1996
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-145x(199603)7:1<19::aid-ldr212>3.3.co;2-d
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
Deforestation and land‐use effects on soil degradation and rehabilitation in western Nigeria. I. Soil physical and hydrological properties
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
21
17
6
2
Citation Types
3
47
0
4
Year Published
1996
2024
Publication Types
Select...
33
3
1
1
Relationship
1
37
Authors
Journals
Cited by 38 publications
(54 citation statements)
References 0 publications
3
47
0
4
“…These classes were highly related to the organic matter content and therefore to the land use insofar as organic matter content is lower in cultivated lands than in natural areas (forests, permanent pastures). Lal (1996) reported an increase in dry bulk density when forest was replaced by cultivated lands, which is consistent with our findings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…These classes were highly related to the organic matter content and therefore to the land use insofar as organic matter content is lower in cultivated lands than in natural areas (forests, permanent pastures). Lal (1996) reported an increase in dry bulk density when forest was replaced by cultivated lands, which is consistent with our findings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The mean bulk density value for the 0‐ to 5‐cm depth for Nigeria is 1.28 g cm −3 . This value is within the bulk density range for similar depth intervals reported by Lal (1996) for cultivated soils following deforestation in southwest Nigeria but lower than bulk density range reported for surface soils in bare and cultivated fields of Samaru in northern Nigeria (Lawes, 1965). Bulk density values (0–5 cm) in the regions around Sokoto and Maiduguri are higher than for other regions in Nigeria.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Contrary to this, Shepherd et al (2000) observed no effect of land-use systems on soil particle size distribution, because all soils under vegetation were of similar type. The closeness of our results to those of Lal (1996) could be due to similar soil type and ecosystems. The different results of Shepherd et al (2000) are due to the fact that their experiment was carried out in a different ecosystem and climate.…”
Section: Effect On Soil Particle Size Distributionsupporting
confidence: 80%
