Agriculture Resources Management

### **Chapter 4**

## The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications for Sustainable Natural Resources Management

*Getnet Bitew, Alebel Melaku and Haileyesus Gelaw*

#### **Abstract**

Dryland areas in Ethiopia encompass pastoral and agro-pastoral areas in the country and have long been regarded as peripheries especially in economic terms. Expansion of large-scale agricultural investments (land grabbing) in these areas is the current government's focus and resulting in the loss and unsustainable utilization of natural resources. For instance, foreign investment in Ethiopia's forestry sector is currently limited, but agricultural investments that affect forests largely through forest clearing are common in the country. Therefore, the objective of this review paper looks at the impact of large-scale agricultural investment expansions on natural resources and factors affecting it in drylands of Ethiopia. A literature search was conducted through the use of different search engines to organize this paper. Natural resource degradations such as rangelands fragmentation, soil salinity, water scarcity, deforestation, and seasonal wildlife migrations are the main problems resulting from large agricultural investments in dryland areas of Ethiopia. Government policies, climate variability and the weakening of customary rules are the main factors causing natural resources degradation in dryland Ethiopia. Large agricultural expansion investment in dryland areas of Ethiopia is currently affecting not only natural resources but also cannot improve people's livelihood by far. Given the key roles forests play in rural livelihoods, new tenure arrangements will have significant implications for communities located at the forest farm interface in its dryland areas. Therefore, development of sound strategic policy that contributes to environmentally more sustainable and socially inclusive large-scale agricultural expansion in dryland areas of Ethiopia should be recommended.

**Keywords:** drylands, Ethiopia, government policy, large-scale agriculture, natural resource degradation

#### **1. Introduction**

About 75% of Ethiopia's landmass is categorized as dryland, experiencing moisture stress during most months of the year [1]. In recent decades, agricultural growth in the country has been progressing with the establishment of large scale investments in dryland areas. However, the growth is not as such increasing land productivity but mainly through the expansion of the cultivated area onto the regions where relatively abundant land is assumed to be available i.e. in dry areas [2].

The Ethiopian government and international bodies have presented the commercialization of land and the shift to large-scale agriculture as being an essential measure for agricultural modernization and improvement of production efficiency which leads to huge food production and economic growth as part of their five-year Growth and Transformation Plan. This plan envisages that Ethiopia will be food secure and a middle-income country by 2025 [3–5], Since the 1990s, the government formulated a long-term economic development strategy called Agriculture Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) which is the government's overarching policy response to Ethiopia's food security and agricultural productivity challenge focuses primarily on the expansion of large-scale commercial farms and improved productivity in smallholdings [6, 7]. The government also promotes large-scale agricultural investment as a way to improve food security at the national level, through foreign exchange revenues from farm outputs, higher crop production in the country, and increased incomes from farm jobs [5, 8].

According to World Bank [3], population growth in developing countries like Ethiopia will lead to increased demand for food products, expanding urbanization, and rising incomes which needs to be met by bringing more land to large investors for farming and thereby improving productivity. In line with this argument, the Ethiopian government confirms that there is plenty of unused land for investors to operate efficiently without posing a threat to the environment and its natural resources as well as the livelihood of smallholder farmers in dryland areas of the country. However, facts on the ground show on the contrary, as sustainable natural resource utilization and rights of smallholder farmers to land have been ignored during investment implementations in dryland regions of the country. This expansion strategy reflects the relative availability and lowers costs of land relative to capital inputs required for agricultural intensification, such as fertilizer, credit, and irrigation etc. without considering natural resource degradations. Therefore, land grabbers cause unsustainable natural resources utilization with little account for agricultural growths [7, 9–11].

As long as drylands areas are becoming a center of government attention in current Ethiopia for the expansion of large-scale agricultural investments, natural resource degradation caused by its expansion aggravated by climate change and variability are common problems in these regions. Some of its impacts on natural resources include increasing rangeland degradations, soil salinity due to irrigation schemes, water overexploitation, and deforestation that leads to various forms of land degradations in dryland regions of the country [11, 12]. Changing land-use patterns and disturbances to the environment and its natural resources is common. Thus, the livelihoods of many pastoralists are affected in the drylands of Ethiopia. Pastoral and agro-pastoral communities, who live in these emerging areas of investment and who engage in subsistence economies within larger socio-economic networks will continue to be significantly affected by domestic and foreign agricultural investors by resettlement schemes, increasing landholding and land-use changes [13, 14].

#### *The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

Sustainable use of natural resources refers to use patterns that meet the basic human needs of current generations without destroying or degrading the natural environment to the resource needs of future generations can be met [15]. However, many of the current trends in rural dryland areas exert varying pressure on water, soil, forests, ecosystems, and biodiversity, threatening the resilience and sustainability of the complex environmental systems. These rushes to land, water, and other essential natural resources in the region particularly have negative effects on indigenous and local people's livelihoods and increasing food insecurity. An environmentally sustainable rural transformation is not only a technical challenge but also a political question, because root causes for the degradation of natural resources and the measures to be adopted are mainly policy issues [11]. In locations where irrigated agriculture is viable, mobile pastoralists, sedentary agro-pastoralists, and commercial investors are increasingly competing for land and water resources. Balancing competing land use and livelihood systems while also safeguarding natural resources continue to be important problems for Ethiopia's development program, which is centered on greater agricultural output. In light of this, the question of whether sustainable resource management can remain a viable strategy in the future and what structural changes are required to increase environmental resilience arises.

The principal objective of this review paper is to investigate the impacts of largescale agricultural expansion on natural resources and systematically assessing policy and other affecting factors to its sustainable management.

#### **2. Materials and methods**

A literature search was conducted through the use of different search engines and options such as the Web of Science (apps.webofknowledge.com), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), Research Gate (https://www.researchgate.net), altavista.com, and www.freefull.pdf.com, the Science of policy aspects in natural resource management in Ethiopian. The majority of the searched works of literature were published research articles that are highly related with the expansion of large scale agriculture in drylands of Ethiopia and sub-Saharan Africa having a policy focus were retrieved, the author of this review paper focused on those reporting the general descriptions and results on the impact of expanding large scale agricultural investments in dryland natural resources such as rangelands, soils, forests, water, and wildlife. Thus, about21 published scientific papers were used to develop this review paper. Individual articles from the collected literature were grouped for research objectives to the impacts of large-scale agricultural investments on natural resources in drylands. Research objectives were further sub-categorized into articles focusing on rangelands, soils, forests, and water resources.

#### **3. The development of large-scale agricultural investments**

Around the mid-1990s, the Ethiopian government developed a development strategy that prioritized small-holder agriculture and agricultural production as the engine of growth for the country's overall development. The concept relied on small-holder farmers to provide not just a stimulus for development but also a surplus for food self-sufficiency. During this time, domestic and donor aid, resource management methods and improved farming, credit services, and many types of

human capacity development programs were provided to small-holder farmers. New technological packages were also offered to some extent. At the time, the land system was skewed in favor of small-holder farmers [16]. The government's 2001 paper with revised rural development policies and strategies signified the beginning of the shift away from this method [11]. Despite the fact that smallholder farmers continue to play a significant role, the agreement includes an essential role for big scale agricultural firms and foreign investors [17].

*"Private investors are already contributing significantly to agricultural growth." Experiences from developed countries reveal that as an economy grows, some small farmers leave the industry to seek employment in other areas, while others gather enough capital to go big in the sector.*

*"There appear to be two investment areas in the agricultural industry that appear to be particularly favorable for foreign investment." The first is to develop previously undeveloped huge area with considerable irrigation potential. The second investment opportunity is to develop high-value agricultural items for export (such as flowers and vegetables).*

We can see here that investors who export their products are given more support than those who do not. This suggests that the primary goal of the shift to large-scale agriculture is foreign exchange gains, rather than domestic food security, and that it is causing natural resource degradation in pastoral areas.

#### **3.1 Transfers and distributions of land**

Despite the fact that farmland has been allocated to investors since the mid-1990s, up until 2002, those requesting property were primarily local investors, and the land released was mostly modest, no larger than 500 hectares. The growth of foreign investors is inextricably linked to the passage of the investment declaration and the success of the floriculture industry. Between 2003 and 2007, the cut flower sector was expanding, with a growing market to Europe and internationally. Beginning in 2006, foreign investors' desire for land increased, resulting in a land rush in 2008. The sizes of property requested were no longer minor, with several applicants requesting vast swaths of 10,000 hectares or more. According to Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) and government officials, foreign investors are given much bigger land in size with the justification that they are better endowed in capital and technology and are more likely to be successful in their operations. The total land area given for both foreign and domestic investors large scale agriculture in 2008 is 1, 133, 000 hectares. Such large scale land transfers are over 2000 hectares for each investor [11].

#### **4. Result and discussions**

#### **4.1 Impacts of large scale agriculture on natural resources**

#### *4.1.1 Environmental dynamics in dryland areas of Ethiopia*

Changing patterns in the accessibility and availability of natural resources is closely linked to processes of rural transformation by the expansion of large agricultural investments. An expanding rural population relies on natural resources for a living. With rising food demands at the national and worldwide levels, two options for increasing food production emerge: intensifying the utilization of existing natural

#### *The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

resources or expanding the area cultivated through large-scale agricultural investments. Both options raise environmental and social risks if context-specific conditions are not sufficiently considered [18].

Furthermore, dryland regions in Ethiopia are characterized by climate uncertainty due to spatially and temporally highly variable rainfall. Under these unpredictable climatic conditions, the broad and opportunistic use of communally held land rangelands and mobile forms of pastoralism is the most fitted land-use system [19, 20]. Pastoralists' extensive understanding of the sustainable use of animal fodder and water resources is reflected in the careful selection of livestock breeds and the temporally limited usage of rangelands. Besides, functional customary institutions for natural resource management in which collective action and resource sharing (social capital) are of major importance [21].

#### *4.1.2 Rangeland deterioration*

Vegetation and soil degradation is a serious issue in the dry and semi-arid lowlands, where various types of savanna, grasslands, and deserts dominate the majority of the area [22, 23]. Rangeland degradation caused by major agricultural investment development in dryland areas results in altered grass species composition and a general loss of biodiversity and vegetation cover, resulting in a permanent decrease in biological and economic productivity. Seasonally flooded plains are the hardest hit, as they provide the best pastures during the dry season while also having the largest irrigation potential for agricultural projects [24]. The main feed source for grazers like cattle and sheep, nutrient-rich palatable grasses, is increasingly being out-competed by invasive plant species (*Prosopis juliflora*, *Parthenium hysterophorus*, *Lantana camara*, *Acacia melifera*, *Acacia nubica*) or grassy floodplains are being converted into irrigated farmland. *P. juliflora*, which was purposely introduced to the lowlands as an ecosystem engineer for soil and water conservation, has infiltrated significant sections of grazing land in Ethiopia's dryland areas, particularly in the Afar Region [25, 26].

Although irrigation occupies a relatively small quantity of land, there are farreaching implications and ramifications of siting irrigation projects in direct competition with pastoral grazing needs during the dry season. This is especially evident in the Afar region's Awash River valley irrigation system. In the Valley, the cost of pastoral output is correspondingly high [27].

#### *4.1.3 Soil degradation and salinity effect*

Soil salinity is a major problem for agricultural production in dryland areas of arid and semi-arid parts of Ethiopia where evapotranspiration rates exceed precipitation. According to Azeb and Wolfram [7], since the mid-2000s, the government has awarded thousands of hectares of the Gambella Region's most fertile lands to foreign companies and some of the world's wealthiest individuals to export rice, cotton, sesame, and other commodities, often on long-term leases and at low prices. Similarly, salt-affected soils are common in Somali Region's Awash Valley and the Wabi Shebele River Basin as a result of large-scale irrigated farm operations. In these areas, soil salinity is high due to poor drainage systems and inappropriate water management practices. Increasing salinity is now one of the major reasons for decreasing agricultural productivity on irrigated cotton and sugarcane plantations along the Awash River for small-scale agro-pastoralists cultivating maize and vegetables. Under current conditions of an ongoing expansion of irrigation farming in lowland areas, soil salinity becomes a major problem in the future that can jeopardize sustainable agricultural production and natural resource management [28].

#### *4.1.4 Forest degradation and deforestation*

Customary laws in dryland areas of Ethiopia for instance among Afar and Somali people prohibit the cutting of trees. When deemed necessary, branches are collected as feed for animals or lactating cows. This is done in a way that ensures the regenerative capacity of the plants. Within the last decade, deforestation of indigenous trees has increased, especially due to the growth of large scale domestic and foreign agricultural investments as well as charcoal traders in Afar and Somali dryland areas [29, 30].

Foreign investments in the forestry industry differ from agriculture investments that have an impact on forests. Forest clearing for farm enterprises is one of the latter, with a decades-long history fueled by a variety of government policies affecting land use, resettlement, and investment incentives. Forest clearing for agricultural purposes is a frequent practice in Ethiopia's lowland regions. Most modern forests are cleared with fire, leaving forest products generally unexploited [31]. Clearing dryland deciduous woodlands for cash crops (mainly sugarcane and cotton) occurs often in lowland areas [32]. Forest encroachment for agricultural expansion (including tea and coffee cultivation) by both large scale agricultural investors and rural people generally leads to contemporary highland forest clearing [33, 34].

Land used for large-scale agricultural investment (such as coffee and tea plantations, irrigated farming, and so on) may occasionally contain natural forestlands and woodlands, resulting in substantial conversions of forestland to non-forest land. Regardless of their economic importance, such investments exacerbate deforestation. As an example, that of the Jardaga Jarte District in oromia region, large-scale agriculture investment and expansion is the main cause of deforestation, particularly for commercial sugarcane production [35]. With regard to the underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, the report suggested that commercial agriculture and national policies are the main drivers where other factors are also under consideration. Forest policies, proclamations, related laws, and regulations are poorly implemented for a variety of reasons. Some of the barriers could be a lack of financial and human resources, as well as a lack of institutional capacity; the absence of proper implementation guidelines; and, for a long time, the structuring and restructuring of the forest governance system at the national and regional levels, limiting forest sector representation at the department or expert level.

The expansion of large-scale commercial agriculture and other development activities, such as road networks and megaprojects are the direct causes of deforestation in Ethiopia. The magnitude of such large-scale agricultural expansion on the forest resource of the country is very huge [36].

Unpredictable agricultural investment, which began shortly after 2010, is the most recent phenomenon causing widespread forest cover degradation in the area. According to respondents and key sources, this is the most pressing issue putting a strain on the remaining forests and the environment. According to Othow et al. [37] observations in the field, most farmlands were located near forests, allowing the farm owner access to surrounding forests. This issue is also consistent with Rahmato's [11] report, which said that land leased to investors is located near national parks, protected regions, and forests. The primary causes of forest cover change in Gog district

#### *The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

Gambella region is farm land expansion. It accounted about 33.4% over other causes (such as forest fire, population growth, illegal logging, charcoal and fuel production and poor governance) of forest cover change in this study area [37]. For instance, a recent report by Bekele et al. [38] looked that commercial agriculture as a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation in Ethiopia. Similarly, Getachew et al. [39] found that landscape changes in southwest Ethiopia have been rapid over the last 37 years. These changes included expansion of agricultural areas (including coffee farms, tea and Eucalyptus plantations, and small-scale cultivated lands) and decline of forest cover (**Figure 1**) [39].

#### *4.1.4.1 Biofuel development*

According to a biofuel strategy document produced by the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), the 24 million hectares of unutilized land suitable for growing bio ethanol and biodiesel can be leased out without interfering with food crop production or undermining the country's food security goals. Its main goal is to employ indigenous resources to permit adequate biofuel production to replace imported petroleum and export excess goods. As a result, the government's objective is for foreign and domestic investors to produce bioenergy, with the government providing land, financial incentives, and other assistance [40, 41].

The method utilized to estimate available land for such purposes is unclear, which is an issue. The amounts of land stated to be accessible for biofuels development in several regions were abnormally vast in comparison to the size of the regions. According to Anderson and Belay [40], the stated accessible acreage for production of biofuels crops in Gambela and Benshangul Gumuz was around 88% and 60% of the entire size of the regions, respectively. In such cases, there is the likelihood of allocating fertile lands or preserved forest areas for large-scale cultivation of energy crops.

According to the law, no project can start operation without approval given by the environmental protection authority. It had the responsibility of following up and supervising with the help of its subunits in the regions that contractual obligations were met about environmental considerations. But since 2009, even though the technical and institutional capacity of the ministry of agriculture and rural development to carry out the duties involved is questionable, the responsibility of environmental protection authority was transferred to the ministry of agriculture and rural development [11].

#### **Figure 1.**

*Rapid forest conversions for commercial tea, agricultures, settlements and infrastructure development in Southwest Ethiopia [39].*

#### *4.1.5 Increasing water resource supply and demand*

The naturally limited supply of water resources in dryland regions of Ethiopia is a severe constraint for rural inhabitants. The GTP's lofty governmental aims for agricultural intensification and hydropower development, with the ambition of becoming a middle-income country and developing a Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE), resulted into the construction of numerous large-scale dams in lowland regions. The increasing agricultural water off-take from a large-scale sugarcane plantation in Tendaho, Afar Region, built in 2009, has resulted in increased water scarcity for local pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, as well as disturbed discharge patterns and floodplain ecology, and has left downstream communities with insufficient water to irrigate their plots [42–44].

Ethiopia's government is optimistic about the future excavation of huge aquifers in the lowlands. The lowlands of Amhara, Tigray, Afar, and Somalia are where the majority of unusable groundwater is suspected and somewhat studied. However, it is unclear if long-term aquifer exploitation would be sustainable and financially viable. Groundwater table declines have been documented in the Afar and Somali dryland regions [45].

#### *4.1.6 Increasing water pollution*

Water pollution due to pesticides, fertilizers, and insecticides, and the disposal of industrial waste has become a growing concern in dryland areas particularly for those pastoralists who use the river water for human consumption, for watering of their livestock, and irrigation. Most affected by the harmful consequences of this agroindustrial contamination are highly developed by commercialized farms and industries dryland Ethiopia particularly in the Awash central rift valley. The fluoride levels in the waters of the Ethiopian central rift valley are among the highest in the world, putting some 8 million people at risk of developing skeletal or dental fluorosis [46].

#### *4.1.7 Impacts on wildlife*

A considerable body of ecological research in arid and semi-arid areas in eastern Africa shows that the extensive land-use practices of pastoralists also have a major bearing on the conservation of savannah wildlife populations and ecosystems [47]. Aspects of sustainability enter the picture here. Pastoralism is crucial not just for conserving forest regions, but also for wildlife populations and the savannah plains they inhabit, due to the overall ecological compatibility of pastoralist livestock and wild large mammals [48]. As an example, the diversified wildlife is Gambella's most valuable treasure, with over twenty wild animal species, some of which are of international value. Experts estimate the seasonal wildlife migration that occurs between Gambella and South Sudan to be Africa's second-largest wildlife migration [49, 50].

#### *4.1.8 Underutilization of land that is not covered by irrigation programs*

This occurs when a small region along the river is made unavailable for dry season grazing, rendering a much larger area distant from the river worthless. If current development trends continue, the complete exploitation of the Awash Valley's 200,000 irrigable hectares will leave many millions of hectares of desert and *The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

semi-desert unused since the only people or culture capable of using such land will no longer exist [42].

#### **4.2 Factors influencing natural resources degradation**

#### *4.2.1 Governmental policies*

The Ethiopian government has escalated its efforts to harness the lowlands' natural riches by expanding large-scale irrigation agriculture and mining. The notion of the lowlands' 'untapped resources,' enormous land resources, minerals, and underutilized irrigation potential, particularly from groundwater aquifers, is a significant rhetorical factor among political stakeholders in this regard. With global food costs rising since 2008 and rising national demands from a growing population, the conversion of communal dry season pastures into agricultural land has gained traction. This resulted in livestock exclusion from prime pastures and subsequent overstocking in less productive locations, resulting in disrupted livestock Spatio-temporal movement patterns [11, 51].

Water-led development is the overarching policy guiding government actions aimed directly at the rural population. It has been in effect in Afar and Somalia since 2010/11. Deep wells and water pipelines have been significant initiatives in this regard. The major strategic entry point for creating incentives for voluntary settlement of pastoralists and their subsequent transformation to agro-pastoralism is better water supplies. Through villagization and the construction of irrigated farmland, it intends to significantly alter land use and settlement patterns in arid and semi-arid regions. The government's quest for sedentarization is rooted in a prevalent rhetoric among governmental stakeholders that sees pastoralist mobility as a cause of conflict and overgrazing. It is also considered that dryland areas have significant energy resources such as gas, oil, and geothermal sources, as well as minerals such as salt, gold, and potash.

International corporations (Australia, USA) are already mining gold and potash in the northern Afar Region, while Tigrayan investors control salt mining in the Danakil desert. Russian oil explorations in the Middle Awash region are ongoing, with the chance of enormous pasture fields being transformed if oil is discovered. Several oil explorations are also taking place in the Somali region. A Chinese corporation has just begun significant gas investigations in the Somali Region with the goal of addressing China's expanding energy demands.

Generally, Ethiopia's ill-designed development policy highly affects its natural resources particularly in dryland areas in which many development projects are established.

#### *4.2.2 Increasing climate variability*

Drought and floods are normal phenomena in arid and semi-arid regions of Ethiopia which affect reproduction rates of livestock and agricultural output significantly [52–54]. The drought in 2016 severely reduced the amount of water in the Awash River, jeopardizing large-scale sugarcane plantations, whose command area had to be reduced from 24,000 ha to 8000 ha, as observed during the field study by Rettberg, et al. [55]. As Fantini et al. [42] note out, "the lack of a systematic strategy to rangeland decision-making has done more to weaken prior levels of rangeland production than cyclical droughts could ever achieve."

#### *4.2.3 Weakening of customary rules*

Pastoralists in the Afar and Somali Region stated that customary institutions which regulate the use of natural resources, for instance prohibitions of cutting of trees is becoming weaker. In Afar, for example, government officials recently restricted the use of Desso, exclusive clan-based grazing areas, to limit grazing intensity and protect access to feed during the dry season. At the same time, elders and clan leaders who are in charge of enforcing the rules are not as revered as they once were, particularly by the younger generation. The government is undercutting clan leaders but cannot replace these culturally ingrained organizations [55].

On the other hand, the increasing fragmentation and privatization of communal rangelands displaces pastoralists from valuable grazing areas onto less productive pastures and limits the mobility of livestock [56]. Under such conditions, uncontrolled, intensive grazing without appropriate rest of the rangelands has increased [41, 51, 57].

#### **5. Conclusion**

In general, the Ethiopian government has only vaguely recognized the support of the expansions of large-scale agricultural investments in dryland areas under the current policy of the country resulting in unsustainable natural resource utilization and accounted for a cause for its degradations. It is closely linked to and supported by policies aimed at expanding large-scale agricultural investment in dryland areas to increase production and productivity. The Ethiopian government has not yet accepted such policy support for the expansion of large agricultural investments without considering sustainable natural resource management. Factors accounting for natural resource degradation in these regions other than government policy are also climate variability and weakening of customary rules as well. The degradation and increasing scarcity of critical natural resources such as rangelands, soils, forests, water, and wildlife in dryland areas of Ethiopia is exacerbated due to the expansion of large agricultural investments. For instance, pastoral rangelands continue to be encroached upon by commercial irrigation schemes run by investors and increasing natural resource exploitation particularly in dryland areas of Afar Awash Valley, and at the same time affecting pastoralists' livelihood. If Ethiopia's rising population is to be fed and the natural resource base that underpins food production is to be sustained, agriculture must undergo a paradigm shift at all levels of research and development. The status quo is no longer an option. Agriculture, rather than just extending big agricultural investments in the country's fragile dryland areas, can become part of the solution to sustainable development and natural resource management by transitioning to climate-resilient, low-emitting production systems. An integrated approach for agricultural production is the key to increased production on a sustainable basis. Finally, it is recommended that the development of sound strategic policy that contributes to environmentally more sustainable and socially inclusive large scale agricultural expansion in the drylands of Ethiopia should be operationalized in the current and future plans.

*The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

#### **Author details**

Getnet Bitew1 \*, Alebel Melaku<sup>2</sup> and Haileyesus Gelaw3

1 College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Debark University, Ethiopia

2 College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia

3 College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Injibara University, Ethiopia

\*Address all correspondence to: gechmane@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Georgis K. Agricultural Based Livelihood Systems in Drylands in the Context of Climate Change; 2010

[2] Livingston G, Schonberger S, Delaney S. Sub-saharan Africa: The state of smallholders in agriculture. In: Paper presented at the IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture. Jan 2011;**24**:25

[3] World Bank Group. Ethiopia's Great Run: The Growth Acceleration and How to Pace it. Washington DC: World Bank; 2015

[4] Moller LC, Wacker KM. Ethiopia? s growth acceleration and how to sustain it? Insights from a cross-country regression model. S Growth Acceleration and How to Sustain It. 8 Jun 2015

[5] James K, Seide WM, Eid A, Kidewa AL. Large-Scale Land Deals in Ethiopia. International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK; 2014

[6] Alemu Y, Tolossa D. Livelihood impacts of large-scale agricultural investments using empirical evidence from Shashamane rural district of Oromia region, Ethiopia. Sustainability. 2022;**14**(15):9082

[7] Degife AW, Mauser W. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural Investment in Gambella Region, Ethiopica. Journal of US-China Public Administration. 2017;**4**:183-197

[8] Araya M. Effects of Large-Scale Agricultural Investments on Smallholder Farming in Sub-Saharan Africa (Case study: Ethiopia). 2013

[9] Williams TG, Trush SA, Sullivan JA, Liao C, Chesterman N, Agrawal A, et al. Land-use changes associated with largescale land transactions in Ethiopia; 2021

[10] Moreda T. Large-scale land acquisitions, state authority and indigenous local communities: Insights from Ethiopia. Third World Quarterly. 2017;**38**(3):698-716

[11] Rahmato D. Land to Investors: Large-Scale Land Transfers in Ethiopia. African Books Collective; 2011

[12] Georgis K. Dryland Agriculture Production System in Ethiopia; 2015

[13] Shanahan MI. Following the herd: Why pastoralism needs better media coverage. IIED Briefing Paper-International Institute for Environment and Development. 2013(10039)

[14] Abdulahi M. The legal status of the communal land holding system in Ethiopia: The case of pastoral communities. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 2007;**14**(1):85-125

[15] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press; 1987

[16] Gebreselassie S. Intensification of smallholder agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and scenarios. In: Future Agricultures Consortium Meeting at the Institute of Development Studies. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex; 2006. pp. 20-22

[17] Strategy CR. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa; 2011

[18] Engel E, Rettberg S, Rauch T, Neubert S, Richter D, Minah M, et al. Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Rural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Centre for Rural Development (SLE). Aug 2017

*The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

[19] Krätli S, Kaufmann B, Roba H, Hiernaux P, Li W, Easdale M, et al. A house full of trap doors. Identifying barriers to resilient drylands in development (IIED discussion paper). London and Edinburgh. May 2015

[20] Little PD. Reflections on the future of pastoralism in the horn of Africa. In: Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins. New York, New York, USA: Routledge; 2013. pp. 243-249

[21] Niamir-Fuller M. Managing mobility in African rangelands. Property Rights, Risk and Livestock Development in Africa. Sep 1999:102-131

[22] Kassahun A, Snyman HA, Smit GN. Impact of rangeland degradation on the pastoral production systems, livelihoods and perceptions of the Somali pastoralists in eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments. 2008;**72**(7):1265-1281

[23] Pricope NG, Husak G, Lopez-Carr D, Funk C, Michaelsen J. The climatepopulation nexus in the east African horn: Emerging degradation trends in rangeland and pastoral livelihood zones. Global Environmental Change. 2013;**23**(6):1525-1541

[24] Flintan FE, Cullis A. Introductory Guidelines to Participatory Rangeland Management in Pastoral Areas; 2010

[25] Rettberg S, Müller-Mahn D. Human-environment interactions: The invasion of Prosopis juliflora in the drylands of Northeast Ethiopia. In: Mol L, Sternberg T, editors. Changing Deserts-Integrating People and their Environments. Cambridge: Whitehorse Press; 2012. pp. 297-316

[26] Ayanu Y, Jentsch A, Müller-Mahn D, Rettberg S, Romankiewicz C, Koellner T. Ecosystem engineer unleashed: Prosopis

juliflora threatening ecosystem services? Regional Environmental Change. 2015;**15**(1):155-167

[27] Behnke R, Kerven C. Counting the costs: Replacing pastoralism with irrigated agriculture in the awash valley, North-Eastern Ethiopia. International Institute for Environment and Development. Mar 2013

[28] Asfaw E, Suryabhagavan KV, Argaw M. Soil salinity modeling and mapping using remote sensing and GIS: The case of Wonji sugar cane irrigation farm, Ethiopia. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;**17**(3):250-258

[29] Datona M. Socio-economic impacts of Prosopis juliflora-related charcoal trade in Gewane Woreda, Afar region. Managing Prosopis Juliflora for better (agro-) Pastoral Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa. 2014:129

[30] Worku A, Pretzsch J, Kassa H, Auch E. The significance of dry forest income for livelihood resilience: The case of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the drylands of southeastern Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics. 2014;**41**:51-59

[31] Teshome E, Kinahan A, Randall D. Land Cover Change Study of the Bale Mountain National Park Robe. Ethiopia: Frankfurt Zoological Society and Bale Mountain National Park; 2010. pp. 1-2

[32] Lemenih M, Feleke S, Tadesse W. Constraints to smallholders production of frankincense in Metema district, North-Western Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments. 2007;**71**(4):393-403

[33] Reusing M. Change detection of natural high forests in Ethiopia using remote sensing and GIS techniques. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2000;**33**(B7/3; PART 7):1253-1258

[34] Agribusiness TA. Forest Rehabilitation and Natural Coffee Production Enhancement and Trade. Addis Ababa: FARM Africa and SOS Sahel International/ UK Participatory Forest Management Programme (PFMP); 2004. pp. 1-4

[35] Forest O, Wildlife Enterprise OF. Analysis of Causes and Strategy Options to Address Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Draft Mid-Term Report, UNIQUE Forestry and Land Use Consultancy Firm; 2014

[36] FDRE. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Ethiopia's Climate-Resilient Green Economy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Green Economy Strategy; 2011

[37] Othow OO, Gebre SL, Gemeda DO. Analyzing the rate of land use and land cover change and determining the causes of forest cover change in Gog district, Gambella regional state, Ethiopia. Journal of Remote Sensors GIS. 2017;**6**(4):218

[38] Bekele M, Tesfaye Y, Mohammed Z, Zewdie S, Tebikew Y, Brockhaus M, et al. The context of REDD+ in Ethiopia: Drivers, agents and institutions. CIFOR; 23 Jun 2015

[39] Tadesse G, Zavaleta E, Shennan C, FitzSimmons M. Policy and demographic factors shape deforestation patterns and socio-ecological processes in southwest Ethiopian coffee agroecosystems. Applied Geography. 2014;**54**:149-159

[40] Anderson T, Belay M. Rapid assessment of biofuels development status in Ethiopia and proceedings of the National Workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment and Biofuels. Addis Ababa: MELCA Mahiber. 2008

[41] Abesha N, Assefa E, Petrova MA, Seid S. Farmers' perceptions of large-scale agricultural investment and its impacts

on traditional ecological knowledge in Gololcha District, south eastern Ethiopia. GeoJournal. 30 May 2022:1-5

[42] Fantini E, Muluneh T, Smit H. Big projects, strong states?: Large investments in irrigation and state formation in the Beles Valley, Ethiopia. In: Water, technology and the nationstate. Routledge; 15 May 2018. pp. 65-80

[43] Teklu BM, Hailu A, Wiegant DA, Scholten BS, Van den Brink PJ. Impacts of nutrients and pesticides from smalland large-scale agriculture on the water quality of Lake Ziway, Ethiopia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018;**14**:13207-13216

[44] Baumgartner P. Change in trend and new types of large-scale investments in Ethiopia. In: Handbook of Land and Water Grabs in Africa. Routledge; 10 Sep 2012. pp. 178-192

[45] MoWR GM. Ethiopia: Strategic Framework for Managed Groundwater Development. Addis Ababa; 2011;**52**

[46] Rango T, Kravchenko J, Atlaw B, McCornick PG, Jeuland M, Merola B, et al. Groundwater quality and its health impact: An assessment of dental fluorosis in rural inhabitants of the Main Ethiopian rift. Environment International. 2012;**43**:37-47

[47] Nelson F. Natural conservationists? Evaluating the impact of pastoralist land use practices on Tanzania's wildlife economy. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice. 2012;**2**(1):1-9

[48] Homewood KM, Trench PC, Brockington D. Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: A case for coexistence? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice. 2012;**2**(1):1-23

[49] Guyalo AK, Alemu EA, Degaga DT. Impact of large-scale *The Impact of the Expansion of Large-Scale Agriculture in Drylands of Ethiopia; Implications… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108705*

agricultural investments on the food security status of local community in Gambella region. Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security. 2022;**11**(1):1-28

[50] Purdie C. Gambella's hidden treasure; 2010

[51] Abesha N, Assefa E, Petrova MA. Large-scale agricultural investment in Ethiopia: Development, challenges and policy responses. Land Use Policy. 2022;**117**:106091

[52] Ericksen P, de Leeuw J, Thornton P, Said M, Herrero M, Notenbaert A. Climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins. 7 May 2013:71

[53] Headey D, Taffesse AS, You L. Diversification and development in pastoralist Ethiopia. World Development. 2014;**56**:200-213

[54] Field CB, Barros VR, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Abdrabo MA, Adger WN, et al. Summary for Policy Makers: Working group 11 contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. 2014. p. 688

[55] Engel E, Rettberg S, Rauch T, Neubert S, Richter D, Minah M, et al. Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Rural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Centre for Rural Development (SLE); Aug 2017

[56] Rettberg S. Contested narratives of pastoral vulnerability and risk in Ethiopia's Afar region. Pastoralism. 2010;**1**(2):248-273

[57] Degife AW, Mauser W. Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural investment in Gambella region, Ethiopia. Journal of US-China Public Administration. 2017;**14**(4):183-197

#### **Chapter 5**

## Climate Smart Agriculture: Threshold Number of Trees in Agroforestry Parkland for Better Land Management to Climate Adaptation and Mitigation in West Africa Burkina Faso

*Tiga Neya, Oblé Neya, Galine Yanon and Akwasi A. Abunyewa*

#### **Abstract**

Agroforestry system is the most climate smart agriculture practices in West Africa. Because perennials are generally more resistant to climate extremes, such as drought, flood, and heat, than annual crops. Park land may appear to be competitive with crop on farm. To elucidate that, trees number and their canopy cover on farming system were assessed through tree inventory in three municipalities and compared with normal trees canopy cover. More than 3000 trees which spreading was 1154 in Bouroum-Bourom, 884 in Ouahigouya, and 1054 in Sapouy were used. Trees density and mean tree canopy cover in farms were calculated. Trees density on farm were about the double of trees threshold number in Soudanian zone, one and half both in Soudan Sahel and Sahel strict zones. Tree canopy cover were 66.25, 59.92, and 42.1 m2 , respectively in Bouroum-Bourom, Sapouy, and Ouahigouya. The average tree cover was 23.99, 18.23, and 14.88%, respectively, the Municipality. Agroforestry system as more trees that it should be, to optimize the positive impact of agroforestry system to increase crop yield and restore land fertility the number of trees on parkland system should be 15, 17, and 24 trees/ha, respectively in Bouroum-Bouroum, Sapouy, and Ouahigouya.

**Keywords:** smallholders, soil fertility, crop integration, threshold of tree, crown cover

#### **1. Introduction**

In Sahelian countries, the most widely spread farming system is agroforestry parkland land system and is composed by scattered trees sharing the same space with underwood crops and livestock [1]. Parkland management system is function of farmers socio-ecological knowledges and their needs dealing with the variability of climate, to cope with climate change and to recover land degradation and soil fertility improving crop productivity [2–5]. In Burkina Faso, the economy is basically based

on natural resources, and agriculture which occupied more than 80% people [6]. Agroforestry parkland is the most broadly spread farming system throughout the country. But, nearby climate change and variability, soil erosion and land degradation continue to be the keys barriers limiting crop production [7–9]. Several studies have shown the importance of agroforestry parkland trees for food security [1, 10, 11] and sustainable soil management [12–14]. It is shown that crop under trees crown cover were more protected to extremely increase of temperature, wind speed increase, scarcity of water and to diurnal temperature changing during drought spell than in open area [15–18]. These stress adaptation indicators show the adaptability of parkland system to climate change for crop production. Several authors have shown important soil porosity and water infiltration under tree compared to adjacent open area in the Sahel zones where the lake of water is the key limiting factor of crop production [19, 20]. Furthermore, soil under trees has shown higher water infiltration and increased soil nutrients migration capacity leading to soil vitality and improving crop production. According to Sanou [20], soil properties modification and the microclimate created by agroforestry parklands system could be due to trees species morphological characteristics such as trees height, density, crown and shape.

Nevertheless, on farm trees improve positively crop productivity and it has been widely reported that trees and crops compete for above-ground growth resources such as light, heat, air relative humidity, and rain interception [21, 22]. The below-ground, competition is specifically link to water and nutrients, although it is generally expected that the roots of trees and crops occupy different soil layers, at least to some extent [23, 24]. Base on the above, it seems that there are different schools of thought according the impact of trees on farmlands. While one group of researchers appreciate and encourage agroforestry parklands promotion, a second put much more emphasis on the negative effect of trees in smallholders farming system. Therefore, it is needed to come out with a good insight into these apparently contradictory positions. The few studies done on trade-off between tree keeping and crop production were mainly in research stations and covered limited agroforestry trees species [1, 14, 25]. Moreover, most of these studies failed to determine the threshold number of tree per hectare to be kept in the farm to maximize the ecosystem services provided by trees and to reduce the trade-off that trees can occur. However, it has been argued and reported that trade-off resulting from tree keeping and crop production is raise up to 109.5 kg/ha in Sahel strict zone, 247.6 kg/ ha in Soudan- Sahel zone and 252.8 kg/ha in Soudanian zone [5]. This study, aim to determine the thresholds number of trees to be kept in the farms for agroforestry parkland promotion and management in the Sahel zone. More specifically, the threshold number of trees was investigated, through (i) evaluation of tree diameter in farms (ii) tree crown cover assessment within farms, and (iii) estimation of threshold number of trees.

#### **2. Materials and method**

#### **2.1 Study area**

The work was done in three municipality of Burkina Faso such as Bouroum-Bouroum (10° 32′ N, 3° 14′ W), Sapouy (11° 33′ N, 1° 46′ W) and Ouahigouya (13° 35′ 00″ N, 2° 25′ 00″ W) located in three different climatic zones of Burkina Faso (**Figure 1**).

*Climate Smart Agriculture: Threshold Number of Trees in Agroforestry Parkland for Better… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107963*

**Figure 1.**

*Studies sites Ouahigouya (Sahel strict), Sapouy (Sudan -Sahel) and Bouroum-Bouroum (Sudanian) in Burkina Faso.*

Three municipalities were randomly chosen, and 30 households were randomly selected among farmers covered around 35 ha per municipality.

#### **2.2 Mean diameter of woody species (D)**

The average of woody species diameter (D) was computed using the sum of total DBH over the total number of individual woody species found. Before, computing (D), all the individual woody species which have more than one trunk at 1.3 meter, the equivalent diameter (deq) has been estimated using Eq. (1) below.

$$d\_{eq} = \left(d\_1^2 + ...d\_n^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\tag{1}$$

Where d1 is the diameter of trunk 1first and dn: is the last diameter of the trunk (n).

#### **2.3 Mean height of woody species**

The average of woody species diameter (h) was computed using the sum of total H over the total number of individual woody species found.

#### **2.4 Trees crown cover**

According to Jennings et al. [26] crown cover is the vertical projection of a tree's outmost perimeter and constitutes the potential shaded area which can influence crop production. To estimate crown area all, the trees are inventoried and the big radius of

crown cover (Rb) and the small radius of canopy cover (Rs) were recorded with Ruben meter. The formula of ellipse Eq. (1) was applied to obtain the area of crown (Ca).

$$C\_a = \pi \propto R\_b \propto R\_s \tag{2}$$

Total canopy area under trees (TCa) of each farm was obtained by summing up the crown cover areas of all trees within the farm Eq. (2).

$$TCa = \sum\_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{C}a\_i \tag{3}$$

The average tree crown cover is the sum of crown cover in m<sup>2</sup> of the agroforestry parkland tree divided by the total number of trees in the parkland Eq. (3).

$$m = \frac{TCa}{N} \tag{4}$$

With m: average crown cover. TCa: total crown cover of agroforestry parkland. N: total number of trees in the agroforestry parkland.

#### **2.5 Trees number**

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [27] has defined forest as land with a tree canopy cover higher than 10% in an area larger than 0.5 ha. Based on this definition the threshold number of trees (Tt) in the farms has computed using the Eq. (4).

$$T\_t = 1000^{-3} \frac{TCa}{N}$$

With.

Tt: Threshold number of trees. TCa: total crown cover of agroforestry parkland. N: total number of trees in the agroforestry parkland.

#### **2.6 Data analysis**

Minitab 17, Excel and Sigma plot 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. One-way Fisher Pairwise Comparisons and Tukey Pairwise Comparisons tests using One way Anova were utilized to see how tree crown cover and tree cover differed within the three climatic zones and the significance level was stablished at 95 percent for all tests done in this study.

#### **3. Results and discussion**

#### **3.1 Mean diameter**

Average diameters observed in Soudan-Sahel zone were significantly higher than average diameter observed in Sahel strict zone and Soudanian zone (**Table 1**).

*Climate Smart Agriculture: Threshold Number of Trees in Agroforestry Parkland for Better… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107963*


#### **Table 1.**

*Individual woody species number, tree density and average diameters per climatic zone.*

#### **3.2 Mean height**

Tree height in agroforestry system decrease from Soudanian to Sahel Strict zone (**Figure 2**).

This decrease can be explained by the fact that in Sahel Strict zone natural forest is very scarce trees on farm should play multiple role to cover firewood need through tree pruning.

#### **3.3 Trees crown cover**

The results revealed a mean tree crown cover of 66.25 m2 , 59.92 m2 and 42.1 m2 respectively in Soudanian zone, Soudan-Sahel zone and Sahel strict zone, respectively. The mean tree crown cover was significantly different at (p < 0.05) from one climatic zone to another (**Figure 3**).

The differences detected between mean tree canopy cover in the three climatic zones can be explained by different dominant tree species in the three sites of study. Indeed, individual tree crown cover varies significantly from one species to another (**Table 2**). Also, farm management practices such as tree pruning (**Figure 4**) can have a lot of influence on tree crown cover.

**Figure 2.** *Mean height of tree in the climatic zones in Burkina Faso.*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Mean tree canopy cover in the study sites located in three different climatic zones in Burkina Faso, A Sudanian zone, B = Sudan-Sahel zone and C = Sahel strict zone.*

Among the six major species found in the agroforestry parkland in Sahel-Strict zone, statistical analysis revealed significant difference in crown cover (p-v = 0.01) with high value of 63 ± 12.5 for *Lannea microcarpum* and low value of 8.99 ± 11.8 for *Adensonia digitata.* The lower crown cover of *Adansonia digitata* observed in this area can be explained by the fact that its leaves are usually harvested by farmers for stew/ sauce preparation. However, the fruit of *Lannea microcarpum* is the most sought for ecosystem service by farmers*.* Therefore, a big canopy cover of this species augurs a promising fructification capacity. The type of ecosystem service provided by each tree species guide it crown cover management by farmers.


#### **Table 2.**

*Average tree canopy cover (TCC) of trees in three municipalities in the three climatic zones of Burkina Faso.*

*Climate Smart Agriculture: Threshold Number of Trees in Agroforestry Parkland for Better… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107963*

**Figure 4.** *Tree management affecting tree crown cover in Sahel-Strict zone in Burkina Faso.*

The funding of this work are comparable to Nelson et al. [28] results who shown that, the morphological characteristic of agroforestry tree species determined their canopy cover shape. Moreover, the morphological characteristic of the species and trees management practices developed by farmers also contributed to shape the canopy cover [1, 5, 8, 29]. According to Bationo et al. [1, 5], farming system should play various roles to cover farmers' needs in term of wood and non-timber products where the forest resources are scarces. According to DIFOR [30] on forest resources

availability, it has been argued that in Burkina Faso, forest resources decreased from the southern to the northern region of the country.

#### **3.4 Trees number**

Trees density on farm were about the double of trees threshold number in Soudanian zone (37 trees/ha vs. 15 trees/ha), one and half both in Soudan Sahel and Sahel strict zones (30 trees/ha vs. 17trees/ha and 35 trees/ha vs. 24 trees/ha). The threshold number decrease from Sahel-strict zone to Soudanian zone (**Figure 5**).

The decrease of threshold number can be explained by the higher crown cover observed in Soudanian zone compare to the smaller crown cover in Sahel-strict zone (**Figure 5**).

#### **4. Conclusions**

The investigation has revealed that tree number threshold is a function of tree species and climatic zone. Based on the study data, average trees number threshold increased from high rainfall area (Sudanian zone) to low rainfall area (Sahel-Strict zone). One farm trees density were 37 trees/ha, 30 trees/ha and 35trees/ha respectively. However the average tree number threshold is 15 trees/ha, 17trees/ha an 24trees/ha are in Soudanian zone, Soudan Sahel and Sahel strict zones respectively. The difference of tree number/ha compare to normal were also 22 trees/ha; 13trees/ha and 11trees/ha in Soudanian zone, Soudan Sahel and Sahel strict zones respectively. To encourage trees conservation in agroforestry parklands, it is highly recommended that in addition to other ecosystem services, trees carbon stock in agroforestry system be assessed to determine the benefit that could be gained by smallholder farmers in carbon payment using REED+ initiative.

*Climate Smart Agriculture: Threshold Number of Trees in Agroforestry Parkland for Better… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107963*

#### **Author details**

Tiga Neya1 \*, Oblé Neya2 , Galine Yanon3 and Akwasi A. Abunyewa4

1 Ministry of Environment Green Economy and Climate Change, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

2 Competence Centre, West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL), Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

3 Universite de Check Anta DIOP de Dakar, Senegal

4 Department of Agroforestry, Kwame Nkrumah University of Sciences and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

\*Address all correspondence to: neyatiga@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Bationo BA, Kalinganire A, Bayala J. Potentialités des ligneux dans la pratique de l'agriculture de conservation dans les zones arides et semiarides de l'Afrique de l'Ouest: Aperçu de quelques systèmes candidats. ICRAF Technical Manual no. 17 Nairobi: Burkina Faso: World Agroforestry Centre; 2012

[2] Arbonnier M. Arbres, arbustes et lianes de zones sèches d'Afrique de l'Ouest. CIRAD. MNHN. IUCN; 2002. p. 573

[3] Adjatin A. Contribution à l'étude de la diversité des légumes feuilles traditionnels consommés dans le département de l'Atacora au Togo [Memoire de diplome d' études aprofondies]. Université de Lomé Togo. 2006. p. 50

[4] IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). Agriculture at a crossroads. In: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Global Report. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2009

[5] Neya T, Abunyewa AA, Neya O, Daniel CC. Trade-off of tree conservation and crop production on agroforestry parklands in Burkina Faso. Journal of Agricultural Studies. 2019;**V7**:41-51. DOI: 10.5296/jas.v7i1

[6] INSD (Institut National des Statistiques et de la Démographie). Recensement général de la population et de l'habitation. Rapport de Recensement, Burkina Faso; 2006:176

[7] FAO & WWF. Cercle de Concertation des Partenaires du MINFOF, Thématique sur les Produits Forestiers non Ligneux (PFNL) au Cameroun. Burkina Faso: Rapport Final; 2008. p. 26

[8] Neya T, Neya O, Abunyewa AA. Agroforestry parkland profiles in three climatic zones of Burkina Faso. 2018. DOI: 10.4314/ijbcs.v12i5.14

[9] Soubeiga KJ. Analyse de la demande des produits forestiers non ligneux dans l'alimentation des ménages ruraux: cas des départements de Bondokuy (Mouhoun) et de Niandialia (Boulkiemdé) [Mémoire d'Ingénieur en Sociologie et Economie Rurales]. Université Polytechnique de Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. 2004. p. 57

[10] FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). Disaster Risk Management Strategy in West Africa and the Sahel FAO (2011-2013). Rome, Italy: FAO; 2011

[11] Neufeldt H, Dawson IK, Luedeling E, Ajayi OC, Beedy T, Gebrekirstos A, et al. . In: Montes CS, Weber JC, editors. Climate Change Vulnerability of Agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper 143. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre; 2012

[12] Bationo A, Buerkert A. Soil organic carbon management for sustainable land use in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2001;**61**:131-142

[13] Bayala J, Ouedraogo SJ. Agroforestry and soil fertility maintenance. In: Bationo A, Tabo R, Waswa BS, Okeyo J, Fosu M, Kabore S, editors. Synthesis of Soil, Water and Nutrient Management Research in the Volta Basin. Ecomedia Ltd.; 2008. pp. 41-46

[14] Neya T, Abunyewa AA, Neya O, et al. Carbon sequestration potential and marketable carbon value of smallholder agroforestry parklands across climatic zones of Burkina Faso: Current status and way forward for

*Climate Smart Agriculture: Threshold Number of Trees in Agroforestry Parkland for Better… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107963*

redd+ implementation. Environmental Management. 2020;**65**:203-211. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-019-01248-6

[15] Bayala J, Sanou J, Bazie P, van Noordwijk M. Empirical Data Collection of Tree Effects on Temperature and Humidity at Crop Level. CRP 7 Activity Report. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre; 2013

[16] Brenner AJ. Microclimatic modifications in agroforestry. In: Ong CK, Huxley P, editors. In Tree–Crop Interactions: A Physiological Approach. UK: CAB International; 1996. pp. 159-187

[17] Jonsson K, Ong CK, Odongos JC. Influence of scattered néré and karité on microclimate, soil fertility and millet yield in Burkina Faso. Experimental Agriculture. 1999;**35**:39-53

[18] Schroth G, Krauss U, Gasparotto L, Duarte-Aguilar JA, Vohland K. Pests and diseases in agroforestry systems of the humid tropics. Agroforestry Systems. 2000;**50**:199-241

[19] Hansson L. Comparisons of Infiltration Capacities in Different Parklands and Farming Systems of Semi-arid Burkina Faso. Sweden [MSc thesis]. Burkina Faso: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Ecology; 2006

[20] Sanou J. Optimizing Productivity of Agroforestry Parkland Systems in West Africa Using Shade Tolerant Annual Crops. Bangor, UK: University of Wales; 2010

[21] Parkouda C, Diawara B, Ganou L, Lamien N. Potentialités nutritionnelles des produits de 16 especes fruitieres locales. Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2007;**1**:35-47

[22] Sanou J, Bayala J, Teklehaimanot Z, Bazie P. Effect of shading by baobab (Adansonia digitata) and néré (Parkia biglobosa) on yields of millet

(Pennisetum glaucum) and taro (Colocasia esculenta) in parkland systems in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agroforestry Systems. 2012;**85**:431-441

[23] Cannell MGR, van Noordwijk M, Ong CK. The central hypothesis: The tree must acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agroforestry Systems. 1999;**6**:27-30

[24] Van Noordwijk M, Ong CK. Can the ecosystem mimic hypotheses be applied to farms in African savannahs? Agroforestry Systems. 1999;**45**:131-158

[25] Rodríguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM Jr, Cumming GS, Cork S, Agard J, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society. 2006;**11**(1):28. Available from: http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/

[26] Jennings SB, Brown ND, Sheil D. Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination: Canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry. 1999;**72**(1):59-73

[27] FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Available from: www.fao. org/3/a-i4808e

[28] Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis D. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;**105**:9471-9476

[29] Bayala J, Sanou J, Teklehaimanot Z, Kalinganire A, Ouedraogo JS. Parklands for buffering climate risk and sustaining agricultural production in the Sahel of West Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014;**6**:28- 34. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.004

[30] DIFOR (Direction des Forets). Situation des forets classées du Burkina Faso et plan de réhabilitation. 2007. p. 46

#### **Chapter 6**

## Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production Intensification

*Chris Adegoke Fayose*

#### **Abstract**

Agriculture is crucial to the survival and well-being of the populations of most nations. It is the single most important means of livelihood and foreign exchange earnings for many nations globally. Crop Production is the bedrock of agriculture on which most other agricultural activities depend, because of the ability of plants to manufacture their food via photosynthesis, which is an essential phenomenon for the sustenance of the natural system. Thus, most other agricultural activities depend directly or indirectly on crop production. As a result of the exponential increase in world population, leading to a significant reduction in agricultural land due to urbanization; deforestation, air pollution, erosion, climate change, and consequently, food insecurity; measures must be put in place to ensure crop production intensification via sustainable and environmentally safe methods that guarantee food security. The principles of sustainable crop production intensification discussed in this Chapter include optimum tillage method, land and water resources management practices, suitable choice of agricultural system, precise crop management techniques, and bioremediation, in an already contaminate environment.

**Keywords:** agriculture, climate change, food security, integrated pest management, organic farming, precision agriculture, production intensification, soil and land resource management, sustainable agriculture, urbanization

#### **1. Introduction**

Agriculture is the global largest industry. It provides employment for more than a billion people and generates in excess of \$1.3 trillion dollars' worth of food annually [1]. Pasture and cropland occupy about half of the Earth's habitable land and provide habitat and food for a good number of organisms [2]. Most agricultural activities are dependent on environmental resources which must be properly managed to ensure food security. When agricultural operations are sustainably managed, they can preserve and restore delicate habitats, protect water resources, and improve soil health and water quality. Conversely, poor management practices have potentially grave negative impacts on the environment and the ecosystem.

This fact is even truer for crop production. Crops occupy the primary producers' level of the food chain. Thus, they manufacture their food using environmental resources, i.e., soil nutrients and sunlight. As a result, all other life forms depend directly or indirectly on plants for food and survival. Crop production is therefore considered the bedrock of agriculture [3].

Among others, factors which are social, economic and biological in nature; environmental factors, especially edaphic and climatic factors are of utmost importance in crop production. The soil provides anchorage, and a growth medium for plants. It supplies the necessary nourishment needed for crop growth and also houses essential organisms and micro-organisms which are responsible for the recycling of nutrients necessary for crop growth [4].

The rate of partitioning of photosynthetic assimilates for dry matter production also depends in no small measures, on the amount of nutrient and moisture in the soil, as well as favorable climatic conditions including humidity, temperature, and most importantly solar radiation [5]. Unfortunately, there are several modern socioeconomic and environmental challenges to overcome in our bid to optimize agricultural productivity especially in the area of crop production. Such challenges include, industrialization leading to increased environmental pollution, urbanization causing reduced access to fertile land for agricultural activities, fast declining soil fertility from continuous cultivation of the same area of land as a result of urbanization, poor management practices on the limited land, indiscriminate use of agricultural input to compensate for the aforementioned problems leading to more dangerous environmental and hydrological pollutions, deforestation interacting with environmental pollution to force excessive warming of the environment and consequently, climate change, among a number of other challenges [6].

It is a fact that the world's population is increasing. The rate of increase is projected to intensify in the coming decades [7]. As a result, the level of food production must increase to meet the need of the teaming population despite the significant decrease in available land resources which is expected to further decline as the population increases. Production intensification on the available environmental resources is therefore of critical importance in order to ensure optimum crop growth. This involves social, cultural and environmental modifications which must be carefully done in ways that are environmentally and ecologically safe in order to preserve the delicate ecosystem.

This Chapter highlights the principles that should be considered to ensure sustainable and ecological intensification to guarantee optimum food production in a safe and friendly environment in light of the myriad of contemporary challenges facing agricultural, especially crop production.

#### **2. Crop production intensification and sustainable/ecological intensification**

#### **2.1 Crop production intensification**

These are the method employed to increase crop yield output per unit area of land in time and space.

#### **2.2 Sustainable/ecological intensification**

This is production intensification carried out using methods that ensure environmental health and safety. This involves increased production without leaving any *DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228 Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production…*

harmful effect on the biotic and abiotic factors of the environment including land and water resources. It also ensures continued or sustainable production.

#### **3. Tillage operations**

The necessary conditions for optimum seedling emergence and proper growth after sowing include adequate moisture availability in the growth medium, favorable temperature, proper soil aeration, favorable soil structure, and for some crops, light availability. To provide the necessary conditions for seed germination and emergence, appropriate seedbed must be prepared according to the requirements of each crop. This is achieved through tillage. The purpose of the seedbed is to provide optimum conditions for seed germination, seedling emergence and growth [8]. Tillage also eliminates competition from weeds; and could increase soil nutrient availability to the seed/seedling. Tillage is the act of land preparation prior to planting. It involves a series of activities carried out in sequence to get the agricultural land ready for crop cultivation. The type and level of tillage depends on a number of factors including soil and the crop intended for cultivation. For any given location, the choice of tillage will depend on any of the following (**Table 1**) [9].

Thus the right tillage for specific crop must be done to ensure optimum performance. There are three broad tillage methods used for seedbed preparation. They are conventional, minimum, and conservation tillage [10]. The goal here is to carry out tillage operations in a manner that helps conserve the precious soil resources and prevents damage to the structure of the soil or open up the soil to erosion and other forms of disturbances [11]. In conventional tillage, heavy machineries like the tractor are used to open up the land and get it to the desired seedbed conditions. The compaction that often results from the movement of these machines is capable of causing a potentially dangerous alteration to the soils structure via compaction which reduces aeration and affects the soil microorganisms and eventually disrupts the addition of organic matter to the soil. It is therefore very important to minimize the exposure of agricultural land to such heavy equipment where possible. Different crops also require different levels of soil preparation. For instance,


#### **Table 1.**

*Factors affecting choice of tillage [9].*


#### **Table 2.**

*Yield of some arable crops under two tillage methods [14].*

maize (*Zea mays* L.) performs well irrespective of the tillage method used as long as important crop management practices are deployed. Cowpea [*Vigna unguiculate* L. (Walp)] often requires a well pulverized soil to do appreciably well. Vegetables such as green amaranth (*Amaranthus* sp.), African jute mallow (*Corchorus olitorus* L.) and *Celocia agentea* require a high level of soil pulverization to ensure optimum seedling emergence and growth. The tuber crops like potato (*Ipomoea batatas* (L) Poir), yam (*Dioscorea* sp.) and cassava [*Manihot esculenta* L. (Crantz)] require hips and ridges for optimum tuber production. It is generally recommended that Conservation tillage be done or tillage be kept to the minimum level that supports proper growth of specific crops [10, 12]. This reduces the disposition of the cultivated land to soil compaction from excessive use of heavy machineries, soil erosion, and excessive nutrient leaching beyond crop root-zone, nutrient volatilization, and excessive loss of soil moisture due to evaporation. It also conserves energy expended in land preparation [11] and reduces carbon emission, thereby, in part, mitigating climate change in the process. According to Li et al. [13] conservation tillage can improve soil physical structure and water storage, protect moisture, and increase crop yield. However, the long-term adoption of a single tillage method may have some adverse effects on soil and ecological environment, even though it favors increased crop yield. They therefore recommended integrating conservative tillage methods with other methods to ensure long term sustainability (**Table 2**).

Result of the study by Thiagalingam et al. [14] revealed that yield for all crops were higher under the no-till condition than in conventional tillage over a four year period of maize-cowpea and sorghum-groundnut rotations.

#### **3.1 Conservation tillage methods**


*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228 Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production…*


As earlier mentioned, it is also very important to consider the soil type and physical characteristics before deciding on the tillage method to use to ensure maximum conservation of resources. Different soils have different proportion of silt, sand, clay and organic matter which impact their water and nutrient holding capacity, hence, different levels of tolerance to tillage. Tillage must be minimized on soil with high proportion of silt and sand. Soils with a high proportion of clay and organic matter could tolerate higher level of tillage without a major risk of loss of soil resources through leaching, deep percolation and surface runoff [15]. Where conventional tillage is necessary, tillage must account for land topography and slope. According to Oost et al. [16], in areas with high gradient, there is a high tendency of movement of water downslope. Erosion and nutrient movement is also expected to follow the slope. It is therefore expected in most case, that the lower areas of the field would be more fertile than the higher area. The direction of tillage must therefore be that which ensures the control of erosion i.e., tillage must be done across slope, and not along it [17].

#### **4. Land and water resources management**

Land, healthy soils, water and plant genetic resources are key inputs for food production. Their growing scarcity in many parts of the world makes it imperative to use and manage them sustainably. Boosting yields on existing agricultural lands, including restoration of degraded lands, through sustainable agricultural practices would also relieve pressure to clear forests for agricultural production. Wise management of scarce water through improved irrigation and storage technologies, combined with development of new drought-tolerant crop varieties, can contribute to the sustenance of dry land productivity.

Halting and reversing land degradation will also be critical to meeting future food needs. Given the current extent of land degradation globally, the potential benefits from land restoration for food security and for mitigating climate change are enormous. However, there is also recognition that scientific understanding of the drivers of desertification, land degradation and drought is still evolving [18].

#### **4.1 Land management**

#### *4.1.1 Agricultural systems*

The agricultural systems may seem like an old practice, but the concept is still relevant even in contemporary agriculture. As highlighted above, one of the major limiting factors in the modern day agriculture is access to land amidst the exponential increase in population. As population increases, the demand for food and other social infrastructures increase. These require opening up the precious forest reserves. This is often done without any plan to replace the forest reserves that are being displaced. Deforestation is one of the major causes of the significant increase in the amount

of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere [19]. This results in global warming leading eventually to the prevalent and imminent climate change impacts. Trees are major sinks for some GHGs especially CO2, which is one of the gases easily emitted as a result of anthropogenic activities in the environment. CO2 has an atmospheric resident time (ART) of upwards of 50 years and will remain in the atmosphere for that period if not removed somehow from the atmosphere. Plants, especially trees, serve as major sinks for CO2 by using it as a raw material in the synthesis of glucose via photosynthesis. Therefore, when deforestation is done without afforestation, the precious environmental purification tendencies of the heavy vegetation are also nullified thus leading to a harmful concentration of the gases in the atmosphere, hence, global warming and climate change. Therefore, managing the current land resources available for agricultural production without necessarily destroying the forest reserves is expedient for a healthy environment.

Mixed farming, arable farming, crop rotation, Shifting cultivation and bush fallowing are some of the farming systems that have been used in agriculture.

#### *4.1.1.1 Bush fallowing versus shifting cultivation*

Bush fallowing and shifting cultivation have a subtle difference between them. The basis of both systems is to give enough time for a depleted agricultural land to recover while continuing crop cultivation on a different, more fertile piece of land. Shifting cultivation is becoming less friendly because it involves the opening up of fresh land area, as a result of the continuous reduction in agricultural land due to urbanization [20]. This destroys forests and opens the environment up to adverse effects including climate change. Bush fallowing, on the other hand does not open up a new land or destroy forest. It only rotates on the existing agricultural land, such that a depleted area is given enough time to fallow and recover its resources. While it is necessary to stress that the destruction of forest reserved is not encouraged as explained above, it is important to note that a fallow period is necessary where alternative agricultural land exists where production intensification could be safely done while the depleted agricultural land is allowed time to recover through bush fallowing [21].

#### *4.1.1.2 Mixed farming, arable farming and crop rotation*

**Mixed farming** is simply a system where crop production is coupled with animal husbandry. This is a complementary system where crop and animal bye-products each support the other and plays a major role in the conservation of the precious environmental resources; and such is crucial for sustainable intensification and therefore, highly encouraged.

**Arable farming** which involves production of short duration crops alone, either on a subsistence or commercial level must be accompanied with crop rotation where crops that supplement the soil nutrient e.g., legumes and pulses are rotated with crops that deplete soil nutrients such as the cereals. By so doing the level of soil nutrient and overall soil health could be maintained.

#### *4.1.2 Fertilization*

This involves every measure taken to supplement the natural nutrient present in the soil. This is done by the addition of compounds to the soil which are capable of increasing the levels of essential nutrients in the soil needed for crop growth. Such

#### *DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228 Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production…*

compounds added to the soil for the aforementioned purpose are known as fertilizers. Fertilizers could either be organic or inorganic (synthetic) in nature. Both organic and inorganic fertilizers have their pros and cons. For instance, inorganic fertilizers are formulated to contain special blend of nutrients for specific crop growth and developmental requirements and for unique soil requirements. They are also highly soluble and nutrients are readily available for crop growth [22].

For this reasons, inorganic fertilizers become an easy choice for most farmers especially as pressure increases on agricultural produce from rising population. Unfortunately, application of inorganic fertilizers for an extended period significantly alters soil physical and chemical properties and often leads to extensive soil degradation [23]. The high solubility of this group of fertilizers also means that their nutrients are easily leached beyond the root zone in the event of a heavy rainfall for instance. They also pose a risk to the environment as they are easily eroded to non-intended targets such as nearby water bodies where they often cause water pollution and endanger aquatic species. Organic fertilizers or manures on the other hand are usually too bulky and messy compared to their inorganic relatives and the release of nutrients usually takes a while sequel to the breakdown and release of organic matter by natural processes which also depend on other environmental factors both biotic (soil micro-organisms) and abiotic or climatic (e.g., temperature) factors. These make inorganic manures immediately unattractive to many stakeholders. Yet, organic fertilizers are highly environmentally friendly and ensure soil health and conservation, and are therefore highly recommended for sustainable crop production intensification [23]. Organic manures are also cheaply available especially as the costs of inorganic fertilizers continue to increase globally. The benefits of organic fertilizers therefore outweigh their disadvantages and should be the main source of soil nutrient supplement. Inorganic fertilizers should be used only when absolutely necessary, and as precisely as possible (i.e., the exact quantity needed per unit area of land should be applied and not more [24].

#### **4.2 Water resources management**

Water is a critical input for agricultural production and plays an important role in food security. Irrigated agriculture represents 20 percent of the total cultivated land and contributes 40 percent of the total food produced worldwide. Irrigated agriculture is, on average, at least twice as productive per unit of land as rain-fed agriculture, thereby allowing for more production intensification and crop diversification [25].

Due to population growth, urbanization, and climate change, competition for water resources is expected to increase, with particular impact on agriculture. Population is expected to increase to over 10 billion by 2050 [7], and whether urban or rural, populations will need food and fiber to meet their basic needs. Combined with the increased consumption of calories and more complex foods, which accompany income growth in the developing world, it is estimated that agricultural production will need to expand by approximately 70% by 2050.

Agriculture accounts (on average) for 70 percent of all freshwater use globally, and an even higher share of "consumptive water use" due to the evapotranspiration from crops [26]. Therefore ensuring efficient use of water in agriculture would go a long way to ensure conservation of the precious environmental resource.

Conservation of water resources starts from the tillage method used in crop production. Employing conservation tillage ensures as much soil moisture is conserved as possible. Mulching, planting of cover crops, irrigation especially smart irrigation, water harvesting and storage are measures that could conserver water resources.

#### *4.2.1 Mulching*

Mulching involves the use of plant materials from weeding; or other materials such as plastic or polythene to achieve different agronomic purposes including conservation of soil water, reduction of soil surface temperature to favor optimum growth, addition of nutrient to the soil and sometimes weed control and crop protection from harmful pests and environmental conditions. This process is relevant both for soil and soil water resources conservation [27].

#### *4.2.2 Cover crops*

According to Delgado et al. [28], cover crops are key tools that could contribute to increased yields, conservation of surface and ground water quality, reduced erosion potential, sequestration of atmospheric carbon and improved soil quality and health. Cover crops are usually leguminous plants which form branches and twine over and essentially cover and screen the land from direct atmospheric impact from sunlight or rainfall. The leguminous plants used as cover crop add precious nutrients like nitrogen to the soil in addition to the protection of soil from erosion and excessive water loss from evaporation.

#### *4.2.3 Irrigation*

This should be done to supplement the natural soil moisture. Some environments receive very little amount of annual rainfall as a result of which irrigation is the main source of water to the soil. Other environments receive significant amount of rainfall and only need irrigation as a supplement where there is either cessation of rainfall or during dry spells. It is crucial for irrigation to be as precise as possible. That is, the exact amount of water needed for the soil and crop requirement should be applied. Addition of too much amount of water amounts to wastage of the precious water resources and could lead to undesirable conditions such as surface flooding, lodging, nutrient leaching or worse still contamination of non-target areas in the case of washing of agricultural chemicals to location where they are not intended. There have been advents of technologies that monitor soil and crop water requirements and trigger the release of the precise amount of water to the area based on the specific requirements of the crop in modern day agriculture. This process is termed Precision Irrigation which is a component of a group of modern and more efficient techniques of agriculture and crop production known as Precision Agriculture (PA) [29]. The use of remote sensing technologies and Internet of Things (IoT) sensors is becoming widespread in this regard [30]. Where there is no access to sophisticated facilities, irrigation technologies such as the drip setup should be promoted to ensure more efficient supply of water to crops.

In addition to drip irrigation mentioned above, subsurface soil irrigation where pipes are installed beneath the soil, thereby supplying water to the root zone of the crop is also highly efficient. This ensures that the crop receives the needed amount of water while protecting soil moisture from excessive surface heat, thereby significantly reducing water loss through evaporation. The soil surface is also freed up for other agronomic/crop management activities.

The benefits of the old gated pipe irrigation method could also be harnessed in the modern day agriculture to conserve water. This process spread water into unlined ditches and allowed it to saturate the soil, while preventing waste by limiting its flow

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228 Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production…*

into those ditches. It's a very simple technique that can easily be upgraded by incorporating IoT sensors in the soil and remote or autonomous gates in each of the pipes.

#### *4.2.4 Reservoir for water*

Where there is good amount of annual rainfall, and even in environments with low rainfall, efforts must be made to develop storage facilities to collect and store water from every rainfall which could then be processed and applied accordingly, for different agricultural operations [31–33].

#### *4.2.5 Importance of level field for resource conservation*

Fields with higher gradient are likely to experience higher water loss via runoff and higher nutrient erosion [34]. One of the biggest sources of water waste is runoff because the fields or gardens where planting is done aren't perfectly level, so any water that does not soak into the soil immediately flows away. Crop production site must be carefully selected such that it is on a level plane free of major slope, and where there are slopes, effort should be made at leveling the land out before planting operations. Laser land leveling reduces or even eliminates the problem of runoff by using lasers and other tools to make the field perfectly level before crops are planted, reducing runoff and, by proxy, preventing waste and promoting conservation.

#### *4.2.6 Water reclamation from runoff*

It is important to reduce water loss from runoff by selecting or leveling the agricultural land as much as possible. However, this may not completely stop runoff especially in places that experience frequent heavy rainfall concentrated in certain periods of the year. Therefore, setting up means of reclaiming water loss from runoff usually referred to as the tail water can be very useful. This is especially useful in farm enterprises that practice organic farming as there will be less likelihood of water pollution from agro-chemicals and the reclaimed water could be used for irrigation and other purposes [35].

#### **5. Crop management/agronomic practices**

#### **5.1 Cropping methods**

There are different cropping systems to consider prior to cultivation depending on the intended crop(s) and environment.

Sole cropping involves growing only one crop at any particular time. This can take the form of monocropping, growing a single crop of choice on a piece of land at any particular time; or monoculture: Growing a single crop over and over in an area for a long time. In the sole cropping system, crops must be rotated so that the soil nutrient level could be maintained. Crops that deplete environmental resources, maize for example could be rotated with those which are capable of replenishing the soil such as groundnut or soybean. Monoculture should be discourages unless the crop in such system is one that can maintain nutrients in the soil.

Multiple cropping on the other hand involves growing more than one type of crop with different patterns such as inter cropping – planting two or more crop species

on a piece of land at the same time with a specific spatial arrangement; mixed cropping – growing two or more crop species randomly on a piece of land at once with no specific arrangement; sequential cropping/crop rotation – growing two or more crop in succession from one planting period to another; and relay cropping – planting another crop "b" before the initial crop "a" is harvested. Multiple cropping, with a smart choice of the right combination of crops based on nutrient requirements, physiology, gross morphology etc., could aid intensification of crop production while preserving soil and other precious environmental resources.

#### **5.2 Planting material**

Not all crops may grow and successfully complete their life cycle in an environment. A good knowledge of the suitability and adaptability of the crop to the area is needed prior to cultivation. Subsequently, decision must also be made on the right crop cultivar/variety to be grown with respect to environment and season. Crops must be carefully selected to reflect the capacity of the environment to support such crop without any adverse effect on the environment. Environmental resources efficient crop cultivars that have been improved for drought tolerance, higher yield, increased levels of essential nutrients, short generation time and disease resistance/ tolerance should be selected to ensure conservation of environmental resources and sustainable production intensification.

#### **5.3 Timing of planting**

Planting at the optimum planting dates (DOP) could optimize environmental resources and ensure optimum crop yield [36].

The study in **Figure 1** investigated the effect of planting dates on maize grain yield evaluated over 42 weekly planting dates in 2 years under natural field conditions. Results showed that planting early each year, with the first few rains optimized grain yield. A steady decrease in grain yield was observed as planting was delayed [36].

#### **Figure 1.**

*Mean grain yield (t ha−1) by DOPs of five maize varieties evaluated over 42 different planting dates at the OAU T&R farm in 2016 and 2017.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228 Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production…*

A good number of investigations and recommendation can be found in the literature on the optimum DOPs for different crops in different environments. Environmental resources that could be optimized include soil resources, solar radiation and soil moisture. Planting at the optimum planting period ensures maximum crop yield and avoidance of crop failure from unpredictable weather condition in case of agricultural production that is dependent on the natural environmental conditions. This is even more important in light of the prevailing and imminent climate change scenarios.

#### **5.4 Planting density**

This is simply the population of cultivated crop per unit area of land. The number of plants per stand (in crops with the possibility of multiple plants per stand e.g., maize) and the spacing between each stand determine the plant population. Planting at the optimum density ensures optimum crop efficiency and performance [24].

Planting at a density too high for the land area could deplete soil resources from excessive competition and cause poor crop performance. Planting at a density lower than the soil capacity also results in low yield per unit area of land and input. For instance with a higher spacing and low plant population, weed could be a bigger problem. Planting at the optimum density ensure optimum supply of nutrient from the soil and maximum interception of solar radiation for photosynthesis while also controlling weeds in part, when canopies touch and shade the soil surface from sunlight thereby starving the weeds of solar radiation and reducing their growth in the process [3].


#### **Table 3.**

*Means of grain yield and some agronomic traits of extra-early and early hybrids evaluated under varying plant densities in five agroclimatic zones of Nigeria in 2015 [24].*

**Table 3** adapted from a study by Ajayo et al. [24] showed the yield performances of maize varieties under different densities in different agro-climatic zones of Nigeria. In the rainforest/marginal rainforest zones where there was significant difference in yield performance under different densities (i.e., in the 66,666 vs. 88,888 vs. 133,333 plants/ ha density contrasts), the density level that guaranteed the highest grain yield should be used i.e., 88, 888 plants/ha. In the savannah where there was no significant difference in yield, the highest density (133,333 plants/ha) is then ideal for intensification purposes.

#### **5.5 Fertilization**

In addition to the general soil management practices which have been covered earlier in this Chapter starting with tillage, soil fertilization in response to crop demand is an essential crop management/agronomic practice. It is important to supply the needed level of fertilization to each crop when necessary, no more no less! This ensures optimum crop growth and avoids waste of agricultural input and minimizes environmental pollution. Studies have suggested the optimum rate of organic and inorganic fertilizer needed by different crops at separate growth and developmental stages [37].

#### **5.6 Management of Pests and diseases**

Diseases and pest management is achieved by several methods that have been described earlier in this Chapter. These include choice of suitable agricultural land, correct tillage operation, suitable crop/crop cultivar selection, right choice of cropping system, and timing of planting operations to avoid specific periods of higher diseases and pest occurrences among other measures. These help manage diseases even before they occur. Carefully observing the aforementioned procedures could reduce the incidences of diseases during the crop growth cycle thereby decreasing the need for special control measures. Consequently, resources for pesticides are conserved and environmental pollution from synthetic pesticides is reduced.

Where application of pesticide is necessary, the choice and concentration must be precise for the specific pest or disease situation, avoiding injury to non-target and even potentially beneficial organisms and the environment must be of utmost consideration. The general methods for pest management and control are mechanical - physical objects such as traps, machines, and devices including manual weeding; Cultural – modification to agricultural practices and techniques, planting pests/diseases resistant/ tolerant hybrids etc.; Biological – using natural enemies of pests (prey or diseases), genetics, and natural chemicals such as pheromones; Chemical – applying substances that are poisonous to the pests, such as sprays, dusts, and baits. Cultural and biological methods of pest and diseases control should be amplified as they are more environmentally friendly. Chemical method should be employed only when absolutely necessary and the indiscriminate application of chemicals should be avoided because such often comes at a great danger to the environment by polluting land and water resources and destruction of non-target organisms [38].

#### *5.6.1 Integrated pest management (IPM)*

This has been well discussed in the literature to involve an integration or synchronization of all the method of pest control to ensure optimum and efficient pests and diseases management. It involves selecting the control method(s) that are best for the disease/crop. This is important in ensuring ecological/sustainable intensification [38]. *DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228 Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production…*

#### **5.7 Harvest operation**

Harvesting must be timely and done as recommended for each crop. Timely harvesting conserves resources and prevents crop deterioration due to precocious germination and other phenomena. It also frees up the land as quickly as possible to pave way for further cultivation.

#### **6. Precision agriculture (PA)**

There are many elements of traditional farmer knowledge that, enriched by the latest scientific knowledge, can support productive food systems through sound and sustainable soil, land, water, nutrient and pest management, and the more extensive and safe use of organic fertilizers. An increase in integrated decision-making processes at the national and regional levels is needed to achieve synergies and adequately strike a balance among agriculture, water, energy, land and climate change. This can be achieved through PA. PA is the science of improving crop yields and assisting management decisions using high technology sensor (Remote Sensors, RS) and analytical tools (Geographic Information System, GIS) [39]. PA is a relatively new concept adopted throughout the world to increase production, reduce labor time, and ensure the effective management of fertilizers and irrigation processes. It uses a large amount of data and information to improve the use of agricultural resources, yields, and the quality of crops [40]. PA is an advanced innovation and optimized field level management strategy used in agriculture that aims to improve the productivity of resources on agriculture fields. Thus PA is a new advanced method in which farmers provide optimized inputs such as water and fertilizer to enhance productivity, quality, and yield. It requires a huge amount of information about the crop condition or crop health in the growing season at high spatial resolution. Independently of the data source, the most crucial objective of PA is to provide support to farmers in managing their business. Such support comes in diverse ways, but the end result is typically a decrease of the necessary resources.

Modern agricultural production relies on monitoring crop status by observing and measuring variables such as soil condition, plant health, fertilizer and pesticide effect, irrigation, and crop yield. Managing all of these factors is a considerable challenge for crop producers. The rapid enhancement of precise monitoring of agricultural growth and its health assessment is important for sensible use of farming resources and as well as in managing crop yields. Such challenges can be addressed by implementing remote sensing (RS) systems such as hyperspectral imaging to produce precise biophysical indicator maps across the various cycles of crop development [40]. Such indicators are analyzed and used for precise crop management. This leads to more efficient use and management of environmental resources thereby enhancing safe and environmentally sound crop production intensification.

#### **6.1 Modeling**

Different models have been developed with good levels of accuracy to predict the growth and development of different crops in relation to different environmental conditions such as soil climate and health cum general atmospheric conditions. Such models are used to forecast the performance and yield of crops before planting, given a set of environmental and ecological conditions [41]. This is important in deciding

the level of intensification required to reach a desired level of production and at what cost to the environment. This budding area of research is even more valuable with the prevailing climate change scenarios, as crop production could be better adapted to climate change with the development and utilization of models capable of predicting the impact of a plethora of simulated extreme weather scenarios on crop production and devising means of adapting crop production to such scenarios in order to ensure food security while also securing the environment in the process. This would eventually lead in part to climate change mitigation [41].

#### **7. Remediation**

This is the term used to describe a group of processes used to consume and break down environmental pollutants, in order to clean up the environment after pollution. Agrochemicals are one of the major sources of pollution to the environment. Other sources of environmental pollution include nuclear and radiological accident and non-nuclear industries, such as petrochemical and mining, as well as harmful wastes generated as a result of a myriad of anthropogenic activities [42].

There are three main categories of remediation. They include soil remediation, ground/surface water remediation and sediment remediation. Remediation in the different categories is usually achieved by different techniques each with its own advantages and disadvantages. These remedial techniques can be physical, chemical, thermal or biological in nature depending on the contaminant that is being dealt with. Biological remediation also known as bioremediation is the use of either naturally occurring or deliberately introduced biological organisms to consume and break down environmental pollutants, in order to clean up an environmental pollution. According to Palansooriya et al. [43], it is a process where biological organisms are used to remove or neutralize an environmental pollutant by metabolic process.

Despite the strengths of physicochemical remediation, bioremediation is fast gaining advantage and wider approval over the physicochemical methods for environmental remediation despite being significantly slower. This is because it cleans up water sources, creates healthier soil, and improves air quality with much less disruption and intrusion; and can facilitate remediation of environmental impacts without damaging the delicate ecosystems. The agrarian environment should be evaluated from time to time for possible pollution from chemicals with the view to bio-remediate the environment where significant pollution is detected.

#### **8. Conclusion**

Environmental resource conservation, especially via agriculture is a key area that concerns all nations of the world irrespective of the level of development. Currently, some countries are more conscious and shrewd with the utilization of environmental resources especially for agricultural purpose, while others are not at the same level of consciousness. It is necessary therefore to increase awareness via conferences like the United Nation (UN). Each country should be encouraged to treat this subject with the same manner of seriousness as climate change, and stakeholder should take urgent steps to develop policies and programs to ensure that agricultural production is intensified to ensure food security in an environmentally and ecologically sound manner which preserves precious environmental resources.

*Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228*

#### **Acknowledgements**

My profound appreciation goes to The Almighty for the wisdom and strength.

### **Author details**

Chris Adegoke Fayose Ekiti State Polytechnic, Isan-Ekiti, Nigeria

\*Address all correspondence to: adegoke\_chris@yahoo.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2020. Overcoming Water Challenges in Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; 2020. http://www.fao. org/3/cb1447/en/CB1447EN.pdf

[2] Raven PH, Wagner DL. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. PNAS. 2021;**118**(2):e2002548117. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002548117

[3] Fayose CA, Fakorede MAB, Badu-Apraku B, Abebe M. Canopy architecture and grain yield of maize in the rainforest of southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research. 2022;**8**(3):430-448

[4] Bhowmik A, Cloutier M, Ball E, Bruns MA. Underexplored microbial metabolisms for enhanced nutrient recycling in agricultural soils. Aims Microbiology. 2017;**3**(4):826-845. DOI: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.826

[5] Bewley JD, Bradford K, Hilhorst HWM, Nonogaki H. Seeds: Physiology of Development, Germination and Dormancy. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2013

[6] IPCC. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B, editors. *Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability*. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; In Press; 2022

[7] Borlaug N. Feeding a hungry world. Science. 2007;**318**:359

[8] Lobb DA. Soil movement by tillage and other agricultural activities. In: Encyclopedia of Ecology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2008. pp. 3295-3303. DOI: 10.1016/ B978-008045405-4.00832-6

[9] Unger PW. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation. In: Soils Bulletin. Rome: FAO; 1984. p. 54

[10] Opara-Nadi OA. Conservation tillage for increased crop production. In FAO, Soil Tillage in Africa: Needs and Challenges, FAO Soil Bulletin. Rome: FAO; 1993. p. 69

[11] Teodor R. Energy efficiency and soil conservation in conventional, minimum and no-tillage. International Journal of Soil and Water conservation Research. 2014;**2**(4):42-49

[12] Carter MR. Conservation tillage. In: Encyclopedia of Soil in the Environment. STIPER Dharmawacana Metro. Indonesia; 2005. pp. 306-311

[13] Li J, Wang Y, Guo Z, Li J, Tian C, Hua D, et al. Effects of conservation tillage on soil physicochemical properties and crop yield in an arid loess plateau, China. Scientific Reports. 2020;**10**:4716. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61650-7

[14] Thiagalingam K, Gould N, Watson P. Effect of tillage on rainfed maize and soybean yield and the nitrogen fertilizer requirements for maize. Soil Tillage Research. 1991;**19**:47-54

[15] Busari MA, Kukal SS, Kaur A, Bhatt R, Dulazi AA. Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil

*Efficient Management of Environmental Resources through Sustainable Crop Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108228*

and Water Conservation Research. 2015;**3**(2):119-129

[16] Oost KV, Govers G, Muysen WV, Quine TA. Modeling translocation and dispersion of soil constituents by tillage on sloping land. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2000;**2000**(64):1733-1739

[17] Ahmed M, Asif M, Hirani AH, Akram MN, Goyal A. Modeling for agricultural sustainability: A review. In: Gurbir SB, Navreet KB, editors. Agricultural Sustainability Progress and Prospects in Crop Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: Academic Press, Elsevier; 2013. pp. 127-147

[18] SDG. 2022. United Nations Sustainable Development Goal. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainable Agriculture. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available from: https://sustainable development. un.org/topics/foodagriculture [Accessed: August 31, 2022]

[19] IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report: Synthesis. Available from: http://www. ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ ar4\_syr.pdf [Accessed: November 17, 2007]

[20] Hendrickson J, Sassenrath GF, Archer D, Hanson J, Halloran J. Interactions in integrated US agricultural systems: The past, present and future. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2008;**23**(4):314-324

[21] Lal R. Shifting cultivation versus sustainable intensification. In: Reference Module in Earth System and Environmental Sciences. Netherlands: Elsevier; 2015

[22] Sattari SZ, van Ittersuma MK, Bouwmanb AF, Smit AL, Janssena BH. Crop yield response to soil fertility and N, P, K inputs in different

environments: Testing and improving the QUEFTS model. Field Crop Research. 2014;**157**:35-46

[23] Du Y, Cui B, Zhang Q, Wang Z, Sun J, Niu W. Effects of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: A meta-analysis. Catena. 2020;**193**:104617. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104617

[24] Ajayo BS, Badu-Apraku B, Fakorede MAB, Akinwale RO. Plant density and nitrogen response of maize hybrids in diverse agroecologies of west and Central Africa. Aims Agriculture and Food. 2021;**6**(1):381-400

[25] World Bank. Water in Agriculture. Available from: https://www.worldbank. org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture [Assessed: July 18, 2022]

[26] Rinaldi M. Agronomic practices maximizing water use. In: Biological Resources and Mitigation. Springer Nature; 2004. pp. 263-272

[27] Kader ME, Singha A, Begum A, Jewel A, Khan FH, Khan NI. Mulching as Water Saving Technique in Dryland Agriculture: Review Article. Bulletin of the National Research Centre; 2019 No 147. DOI: 10.1186/s42269-019-0186-7

[28] Delgado JA, Barrera Mosquera VH, Alwang JR, Villacis-Aveiga A, Cartagena Ayala YE, Neer D, et al. Chapter five: Potential use of cover crops for soil and water conservation, nutrient management, and climate change adaptation across the tropics. In: Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 165. 2021. pp. 175-247

[29] Afzaal H, Farooque AA, Abbas F, Acharya B, Esau T. Precision irrigation strategies for sustainable water budgeting of potato crop in Prince Edward Island. Sustainability. 2020;**12**:1-16. DOI: 10.3390/su12062419

[30] García L, Parra L, Jimenez JM, Lloret J, Lorenz P. IoT-based smart irrigation systems: An overview on the recent trends on sensors and IoT Systems for Irrigation in precision agriculture. Sensors. 2020;**20**(4):1042. DOI: 10.3390/ s20041042

[31] Ward S, Memon FA, Butler D. Rainwater harvesting: Model-based design evaluation. Water Science & Technology. 2010;**61**(1):85-96. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2010.783

[32] Đorđević B, Dašić T. Water storage reservoirs and their role in the development, utilization and protection of catchment. Spatium. 2011;**24**:9-11

[33] Eriyagama N, Smakhtin V, Udamulla L. Sustainable surface water storage development: Measuring economic benefits and ecological and social impacts of reservoir system configurations. Water. 2022;**14**:307. DOI: 10.3390/w14030307

[34] Wubie MA, Assen M. Effects of land cover changes and slope gradient on soil quality in the Gumara watershed, Lake Tana basin of north–West Ethiopia. Modeling Earth System and Environment. 2020;**6**:85-97. DOI: 10.1007/s40808-019-00660-5

[35] Ehsani N, Vörösmarty CJ, Fekete BM, Stakhiv EZ. Reservoir operations under climate change: Storage capacity options to mitigate risk. Journal of Hydrology. 2017;**555**:435-446

[36] Fayose CA, Fakorede MAB. Planting date effects on maize (*Zea mays* L.) growth and development in the rainforest of southwestern Nigeria. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica. 2021;**117**(1):101-109

[37] Agri-Facts. Fertilizer requirements of irrigated grain and oil seed crops. Albatar Government, Agdex 100/541-1. Revised

Feb, 2013. Available from: https://www1. agric.gov.ab.ca/\$department/deptdocs. nsf/all/agdex149/\$file/100\_541-1. pdf?OpenElement

[38] Lewis WJ, Lenteren JV, Phatak SC, Tumlinson J. A Total system approach to sustainable Pest management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1997;**94**(23):12243-12248. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.94.23.12243

[39] Huisman O, De By RA. Principles of Geographic Information Systems, Fourth Edition, Vol.1 of ITC Educational Textbook Series. Enschede Netherlands: International Institute for Geographic Information Science and Earth Observation; 2009

[40] Singh P, Pandey PC, Petropoulos GP, Pavlides A, Srivastava PK, Koutsias N, et al. Hyperspectral remote sensing in precision agriculture: Present status, challenges, and future trends. In: Pandey PC, Srivastava PK, Petropoulos GP, editors. Hyperspectral Remote SensingTheory and Applications. Elsevier; 2020. pp. 121-143

[41] Thorburn PJ, Boote KJ, Nendel C, Rötter RP. Recent advances in crop modelling to support sustainable agricultural production and food security under global change. European Journal of Agronomy. 2018;**100**:1-3

[42] Morillo E, Villaverde J. Advanced technologies for the remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;**586**:576-579

[43] Palansooriya KN, Shaheen SM, Chen SS, Tsang DCW, Hashimoto Y, Hou D, et al. Soil amendments for immobilization of potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils: A critical review. Environment International. 2020;**134**:105-146

Section 4

## Water Resources Management

### **Chapter 7**

## Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment of Ecosystem Services

*Michael Aide and Indi Braden*

#### **Abstract**

Floodplain ecosystems have been substantially altered because of land management decisions. Land management decisions have been made primarily for economic development, increased food demand, and reducing flood risks. Recently, increased attention has been devoted to restoring selected floodplain ecosystem services that have important benefits for habitat and wildlife, water purification, forest restoration, and carbon sequestration. Considering the Mississippi River floodplain as a portion of the state of Missouri, we summarize the key soil and soil features and elaborate on ecosystem site descriptions to support assessment of land management's influence on ecosystem services. Given the significant government investment in detailed soil mapping and development of the ecosystem site descriptions, the fusion of these two advancements is critical for evaluating ecosystem service restoration.

**Keywords:** soil genesis, forest soils, ecological site descriptions, soil health, ecosystem services

#### **1. Introduction**

The Mississippi River is the world's fourth largest river system, with the lower portion of the river supporting 10 million ha of floodplain forest wetlands. The establishment of 3500 km of levees has improved river navigation, barge transport, agriculture, and economic development. Although the economic savings from flood risk is substantial, a large portion of the floodplain (75–90%) is no longer influenced by flooding and its ecosystem services similarly altered [1].

Lewin reviewed floodplain evolution and geomorphology [2]. With an emphasis on the Mississippi River, Lewin noted the following typical characteristics: (i) the shallow floodplain gradient is approximately 0.1 m km<sup>1</sup> , (ii) the floodplain width varies between 40,000 and 200,000 m, (iii) the channel width is centered around 1000 m, and (iv) the channel width to floodplain width ratio varies from 0.025 to 0.005. Landform features include the presence of sandbars and an abundance of abandoned channels, levees, and scroll bars (scroll bars are a series of ridges formed from continuous lateral meander migration). Lewin further stressed that the average flow regime may be misleading when describing floodplain dynamics. Magilligan et al. [3] studied the historic flood of 1993 in the upper Mississippi River, documenting only minor overbank deposition and suggesting that substantial flow regimes may not result in significant soil disturbance. Because the soil maintained their textural and structural stability during the 1993 flood, the lack of significant soil disturbances reduced stream sediment transport.

Hupp et al. [4] documented changes in ecosystem services in North Carolina, western Tennessee, and Louisiana because of land management. Alterations to river dynamics because of dams, stream channelization, and levee and canal construction increase sediment transport and stream velocities. Mungai et al. [5] studied soil landforms in the Lake Victoria basin of east Africa. Soil analysis tended to show that ßglucosidase activities, clay abundances, and phosphorus levels were more available or abundant in soils experiencing flood, whereas organic carbon and exchangeable potassium levels were more abundant or available in flood-protected soils.

Price and Berkowitz [1] investigated the Mississippi River flood of 2019, wherein there was more than 150 days of floodwater inundation. The study was concentrated along the states of Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee. The floodwater increased the abundance of woody debris and forest floor litter; however, many other hydrogeomorphic features were not significantly altered. The change in the abundances of woody debris and forest floor litter decreased the wetland's ability to detain floodwater, retain precipitation, recycle nutrients, and export organic carbon.

Guo et al. [6] investigated soil organic and inorganic carbon contents in the upper Yellow River Delta in China. The typical soil organic carbon contents centered at 9.3 g kg<sup>1</sup> for the surface horizons and 2.4 g kg<sup>1</sup> at the 80–100 cm soil depth. Soil inorganic carbon varied from 10.5 to 12.7 g kg<sup>1</sup> . The authors concluded that soil organic carbon increases influenced soil inorganic carbon accumulation. Along the Yellow River in China, Hou et al. [7] investigated reclamation efforts to improve soil organic carbon and soil inorganic carbon. Over the considerable timetable of this study, the authors documented that soil organic carbon increased by 2.7 Mg carbon ha<sup>1</sup> yr.<sup>1</sup> . The increase of soil organic carbon was greater for the 0–20 cm soil layer than the 80–100 cm layer. The inorganic carbon content increase was more modest and showed that the soil profile accumulation distribution differed across regions.

Using the lower Missouri River floodplain, Moore et al. [8] developed a factorial experimental design involving soil columns collected from sites having: (i) long-term agroforestry, (ii) row crop, and (iii) riparian forests. Nitrogen treatments were incorporated into the experimental design. The objective of the study was to discern if the greenhouse gas emissions of CH4, N2O, and CO2 were influenced by vegetation and nitrogen fertilization practices. The long-term agroforestry plots exhibited the smallest CO2 and N2O emissions. In a central European forest, Valtera et al. [9] investigated anthropogenic changes to water regimes, documenting that humanaltered water regimes frequently threaten the stability and existence of floodplain forests. Soil organic carbon and microbial biomass deceased on transition from pristine natural floodplain forests to plantation forests.

For Central European floodplains, Hornung et al. [10] developed a matrix that considered linkages of management options with the preservation of identified ecosystem services. Of interest to this manuscript, specific management options included: (i) reduction of pollution because of agricultural practices, (ii) establishing buffer zones, (iii) limiting soil acidity attainment, (iv) restoration of the natural river flow regime, (v) floodplain vegetation and habitat restoration, (vi) restoration of longitudinal connectivity, (vii) prevention of adverse land drainage impacts, and (viii)

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*

limiting introduction and spread of invasive species. In Germany, Fischer et al. [11] developed a habitat provisional index to facilitate decision makers' ability to sustain or improve floodplain biodiversity.

In humid climates, flooding regimes support elevated N2O and CH4 emissions. Limpert et al. [12] added water to a degraded semi-arid floodplain and observed reduced CH4 and CO2 emissions by 28 to 84%. The reduced carbon emissions were attributed to reduced mineralization of soil organic matter, greater CO2 sequestration, and increased plant growth.

In the United Kingdom, Lawson et al. [13] extended the natural capital concept to define it as an accounting protocol for estimating the quantity of a resource (stocks) and the services provided (flows). Resources are partitioned as: (i) renewable if the benefits are exploited sustainably, and (ii) non-renewable or non-sustainable if the resource regeneration time interval is excessive. Lawson et al. [13] envisioned researchers assessing the resource serially as: (i) its extent, (ii) its condition, (iii) the physical and monetary ecosystem service flow, and (iv) providing the resource with a monetary value. Rajib et al. [14] proposed that long-term floodplain land use data may quantify floodplain services and provide sustainable land management options. Additionally, land area changes in the Mississippi floodplain show an expanding agriculture domain.

In Germany, Stammel et al. [15], in a compelling manuscript, provided an integrated river and floodplain management protocol, wherein ecosystem services and their respective indicators were modeled to reveal advantageous management options. In addition to the ecosystem services stipulated by Lawson [13], Stammel et al. [15] provided or prioritized nitrogen retention, phosphorus retention, drought risk mitigation, and mass flow and sediment mitigation. Employing ecosystem mapping of the floodplain's area of interest, synergistic or antagonistic relationships among the ecosystem services are more evident.

#### **2. Ecosystem services of floodplains**

In the United States, the ecological site concept embodies principles and site data derived from physiographic features, climate assessments, hydrologic features, soil properties and their distribution, and existing and ancestral vegetation to create a framework for predicting ecological dynamics resulting from land management. Ecological sites provide a consistent framework for classifying and describing rangeland and forestland soils and vegetation, thereby delineating land units that share similar capabilities to respond to management activities or disturbance. Aide et al. [16] presented the status of ecosystem site descriptions development in Missouri, showing how landowners may anticipate land management impacts.

Talbot et al. [17] reviewed the impact of flooding on aquatic ecosystem services. They identified ten ecosystem services and associated processes: (i) net primary production influenced by nutrients or physical conditions; (ii) soil formation involving sediment transport and deposition; (iii) water regulation supporting anthropogenic use; (iv) water quality with an emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus; (v) regulation of human disease; (vi) climate regulation involving CO2 and methane emissions; (vii) drinking water and pollution; (viii) food supply as influenced by crops, fish, and livestock; (ix) esthetic values including housing values because of flood risk; and (x) recreation and tourism. Importantly, Talbot et al. [17] evaluated these ecosystem service gains and losses in response to frequently occurring and extreme flooding.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs developed 17 Sustainable Development Goals [18]. These goals include ending poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, good education, climate education, and others. The sustainable development goals are partitioned into three domains: (i) environmental, (ii) social, and (iii) economic. Visser et al. [18] remarked that the three development goals are sufficiently linked such that the attainment of any one domain is dependent on attainment of the other two domains. They further discussed the role of the soilwater system on the achievement of the 17 sustainable achievement goals. Keesstra et al. [19] supported "nature-based solutions" as a cost-effective and long-term solution in coastal or fluvial land management in order to enhance ecosystem services. Soil-based solutions attempt to support soil health and restore or maintain soil processes that provide environmental stewardship for water quality and availability, soil fertility, and multi-use landscapes.

Lawson et al. [13] and Petsch et al. [20] provided listings of ecosystem services associated with floodplains (**Table 1**). Similarly, Jose [21] provided a listing of ecosystems associated with agroforestry, some of which may also be important for floodplain environments. In addition to the ecosystem service listing provided by Larson [13], Jose [21] provided two additional ecosystem services: (i) a mosaic of net primary production sites across the floodplain forest and (ii) clean air. Birkhofer et al. [22] presented a substantial literature base with narratives discussing the current challenges and opportunities for evaluating ecosystem services. Noting that assessment of ecosystem services requires a spanning set of indicators to indicate the extent and intensity of the ecosystem services and their provisioning services, Birkhofer and his colleagues [22] provided four sequential challenges when evaluating ecosystem services: (i) understanding anthropogenically modified systems, (ii) assessing ecosystem services, (iii) analyzing relationships between ecosystem services, and (iv) considering appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Evaluating these four challenges provides


#### **Table 1.**

*Ecosystem services of Mississippi river floodplains.*

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*

a multifaceted understanding of human-ecosystem interaction to support resource sustainability.

Jose [21] conducted a review and synthesis of recent investigations involving agroforestry and their provision of ecosystem services and environmental benefits. Jose classified ecosystem services in agroforestry into four categories: (i) carbon sequestration, (ii) soil enrichment, (iii) biodiversity conservation, and (iv) air-water quality. Many of the items in these categories are apropos to floodplain ecosystems. The quantity of carbon sequestered is a complex function of vegetation composition, stand age, location, environmental and climatic factors, and land management. Jose reported that 630 million ha of unproductive croplands and grasslands when converted to agroforestry would likely result in soil carbon increases of 586,000 Mg C yr.<sup>1</sup> . Soil enrichment could be attributed to forest species having biological nitrogen fixation capacity, incorporation of canopy and soil organic carbon, nutrient recycling, soil water infiltration and storage improvement, increased aggregate stability of soil structures, and more robust microbial activities. Biodiversity conservation was manifested as (i) habitat provisions, (ii) preservation of germplasm, (iii) habitat connectivity, and (iv) erosion control and water recharge. Air and water quality improvements include: (i) tree barriers and shelterbelts to reduce odor movement, (ii) reduced nitrate and phosphate transport, and (iii) enhanced nutrient and other element biocycling.

The objectives of this manuscript are: (i) to provide general soil descriptions of typical Mississippi River floodplain soils in Missouri; (ii) to provide an introduction to floodplain ecological site descriptions to focus on key ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration and forest productivity; and (iii) to estimate future research needs to better evaluate floodplain soils and their influence on ecosystem services. We also desire to support the development of ecological site descriptions and the important role they play in allowing landowners to understand the consequences of land management decisions.

#### **3. Climate, physiography, and geology of the Mississippi River in East Central Missouri**

The ecological site concept correlates principles and site data derived from physiographic features, climate assessments, hydrologic features, soil properties and distribution, and existing and ancestral vegetation to create a framework for predicting ecological dynamics resulting from land management [16]. Ecological sites provide a consistent framework for classifying and describing rangeland and forestland soils and vegetation, thereby delineating land units that share similar capabilities to respond to management activities or natural disturbances. The study area is within the Major Land Resource Area 115X-Central Mississippi Valley Wooded Slopes. The selected ecological site descriptions include: (i) F115XB015MO (sandy/loamy floodplain forest) [23], (ii) F115XB041MO (clayey floodplain forest) [24], and (iii) F115XB042MO (ponded floodplain prairie) [25]. These sites are in the riverine wetlands class of the hydrogeomorphic classification system [26].

The sandy and loamy floodplain forest ecological sites possess soils that are very deep and exhibit sandy to loamy soil textures and have evolved under eastern cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*) and black willow (*Salix nigra*) forest [23]. These soils are located where comparatively swift flood currents preferentially deposit sandy to silty sediments. Over time, these soils accumulated a more diverse vegetation and subsequently deposited fine-textured alluvium. Forest vegetation altered in response to

landscape elevation with a greater presence of shade-tolerant forest species, such as American elm (*Ulmus americana*), ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), and hackberry (*Celtis occidentalis*). Catastrophic flooding may reestablish a willow and eastern cottonwooddominated forest. Typical soils include Blake, Haynie, Caruthersville, and Commerce.

The clayey floodplain ecological sites are not usually adjacent to perennial rivers and streams; rather these sites reside in lower landscape positions. Given the clayey floodplain soils are positioned in low-lying and depressional areas, they are thoroughly influenced by a seasonal high-water table and often show typical backswamp features such as a fine texture, slickensides, and gleization. The clayey floodplain forest is generally supported by a silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*), American elm (*U. americana*), and eastern cottonwood (*P. deltoides*) forest [24]. The ponded floodplain prairie is in the floodplains of perennial streams and backswamp environments that are not adjacent to the Mississippi River channel. Typical soils include Alligator, Bowdre, Darwin, Nameoki, Parkville, Sharkey, and Waldron. The ponded floodplain prairie possesses a high-water table and soils exhibiting fine textures and enriched soil organic matter contents that have evolved under herbaceous wetland vegetation, including graminoids, sedges, and wetland forbs [25].

Forest species associated with the Mississippi River floodplain include northern red oak (*Quercus rubra*), eastern cottonwood (*P. deltoides*), American elm (*U. americana*), white oak (*Quercus alba*), black walnut (*Juglans nigra*), silver maple (*A. saccharinum*), yellow poplar (*Liriodendron tulipifera*), pin oak (*Quercus palustris*), American sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*), green ash (*F. pennsylvanica*), sweetgum (*Liquidambar styraciflua*), black willow (*S. nigra*), red maple (*Acer rubrum*), nuttall oak (*Quercus texana*), water oak (*Quercus nigra*), pecan (*Carya illinoinensis*), common hackberry (*C. occidentalis*), river birch (*Betula nigra*), boxelder (*Acer negundo*), and bald cypress (*Taxodium distichum*).

Most Mississippi River floodplain soils are from Holocene age and include the soil orders Entisol, Inceptisol, Mollisol, and Vertisol [27]. The reference plant community is forested with black willow, eastern cottonwood, hackberry, river birch, sycamore, silver maple, and American elm. In the absence of levees, occasional to frequent flooding is generally very brief (less than 48 hours) to brief (2 to 7 days). During flood events, water is accumulated by overland flow and baseflow from the channel to shallow unconfined aquifers.

#### **4. The study area section of the Mississippi River in Missouri**

The study area resides in Mississippi River floodplains in the Missouri counties of Ste. Genevieve County, Perry County, Cape Girardeau County, Mississippi County, and New Madrid County. In Cape Girardeau County, the January average temperature is 1.6°C (35°F), whereas the July average temperature is 26°C (79°F) [28]. The total annual precipitation ranges from less than 0.97 meters (38 inches) to more than 1.42 meters (56 inches), with an average of 1.19 meters (47 inches). Rainfall varies seasonally, with spring having typically greater rainfall totals and autumn having typically smaller rainfall totals. Where levees are not present, flooding ranges from short (a few days) to medium (several weeks) durations, with spring flooding corresponding to more northern snow melt conditions; however, flooding may occur at any time during the year, and long-term flood events have occurred. The surrounding geologic setting generally has Ordovician dolomites and sandstones overlain with thick loess deposits. Bottomland expanses have massive alluvium, with textures ranging from sand to fine clay [28–30].

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*

#### **5. Laboratory protocols**

Soil pH in water, exchangeable cations, total neutralizable acidity, and organic matter content by loss on ignition are routine procedures [31]. The clay, silt, and sand fractions were separated by Na-saturation of the exchange complex, washing with water–methanol mixtures, dispersion in Na2CO3 (pH 9.2), followed by centrifuge fractionation and wet sieving [31]. Two *M* acetic acid extractable SO4-S were determined by the soil testing laboratory at the University of Missouri-Columbia Delta Center (Portageville, MO).

An aqua-regia digestion was performed to estimate elemental concentrations associated with whole soil soluble, exchangeable, organically complexed, and adsorbed/co-precipitated with oxyhydroxide environments and the partial degradation of phyllosilicates. In this procedure, 0.25 g of finely ground fine earth fraction was digested in 0.01 liter of aqua regia (1 HCl:3HNO3) for 1 hour, followed by 0.45 μm filtering with an aliquot analyzed using inductively coupled plasma – atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) [32].

#### **6. Soil descriptions across the study area**

We selected 22 soil series that occur in the Mississippi River floodplain or in leveeprotected land areas. The parent materials are (i) Mississippi River alluvium with soil textures ranging from coarse to fine and (ii) stream alluvium transporting silty materials from the surrounding loess mantled uplands. The Alligator, Commerce, Caruthersville, Sharkey, and Steele are examples of soils whose parent materials mostly are derived from the Mississippi River, whereas the soils Falaya, Haymond, Mhoon, Wakeland, and Wilbur have parent materials derived from loess that were stream transported onto the floodplains. In the study area, the soils and their taxonomic classification are listed in **Table 2**, and the appropriate soil horizons and diagnostic horizons for each soil are listed in **Table 3**.



#### **Table 2.**

*Taxonomic classification of selected Mississippi river floodplain soils.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Soil horizon sequences and diagnostic horizons.*

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*

In soil taxonomy, soil diagnostic horizons are soil horizons having characteristics that indicate pedogenic development and are discerned in the field without additional laboratory data [33]. With considerable generalization, mollic epipedons are surface horizons that are not acidic, have high-base saturations, and possess significant soil organic matter abundances [34]. Mollic epipedons are presumed to have had prairie vegetations; however, all mollic epipedons in this study have significant smectite clay contents that limit microbial soil organic matter decomposition. Ochric epipedons are like mollic epipedons but lack significant soil organic matter contents. The cambic horizons are subsurface soil horizons that show some pedogenic development but not to the extent of other subsurface diagnostic horizons (**Table 3**).

#### **7. Soil properties across the study area**

**Table 4** provides value ranges for the selected soils by soil depth and includes typical soil profile permeabilities, volumetric available water contents (AWC), soil textures, soil pH levels, and soil organic matter (SOM) contents. The values are provided by the soil surveys for the study area [28–30]. Permeability (Perm) on an hourly basis is vs. for very slow (<0.15 cm), s for slow (0.15 to 0.51 cm), ms for moderately slow ((0.51 to 1.5 cm), and m for moderate ((1.5 to 5 cm). mr is moderately rapid (5 to 15 cm), r is rapid (16 to 50 cm), and vr is very rapid (>50 cm).

The Alligator, Darwin, Sharkey, and Walbash soils have moderately slow to very slow permeabilities and silty clay to clayey textures. To some extent, the soils Jackport, Leta, Nameoki, and Waldron share these attributes. Conversely, the soils Caruthersville, Elsah, and Steele have coarse-textured surface horizons and moderate to moderately rapid permeabilities. In general, soils having very slow to slow permeabilities have very high to high shrink-swell capacities, whereas soils with rapid to very rapid permeabilities have low shrink-swell capacities.

The volumetric available water contents (AWC) when adjusted for a 1.83 m (6 ft) soil profile depth show a moderate available water content for the Walbash soil, high available water contents for the Darwin and Waldron soils, and very high available water contents for the Haymond and Wilbur soils. Virtually all soils in the floodplain support high to very high volumetric available water provision. Soil pH levels range from very strongly acidic to slightly alkaline.

Floodplain ecosystem evolution because of land management is an area of active research. The soil profile values by soil depth for permeability, available water contents, textures, pH, and soil organic matter contents (**Table 4**) will almost certainly be leading indicators for documenting soil changes because of land management. These indicators permit an estimation of forest species suitability and growth potential. Other indicators will likely be required, and their values will be experimentally determined. Soil indicators and the ecosystem site descriptions collectively are integral to assessing soil health potential and evaluating ecosystem service functions.

The Sharkey soil series belongs to the Vertisol order and is representative of soils in the clayey floodplain forested ecological site. The pedon has an Ap – Ap2 – Bssg horizon sequence where the ss represents slickensides caused by repeated soil expansion attributed to the large content of smectite (montmorillonite) clay, and g represents gleization (**Table 5**). The pedon shows a clay loam – silty clay loam transitioning to a clay texture, resulting in the very high shrink-swell capacities and the large cation exchange capacity. The phosphorus and sulfate concentrations are considered low. The effective rooting depth was less than 1 meter because of the shrink-swell capacity,



*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*

*Perm is permeability: vs. is very slow, s is slow, ms is moderately slow. m is moderate, mr is moderate rapid, r is rapid. Texture: sil is silt loam, sicl is silty clay loam, sic is silty clay.*

#### **Table 4.**

*Representitive soil depth, permeability, available water content (AWC), texture, pH, and soil organic matter (SOM) content.*

clay contents, and the lack of soil structure. The pH is slightly alkaline. Aqua-regia digestion of this pedon for Fe, Mn, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, and Cd reveals that all elements have typical abundances [35] and does not indicate significant heavy metal impact (**Table 6**).

The Commerce soil series belongs to the Inceptisol order and is representative of soils in the sandy and loamy forested floodplain ecological site. The pedon has an Ap – Bw-Cg horizon sequence where the w represents a slightly altered subsoil parent material, and g represents gleization (**Table 7**). The pedon shows a silt loam profile, with the cambic horizon having a silty clay loam texture. The phosphorus and SO4-S concentrations are considered low. The effective rooting depth was more than 2 meter. The Ap and Bw horizon pH activities are neutral, whereas the Cg horizon sequence is acidic. Aqua-regia digestion values for Fe, Mn, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, and


#### **Table 5.**

*Routine characterization of the Sharkey pedon.*


#### **Table 6.**

*Aqua regia digestion for selected transition metals for the Sharkey pedon.*


#### **Table 7.**

*Routine characterization of the Commerce pedon.*

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*


#### **Table 8.**

*Aqua regia digestion for selected transition metals for the Commerce pedon.*

Cd reveal that all elements have typical abundances and do not indicate significant heavy metal impact [35] (**Table 8**).

The Wilbur and Haymond soils are Inceptisols whose parent materials are derived from loess-mantled upland erosion and subsequently deposited in the floodplains. The Wakeland soil is an Entisol and shares an evolutional history like that of the Wilbur and Haymond. All soils have uniform silt loam textures (**Table 9**). Wilbur, Haymond, and Wakeland are somewhat poorly drained, moderately well-drained, and poorly drained pedons, respectively. The upper portion of the Wilbur and Wakeland pedons are slightly acidic, whereas the deeper horizons are very strongly acidic. The cation exchange capacity is generally medium, and the soil organic matter contents show a decreasing abundance on progression through the soil profiles. The Wilbur pedon shows typical transition metal contents and do not indicate any heavy metal impact [35] (**Table 10**). The Haymond and Wakeland heavy metal soil profile concentrations are similar to that of the Wilbur pedon.

#### **8. Employing soil data and the ecosystem site descriptions to advance sustainable land management**

Ecological site descriptions are intended for conservation planning and implementation of sophisticated land management. Within the ecological site description, a "State" is largely the dominant vegetation status, whereas the transition involves a natural event (flooding, fire) or land management that fosters vegetational changes. The sandy/loamy floodplain forest provides a State and transition model, wherein the reference States include: (i) eastern cottonwood and hackberry/willow and (ii) sycamore and eastern cottonwood/willow. The transition from the eastern cottonwood and hackberry/willow State to the sycamore and eastern cottonwood/willow State involves flood disturbance. The reverse transition involves no flooding disturbance or sedimentation. Non-reference States include: (i) cropland and (ii) cool season grasslands, with appropriate events or activities promoting the respective transitions. The clayey floodplain forest provides a State and transition model, wherein the reference


*All soil profiles have a uniform silt loam texture. SOM is soil organic matter, CEC is cation exchange capacity, BS is percent base saturation. Acidity is the total acidity attributed to titratable H and Al*

#### **Table 9.**

*Routine characterization of three soils along drainageways to the Mississippi River floodplain.*

states include: (i) Hackberry American Elm, and (ii) Hackberry-American Elm/Pin Oak. The transition from Hackberry American Elm to Hackberry-American Elm/Pin Oak involves an absence of disturbance events. The reverse transition involves natural disturbances every 2 to 5 years. Other States include: (i) low disturbance/logged woodland, (ii) cool season grassland, and (iii) cropland, with each transition between the states specified.

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*


#### **Table 10.**

*Aqua regia digestion for selected transition metals for the Wilbur pedon.*

Effectively evaluating the ecosystem services for these floodplain soils require: (i) select the ecosystem services to be evaluated, (ii) determine the indicators that will be used to infer the effectiveness of the ecosystem service, and (iii) given the reference and non-reference States for each ecological site provide field work that infers the benchmark rating and variance for the selected indicators. Specifically, provision for each ecosystem service for each reference State needs to be clarified. Suppose carbon sequestration is selected as a vital ecosystem service, then the following needs elucidation: (i) the initial and long-term carbon sequestration potential for each soil, (ii) determination of the intensity of the transitions to improve or degrade the desired outcomes, (iii) determination of any synergistic or antagonistic correlations. Thus, future research needs to determine which ecosystem services are deemed to have the greatest need to support using land management.

#### **Conflicts of interest**

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

#### **Author details**

Michael Aide\* and Indi Braden Department of Agriculture, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: mtaide@semo.edu

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Price JJ, Berkowitz JF. Wetland functional responses to prolonged inundation in the active Mississippi River floodplain. Wetlands. 2020;**40**: 1949-1956. DOI: 10.1007/s13157-020- 01309-1

[2] Lewin J. Floodplain geomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. 1978;**2**(3):408-437. DOI: 10.1177/030913337800200302

[3] Magilligan FJ, Phillips JD, James LA, Gomez B. Geomorphic and sedimentological controls on the effectiveness of an extreme flood. The Journal of Geology. 1998;**106**(1):87-96. DOI: 10.1086/516009

[4] Hupp CR, Pierce AR, Noe GB. Floodplain geomorphic processes and environmental impacts of human alteration along Coastal Plain rivers, USA. Wetlands. 2009;**29**:413-429. DOI: 10.1672/08-169.1

[5] Mungai NW, Njue AM, Abaya SG, Vuai Said AH, Ibembe JD. Periodic flooding and land use effects on soil properties in Lake Victoria basin. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2011;**6**(19):4613-4623. DOI: 10.5897/ AJAR11.741

[6] Guo Y, Wang X, Li X, Wang J, Xu M, Li D. Dynamics of soil organic and inorganic carbon in the cropland of upper Yellow River Delta, China. Scientific Reports. 2016;**6**:36105. DOI: 10.1038/srep36105

[7] Hou C, Li Y, Huang Y, Zhu H, Ma J, Yu F, et al. Reclamation substantially increases soil organic and inorganic carbon stock in riparian floodplains. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2021;**21**: 957-966. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-020- 02836-4

[8] Moore BD, Kaur G, Motavalli PP, Zurweller BA, Svoma BM. Soil greenhouse gas emissions from agroforestry and other land uses under different moisture regimes in lower Missouri River Floodplain soils: A laboratory approach. Agroforestry Systems. 2018;**92**:335-348. DOI: 10.1007/ s10457-017-0083-8

[9] Valtera M, Volánek J, Holík L, Pecina V, Novotná J, Slezák V, et al. The influence of forest management and changed hydrology on soil biochemical properties in a central-European floodplain forest. Forests. 2021;**12**:270. DOI: 10.3390/f12030270

[10] Hornung LK, Podschun SA, Pusch M. Linking ecosystem services and measures in river and floodplain management. Ecosystems and People. 2019;**15**(1):214-231. DOI: org/10.1080/ 26395916.2019.1656287

[11] Fischer C, Damm C, Foeckler F, Gelhaus M, Gerstner L, Harris RMB, et al. The "Habitat Provision" index for assessing floodplain biodiversity and restoration potential as an ecosystem service—Method and application. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2019;**7**:483. DOI: 10.3389/ fevo.2019.00483

[12] Limpert KE, Carnell PE, Trevathan-Tackett S, Macreadie PI. Reducing emissions from degraded floodplain wetlands. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2020;**8**:8. DOI: 10.3389/ fenvs.2020.00008

[13] Lawson C, Rothero E, Gowing D, Nisbet T, Barsoum N, Broadmeadow S, et al. The natural capital of floodplains: Management, protection and restoration to deliver greater benefits. Valuing Nature Natural Capital Synthesis

*Analysis of Missouri Floodplain Soils Along the Mississippi River and an Assessment… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110334*

Report VNP09. 2018. Available from: https://valuing-nature.net/sites/default/ files/documents/Synthesis\_reports/ VNP09-NatCapSynthesisReport-Floodplains-A4-16pp-144dpi.pdf

[14] Rajib A, Zheng Q, Golden HE, Wu Q, Lane CR, Christensen JR, et al. The changing face of floodplains in the Mississippi River Basin detected by a 60 year land use change dataset. Scientific Data. 2021;**8**:271. DOI: 10.1038/ s41597-021-01048-w

[15] Stammel B, Fischer C, Cyffka B, Albert C, Damm C, Dehnhardt C, et al. Assessing land use and flood management impacts on ecosystem services in a river landscape (Upper Danube, Germany). River Research and Applications. 2021;**37**:209-220. DOI: 10.1002/rra.3669

[16] Aide MT, Braden IS, Aide C. Integrating ecological site descriptions with soil morphology to optimize soil management: Three Missouri case studies. In: Tiefenbacker JP, editor. Environmental Management: Pollution, Habitat, Ecology, and Sustainability. Chapter 11. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2021. pp. 205-219. DOI: 10.5772/ interchopen.97251

[17] Talbot CJ, Bennett EM, Cassell K, Hanes DM, Minor EC, Paerl H, et al. The impact of flooding on aquatic ecosystem services. Biogeochemistry. 2018;**141**: 439-461. DOI: 10.1007/s10533-018-0449-7

[18] Visser S, Keesstra S, Maas G, de Cleen M, Molenaar C. Soil as a basis to create enabling conditions for transitions towards sustainable land management as a key to achieve the SDGs by 2030. Sustainability. 2019;**11**(23):6792. DOI: 10.3390/su11236792

[19] Keesstra SD, Nunes JP, Novara A, Finger DC, Avelar D, Kalantari Z, et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. The Science of the Total Environment. 2018; **610-611**:997-1009

[20] Petsch DK, Cionek VD, Thomaz SM, dos Santos NCL. Ecosystem services provided by river-floodplain ecosystems. Hydrobiologia. 2022. DOI: 10.1007/ s10750-022-04916-7

[21] Jose S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems. 2009; **76**:1-10. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-009- 9229-7

[22] Birkhofer K, Diehl E, Andersson J, Ekroos J, Früh-Müller A, Machnikowski F, et al. Ecosystem services - Current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2015) [article 87];**2**. DOI: 10.3389/ fevo.2014.00087

[23] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service. Ecological Site F115XB015MO, sandy/loamy floodplain forest. Available from: https:// edit.jornada.nmsu.edu/catalogs/esd

[24] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service. Ecological Site F115XB041MO, clayey floodplain forest. Available from: https://edit. jornada.nmsu.edu/catalogs/esd

[25] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service. Ecological Site R115XB042MO, Ponded Floodplain Prairie. Available from: https://edit. jornada.nmsu.edu/catalogs/esd

[26] Brinson MM. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical

Report WRP-DE-4, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1993. Available from: https://wetlands.el. erdc.dren.mil/pdfs/wrpde4.pdf

[27] Aide MT. Soil genesis of four Alfisols established in oak hickory forests along drainages into the Mississippi River in southeastern Missouri, USA. Geoscience and Environmental Protection. 2021;**9**:124-143. DOI: 10.4236/gep.2021.92008

[28] Festervand DF. Soil Survey of Cape Girardeau, Scott and Mississippi Counties, Missouri. Produced in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Printed Washington DC: United States Forest Service, and the University Missouri-Columbia; 1981. pp. 159-162

[29] Brown BC, Childress JD. Soil survey of Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. Produced in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Printed Washington DC: United States Forest Service, and the University Missouri-Columbia; 1985. pp. 150-158

[30] Festervand DF. Soil Survey of Perry County, Missouri. Produced in Cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Printed Washington DC: United States Forest Service, and the University Missouri-Columbia; 1986. pp. 132-134

[31] Carter MR. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publ; 1993

[32] Aide MT, Fasnacht M. Estimating trace element availability in soils having a seasonal water table using commercially available protocols. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2010;**41**:1159-1177. DOI: 10:1080/00103621003721379

[33] Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th ed. Washington, DC, USA: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service; 2014. p. 2014

[34] Buol SW, Southard RJ, Graham RC, McDaniel PA. Soil Genesis and Classification. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Press (Blackwell Publishing CO); 2003

[35] Kabata-Pendias A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 4th ed. Boca Raton Fl: CRC Press; 2020. DOI: 10.1201/b10158

Section 5
