Effects of Soil and Water Conservation at Different Landscape Positions on Soil Properties and Farmers’ Perception in Hobicheka Sub-Watershed, Southern Ethiopia
Table 2
The mean effects of soil and water conservation and landscape position on selected soil physical properties (Mean ± SE).
SWC measures
Soil physical properties
Clay (%)
Silt (%)
Sand (%)
BD (g/m3)
SMC (%)
SBD
54.44 ± 9.5a
18.44 ± 3.9a
26.88 ± 7.23b
1.12 ± 0.08a
20.73 ± 2.84a
SBO
37.67 ± 5.24b
23.97 ± 3.44a
37.89 ± 6.13a
1.21 ± 0.65b
15.78 ± 1.59b
LSD (0.05)
6.37
3.86
5.65
0.07
1.92
value
0.0001
0.091
0.0009
0.03
0.0001
Relative change (%)
44.52
23.1
−29.1
−7.4
31.4
Landscape position
Upper (≥30%)
40.66 ± 12.3b
22 ± 6.44a
37 ± 8.27a
1.18 ± 1.18
16.55 ± 2.91a
Middle (15–30%)
45.5 ± 11.1ab
21.5 ± 3.01a
32.83 ± 9.17ab
1.15 ± 1.15
18.31 ± 3.35ab
Lower (3–15%)
52 ± 9.5a
20 ± 4.1a
27.33 ± 6.62b
1.15 ± 1.15
19.91 ± 3.54b
LSD (0.05)
7.8
4.7
6.92
0.11
2.35
value
0.023
0.65
0.031
0.74
0.027
CV (%)
13.68
18.03
17.26
6.36
10.41
Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (), otherwise it is significant. LSD : least significant difference, CV: coefficient of variance, SWC : soil and water conservation, SBD : soil bund with desho grass, and SBO : soil bund only.