| Abstract: | ![]()
Four techniques for soil erosion assessment were compared over two consecutive seasons for bare-fallow plots and a maize-cowpea sequence in 1985 at IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. The techniques used were: tracer (aluminium paint), nails (16 and 25), the rill method, and the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). Soil loss estimated by these techniques was compared with that determined using the runoff plot technique. There was significantly more soil loss (P < 0·01) in bare-fallow than in plots under maize (Zea mays) or cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). In the first season, soil loss from plots sown to maize was 40·2 Mg ha?1 compared with 153·3 Mg ha?1 from bare-fallow plots. In the second season, bare-fallow plots lost 87·5 Mg ha?1 against 39·4 Mg ha?1 lost from plots growing cowpea. The techniques used for assessing erosion had no influence on the magnitude of soil erosion and did not interfere with the processes of erosion. There was no significant difference (P < 0·05) between soil erosion determined by the nails and the runoff plot technique. Soil loss determined on six plots (three under maize, three bare-fallow) by the rill technique, at the end of the season, was significantly lower (P < 0·05) than that determined by the runoff plot technique. The soil loss estimated by the rill method was 143·2, 108·8 and 121·9 Mg ha?1 for 11, 11, and 8 per cent slopes respectively, in comparison with 201·5, 162·0, and 166·4 Mg ha?1 measured by the runoff plot method. Soil loss measured on three bare-fallow plots on 10 different dates by the rill technique was also significantly lower (P < 0·01) than that measured by the runoff plot. In the first season the USLE significantly underestimated soil loss. On 11, 11, and 8 per cent slopes, respectively, soil loss determined by the USLE was 77, 92, and 63 per cent of that measured by the runoff plot. However, in the second season there was no significant difference between soil loss determined by the USLE and that determined by the conventional runoff plot technique. |
