Land Restoration Training Programme

Keldnaholt, 112 Reykjavik, Iceland

Final project 2014

IMPACT OF LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGE ON SOIL

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES: A CASE STUDY OF ERA-
HAYELOM TABIAS, NORTHERN ETHIOPIA

Mulugeta Sebhatleab
Mekelle University
P.O. Box 231, Tigray, Ethiopia
[email protected]

Supervisors
Erla Sturludottir
Science Institute, University of Iceland
[email protected]

Elin Fjola Thorarinsdottir

Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, Gunnarsholt
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
The conversion of forest to other land use like agriculture is getting serious, especially in the dry
afromontane forest of Ethiopia. These unsustainable land use and land cover changes are
recognized as the main factors in the process of soil resource degradation. This study was
intended to investigate the impact of land use and land cover change on the physical and
chemical properties of soil in the Era-Hayelom tabias, Northern Tigray, Ethiopia. Soil samples
were collected from four land use and land cover classes, bare land, farm land, grass land and
forest land, which were forest land before 1986. The forest land was converted to other land use
and land cover at 110 ha/year and grass land by 58 ha/year. The amount of farm land and bare
land had consequently increased from 1986 to 2010. Land use and land cover change
significantly affected the value of soil physical and chemical properties. The soil properties bulk
density, pH and sand percentage were significantly higher in bare land and farm land than forest
land. Clay percentage and cation exchange capacity were also higher in farm land compared to
the others. But organic matter content, available phosphorus and total nitrogen were significantly
higher in forest lands. With the reduction of natural vegetation cover the physical properties like
bulk density and pH increased and reduced the availability of water and nutrients. The carbon
stock of the soil at depth 0 - 30 cm had decreased by 6568 T/year on average from 1986 to 2010.
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

The overall impact of land use and land cover change degraded the quality of the soils and
increased the loss of carbon stocks. Therefore, appropriate land use policy and proper land
restoration practice is vital to maintain productivity of the land.

Key words: Land use and land cover change, soil physical properties, soil chemical properties,
carbon stock, Era-Hayelom

This paper should be cited as:

Sebhatleab M (2014) Impact of land use and land cover change on soil physical and chemical
properties: a case study of Era-Hayelom tabias, northern Ethiopia. United Nations University
Land Restoration Training Programme [final project]
http://www.unulrt.is/static/fellows/document/Sebhatleab2014.pdf

ii
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Description of study area ............................................................................................. 3
2.2 Land use and land cover classification methods ......................................................... 5
2.3 Soil sampling and analysis .......................................................................................... 6
2.4 Statistical analyses ....................................................................................................... 7
3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Land use and land cover map ...................................................................................... 7
3.2 Soil physical and chemical properties ......................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Soil physical properties............................................................................................ 9
3.2.2 Soil chemical properties ........................................................................................ 12
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Land use and land cover change ................................................................................ 16
4.2 Impact of land use change on soil physical proprieties ............................................. 17
4.3 Impact of land use change on soil chemical proprieties ............................................ 18
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 21
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 22

iii
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

1. INTRODUCTION
Land degradation is defined as “a long-term decline in ecosystem functions and measured in
terms of net primary productivity caused by disturbances from which land cannot recover
unaided’’ (Bai et al. 2008). This definition deals with the loss in land use productivity and
ecological values. It is a decline in gains from land due to a mismatch between land quality
and uses. Degradation is not a new thing and has been happening all over the world for
centuries. It will continue to be a serious global issue due to its extensive spreading impact on
agricultural productivity, environment and quality of life (Eswaran et al. 2001).

The major causes of land degradation are the combination of biophysical, socio-economic and
political factors. Among socio-economic factors, population pressure plays a great role in the
process through increasing deforestation, overgrazing, intensive cultivation and
overexploitation of other natural resources (Geist & Lambin 2004). This diminishes potential
productivity and the economic utility of land. Not only the size or density of the population
but also how the people use the land increases land degradation (Mitiku et al. 2006). The
deterioration in agricultural productivity reduces the economic value of the land and forces
the farmers to invest in more input and cultivating marginal lands. The recent global land use
change assessment estimates that the present 2% of 15 billion ha of land worldwide covered
by buildings and infrastructures will increase to 4-5% and the 10% (1.5 billion ha) of present
agricultural land will become 30% of the global land at the expense of forest land, particularly
in tropical regions, by the year 2050 (Bringezu et al. 2014).

The unsustainable land use and land cover changes are recognized as the main factors in the
process of land resource degradation (Nyssen et al. 2004). Land use and land cover changes
are not synonyms but land use change affects the land cover condition. Land cover is defined
as the physical and biological cover of the earth’s surface such as vegetation, water,
organisms, soil, and structures created by human activities (Lambin et al. 2003). The human
activities in utilising and managing these land resources mainly affect the biophysical
characteristics. The management governing utilization of resources is called land use and land
use change is any change in the physical, biological or chemical conditions of the resources
due to management to satisfy human interests (Quentin et al. 2006). This may include
conversion of grazing to cropping, from traditional farming to modern and intensive
cultivation, deforestation and planting exotic species, and conversion to non-agricultural uses.
Globally, natural events like volcanic eruptions, flooding, fire, climate fluctuations, and
ecosystem dynamics may modify the earth‘s land cover but the anthropogenic activities have
more influence (Turner et al. 1994; Meyer 1995).

The land use and land cover change affect the magnitude and rates of soil degradation
(Lemenih et al. 2005). The land use and land cover changes have a significant impact on
deteriorating the physical and chemical properties as well as the biological activity of the soil
(Bahrami et al. 2010; Kizilkaya & Dengiz 2010). All soils vary at all levels of observations
from the macro- to the micro-level, horizontally across the landscape and vertically down into
the soil profile (Crepin & Johson 1993; Lemenih et al. 2005). The sources of variations are
not only the factors of soil formation like climate, the nature of parent material, the action of
living organisms and topography (Hillel 1998) but also land use change, farming, the addition
of soil nutrients and soil conservation practices (Lemenih et al. 2005). The major soil physical
properties are colour, texture, bulk density, water holding capacity and chemical properties
such as soil organic carbon, soil organic matter, pH, electrical conductivity, available

1
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

phosphorus, total nitrogen, cation exchange capacity, and concentration of different nutrients
in the soil (Sumner & Wilding 2000).

Inappropriate land use and land cover change like deforestation, overgrazing, and expansion
of agricultural lands has left the land barren, which reduces the biomass (vegetation cover)
and results in a decline in soil organic matter content, availability of nutrients and soil
moisture (Mao & Zeng 2010). The lower organic matter content decreases the moisture
holding capacity and nutrient availability in the soil. The soil bulk density increases as
organic matter decreases, which affects the aggregate stability of the soil and the movement of
water and nutrients through it. This also affects plant root penetration and biological activities
in the soil (Gardner et al. 1999). But as soil organic matter increases aggregate stability will
be maintained by the increasing cohesion of aggregates, which reduces the loss of fine soil
particles (Chenu et al. 2000). With the increasing organic matter content nitrogen
mineralization also increases (Khormali et al. 2009; Mao & Zeng 2010). Organic matter may
also maintain the soil pH. Soil pH manipulates the availability of essential soil nutrients
which affect plant growth and soil quality as a whole (Wong 2003). In acidic soil as the pH
lowers, the availability of micronutrients like aluminium and iron may be dominant and the
toxicity of these nutrients may increase. In alkaline soils also the availability of calcium and
magnesium may increase, but as the pH increases sodium toxicity may increase. The
availability of phosphorus and other essential elements may be maintained when the soil is
around a neutral pH condition.

Soil degradation is one of the major factors that hinder agricultural land productivity. It is the
result of past land use changes and intensive agricultural practices (Hurni 1985). Due to the
vegetation cover change which reduces organic matter and nutrients available to plants the
productivity of the land will decrease. This reduction in vegetation cover may increase
erosion of the fine and top layer soil, which may reduce effective soil depth. Soil properties
are varying and complex, particularly from a fertility standpoint. Information about this plays
an important role in managing the resources in a sustainable manner. To minimize the effect
of land use and land cover change, understanding the major factors that govern the process is
important (Gebrehiwet 2004).

Soils are the potential reservoir of soil organic carbon. The concentration of organic carbon
influences the quality and productivity of the soil. Soil organic carbon also increases the
fertility of the soil in terms of nutrient availability and biological functions (Diacono &
Montemurro 2010). Change in the concentration of organic carbon in soils affects not only
soils but the whole environment by its impact on the carbon cycle and the amount of
atmospheric carbon dioxide (Xu et al. 2011a). This change in soil organic matter content has
an impact on the amount of carbon stocks in the soil (Ross et al. 1999; Edmondson et al.
2014).

The conversion of forest to other land use such as agriculture is becoming a serious problem,
especially in the dry afromontane forest of Ethiopia (Teketay 1997). According to Pankhurst
(1995), the countryside, which was once covered with trees, has become progressively barer
as forests have been steadily cut or burned down since the 19th century. Deforestation took
place mainly in areas of extensive settlement, and especially natural forest areas close to
towns. However, small forests are found fragmented and restricted in inaccessible and sacred
areas such as areas around churches (Wassie et al. 2005; Aerts et al. 2006). This is due to an
alarming increase in population and therefore a need for larger areas for agricultural
production and fuel wood collection. In addition, the different governmental regimes of

2
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Ethiopia had their own management policies on land ownership and government controls.
After the land proclamation of 1975 the land was redistributed among farmers. It was difficult
to feed the increasing population with the traditional agricultural system and therefore forest
and grazing lands are converted to agricultural land. The settlement programs are also done by
changing forest and grass lands (Teka et al. 2013).

Most of the land in the Tigray region of Ethiopia is highly degraded and barren due to unwise
utilization of land resources (Asefa et al. 2003). This makes the area prone to drought and
famine. Together with the undulating nature of the land and the erratic and intense rainfall, the
agricultural expansion and deforestation have caused soil degradation. Thus, soil erosion,
nutrient depletion and soil moisture stress deteriorate the overall productivity of the land
(Gebremedhin & Swinton 2003). In most areas the land is severely degraded and has been
eroded for a long period of time because of the extensive utilization of land resources due to
high population pressure (Hagos et al. 2002; Gebremedhin & Swinton 2003). Repetitive
droughts are also a major factor of land degradation in the Tigray region (Gebreegziabher
1999; Nyssen et al. 2004).

The Desa’a forest area is one of the remaining fragments of dry afromontane forest found in
the Eastern Tigray highlands. It was covered by natural forest and grass land but due to
deforestation, overgrazing and expansion of agricultural land and settlements the area has
become extremely barren (Sebhatleab 2012). At present, the area has extensively declined,
both in terms of productivity and biodiversity (Aynekulu et al. 2012). Era-Haylom tabias is
part of the Desa’a forest land.

Despite the high ecological values of the land it has been poorly studied. Only a few forest
restoration ecology studies (Aerts et al. 2006; Aynekulu et al. 2011), forest cover change
analysis (Sebhatleab 2012) in the enclosures and a management plan (Gebreegziabher 1999)
report have been carried out and published. No detailed scientific investigation has been
carried out in the study area on assessing the impact of land use change and deforestation on
the rate of soil degradation. Hence, it has become important to assess and monitor soil
resource degradation in the study area for sustainable management and conservation of
natural resources in order to maintain the productivity of the land.

This study was initiated to investigate the impact of land use change on soil physical and
chemical properties. The objective of the project was to compare soil physical and chemical
properties among different land uses, elevations and soil depths. Further, to determine and
map land use and land cover of the study area in the year 1986 and 2010 and to estimate
below ground carbon stocks in different land uses.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 Description of study area

The study area is located at the eastern border of the eastern Tigray region, between 13° 40’
and 13° 45’ north latitude and between 39° 42’ and 39° 54’ east longitude (Fig. 1). It is
composed of dry afromontane forest remnants which are situated in the eastern Tigray
regions. The altitude of the area ranges from 900 m above sea level (a.s.l.) to about 3000 m
a.s.l. at the plateau (Gebreegziabher 1999). About 45% of the area has a slope greater than
25% (Aynekulu et al. 2011).

3
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Era-Hayelom tabias is part of the Desa’a dry afromontane forest which is between the
escarpments of Tigray and the lowlands of the Afar region in Northern Ethiopia. It is found in
a semi-arid agro-ecological zone (Gebremichael et al. 2005). Rainfall is erratic and most of
the year remains dry except June to September. The mean annual rainfall of the Atsibi
Wenberta District (13° 52.7’N and 13° 44.6’E), near to the study area is 618 mm and the
monthly average temperature of the area is around 20°C (Fig. 2).

Figure 1. Study area map: A. Location of Tigray region within Ethiopia. B. Location of the
study area within the Tigray zones. C. Era-Hayelom tabias research site.

24 Min Temp
Max. Temp 200
21
Average temperature (°C)

Average rainfall (mm)

18 150

15
100
12
50
9

6 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Ags Sept Oct Nov Dec

Figure 2. Monthly mean maximum and minimum temperature (°C) and average monthly
rainfall (mm) of Atsib Wonberta District in 2006 - 2012.
(Source: data from Mekelle Metrological office, Atsibi Wonberta District)

4
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

2.2 Land use and land cover classification methods

Land use and land cover maps of the area were generated from satellite image data from 1986
and 2010. The satellite images are originally ortho-rectified and therefore did not require geo-
referencing. However, as UTM projection and Adindan datum is used in Ethiopia images with
WGS84 were re-projected. This is important because datum and projection conflict would
certainly hinder the use of various layers. In this study, Landsat TM (path 168 row 51) from
the year 1986 and Landsat ETM + (path 168 row 51) from the year 2010 were used for the
analysis.

Pre-processing image enhancement was done on the ortho-rectified images. The purpose of
this technique was to increase the visual distinction between features and extract information.
After different image enhancement schemes were performed, the remotely sensed data was
trained by taking GPS points and a previous map of the area as primary datasets and elders’
prior knowledge as ancillary data. A supervised image classification scheme with the
maximum likelihood classifier algorithm module of ERDAS 9.2 which leads to high
classification accuracy (Asmala 2012) and ArcGIS 10.1 for mapping and measurements were
used. Thus, the scenes for each year’s data (1986 of TM and 2010 of ETM+) image were
categorized into different land use and land covers. The major land use and land cover
(LULC) types found in the area were forest, grass land, farm land and bare land and they are
defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Land use and land cover (LULC) classes used in the classification scheme.
LULC Description
Forest land Forest vegetation including evergreen, deciduous, and dry afromontane forest
vegetation.
Farm land Characterized by high percentages of herbaceous vegetation and crops;
including lands that are regularly tilled and covered with planted cropland.
Grass land Land covers dominated by grass that includes sparsely grown patches of trees

Bare land Areas of sparse vegetation cover; including clear cuts and barren rock or sand
along river/stream beaches.

In addition, a digital elevation model (DEM) was generated from the SRTM image to
construct a slope and elevation map. The maximum and minimum elevation of the study area
was 2510 m and 929 m a.s.l., respectively (Fig. 3). The area was divided into two categories
for elevation, above 1500 m as upper and below 1500 m as lower, as elevation is considered
to influence soil properties.

5
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Figure 3. Soil sampling points and elevation class map of the Era-Hayelom area.

2.3 Soil sampling and analysis

From each determined land use and land cover classes for the year 2010 which were forest
lands in 1986 and have a similar slope, 32 soil sampling points were selected and samples
taken during the dry season in January 2014 from both elevation classes (Fig. 3). At each
point, soil samples were taken using a 5 cm diameter auger at a depth of 0 - 30 cm and 30 - 60
cm, replicated four times. A total of 64 soil samples (4 LULC * 2 elevations * 2 depths and 4
replications) were taken and analysed in a soil laboratory for their chemical properties like
pH, electrical conductivity, available phosphorus, soil organic carbon, soil organic matter,
total nitrogen, cation exchange capacity and the physical properties of texture. Only 32
samples from the depth 0 - 30 cm were taken for bulk density.

The soil physical property of texture was analysed using a hydrometer method (Bouyoucos
1962). Bulk density (BD) was analysed using the core method; 32 soil samples were taken
from the selected points at 0 - 30 cm depth using 100 cm3 core samplers and analysed using a
core method (Grossman & Reinsch 2002). Soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were
analysed with a 1:5 soil water suspension using a pH meter and an EC meter, respectively.
The Olsen method was used to determine the available phosphorus (AvP) content as the pH of
all soils were around neutral and above (Watanabe & Olsen 1965). Soil organic carbon (SOC)
was analysed using wet digestion with the Walkley-Black method and soil organic matter
(SOM) was calculated by multiplying SOC by 1.724 assuming 58% of SOM is SOC (Nelson
& Sommers 1982). But several reports indicate that this estimation widely varies (Sleutel et
al. 2007). This research simply estimated SOM based on the assumption and focused on SOC
as it is used to assess soil quality. Soil samples were digested in Kjeldahl apparatus and the
amount of ammonia trapped was determined to calculate the total nitrogen in the soils
(Bremner 1996). For cation exchange capacity (CEC), the sodium acetate method was used.
To do this, 5 g of soil were treated by sodium acetate and ethanol, and then extracted by
ammonium acetate solutions. The ammonium acetate extracts were used to measure the

6
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

amount of sodium (Na+) using a flame photometer to calculate the CEC of the soil (Thomas
1982). Based on the soil organic carbon (SOC) and bulk density data the soil carbon stocks
(CS) were calculated for each LULC at a soil depth of 0 - 30 cm. The areal size of each LULC
in 1986 and 2010 were multiplied by their average CS to find the total CS per LULC and
compute the difference between 2010 and 1986. To estimate the total CS the following
formula was used (Xu et al. 2011b):

CS = SOC*BD*H

where CS= soil carbon stock (t/ha)

SOC = soil organic carbon (g of carbon/100 g of soil)
BD = soil bulk density (g/cm3)
H = soil depth (cm)

By multiplying the average carbon stock for each LULC by the area covered by the LULC in
1986 and 2010 the total amount of carbon stocks were calculated and the changes in carbon
stocks were estimated.

2.4 Statistical analyses

The statistical software R (R Core Team 2014) was used to perform all the statistical analyses
of soil physical and chemical properties. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for
a difference in soil properties (pH, EC, AvP, SOC, TN, and CEC, texture and BD) between
land use, elevation and soil depth. The factors of land use, elevation, soil depth and their
interactions were tested at α = 0.05. If interactions were significant the analyses were done
separately for elevation and/or depth. For those soil properties which were significantly
affected by LULC change, Tukey’s test (Tukey HSD) for multiple comparisons with a 95%
family-wise confidence level was used to compare the averages between LULC classes.

3 RESULTS
3.1 Land use and land cover map

From the Landsat images of 1986 and 2010 for the Era-Hayelom study site LULC
classification maps of forest land, grass land farm land and bare land were developed (Figs. 4
and 5) for both years. From the 1986 LULC map, the area coverage of forest land was higher
than for the other LULC classes and farm land had a low proportion. But in 2010, the area of
bare land became almost equal to forest land (Table 2). A comparison of the land use and land
cover for each category between the years 1986 and 2010 showed that forest land had
declined by 2759 ha and grass land by 1392 ha. However, farm land had increased 4.6 times
and bare land by 70%. Over the 24 years from 1986 to 2010, forests were converted to other
lands on average at the rate of 115 ha/year. Grass land had also declined by 58 ha/year,
whereas farm land and bare land increased by 93 and 80 ha/year, respectively (Table 2).

7
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Figure 4. Land use and land cover (LULC) classification map of the Era-Hayelom tabias
research site in 1986.

Figure 5. Land use and land cover (LULC) classification map of the Era-Hayelom tabias
research site in 2010.

8
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Table 2. Land use and land cover (LULC) area size and change detected from supervised
classification of Landsat images of 1986 and 2010 for the Era-Hayelom tabias
LULC 1986 2010 Change Rate of cover
(1986 – 2010) change
Area(ha) % Area (ha) % Area(ha) % ha/ year
Forest land 8205.3 58.9 5446.5 39.1 -2758.7 -33.6 -115.0
Grass land 2477.4 17.8 1085.3 7.8 -1392.1 -56.2 -58.0
Farm land 485.4 3.5 2708.4 19.5 2223.0 458 92.6
Bare land 2759.8 19.8 4687.6 33.6 1927.9 69.9 80.3
Total 13927.8 100 13927.8 100 0.0 0.0

3.2 Soil physical and chemical properties

The soil analysis results for the total 64 samples (32 for bulk density and carbon stock) are
statistically summarized in Table 3. The soil of the area has an average pH value of 7.75 and
the EC was below 1 mS/cm. The overall average of SOC was 1.24 % but bare land was the
lowest among the other LULC. On average the study area had 17 mg P/kg of soil and the
CEC of the area ranged from 17.1 to 27.9 Cmol (+)/kg. The average CS of forest land and
grass land soils was higher than for the others. The textural analysis result showed that the
overall average sand percentage was higher than clay and silt, from 40 to 60 % (Table 3).

Table 3. Average result of all soil parameters per Land use and land cover (LULC) and
overall statistical summary
Parameters Unit LULC Means Overall
Forest Grass Farm Bare Mean Min Max Std. Dev
PH 7.6 7.6 7.8 8.1 7.8 6.9 8.9 0.4
EC mS/cm 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1
SOC % 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.3 2.6 0.6
OM % 3.1 3 1.5 1.0 2.1 0.6 4.4 1.1
TN % 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1
AvP mgP/kg Soil 21.9 15.9 16.8 14.5 17.3 4.0 35.0 6.9
CEC Cmol(+)/kg soil 25.2 24.3 25.6 20.7 23.9 17.1 27.9 2.8
3
BD g/cm 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.5 0.2
Sand % 46.9 50.6 50.9 55.1 50.9 40.1 59.8 4.6
caly % 19.1 20.0 21.2 19.2 19.9 16.2 29.2 2.7
Silt % 34.0 29.4 27.9 25.7 29.3 18.5 41.7 5.2
CS t/ha 71.6 66.1 40.9 21.3 50.0 11.9 102.3 23.5

3.2.1 Soil physical properties

Bulk density

Bulk density was only measured in the upper soil layer (0 - 30 cm). The ANOVA result
indicates that there was a significant effect of LULC on bulk density (p < 0.001). Among the
LULC classes bulk density for forest was significantly different from farm land (p < 0.001)
and bare land (p = 0.02). Grass land was also significantly different from farm land (p =
0.005). The farm land had the highest average bulk density and forest land the lowest of all
LULC types. Farm land had a 0.3 g/cm3 higher BD than forest land and a 0.2 g/cm3 higher BD
than grass land (Fig. 6).

9
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

1.6
Bulk density (g/cm3)

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

0.9
Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover

Figure 6. Mean bulk density at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site for each land use and
land cover category (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95% confidence
intervals.

Soil Texture

The statistical analysis for sand percentage showed significant interaction between the LULC
and elevation (p = 0.004) and therefore analyses were done separately for each elevation. At
the higher elevation the LULC had a significant effect on the percentage of sand (p < 0.001).
Among the land uses the sand percentage of bare land soil was significantly different from
forest land (p < 0.001), grass land (p = 0.016) and farm land (p = 0.008). At lower elevation
the LULC also had a significant effect on sand content (p = 0.028) but only the average sand
content of bare land was significantly different from forest land (p = 0.024). Generally, the
average sand percentage of bare land was higher than forest land by almost 28% in the study
area.

There was a significant interaction between the LULC and elevation and the silt percentage of
silt (p = 0.001). This means the difference between the LULC at the higher elevations was
significantly different from the lower elevations. Further analyses were therefore done
separately for each elevation. Both the LULC (p < 0.001) and depth (p = 0.006) had a
significant effect on the silt percentage at the higher elevation. Tukey’s multiple 95%
comparison test showed that the forest significantly differed from bare land (p < 0.001), farm
land (p = 0.004) and grass land (p = 0.017). Thus, forest land was 60% more than bare land
and 30% more than both farm land and grass land at this higher elevation. But at the lower
elevation, for silt there was a significant difference among the LULCs (Fig. 7).

10
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

60
60 a b

55 55
Sand %

Sand %
50 50

45 45

40
40
Bare Farm Forest Grass
Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover
Land use and land cover

40 a 40 b
37 37

34 34

31 31
Silt %

Silt %

28 28

25 25

22 22

19 19
Bare Farm Forest Grass Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover Land use and land cover

Figure 7. Average sand and silt percentage in soils at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site for
each land use land cover category (with bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with
95% confidence interval for (a) upper elevation and (b) lower elevation.

On average clay content was higher in farm land by 2.1% from the lower clay content of the
forest land. The ANOVA result for clay indicated that there was a significant interaction of
the three factors, LULC, depth and elevation (p = 0.027). Analysis was then done separately
for each depth and for a depth of 0 - 30 cm the interaction between land use and elevation was
significant (p = 0.028). Therefore, further analysis was done separately based on elevation and
the LULC was only significant for the upper elevation (p = 0.016). Farm land was
significantly different from forest land (p = 0.024) and grass land (p = 0.027). At a depth of
30 - 60 cm there was a significant difference among the LULC categories (p = 0.014). At this
depth only bare land was significantly different from grass land (p = 0.025) (Fig. 8).

11
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

upper elevation lower elevation a 29 b

29
27
27
25
25
23

Clay %
Clay %

23
21
21

19 19

17 17

15 15
Bare Farm Forest Grass Bare Farm Forest Grass

Land use and land cover Land use and land cover

Figure 8. Average soil clay content at Era-Hayelom tabias research site for each land use land
cover category (with bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95% confidence
interval for (a) 0 - 30 cm soil depth, (b) 30 - 60 cm soil depth average for both elevations.

3.2.2 Soil chemical properties

Electrical conductivity (EC)

On average the EC value was 0.14 mS/cm. The ANOVA result showed that the factors
LULC, elevation and depth did not significantly affect the electrical conductivity of the area.

Soil pH

There was a significant interaction between LULC and elevation for pH (p = 0.003).
Analyses were done for each elevation separately and the LULC was a significant factor (p =
0.004) at the upper elevation (Fig. 9). Among the LULC categories grass land was
significantly different from farm land (p = 0.009) and bare land (p = 0.006). At the lower
elevation the LULC also had a significant effect on pH value (p = 0.004), and bare land was
significantly different from forest (p = 0.009) and farm lands (p = 0.006).

12
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

8.5 a 8.5
b
8.3 8.3
8.1 8.1

7.9 7.9

pH
7.7
pH

7.7
7.5 7.5

7.3 7.3

7.1 7.1

6.9 6.9
Bare Farm Forest Grass Degraded Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover Land use and land cover

Figure 9. Soil pH value at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site for each land use and land
cover category (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95% confidence interval
for (a) upper elevation and (b) lower elevation.

Available phosphorus (AvP)

The interaction of LULC and depth was significant for the content of available phosphorus
(p < 0.001). Therefore, analyses were done separately for each depth. The level of available
phosphorus differed significantly for the LULC categories at a depth of 0 - 30 cm (p = 0.004).
Among the LULC categories the bare land was significantly different from forest land
(p = 0.004) and grass land (p = 0.022). On average forest land soil had twice the level of
phosphorus in bare land at a soil depth of 0 – 30 cm. At a depth of 30 - 60 cm the LULC
categories also had a significant effect on the level of available phosphorus (p < 0.001).
Within the LULC the forest land was different from grass land (p = 0.001) and farm land
(p = 0.032). In addition, grass land was also different from bare land (p = 0.012) at a depth of
30 - 60 cm (Fig. 10). The overall average available phosphorus content of forest land was
higher by 7.4 mg P/kg soils than bare land.

27 a 27 b
24 24
Av. P ( mgP/kg soil)

21
Av. P (mgP/kg soil)

21
18 18
15 15
12 12
9 9

6 6

3 3
Bare Farm Forest Grass Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and Land cover Land use and land cover

13
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Figure 10. Average of available phosphorus at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site for each
land use land cover category (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95%
confidence interval for (a) 0 - 30 cm soil depth and (b) 30 - 60 cm soil depth.
Cation exchange capacity (CEC)

The LULC, elevation and depth had a significant effect on the CEC value of the area and
there was significant interaction among the factors (p = 0.032). Further analysis was done for
each depth separately. The LULC was the significant factor at a soil depth of 0 - 30 cm.
(p = 0.002). Bare land was significantly different from forest land (p = 0.007) and grass land
(p = 0.005). At a soil depth of 30 - 60 cm the LULC was a significantly influential factor in
the level of CEC (p < 0.001). Only bare land was significantly different from farm land, grass
land and forest land (p < 0.001). Generally on average the CEC in bare land soils was lower
by 5 Cmol(+)/kg at a depth of 0 - 30 cm and 7 Cmol(+)/kg at a depth of 30 - 60 cm from the
farm land which was the higher (Fig. 11).
a 27.5
b
27.5
CEC Cmol (+)/kg soil
CEC Cmol(+)/kg soil

25.5 25.5

23.5 23.5

21.5 21.5

19.5
19.5

17.5
17.5
Bare Farm Forest Grass
Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover
Land use and land cover
Figure 11. Average CEC at the Era-Hayelom tabia research site for each land use land cover
category (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95% confidence interval for
(a) 0 - 30 cm soil depth, (b) 30 - 60 cm soil depth.

Total Nitrogen (TN)

As the interaction of all the factors was significant for the amount of TN (p = 0.023), analysis
was done for each elevation separately. In the lower elevation TN was significantly different
between LULC (p = 0.043) and only forest land was significantly different from bare land (p
= 0.05) in TN content. In the upper elevation there was a significant interaction between the
LULC and depth (p < 0.001). Further analysis was done separately for each depth. The
averages of TN differed between the LULC categories at both depths (p < 0.001). At the 0 -
30 cm depth among the LULC, forests were significantly different from bare land (p = 0.001)
and farm land (p < 0.003). Grass land also significantly different from bare land (p < 0.001)
and farm land (p = 0.001). The grass land TN content was four times higher than bare land at
0 - 30 cm soil depth at the upper elevation. In 30 - 60 cm soil depth forest land was only
significantly different from bare land (p < 0.001), farm land (p < 0.001) and grass land (p <
0.001) (Fig. 12).

14
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

0-30 cm 30-60 cm
a b

0.52 0.52

0.42 0.42

TN %
TN %

0.32 0.32

0.22 0.22

0.12 0.12

0.02 0.02
Bare Farm Forest Grass Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover Land use and land cover

Figure 12. Average total nitrogen in soils at the Era-Hayelom tabia research site for each land
use land cover category (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95%
confidence interval in (a) upper elevation for both soil depth and (b) lower elevation, averaged
over depth.

Soil organic carbon (SOC)

The interaction between the LULC and depth was significant for SOC (p < 0.001). Analysis
was done for each depth separately and SOC was significantly different between the LULC
classes in the upper depth (p < 0.001). Among the four LULC classes forest land and grass
land were both significantly different from bare land (p < 0.001) and farm land (p < 0.001).
Farm land also was different from bare land (p = 0.019). On the upper surface at 0 - 30 cm
depth, the SOC in grass land was three times higher than in bare land. At the lower depth, the
LULC was significant (p < 0.001) and forest land was significantly different from bare land
(p = 0.001) and farm land (p = 0.003), and grass land was also significant different from bare
land (p < 0.001) and farm land (p < 0.001). But forest land was not significantly different
from grass land at both depth classes (Fig. 13).

2.4 2.4 b
a
2.1 2.1

1.8 1.8
SOC %

1.5 1.5
SOC%

1.2 1.2
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.6
0.3 0.3
Bare Farm Forest Grass Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover Land use and land cover
Figure 13. Average of soil organic carbon at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site for each
land use land cover class (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) at all elevations
with 95% confidence interval at (a) 0 - 30 cm soil depth and (b) 30 - 60 cm soil depth.

15
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Soil carbon stock (CS)

The ANOVA result indicated that the amount of CS was significantly affected by the LULC
(p < 0.001). Among the LULC the bare land and farm land were significantly different from
forest land and grass land (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference between farm
land and bare land (p = 0.014) (Fig. 14).

72
Soil Carbon Stock t/ha

62

52

42

32

22

12
Bare Farm Forest Grass
Land use and land cover
Figure 14. Average carbon stocks at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site for each land use
land cover class (bare land, farm land, forest land and grass land) with 95% confidence
interval at a soil depth of 0 - 30 cm at all elevations.

The total CS (T) for each land use was highest in forest land followed by grass land for the
year 1986. But for the year 2010 grass land had a higher CS. Due to the LULC change the
total carbon stocks lost from forest land by 2010 amounted to 19,758 T compared to 1986.
Generally in the study site about 6570 T/year of carbon were lost (Table 4).

Table 4. The area and change in CS for each land use and land cover (LULC) class between
the years 1986 and 2010 at the Era-Hayelom tabias research site.
LULC Area(ha) Area(ha) Mean CS CS (T) CS (t) 2010 Change Change
1986 2010 (t/ha) 1986 CS (T) rate CS
(t/year)
Forest land 8205.3 5446.5 71.6 587661.4 390081.2 -197580.2 -8232.5
Grass land 2477.4 1085.3 66.1 163654.4 71691.6 -91962.8 -3831.8
Farm land 485.4 2708.4 40.9 19828.6 110637.7 90809.1 3783.7
Bare land 2759.8 4687.6 21.3 58838.5 99940.3 41101.8 1712.6
Total 829982.9 672350.8 -157632.1 -6568.0

4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Land use and land cover change

The negative rate of forest land and grass land cover change indicates that there was
deforestation and conversion of land use and land cover. The forest land and grass land were
converted to farm and bare lands. About 115 ha of forest land were changed to other lands per

16
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

year. Studies on forest cover change from 1973 to 2010 in the Desa’a forest indicate that the
overall rate of forest cover change was around 110 ha per year (Sebhatleab 2012). Similar
studies in the southern part of Ethiopia indicate that the overall forest conversion was 87
ha/year (Aklilu 2010). This indicates that the Era-Hayelom tabias forest area declined
seriously. In most areas of the country anthropogenic activity was the major factor for forest
resource degradation (Gebreegziabher 1999; Shiferaw 2011). The major factor for the LULC
change in the Desa’a forest was also the anthropogenic factors of cutting trees for firewood,
overgrazing and expansion of agricultural lands (Sebhatleab 2012). The population pressure
together with the unwise land management system may be generally the major factors for land
use and land cover change in the study area.

4.2 Impact of land use change on soil physical proprieties

The higher sand proportion than clay and silt in all samples indicates a similarity of parent
material and climatic conditions in the soil forming process. Those soil textural classes, sand,
silt and clay, were significantly affected by change in the LULC. The significant interaction
of the LULC with elevation and depth affect textural composition. Apart from the LULC
difference the two elevations and depths show a difference in textural composition for each
LULC. The significant difference for the sand and silt percentages of bare land with the other
LULC at the upper elevation was reduced at the lower elevation. The difference in sand and
silt between forest land and bare land at the upper elevation was higher than at the lower
elevation. The reason for this may be that the differences in elevation in the study area
influence the weathering processes with the action of topography and movement and
accumulation of particles with vegetation cover. Soil particles proportions vary vertically in
depth or horizontally due to the process of pedogenesis or soil formation (Moges et al. 2013).
Pedogenesis may also be affected by the vegetation cover of the land.

The higher sand percentage and low silt percentage in bare lands may be due to vulnerability
of the finer materials to erosion in less vegetated lands. It was observed in some studies that
vegetation cover change influences the organic matter content and aggregate stability of the
soil to resist erosion (Abbasi et al. 2007). Similar findings were observed by Tsehaye and
Mohammed (2013), that silt content was higher in cultivated land and grass lands but forest
land had shown a higher clay content compared to other areas. However, cultivation increases
the weathering process of soil by moisture and temperature changes (Yimer et al. 2007). In
this study area soil clay was also significantly affected by all factors and it was very high on
average in farm lands. At the upper elevation clay content was significantly different between
the depths of 0 - 30 cm and 30 - 60 cm in all land use types where there were more farming
activities. This may be due to the cultivation process at the upper elevation where no more
transported sand was accumulated, unlike the lower elevation.

Bulk density showed a significant difference between the LULC classes. Similar studies
reported that bulk density was significantly affected by the type of LULC and depth (Gol
2009). The LULCs had differences in vegetation cover and management might bring a
significant deference in organic matter accumulation on the surface of the soil. The organic
matter content and bulk density have an inverse relationship (Avnimelech et al. 2001).
Intensive cultivation could also increase bulk density due to compaction (Reicosky & Forcella
1998). Thus the forest and grass land have a lower bulk density than bare and farm lands due
to the organic matter content difference and cultivation activities. As the forest land is
converted to farm and bare land, bulk density will be increased. The higher bulk density may
also reduce the porosity of the soil that hinders the movements of water and minerals in the

17
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

soil. Generally, the increasing soil sand percentage and bulk density due to conversion of
forest land or grass land to farm land and bare land may reduce the productivity of the land.

4.3 Impact of land use change on soil chemical proprieties

All chemical properties analysed in the study area showed significant differences due to the
LULC except electrical conductivity. The mineralogical composition of soil parent material
and availability of water affects the electrical conductivity (Voicea et al. 2009). Soil electrical
conductivity may be affected by climatic situation differences in the development of the soil.
However, the study area had a homogenous climatic situation and this insignificant difference
in electro conductivity indicated that there was no difference in parent material and the soil
forming process as a whole.

The soil pH values of the study site were generally slightly alkaline and lower pH values were
observed in forest land and grass lands, not bare soils. This may have been due to the organic
matter decomposition and moisture to mobilize the cations to neutralize the alkaline soil by
reducing pH. Organic matter plays a large role in soil acidification and salt reduction (Ritchie
& Dolling 1985). However, studies in acidic soils showed that pH increases to neutral value
in forest land and grass land soils as the organic matter increases (Moges et al. 2013; Tsehaye
& Mohammed 2013). The increasing pH in the bare land of the study area may have been
caused by the increase in the dominancy of calcium and magnesium in the soil but a reduction
in the availability of essential plant nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen. This may have
reduced the fertility of the soil and therefore productivity.

The lower organic matter in farm and bare lands compared to forest and grass lands was most
likely because of the reduction in vegetation coverage. The rate of decomposition and
accumulation of the organic matter may also vary in depth. The SOM in forest was
accumulated more in the forest land surface 0 - 30 cm depth. But the percolation down of
those fine materials to the lower soil depth of 30 - 60 cm was almost equal in grass land and
forest land. Similar studies indicate that soil organic matter increased with increased
vegetation coverage (Moges et al. 2013). The soil organic matter also influences the total
nitrogen, available phosphorus, CEC and other chemical and physical properties (Yimer et al.
2007; Moges et al. 2013). Deterioration of the organic matter content may reduce the soil
quality as well as productivity of the land. The reduction in forest land and grass land cover in
the area may reduce the amount of organic matter and availability of most essential nutrients
in the soil which in turn affect plant growth and the quality of the soil.

The total nitrogen of the area was significantly affected by the LULC and was higher in forest
land and grass land compared to bare land. This can be related to the accumulation of organic
residues on the soil where bare land and farm land had a lower soil organic matter content
than grass land and forest land. Other studies indicate that the main sources of nitrogen in the
soil are mineralization of the accumulated soil organic matter to ammonia and fixed
atmospheric nitrogen by nitrogen fixing bacteria which convert nitrogen to ammonia
(Galloway et al. 2004). The LULC change which reduces the vegetation cover and resulted in
reduction of total nitrogen may affect the fertility and productivity of the soil as nitrogen is
among the essential elements to plant growth. The vegetation cover and species dynamics are
also affected by elevation deference (Aynekulu et al. 2012). This may affect the amount and
process of nitrification from the SOM. The decomposition process and accumulation of
nitrogen may also be affected by soil depth.

18
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Available phosphorus in the study area was significantly affected by the LULC. But generally
the amount of available phosphorus is very low in Ethiopian soils (Negassa & Gebrekidan
2003). The farm land and grass land were not significantly different from forest land but bare
land was significantly different from all. However, similar studies on available phosphorus
and total nitrogen did not show a significant difference between LULC classes (Girmay et al.
2008). The increasing pH and lowering organic matter content due to the LULC change in the
area may reduce the availability of phosphorus. However, it is observed that farmers apply
fertilizer on their farm land so the availability of phosphorus in farm land is not significantly
different from forest land and grass land.

The soil CEC was significantly different due to the LULC and bare land had the lowest value
and forest land the highest CEC. This may have been due to the organic matter and that farm
land had a higher clay texture content. CEC may also depend on the percentage of finer soil,
clay and organic matter due to the negative charge of clay colloids and humus. Similarly
studies on the effect of land use on soil properties showed that there was a significant
difference among the LULC for CEC (Tsehaye & Mohammed 2013). A decrease in the CEC
value with a reduction in organic matter indicates a reduction in soil nutrient availability and
productivity of the land. Thus the change from forest land and grass land to bare land
degrades the CEC value and nutrient availability. The farm land also had a higher CEC than
bare land due to the higher clay content in farm land. The CEC varies in depth and elevation
for different LULCs due to the difference in clay percentage and SOM. This may be due to
the pedogenesis process of loss and accumulation of fine particles which may be affected by
LULC difference.

SOC and BD are used to calculate CS. These factors were significantly different among the
LULCs. Even though the BD in forest and grass land were low due to the higher SOC in those
LULCs the CS were higher. However due to a decline in area coverage of those LULCs
(forest land and grass land) the total CS reduced from 1986 to 2010. Similar studies about CS
in Ethiopia indicate that a decline in upper soil CS was observed when forest land was
changed to farm land and other states (Girmay et al. 2008). In this study the CS were also
reduced by 19% in the upper depth 0 - 30 cm from 1986 to 2010. This may have been due to
the reduction in vegetated land forest and grass lands. The CS in farm and bare land soils was
insignificant compared to forest land and grass land. Thus the loss in forest land and grass
land by changing to farm and bare land affects the total CS which in turn affects the soil
environment.

5. CONCLUSION
The study focused on the impact of LULC change on soil physical and chemical properties in
the Era-Hayelom tabias in Tigray, Ethiopia. The LULC change from 1986 to 2010 indicates
that a considerable amount of forest land and grass land was converted to farm and bare lands.
This had a significant impact on soil properties together with the elevation and soil depth
differences. The study showed that the change from forest land and grass land to farm land
and bare land was a reduction in vegetation cover and therefore of organic matter content,
available phosphorus, total nitrogen and CEC. This also had an impact on increasing the pH
and percentage of sand. The overall impact of the LULC change degraded the quality of the
soil and increased the loss of carbon stocks. Therefore, sustainable land use management and
natural forest conservation should be practised to maintain soil quality, biodiversity and

19
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

restore the degraded areas. Appropriate land use policy and proper natural resources
management are vital for better land productivity and environmental conditions.

20
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wold like to express my sincere gratitude to the UNU-LRT staff members, especially
Dr Hafdis Hanna Aegisdottir, Berglind Orradottir, Halldora Traustadottir and Brita Kristina
Berglund for their hospitality and encouragement during my stay in Iceland. Many thanks also
to all instructors from the Agricultural University of Iceland and the Iceland Soil
Conservation Service who shared their knowledge and experience. My special and deepest
thanks go to my supervisors Erla Sturludottir from the University of Iceland and Elin Fjola
Thorarinsdottir from the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland for their invaluable and
constructive guidance and follow-up during my study. I also thank soil laboratory staff
members Tesfay Berihu and Haile who helped me in collecting data and the soil laboratory
analyses.

I cannot find words powerful enough to express my profound feeling to all the UNU-LRT
fellows for their friendship, unforgettable memories we shared together in Iceland. I wish to
extend my deepest appreciation to Muhammad Azfar Karim, contact person during our stay in
Gunnarsholt and the people from Reykjavik Tolli and Sigga, owners of the guest house. Last
but not least I am very grateful to my wife Hanna Teklehaymanot and all my family for their
endurance, commitment and encouragement during my six month stay away home.

21
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

REFERENCES
Abbasi, M. K., M. Zafar, and S. R. Khan. 2007. Influence of different land-cover types on the
changes of selected soil properties in the mountain region of Rawalakot Azad Jammu and
Kashmir. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 78:97-110.

Aerts, R., W. Maes, E. November, A. Negussie, M. Hermy, and B. Muys. 2006. Restoring dry
afromontane forest using bird and nurse plant effects: Direct sowing of Olea europaea ssp.
cuspidata seeds. Forest Ecology and Management 230:23-31.

Aklilu, H. 2010. Forest cover change and vulnerability assessment using GIS and Remote
Sensing technique: The case of Wondo Genet Watershed. Master’s Thesis. Addis Ababa
University Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Asefa, D., G. Oba, R. Weladji, and J. Colman. 2003. An assessment of restoration of

biodiversity in degraded high mountain grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation
& Development 14:25-38.

Asmala, A. 2012. Analysis of maximum likelihood classification on multispectral data.

Applied Mathematical Sciences 6:6425-6436.

Avnimelech, Y., G. Ritvo, L. E. Meijer, and M. Kochba. 2001. Water content, organic carbon
and dry bulk density in flooded sediments. Aquacultural Engineering 25:25-33.

Aynekulu, E., R. Aerts, P. Moonen, M. Denich, K. Gebrehiwot, T.-G. Vågen, W. Mekuria,

and H. J. Boehmer. 2012. Altitudinal variation and conservation priorities of vegetation along
the Great Rift Valley escarpment, northern Ethiopia. Biodiversity and Conservation 21:2691-
2707.

Aynekulu, E., M. Denich, D. Tsegaye, R. Aerts, B. Neuwirth, and H. Boehmer. 2011.

Dieback affects forest structure in a dry afromontane forest in northern Ethiopia. Journal of
Arid Environments 75:499-503.

Bahrami, A., I. Emadodin, M. Ranjbar Atashi, and H. R. Bork. 2010. Land-use change and
soil degradation: A case study, North of Iran. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North
America 1:600-605.

Bai, Z., D. Dent, L. Olsson, and M. Schaepman. 2008. Global assessment of land degradation
and improvement. Identification by remote sensing. No. 2008/01 in. ISRIC-World Soil
Information, Wageningen.

Bouyoucos, G. J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of
soils. Agronomy Journal 54:464-465.

Bremner, J. 1996. Nitrogen-total. Pages 1085-1121 in D. Sparks, A. Page, P. Helmke, R.

Loeppert, P. Soltanpour, M. Tabatabai, C. Johnston and M. Sumner, editors. Methods of soil
analysis. Part 3-Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America USA.

Bringezu, S., Helmut Schütz, Walter Pengue, Meghan O´Brien, Fernando Garcia, Ralph Sims,
Robert W. Howarth, Lea Kauppi, Mark Swilling, and J. Herrick. 2014. Assessing Global

22
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Land Use: Balancing Consumption with Sustainable Supply. A Report of the Working Group
on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Chenu, C., Y. Le Bissonnais, and D. Arrouays. 2000. Organic matter influence on clay
wettability and soil aggregate stability. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1479-
1486.

Crepin, J., and R. L. Johson. 1993. Soil Sampling for Environmental Assesment. Pages 5-19
in M. R. Carter, editor. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Roton,
Florida, USA.

Diacono, M., and F. Montemurro. 2010. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil
fertility: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30:401-422.

Edmondson, J. L., Z. G. Davies, S. A. McCormack, K. J. Gaston, and J. R. Leake. 2014.

Land-cover effects on soil organic carbon stocks in a European city. Science of the Total
Environment 472:444-453.

Eswaran, H., R. Lal, and P. Reich. 2001. Land degradation: an overview. Pages 20-35 in E.
M. Bridges, I. D. Hannam, L.R. Oldeman, F.W. T.Pening De Vries, S. J. Scherr, and S.
Sompatpanit, editors. 2nd International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification,
Khon Kaen, Thailand. Oxford Press, New Delhi, India.

Galloway, J. N., F. J. Dentener, D. G. Capone, E. W. Boyer, R. W. Howarth, S. P. Seitzinger,

G. P. Asner, C. Cleveland, P. Green, and E. Holland. 2004. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present,
and Future. Biogeochemistry 70:153-226.

Gardner, C. M., K. Laryea, and P. W. Unger. 1999. Soil texture and structure. Pages 7-10 in
H. Nabhan and A. R. Mermut, editors. Soil physical constraints to plant growth and crop
production. Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization,
Rome.

Gebreegziabher, Z. 1999. Dessa’a protected area: an assessment of human impact,

evolutionary pattern and options for sustainable management. UNESCO MAB (Man and the
Biosphere) Programme, Young Scientists Research Award Scheme, Mekelle, Ethiopia.

Gebrehiwet, K. B. 2004. Land use and land cover changes in the central highlands of
Ethiopia: The case of Yerer Mountain and its surroundings. Master’s Thesis. Addis Abeba
University, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

Gebremedhin, B., and S. M. Swinton. 2003. Investment in soil conservation in northern

Ethiopia: the role of land tenure security and public programs. Agricultural Economics 29:69-
84.

Gebremichael, D., J. Nyssen, J. Poesen, J. Deckers, M. Haile, G. Govers, and J. Moeyersons.

2005. Effectiveness of stone bunds in controlling soil erosion on cropland in the Tigray
highlands, Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use and Management 21:287-297.

23
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Geist, H. J., and E. F. Lambin. 2004. Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. Bio-Science
54:817-829.

Girmay, G., B. Singh, H. Mitiku, T. Borresen, and R. Lal. 2008. Carbon stocks in Ethiopian
soils in relation to land use and soil management. Land Degradation & Development 19:351-
367.

Gol, C. 2009. The effects of land use change on soil properties and organic carbon at
Dagdami river catchment in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology 30(5):825-830.

Grossman, R. B., and T. G. Reinsch. 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility. Pages 201-
225 in H. J. Dane and G. C. Topp, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 4 - Physical
Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Hagos, F., J. Pender, and N. Gebreselassie. 2002. Land degradation and strategies for
sustainable land management in the Ethiopian highlands: Tigray region. Pages 14-26 in M. A.
Jabbar, S. K. Ehui and S. J. Staal, editors. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working
paper 25. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental soil physics: Fundamentals, applications, and environmental

considerations. Academic Press, USA.

Hurni, H. 1985. An ecosystem approach to soil conservation. Pages 759-771 in El-Swaify, M.

Sa, Wc and A. Lo, editors. Soil Erosion and Conservation. Society of America, Ankey, Iowa.

Khormali, F., M. Ajami, S. Ayoubi, C. Srinivasarao, and S. Wani. 2009. Role of deforestation
and hillslope position on soil quality attributes of loess-derived soils in Golestan province,
Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 134:178-189.

Kizilkaya, R., and O. Dengiz. 2010. Variation of land use and land cover effects on some soil
physico-chemical characteristics and soil enzyme activity. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 97:15-24.

Lambin, E. F., H. J. Geist, and E. Lepers. 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change
in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28:205-241.

Lemenih, M., E. Karltun, and M. Olsson. 2005. Assessing soil chemical and physical property
responses to deforestation and subsequent cultivation in smallholders farming system in
Ethiopia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 105:373-386.

Mao, R., and D.-H. Zeng. 2010. Changes in soil particulate organic matter, microbial
biomass, and activity following afforestation of marginal agricultural lands in a semi-arid area
of Northeast China. Environmental Management 46:110-116.
Meyer, W. B. 1995. Past and present land use and land cover in the USA. Consequences
1:25-33.

Mitiku, H., K. Herweg, and B. Stillhardt. 2006. Sustainable land management–A new
approach to soil and water conservation in Ethiopia. Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia,
University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.

24
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Moges, A., M. Dagnachew, and F. Yimer. 2013. Land Use Effects on Soil Quality Indicators:
A Case Study of Abo-Wonsho Southern Ethiopia. Applied and Environmental Soil Science
2013:1-9.

Negassa, W., and H. Gebrekidan. 2003. Forms of Phosphorus and status of available
micronutrients under different land-use systems of alfisols in Bako area of Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Journal of Natural Resources. 5:17-37.

Nelson, D. W., and L. E. Sommers. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter.
Pages 539-579 in A. Page, R. Miller and D. Keeney, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2
- Chemical and Microbiological Proporties. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Soil
Science Society of America, Inc, Guilford Rd., Madison, USA.

Nyssen, J., J. Poesen, J. Moeyersons, J. Deckers, M. Haile, and A. Lang. 2004. Human impact
on the environment in the Ethiopian and Eritrean highlands—a state of the art. Earth Science
Reviews 64:273-320.

Pankhurst, R. 1995. The history of deforestation and afforestation in Ethiopia prior to World
War I. Northeast African Studies 2:119-133.

Quentin, F., C. Jim, C. Julia, H. Carole, and S. Andrew. 2006. Drivers of land use change,
Final Report: Matching opportunities to motivations, ESAI project 05116, . Department of
Sustainability and Environment and primary industries, Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology, Australia.

R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for statistical computing, Vienna, Australia.

Reicosky, D., and F. Forcella. 1998. Cover crop and soil quality interactions in
agroecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53:224-229.

Ritchie, G., and P. Dolling. 1985. The role of organic matter in soil acidification. Soil
Research 23:569-576.

Ross, D., K. Tate, N. Scott, and C. Feltham. 1999. Land-use change: effects on soil carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorus pools and fluxes in three adjacent ecosystems. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 31:803-813.

Sebhatleab, M. 2012. Geo-spatial Tools for Forest cover change and Susceptibility Analysis:
Cover Change Detection and Susceptibility Mapping using GIS and RS in Desa'a Dry
Afromontane Forest, Northern Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Bahirdar University, Bahirdar, Ethiopia.
Shiferaw, A. 2011. Evaluating the land use and land cover dynamics in Borena Woreda of
South Wollo Highlands, Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 13:1520-
5509.

Sleutel, S., S. De Neve, B. Singier, and G. Hofman. 2007. Quantification of organic carbon in
soils: A comparison of methodologies and assessment of the carbon content of organic matter.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 38:2647-2657.

25
UNU Land Restoration Training Programme

Sumner, M. E., and L. P. Wilding. 2000. Handbook of Soil Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton
London.

Teka, K., A. Van Rompaey, and J. Poesen. 2013. Assessing the role of policies on land use
change and agricultural development since 1960s in northern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy
30:944-951.

Teketay, D. 1997. The impact of clearing and conversion of dry Afromontane forests into
arable land on the composition and density of soil seed banks. Acta Oecologica 18:557-573.

Thomas, G. W. 1982. Exchangeable cations. Pages 159-165 in A. Page, R. Miller and D.

Keeney, editors. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties.
American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Guilford Rd., Madison,
USA.

Tsehaye, G., and A. Mohammed. 2013. Effects of Land-Use/Cover Changes on Soil

Properties in a Dryland Watershed of Hirmi and its Adjacent Agro Ecosystem: Northern
Ethiopia. International Journal of Geosciences Research 1:45-57.

Turner, B., W. B. Meyer, and D. L. Skole. 1994. Global land-use/land-cover change: towards
an integrated study. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 23:91-95.

Voicea, I.-F., M. Matache, and V. Vladut. 2009. Researches Regarding the Electro-
Conductivity Determination on Different Soil Textures from Romania, Before Sowing.
Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca.
Agriculture 66.

Wassie, A., D. Teketay, and N. Powell. 2005. Church forests in north gonder administrative
zone, northern Ethiopia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 15:349-373.

Watanabe, F., and S. Olsen. 1965. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining
phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts from soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal
29:677-678.

Wong, M. 2003. Ecological restoration of mine degraded soils, with emphasis on metal
contaminated soils. Chemosphere 50:775-780.

Xu, X., W. Liu, and G. Kiely. 2011a. Modeling the change in soil organic carbon of grassland
in response to climate change: effects of measured versus modelled carbon pools for
initializing the Rothamsted Carbon model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 140:372-
381.

Xu, X., W. Liu, C. Zhang, and G. Kiely. 2011b. Estimation of soil organic carbon stock and
its spatial distribution in the Republic of Ireland. Soil Use and Management 27:156-162.

Yimer, F., S. Ledin, and A. Abdelkadir. 2007. Changes in soil organic carbon and total
nitrogen contents in three adjacent land use types in the Bale Mountains, south-eastern
highlands of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management 242:337-342.

26