Soil Properties and Crop Yields along the Terraces and Toposequece of Anjeni Watershed, Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Highlands of Ethiopia, soil erosion is a pressing challenge causing deterioration of soil quality including soil fertility. To overcome this problem, the government has been taking various sustainable land management (SLM) measures. This study was conducted in 2011 to investigate the long-term impacts of soil conservation on soil qualities and crop performance at Anjeni watershed in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Soil and crop samples were collected from the lower (deposition), middle and upper (loss) zones of the terraces at a depth of 30cm.The test crops were maize (Zea mays) and bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Soil samples were also taken at toe slope, foot slope, back slope, shoulder slope and crest positions of the watershed from 0-30 cm soil depth to evaluate the status of soil qualities along the catena. Results of the study showed that soil pH, exchangeable cations, available phosphorus, sum of exchangeable bases and percent base saturation showed non-significant difference between the loss zone and deposition zones, whereas higher mean value of organic carbon, and total nitrogen were obtained at the deposition zone than the loss zone. For both testing crops, higher mean yields were found at deposition zones followed by the middle zones while the lowest value was obtained from the loss zones. Soil pH, exchangeable cations, available phosphorus, sum of exchangeable bases, percent base saturation, organic carbon and total nitrogen showed significant variation due to slope position differences. Toe slope position followed by crest slope position showed higher mean value of the parameters. The shoulder slope position had the lowest mean value for all parameters. From the results of the study, it was possible to conclude that soil conservation measures implemented at Anjeni watershed reduced soils erosion, improved soil qualities and increased crop yield. It is, therefore, possible to recommend the need for scaling up of results obtained from learning watersheds on soil conservation activities to the highlands of Ethiopia to improve the soil quality and livelihoods’ of the society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".