 143, 63-72

Targulian, V.O., (2001). Pedogenesis and the Lithosphere. Eurasian Soil Sci. 34, S21– S27.

75
Targulian, V.O., Sokolova, T.A., (1996). Soil as a Biotic/Abiotic Natural System: a Reactor,
Memory and Regulator of Biospheric Interactions. Eurasian Soil Sci. 29, 30– 41.

Thurow, T.L., Blackburn, W.H., and Taylor., J.R., C.A., (1988). Hydrologic Characteristic of
Vegetation types as affected by Livestock Grazing System. Edward Plateau ,Texas. J.
Range Management.39:505-509.

Tisdale, J.M., Oades, J.M., (1982). Organic Matter and Water Stable Aggregates in Soil. Eur. J.
Soil Sci. 33: 141-163 Cross Ref.

Tisdale S.L, W.L. Nelson, J.D. Beaton (1985).Soil Fertility and Fertilizer 4thedition.Macmillan
Publishing New York, NY.

Tucker, M.R., (1999). Essential Plant Nutrients: Their Presence in North Carolina Soils and Role
in Plant Nutrition. N.C Publisher, North Carolina

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), (1994). Land Degradation in South Asia, its
Severity, Causes and Effect Upon World Soil Resources. Report 78, FAO, Rome Italy,
100pp [70].

Van der Watt and van Rooyen., (1995). A Glossary of Soil Science, 3rd Edition Pritoria, S.A.

Vernadskii, V.I., (1926). Biosphere. Chem-Tech. Publ. House, Leningrad.

Villamil, M.B., Amiotti, N.M., and Peinemann, N., (2001). Semi Arid South Caldenal Area of
Agriculture. Soil Science, 166:441-452.

Walker, J., Richardson, P.D., and Gardiner, T., (1996). The Report Card: A Case Study. In
'Indicators of Catchment Health: A Technical Perspective.' Eds J Walker, D.J., Reuter,
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Wallander RI, Oslon BE, Lacey JR. (1995). Spotted Knapped Seed Viability After Passing
Through Sheep and Mule Deer. Journal of Range Management 48:145-149

Warren, A., Khogali, M., (1992). Assessment of Desertifcation and Drought in the Sudano-
Sahelion Region IW-/99/. United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office.

76
Watkins, B.R., Clements, R.J., (1978). The Effects of Grazing Animals on Pastures. In: Wilson
J.R., Editor. Plant Relations in Pastures. (SIRO, East melborne, Australia. P. 283-289

Whitlow, R., (1988). Soil erosion and conservation policy in Zimbabwe. Land Use and Policy 5.
419-433.

Xie, Y., and wittig, R., (2004). The Impact of Grazing Intensity on Soil Characteristics of Stipe
Grandis and Stipe Bungeana Steppe in Northern China (Autonomous Region of
Ningxia). Actapecol., 25, 197-204.

Yong-Zhong, S., Yu-Lin, L., Jian- Yuan, C., and wenzhi, Z., (2005). Influence of Continuous
Grazing and Livestock Exclusion on Soil Properties in a Degraded Sandy Grassland,
Inner Mongolia Nothern China, 59, 267-278.

Yoo, S.M., and James, B.R., (2002). Zinc Extractability as a Function of pH in Organic Waste–
Amended Soils. Soil Sci., 167: 246–259

Zhoa. Y., peth, S., Krumnelbein, J., Horn, R., Wang, Z., Steffens, M., Hoffmann, C., and peng,
X., (2007). Spatial Variability of Soil Properties Affected by Grazing Intensity in Inner
Mongolia Grassland. Ecol. Model, 205, 241-254. Journal of environmental Biology
January and March 2010.

Zhung, Y.J., Jiang, W.L., Ren, J.Z., (2001). Effect of Sheep Night Penning on Soil and Plant
Growth. New Zealand., Journal of Agricultural Research . 44:151-157.

77
 APPENDIX 1
Comparison of Soil Properties for Grazing and Controlled Sites.

Properties X1 X2 S.D1 S.D2 T df t-value Remark

Soil pH 7.1 5.46 0.35 0.33 4 14 1.76 Reject

Porosity 37.5 37.94 0.41 0.33 2.32 14 1.76 Reject

TOC 1.08 0.46 0.26 0.29 4.43 14 1.76 Reject

TN 0.039 0.072 0.019 0.29 2.63 14 1.76 Reject

CEC 12.55 7.51 3.33 0.78 4.17 14 1.76 Reject

EC 45.18 67.63 24.69 11.65 2.34 14 1.76 Reject

TP 37.18 24.85 1.10 5.52 6.19 14 1.76 Reject

Sand 66.13 65.5 3.33 6.10 0.26 14 1.76 Accept

Silt 18 18.63 4.18 3.94 0.31 14 1.76 Accept

Clay 15.88 16 6.25 7.89 0.03 14 1.76 Accept

Total 18 26 2.3 2.3 6.96 14 1.79 Reject

caliform

Total 159 167 2.3 2.3 6.96 14 1.79 Reject

Heterotrophic
Bacteria

Source: Fieldwork (2015)

NB: X1, =controlled sites, X2=grazing track, S.D1=Standard deviation of controlled sites, S.D2=
Standard deviation of grazing track, T=calculated value, t=table value, df=Degree of freedom.

78
 APPENDIX 2
T-test DETERMINATION

Soil pH
=
7.1 − 5.46
0.7 0.66
√ +
8 8

1.64
1.36
√
8

1.64
0.41

t =4

Soil Porosity

37.5 − 37.94
0.17 0.11
√ +
8 8

0.44
0.28
√
8

=
0.44
0.19

t=2.32

79
Total Organic Carbon

1.08 − 0.46
0.06 0.08
√ +
8 8

0.62
0.14
√
8

0.62
0.14

t =4.43

Total Nitrogen

0.03
0.0003 0.0008
√ +
8 8

0.03
0.0011
√
8

0.03
0.0114

t=2.63

80
Cation Exchange Capacity

12.55 − 7.51
11.08 0.61
√ +
8 8

5.04
11.69
√
8

5.04
1.21

t=4.17

Electrical Conductivity

45.18 − 67.63
609.89 135.72
√ +
8 8

22.45
745.31
√
8

22.45
9.65

t=2.34

81
Total Phosphorus

37.18 − 24.85
1.21 30.47
√ +
8 8

12.33
31.68
√
8

12.33
1.99

t=6.19

Sand

66.13 − 65.5
11.09 37.21
√ +
8 8

0.63
48.3
√
8

0.63
2.45

t =0.26

82
Silt

18 − 18.63
17.47 15.52
√ +
8 8

0.63
32.99
√
8

0.63
2.45

t =0.26
Clay

15.88 − 16
39.06 62.25
√ +
8 8

0.12
101.31
√
8

0.12
3.57

t =0.033

Total Caliform

18 − 26
𝟐.𝟑 𝟐.𝟑
√ +
𝟖 𝟖

83
 𝟖
𝟏.𝟑𝟐
√
𝟖

𝟖
𝟏. 𝟏𝟓

t=6.96

Total Heterotrophic Bacteria

𝟏𝟓𝟗 − 𝟏𝟔𝟕
𝟐.𝟑 𝟐.𝟑
√ +
𝟖 𝟖

𝟖
𝟏.𝟑𝟐
√
𝟖

𝟖
𝟏. 𝟏𝟓

t=6.96

84