Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
e ISSN 2277 - 3290
Print ISSN 2277 - 3282
Journal of Science
Soil Science
www.journalofscience.net
PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND DISTRIBUTION OF
AVAILABLE BORON IN SOILS ALONG TWO OPPOSITE
TOPOSEQUENCES IN UNIVERSITY OF ABUJA
Efoneh E. Efeturi1, Jacob M. Wapa1, Barnabas I. Musa1 and V.O. Chude2
1
Department of Soil Science University of Abuja, Abuja Nigeria.
2
National Programme on food Security, Abuja.
ABSTRACT
This research work is aimed at studying some physico-chemical properties of the soil and the distribution of Boron
in the soil along two opposite toposequences in the Teaching and Research Farm of University of Abuja. To achieve this
goal, a two opposite toposequences were selected during a Reconnaissance survey of the area. Soil samples were collected
and analysed for physico-chemical properties and some micronutrients. The result indicated that the soils of the area are
strongly acidic (pH in water 4.70 to 5.80), while the soil texture is uniformly sandy loam at the surface and sandy clay loam
and clay loam in the subsurface. The electrical conductivity ranges between 0.040 – 0.100 dS/m. Organic matter was high
with a range of 1.11 to 5.08 % while Total nitrogen and phosphorus were rated moderate with values ranging from 0.105 to
0.210 % and 12.25 to 38.50 ppm respectively. Boron was in the range of 1.22 - 1.83 mgKg-1 with a mean value of 1.58
mgKg-1 with a mean value of 1.58 mgKg-1 for the composite sample. Within the profile pits, the values range from 0.63 to
2.64 mgKg-1 with a mean value of 1.63 mgKg-1. Boron was found to increase in the lower soil horizons than at the surface.
Generally, boron was found to be adequate for crop production in the soils. It was recommended that there is no basis for
further application of any micronutrients in the soils because they are highly available and poses the danger of toxicity.
Keywords: Physico-chemical properties, Boron, Toposequences, Abuja.
INTRODUCTION
Boron (B), the only non–metal among the
elements of group III in the periodic table is not uniformly
distributed in the earth’s crust. Boron (B) is one of the
atoms found in variety of minerals related to Borax
(Na2B4O7.10H2O). It is a relatively rare element in the
earth’s crust representing only 0.001%. B exist in many
soils largely as Tourmaline (major constituents of Si, Ca,
Mg, Al, Fe and B) which is a boroaluminum silicate of
great insolubility and resistant to weathering [1]. The
primary sources of Boron (B) in most soils are
Tourmaline and Volatile emanations of volcanoes.
Furthermore, Tourmaline is derived from high
temperature rocks and is usually very resistant to
chemical breakdown in the weathering zone and thus,
accumulates in sediments.
Boron is anessential micronutrient element
required for normal growth of plants [2]. Boron was first
used as fertilizer about 400years ago when Borax (then
known as Tincar) was shipped from Asia to Europe. Not
until 1915, however, was B suggested as an essential
element for plant growth. It was only in 1923 that Boron
was confirmed or proofed to be an essential element at the
Rothamsted Experimental Station (RES) in England [3].
In the soil, Boron is available in 2-broad forms viz;
inorganic and organic forms [4].
Boron (B) is absorbed in one or more forms of
its ionic forms such as B4O72-, H2BO3-, HBO32- or BO33and follows the flow of water into roots. Although, B
contents of 0.02 -0.1 mg/Kg dry weight are considered
adequate for normal growth, certain species will show
toxicity symptoms if it exceeds 0.20 mg/Kg.
Corresponding Author:-Jacob M. Wapa Email:[email protected]
398
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
Boron facilitates the translocation of sugar across
cell membranes [5]; B is also associated with the uptake
of calcium (Ca) and its utilization by plants (FFD, 2004).
Among the other numerous functions/roles of Boron
(B)include : activation of certain dehydrogenase enzymes,
synthesis of nucleic acids and plants hormones, essential
for cell division and development, water metabolism,
pollen germination, flowering and fruiting processes etc
[6].
Availability of Boron (B) is determined by many
factors including pH of the soil, losses by leaching, crop
removal, kind of crop and whether the crop is utilized on
the farm and returned to the soil as manure.
Plants vary in their Boron requirement but, the
range between deficient and toxic solution concentration
of B is smaller than from any other plant nutrient element.
Soil may contain 0.5-2.0 ppm of available B, but this
represents only a small part of the total since only 0.5-2.5
% of the total B in the soil is available to plants.
When compared with other nutrient elements, the
chemistry of Boron (B) in the soil is very simple; it does
not
undergo
oxidation-reduction
reactions
or
volatilization reaction in the soil. Boron containing
minerals are either very insoluble (tourmaline) or very
soluble (hydrated B minerals) and generally do not
control the solubility of B activity in the soil solution.
The effects of deficiency and toxicity of Boron
(B) in crops as determined by the small range of 0.02 0.10 mg Kg-1 dry weight which is considered adequate for
normal growth thus, above or below this range in crops
will lead to disorganized meristem, early death of stem
tips, crinkled leaves, misshapen stems, thickened and
cracked petioles, failure of storage organs, suppressed
flowering and abnormal fruit and seed formation. This
will eventually lead to premature death of Agricultural
crops.
The loss of available Boron (B) through crop
removal, leaching and reversion to unavailable forms,
coupled with higher requirements for B through better
crop varieties and improved cultural practice, has resulted
in an inadequate supply of B available for growth on
many agricultural soils. Moreover, the total B content of
the soil is not a reliable guide to the adequacy of B for
crop growth since less than 5 % of the total may be
available for use by plants.
In view of the above factors which may lead to
plant growth problems, a determination of the available
Boron content is one of the most important tests that can
be made to diagnose B deficiency and toxicity problems.
However, it is imperative that this study be carried out to
focus on assessing the available B in the soils within the
Faculty Teaching and Research Farm.
There is hardly any known crop or plant that
does not require Boron (B) for both growth and
development. Plants vary in their B requirement, but the
range between deficient and toxic solution concentrations
of B is smaller than for any other nutrient element.
Boron (B) concentration below 0.15ppm will
usually indicate a need for additional supplement [7].
Oyinyola and Chude [9] reported that B deficiency is
widespread in soils of the Nigeria Savanna zones, as
response of cotton and some crops to B was discovered.
Thus, the need for a complete soil report which will
provide base material for proper management of the soils
in the Teaching and Research Farm of the University of
Abuja. This may provide a Data Base that will serve as
the required reference material for future land use
planning and management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was carried out at the Teaching and
Research Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, University
of Abuja. The farm is located within the permanent site of
the University around the new faculties of Veterinary
Medicine and Agriculture, west of the road, and lies
within latitudes 080 37’ and 080 59’N and Longitude 0070
10’ and 0070 27’E. The landscape is relatively undulating
with short slope length, slope gradient of 10-20 %, slope
aspects are oriented south-ward, northward, southeastward, and northwards. These slopes terminated into a
deep drainage line with seasonal flows. This drainage line
divides the farmland into southern and northern portions.
The slope aspects are gentler on the northern portion
while the southern portion is steeper.
A reconnaissance survey of the area was carried
out prior to the digging of the profile pits, as this will give
inventory of the field; and also, getting acquainted with
the survey area. During this, the field condition was
observed and assessed. Two Catenas were carefully
selected with the aid of a hand compass and the Germin
GPS device.
Six (6) profile pits were marked and dug along
the two (2) opposite toposequences following the
dimension (2mx1mx2m). Each of the pit was described
morphologically according to the USDA/FAO guidelines
(Soil Survey Manual) (FAO Guideline, 2005). The site
characteristics such as geology, vegetation, land use,
slope aspect or pattern, surface drainage condition among
others. Profile characteristics assessed include soil colour,
mottles, texture, structure, consistency, inclusions,
boundaries delineations and soil depth.
After description, soil samples were collected
from each of the identified horizons, starting with the
lower horizons moving upwards. The essence of this was
to avoid contaminating the lower horizons in the cause of
description.
Samples were equally collected for bulk density
determination using core samplers of known volume.
Composite samples were also collected using soil auger
from different positions surrounding each profile pit.
399
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
Sample processing and preparation
All samples collected for routine analysis were
carefully labeled for identification and transported to the
store room where the soils were air-dried at room
temperature. Air-dried samples were then crushed and
sieved using a 2mm diameter sieve. All materials that
passed through the 2mm sieve were labeled and coded
before sending to the laboratory for Routine and Boron
(B) analysis.
The samples for bulk density collected from the
profile pit at field capacity were immediately transported
to the laboratory where they were weighted individually,
oven dried to a constant weight in an oven at a
temperature of 105oC for about 24hours before weighing
again for final weight.
Laboratory analysis
The samples were analyzed for selected physicochemical properties .The parameter analyzed include
particles size distribution, soil pH, cation Exchange
capacity
(CEC),
Electrical
conductivity
(EC),
Exchangeable Acidity (EA), Organic carbon (OC) all
making up the routine analysis, and analysis for Boron
(B).
Determination of some physico-chemical soil
properties
The hydrometer method was used for particle
size analysis (PSA) [9].
The determination of soil pH was done using the
pH meter and 0.01m CaCl2, 0.01MHCl acid and distilled
water (7.0) solution as reagents [10].
The Ammonium saturation method was used to
extract the exchangeable cations from the soil sample.
The exchangeable cations and exchangeable acidity gave
a good estimate of the CEC.
Organic carbon (OC) was determined by
Walkley-Black wet oxidation method using (A) potassium
dichromate (K2C2rO7) 1N – dissolve 49.04g ofK2Cr2O7 in
distilled water and diluted to 1litre [11].
Determination of Boron
Determination of B involves the extraction of
soil boron with Hot water and the Azomethine-H solution
in conjunction with spectrophotometric/ICP-AES
(inductively
coupled
plasma/atomic
emission
spectrometry) method. The use of 0.02M CaCl2 in
conjunction with hot water facilitates the dissolution of
Boron. 15g of air-dry soil sample passed through 2mm
sieve is placed in a plastic bag; 30ml of 0.02M CaCl2
reagent is added using a pipette dispenser and then closed.
The plastic bags are placed into 4L beaker containing
boiling water and leave for 10minutes. Plastic bags were
removed and cooled for 1minute and filtered. 4ml of soil
extract was pipette into a 12ml polyethylene sample tube,
1ml of buffer masking agent(comprising of NH4OAC,
Na2 EDTA,Na2NTA, deionized water was added and
stirring was done with a Vortex stirrer. Another 1ml of
Azomethine-H solution was added and stirred. After
stirring, mixture was allowed to stand for 1hour, and
finally, the spectrophotometer (set at 420nM) read sample
absorbance and result recorded as MgL-1 of B in solution
extract [12]. Results were reported in MgKg-1 of B in the
soil, B MgKg-1 in soil = (MgL-1 extract-method blank) x2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The soils physico-chemical properties
Particle size distribution
The result of the analysis presented in table 1
showed that the sand fraction in all the soil units for the
composite samples ranges from 60 - 74 %. Within the
profiles, sand ranges between 40 - 70 %. Clay on the
other hand is in the range of 10 – 16 % in the composite
samples of the surface soil. Within the profile, the clay
content varied from 12 - 38 %. The general trend in this
observation across all the soil units is that while sand
fraction decreases with increasing soil depth, the clay
content was increasing steadily down the profile depth in
all the soil units. Also, lower slope positions had higher
clay content than the upper slopes. This could be
attributed to illuviation and leaching of fine soil materials
down the profile and along the slope. This assertion
agrees with Esuand Ezeaku [13].
The texture of the soils was basically sandy loam
at the surface and in all the composite samples analyzed.
Within the profile however, the textural classes of the soil
ranges from sandy loam, sandy clay loam and clay loam.
This result is similar to what Wakawa [14] reported about
the soils of the area. The texture of these soils is
considered very desirable for adequate root growth and
development.
The texture of the soil is not expected to change
within a short space of time, and is believed to impact
influence on the rate of moisture movement and retention
in the soil, nutrient retention, soil workability and
anchorage to plants. Also, soil drainage is affected by soil
texture.
Soil pH
The pH in water for the composite samples is
slightly acidic (ranging between 5.20-5.80) with a mean
value of 5.43. Within the profiles, soil pH in water ranges
from 4.70 - 5.80 rated as strongly acidic to slightly acidic
[15]. A careful observation shows that the soil pH
determined in water in generally uniform in all the soil
units. There is no consistent trend in variation within the
profiles as well as along the toposequence. These findings
however varied slightly with Adaviruku[16], who studied
the soils of the area but reported steady increase in pH
values with increasing soil depth. The uniformity in the
soil reaction can be attributed to the characteristics nature
of the parent material (granites). Esu, Agbede and Brandy
400
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
and Weil [17]all noted that granite parent materials
formed over undifferentiated basement complexes are
acidic in nature unlike basalts which are known to impact
basicity on soils. However, history of land use may also
influence soil reaction. Constant use of Urea and poultry
manures as well as leaching of basic cations in the soil
coupled with bush burning besides removal of nutrients
by plants are all processes leading to increased soil
acidity.
Acidic soils are most commonly associated with
climate regimes where rainfall is high, temperatures are
hot and biological activity leads to the production of
organic acids [18].
Soil pH has a major influence on the availability
of micro and macronutrients in the soil, as micronutrients
decrease with increasing soil pH [19-21].
The pH determined in 1N KCl was expectedly
lower than the pH determined in water. Under normal
circumstances, lower pH values is an indication for liming
requirement to make the soil conducive for certain crops
that does not require acidic soils.
Electrical conductivity (dS/m)
The electrical conductivity of the soil ranged
between 0.045 - 0.080 dS/m with an average value of
0.060 dS/m for the surface samples along the
toposequences. Within the sub-surfaces horizons, the
values are between 0.025 - 0.070dS/m. The result showed
that EC values decrease with increasing soil depth only in
soils of the upper slope position (P1 and P6). In the other
soil units, EC values increases down the profile depth.
The EC values in the soil are considered moderate too
high (0.050 - 1.00dS/m) based on the rating of Chude et
al [22].
Electrical conductivity (EC) of a soil is a soil
quality indicator that gives information on the amount of
soluble salts in a soil (also known as salinity). It is a
measure of how easily an electric current flows through
the soil. It responds to the amount of salts in the soil as
well as indicates the characteristic of soil composition.
The amount of sand, silt, clay, organic and water content.
The range of EC in these soils is tending towards
partial problem of salinity especially when the amount of
exchangeable Na is also high exchangeable.
Total nitrogen (TN), available P (AP) and organic
matter (OM) of the soil
The Totalnitrogen (TN) determined for the
composite samples of the different slope positions along
the toposequence ranges from 0.140 - 0.320 % with an
average value of 0.217 %. This range was classified as
moderate (Crow, 2009). The TN values in the soil did not
show any consistent trend within the profiles. Along the
slope however, soils at the lower slope positions show
evidence of increase in total nitrogen content. This could
be attributed to increasing organic matter content in the
soil as suggested by Sanni. In a study on the soils of Dobi
a peri-urban community in Gwagwalada Area Council,
She reported that the soils were generally deficient in total
nitrogen reserve except for orchard and natural fallow
soils due to constant addition and decomposition of
organic materials in the soil where TN was significantly
high. The high TN values were attributed to high organic
matter content in the orchard and fallow land soils due to
constant addition and decomposition of organic materials
in the soil.
In this current study area, the predominant sandy
texture of soil (sandy loam and sand clay loam) is
susceptible to high leaching. This can account for the low
range of nitrogen across the fields coupled with the fact
that nitrogen is the most deficient in most soils. Also,
Ogbodo [23] reported that nitrogen being a very mobile
element is prone to be lost easily through leaching and
percolation as well as volatilization. This could account
for the reasonable depletion of the element at the surface
and the corresponding higher concentration in the
subsurface horizons within the profile. This assertion
agrees with Aruna [24].
Available
Phosphorus
(P)
in
the
surface/composite samples range between 12.25 - 38.50
ppm, this range is rated as moderate. The relative high P
at some spots can be attributed to mineral fertilizer use as
some portion of the field has been under cultivation. P is
less mobile and can still be seen in the field after cropping
and harvest. Ogbodo studied some selected flood plains in
Abakaliki and found out that the significantly higher soil
available P on the flooded soils was understandable. This
is because the easiest way to increase soil P is to improve
soil moisture content.
In this study, the low to moderate level of
available P indicates that P may be chemically bound as
phosphate of Fe and Al owing to the observed acidity of
the soil and as well the high abundance of Fe in the soils.
This is in agreement with Ogbodo and Nnadube[25] and
Ogbodo. Also, Ambeager [27]; Foth [28] and Agbede, all
agreed that there is significant correlation between
available P, soil pH and Fe and Al in the soil.
Organic matter in the soil is in the range of 1.11 2.28% in the composite samples along the toposequence.
This range is related as moderate to high. Within the
profile pits (subsurface horizons); the organic matter
content ranges from low (0.17 %) to high (1.07 %) as
suggested by Amhakhian and Osemwota [28] and Chude
et al. The observed trend in the result showed that OM
was higher in the surface horizons and decreases within
the content of OM increases as one moves down the
slope, meaning that the lower slope positions have higher
OM content than the upper slopes. This finding is similar
to that of Wakawa, who observed the same trend in the
distribution of OM in the soils of the area.
These higher levels of organic matter in the
surface horizons as well as in the lower slope positions of
401
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
the toposequence cannot be unconnected to accumulation
of organic residues at the surface and erosion or leaching
of nutrients and materials from upper slopes to the
toposequence due to gravity and the consequent
deposition and accumulation in lower slopes. A similar
result was reported by Adaviruku and Sanni.
Exchangeable bases (Ca, Mg, Na and K)
Exchangeable bases in the soil are comprised of
Ca, Mg, K, Na and H+Al. The result of the analysis
indicates that Ca is the most abundant in the soil followed
by Mg, Na, H + Al and K in that order. Ca in the
composite soil samples for all the soil units ranges from
3.20 - 5.80 CmolKg-1 with a mean value of 5.0 CmolKg-1.
In the profile pit, the Ca in the soil ranges between 2.60 10.20 CmolKg-1 with a mean value of 8.20 CmolKg-1.
The pattern of distribution within the profiles did not
show any regular trend. Mg in the composite soil samples
across the different slope positions ranges from 0.46 2.08 CmolKg-1. In the soil horizons within the profiles,
the value ranges from 0.28 - 3.78 CmolKg-1. The mean
value of Mg is 1.02 CmolKg-1. There is no consistent
trend within the profiles but along the slope, Mg increases
in the lower slope positions.
Soil exchangeable Potassium(K) for the
composite samples ranges from 0.23 - 0.27 CmolKg-1. In
the profile pits, there is no consistent trend in the
distribution of K within the profile. But the content
increases down the slope along the toposequence. The
values range from 0.17 - 0.45 CmolKg-1. This trend of
distribution along the toposequence can be attributed to
forces of erosion that washes nutrients from the upper
slopes and deposit same in the lower slopes. Higher rates
of K losses have been reported to occur in wet lands [29],
Whereas Ambeager reported losses of K through erosion
and leaching.
Exchangeable Sodium values ranged from 0.073
- 0.209 and generally increased with increasing soil depth.
Exchangeable Na and EC in a soil are good indicators of
soil salinity problem. When Na in subsurface is high, it is
a signal of potential salinity problem when the soluble
salts are raised to the surface by capillary water
movement. Exchangeable Acidicity (H+Al) in the
composite soil samples in the range of 0.20 - 1.00
CmolKg-1 rated as low high. For the surface horizons
along the toposequence, the H + Al were in the range of
0.40 - 0.60 CmolKg-1 with a mean value of 0.50 CmolKg1
. In the subsurface horizons however, the range was
between 0.40 - 1.20 CmolKg-1 with a mean value of 0.85
CmolKg-1 rated as moderate to high. The observed trend
shows consistent increase in H+Al with increasing soil
depth within the profiles. This observed trend was similar
to that noted by Adaviruku, who studied soils within the
same area. Ibiaet al [30] noted the concentration of Al3+
influenced by topography at 15-30cm depth. Agbede
observed that there is a general believe that H + + Al3+exist
in equilibrium in acid soils. Nwaka [31] noted that at low
pH, Al ions are known to be released from clay lattices
and become established on the clay. Higher contents of H
+ Al are often associated with horizons high in clay
content; the values are lower in the surface composite
samples than in the subsurface horizons.
Exchangeable H is the sole or major contribution
to the exchange acidity. However, higher exchangeable
Al values may call for soil amendment. Landon noted that
when exchangeable Al percentage is more than 3.0
CmolKg-1, sensitive crops may be affected; however,
there are no accepted critical levels forexchangeable Al.
Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil
is presented in table 1. The result showed that the CEC
values for the composite samples ranged from 6.30 10.70 CmolKg-1 with an average value of 8.73 CmolKg-1.
Within the soil profiles, CEC values tend to increase with
increasing soil depth though the rate of increase is not
regular in all the profiles. Also, as one moves down the
slope, there is evidence of increase in the CEC values.
Onyemua reported similar results. The range of CEC
values was rate as low to moderate.
Low CEC values correspond with low ECEC.
The low CEC values of the soil and other exchangeable
bases in the soil could be attributed to high rate of
weathering and leaching of the basic cations in the soil as
a result of high temperatures and rainfall associated with
humid tropical climates. Oyemua that low CEC could be
as a result of high rainfall, clay type and content as well
as previous land use.
The low CEC values suggest that the clay type is
the low activity clays (LAC) which are often in nutrient
retention and fertility status. These soil types may require
intensive soil fertility management approach.
Percentage base saturation (PBS)
This is the percentage of exchangeable bases
(TEB) in relation to CEC or ECEC as determined with
NH4OAC at pH 7.0.
The result showed that the soils are abundant in
PBS with the composite samples having PBS values that
range between 90.01 - 96.00 % (based on ECEC) with a
mean value of 92.14 %. In the six (6) different soil
profiles, the PBS ranged from 76.00 - 96.36 %.
The results indicate that the soils are rich in total
exchangeable bases. Normally, PBS has significant
correlation with CEC, ECEC and TEB as reported by
previous researchers.
Distribution of boron in the soil
The distribution of boron along the two opposite
toposequence shown in Table 2
The result showed that in the six (6) composite
samples analyzed, the nutrient B ranges from 1.22 - 1.83
402
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
mgKg-1 with a mean value of 1.5 mgKg-1. This value is
considered moderate to high relative to boron’s critical
level of 1.40 - 1.60 mgKg-1 for tropical soils.
Within the profiles however, boron was in the
range of 0.63 - 2.64 mgKg-1 with a mean values of 1.63
mgKg-1. The distribution pattern shows that B increases in
the lower soil horizons within each profile, however the
rate or level of increase was not consistent. Along the
toposequence, lower slope positions gave higher values
for B content than upper slope positions, for example
when one considers the surface horizons of P1 (1.49
mgKg-1), P2 (1.56 mgKg-1) and P3 (1.70 mgKg-1)
representing upper slope, middle slope and lower slopes
respectively of the south western toposequence as one
moves from the University Clinic site coming down
toward the stream. The same trend applied to the north
eastern toposequence.
There have not been consistent literatures on
boron research for soils of this study area from which
comparisons can be made, but this finding has shown that
boron is relatively abundant in these soils. However,
Brady and Weil as well as Darrell argued that despite the
abundance of an element, there are factors that may
determine its availability and release to plants. For Boron,
these factors are soil pH, clay content and type,
leaching/erosion, amount of organic matter in the soil, soil
moisture and land use history or mining of nutrient by
plants roots.
Table 1.Physico-chemical characteristics of the soil of the experimental site
Horiz
pH
Locat
on
Particle Size
dS
Mg
(1:2.5)
%
ion
Dept
Distribution
/m
/kg
hcm)
S
H
To Av
Sa
Cl Tex
K
O O
il
2
EC
tal ail.
nd
ay ture
Cl
C M
t
O
N
P
Comp
1
5. 5. 0.1 0. 1. 0.
12.
74
10 SL
osite
6
80 30 5
87 50 18
25
A
1
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
10.
0-21
70
16 SL
p
4
60 40 5
53 92 14
50
P A
1
SC
5. 4. 0.0 0. 1. 0,
8.7
21-44 60
26
1 B
4
L
10 20 3
38 00 14
5
B
1
SC
4. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
12.
44-72 56
30
t1
4
L
80 20 3
31 54 21
25
B
721
SC
4. 0. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
8.7
48
38
t2
119
4
L
70 03 3
29 50 11
5
B
1191
SC
5. 0. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
9.6
50
34
t3
142
6
L
30 02 2
21 36 11
3
1421
SC
5. 0. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
9.6
C
54
30
206
6
L
20 02 2
21 36 18
3
Comp
1
5. 5. 0.0 1. 1. 0.
13.
70
12 SL
osite
8
20 00 6
08 87 18
13
A
2
5. 5. 0.0 0. 1. 0.
13.
0-22
58
14 SL
p
8
60 30 5
68 18 18
13
P B
1
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
8.7
22-60 68
18 SL
2
t
4
40 80 6
35 61 14
5
1
SC
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
8.7
C 60-87 62
22
6
L
40 70 6
33 57 11
5
Comp
2
5. 5. 0.0 1. 2. 0.
12.
60
16 SL
osite
4
30 20 9
32 23 14
25
A
2
5. 5. 0.0 0. 1. 0.
13.
0-19
58
14 SL
p
8
60 30 5
68 18 18
13
P B
2
5. 4. 0.0 0. 1. 0.
8.7
19-76 40
32 CL
3 t1
8
20 80 6
60 04 25
5
B
762
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
8.7
40
32 CL
t2
112
8
80 90 7
21 36 25
5
1123
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
10.
C
48
22
L
140
0
80 60 8
25 43 18
50
Cmol/kg
%
Ca
M
g
K
Na
H+
Al
CE
C
3.2
0
2.4
0
2.6
0
3.5
0
2.8
0
5.8
0
10.
20
4.5
0
6.3
0
5.0
0
5.6
0
5.6
0
6.8
0
6.7
0
10.
00
7.6
0
0.
64
0.
32
0.
36
0.
67
0.
28
1.
06
3.
48
0.
72
1.
64
1.
87
0.
86
2.
08
1.
64
2.
34
3.
78
2.
65
0.
23
0.
17
0.
18
0.
19
0.
17
0.
31
0.
37
0.
27
0.
31
0.
22
0.
21
0.
25
0.
31
0.
21
0.
22
0.
24
0.0
73
0.0
76
0.0
83
0.2
09
0.0
77
0.1
83
0.1
83
0.1
83
0.1
91
0.1
83
0.1
48
0.1
74
0.1
91
0.1
57
0.1
74
0.1
65
0.2
0
0.6
0
1.2
0
1.0
0
0.4
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.8
0
0.6
0
1.0
0
0.6
0
1.0
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.3
0
5.8
0
6.2
0
8.5
0
5.4
0
11.
60
17.
50
8.6
0
11.
80
10.
60
9.9
0
10.
70
11.
80
12.
40
16.
60
13.
50
EC
EC
5.0
4.7
5
5.1
7
7.4
5
4.4
2
9,6
0
16.
48
8.1
2
10.
76
9.9
2
8.7
5
10.
67
10.
76
11.
42
16.
14
12.
54
PB
S
96.
00
87.
87
76.
79
86.
58
90.
95
93.
75
96.
36
90.
15
94.
42
89.
92
93.
14
90.
63
94.
42
94.
75
97.
52
96.
81
403
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
Comp
osite
2
5. 5. 0.0 1. 2. 0.
29. 5.0 0. 0. 0.1 0.8 9.3 8.0 90.
14 SL
6
50 10 5
26 18 28
75
0
46 27 48
0
0
1
01
A
2
5. 5. 0.0 2. 5. 0.
38. 5.0 1. 0. 0.1 0.6 9.7 8.6 93.
0-20
58
14 SL
p
8
40 00 5
94 05 18
50
0
34 23 48
0
0
5
06
A
2
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
15. 5.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.4 8.3 7.2 94.
20-43 58
20 SL
B
2
50 48 5
47 81 17
75
0
67 19 83
0
0
9
51
P B
2
SC
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
10. 5.5 2. 0. 0.1 0.4 10. 9.6 95.
43-82 50
24
4 t1
6
L
40 60 5
16 28 25
50
0
14 25 40
0
70
9
87
B
822
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
12. 4.3 1. 0. 0.1 0.6 8.3 8.2 92.
60
16 SL
t2
124
4
50 50 5
97 17 18
25
0
54 25 65
0
0
5
73
1242
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
15. 6.5 2. 0. 0.1 0.6 11. 11. 94.
C
64
12 SL
164
4
72 30 5
97 17 14
75
0
44 17 48
0
50 19 64
Comp
2
5. 5. 0.1 1. 1. 0.
19. 5.8 1. 0. 0.1 0.8 10. 10. 92.
62
14 SL
osite
4
50 20 0
91 57 32
25
0
68 25 57
0
70 10 08
A
2
5. 5. 0.0 1. 1. 0.
22. 6.0 2. 0. 0.1 0.4 11. 10. 96.
0-17
66
12 SL
p
2
40 10 8
89 54 21
75
0
78 23 40
0
80 81 30
P B
2
4. 4. 0.0 0. 1. 0.
11. 5.0 0. 0. 0.1 0.8 9.7 8.6 90.
17-49 56
20 SL
5 t1
4
80 00 4
62 07 28
38
0
94 21 65
0
0
0
70
B
492
SC
4. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 1.
9.6 4.3 0. 0. 0.1 1.2 8.2 7.7 84.
52
20
t2
114
8
L
80 10 7
25 43 18
3
0
47 19 57
0
0
3
48
2
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
14. 4.7 0. 0. 0.1 1.0 8.2 8.1 87.
C 114 + 64
12 SL
4
20 30 4
10 17 13
88
0
60 28 57
0
0
7
76
Comp
2
5. 4. 0.0 0. 1. 0.
14. 4.0 0. 0. 0.1 0.4 6.8 6.6 93.
60
16 SL
osite
4
30 90 7
64 11 21
00
0
53 24 48
0
0
5
98
A
2
5. 5. 0.0 0. 1. 0.
15. 4.5 1. 0. 0.1 0.4 8.4 7.9 94.
0-14
68
12 SL
p
0
70 20 8
89 54 21
75
0
04 45 57
0
0
6
97
P B
2
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
10. 3.6 0. 0. 0.1 0.4 6.8 5.9 93.
14-48 68
18 SL
6
t
0
40 50 2
25 43 11
50
0
38 18 40
0
0
6
29
1
5. 4. 0.0 0. 0. 0.
24. 6.6 2. 0. 0.1 0.4 11. 10. 96.
C 48-72 70
12 SL
8
40 60 6
16 28 21
50
0
14 24 48
0
40 86 32
KEY: Ap=Top soil disturbed by ploughing, Bt=Sub-soil affected by tillage, AB=Transition between A and B, C=Layer little
affected by soil formation, SL, sandy loam, L= Loam, SCL = sandy clay loam
60
Table 2: Boron Status of Soils along Two opposite Toposequence in the University of Abuja Teaching and Research
Farms
Location
Horizon Depth (cm)
Available Micronutrients (mg/kg)
B
Composite
1.63
Ap
0-21
1.49
P1
AB
21-44
1.76
Bt1
44-72
1.70
Bt2
72-119
2.03
Bt3
119-142
1.42
C
142-206
1.49
Composite
1.83
Ap
0-22
1.56
P2
Bt
22-60
1.42
C
60-87
0.68
Composite
1.63
Ap
0-19
1.70
P3
Bt1
19-76
1.36
Bt2
76-112
2.51
C
112-140
1.02
Composite
1.22
404
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
Ap
AB
Bt1
Bt2
C
0-20
20-43
P4
43-82
82-124
124-164
Composite
Ap
0-17
P5
Bt1
17-49
Bt2
49-114
C
114 +
Composite
P6
Ap
0-14
Bt
14-48
C
48-72
KEY: Ap=Top soil disturbed by ploughing, Bt=Sub-soil affected by tillage, AB=Transition
C=Layer little affected by soil forming processes (weathering)
1.83
1.36
1.08
1.42
0.88
1.83
1.56
2.03
1.29
2.64
1.22
1.90
1.08
0.82
between
A
and
B,
Figure.1: Diagram showing the Catena and the position of the profile pits marked in the field.
CONCLUSION
The soils of University of Abuja Teaching and
Research Farm are generally sandy loam to sandy clay
loam in texture. The soils are acidic in reaction and
moderate in total nitrogen and available P. Organic
matters in these soils are moderate to high. Exchangeable
based and CEC in the soil are generally moderate.
Boron is an important micronutrient in the soil
because of numerous important functions it performs in
the metabolism, growth and development of crops. Boron
in this soil is considered adequate. Soil conditions that
guarantee its availability are the low pH (acidic nature of
the soil), high organic matter, and clay content, and soil
moisture level among other factors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the conclusions deduced and in line
with theobjectives of this study, the following
recommendations are pertinent;
i. There is no basis for further application of boron in
the soils. Any addition may aggravate problem of boron
toxicity in the soils of the area.
ii. There are some Nitrogenous fertilizers of both
organic origin (poultry droppings) and inorganic sources
(Urea) which have the potential to increase soil acidity.
These nutrient sources should be used with caution on
these soils as the soils are acidic already.
405
Jacob M Wapa. et al. / Journal of Science / Vol4 / Issue 6 / 2014 / 398-406.
iii. An integrated soil fertility management approach
should be considered for the soils of the area. This should
be one that will incorporate the use of both inorganic and
organic sources of nutrients with other agronomic
practices with the least cost but effective in improving
soil fertility substantially.
REFERENCES
1. Truog, Emil. Determination of total and available boron in soils. Soil Science Journal, 59(1), 1945.
2. Goldberg S. New Advances in Boron Soil Chemistry – Plant and Soil. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, 35-48.
3. Darrell AR. Boron and Soil Fertility. Library for Farming, Wisconsin agricultural Experiment Station, 2006.
4. Kelling EA. Understanding Plant nutrition, Soil and Applied Boron. Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Publications.
1999.
5. Ogboi E. Essential Soil Fertility for Higher Schools and Practioners of Agriculture. Sunny Press, Ozoro, Delta State,
2004.
6. Brady NC and Weil R. The nature and properties of soils 12 th edition, Prentice Hall inc. New Jersey, 1999.
7. Muntean DW. Boron – The Overlooked Essential Element. Soil and Plant Laboratory Inc. W.A. 98009, 1997.
8. Oyinlola EY and Chude VO. Test Methods for Available Boron in Some Selected Soils of Northern Nigeria. Nigeria
Journal on Soil Resources, 2002.
9. Bouyoucos GH. A Recalibration of the Hyrometer for making Mechanical Analysis of Soils. Agronomy Journal, 43,
1951, 434-438.
10. Agbede OO. Understanding soil and plant nutrition. Salman Press Ltd, keffi, Nasarawa, State, 2009.
11. Nelson DW and Sommers LE. Total Organic Carbon and Organic matter. In: Methods of Soil analysis, part II, 2 nd
Edition. A. L. Page (ed) Agron. Monogr. No. 9 ASA and SSA Madison, Wis,1982, 961-1010.
12. Mahler RL, Naylor DV, Fredrickson MK. Hot water Extraction of Boron from soil using Sealed Plastic Pouches.
University of Idaho, 1983.
13. Esu IE. Soil characterization, classification and survey, HEBN Publishers. Plc. Ighodaro road, Jericho Ibadan, 2000.
14. Wakawa AJ. Characterization and Classification of soils along a Toposequence in the Teaching and Research farm of
University of Abuja. Undergraduate thesis, submitted to the Dept of soil science, University of Abuja, 2011.
15. Northwestern Agricultural Consultants. Interpreting soil tests and plant tissue tests.USA.l.2003
16. Adaviruku NJ. Variation in soil reaction and Exchangeable Acidity in soil Along Two opposite Toposequences in
Teaching and Research Farm of University of Abuja Unpublished. Undergraduate Thesis submitted to the Dept of soil
science faculty of Agriculture, University of Abuja, 2011.
17. Brady NC and Weil R. The nature and properties of soils 13th edition, prentice Hall inc. New York, 2002.
18. Sanni J. The effects of Land use on soil properties of Dodi in Gwagwalada Area Council of the FCT. MSc Thesis
submitted to the Dept. of Geography University of Abuja. Unpublished, 2012.
19. Landon JR. Booker Book of Tropical soils. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York, 1994.
20. Adelekan BA and Alawode AO. Contributions of municipal refuse dumps to heavy metals concentrations in soil profile
and ground waters in Ibadan Nigeria. J of Applied Biosci, 40, 2011, 2727-2737.
21. Aref F. Maganese, Iron and copper content in leaves of maize plants (Zea mays L.) growth with boron and Zinc
micronutrients. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(4),2012, 896-903.
22. Chude VO, WBMalgwi, IY Amapu and AO Anis. Manual on soil fertility assessment. Federal fertilizer Department,
FAO and National Programme on food security, Abuja, Nigeria, 2011, 62.
23. Ogbodo EN. Assessment of some soil fertility characteristics of Abakaliki Urban flood plains of South-East Nigeria for
sustainable crop production. Nig Journal of soil science. 22(1), 2012, 65-72.
24. Aruna AL. Response of Two Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) Varieties to inorganic and organic fertilizers of Samaru in
Northern Guinea Savanna. Msc Thesis. Unpublished. Department of Agronomy, ABU Zaria, 2004.
25. Ogbodo EN and Nuadude. Evaluation of the performance of three varieties of upland rice in degraded acid soils at
Abakaliki, Ebonyi state. Journal of Technology and Education in Nigeria,9(1), 2004, 1-7
26. Ambeager A Soil fertility and Plant nutrition in the Tropics and subtropics, IFAV, IPI, 2006, 96.
27. Foth HD. Fundamentals of soil Science.8th edition John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York, 2006.
28. Amhakhian SO and Osamwota IO. Physical and Chemical Properties of Soils in Kogi State, Guinea Savanna zone of
Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Soil Science, 22(1), 2010, 45-52.
29. IFPRI. Nurturing the Soil in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Food policy Research Institute. A 2020 Vision for Food,
Agriculture and the Environment, 1999.
30. Ibia TO, Ibungafa MA and Obi JC. Influence of Topography and Land utilization types on soil fertility trends in south
eastern Nigeria. Journal of the soil Science society of Nigeria, 20(1), 2010, 27-35.
31. Nwaka GIC. Personal communication. Soils of Abuja.Lecture Notes on SOSS21soilSurvey and Classification.
Communication Field Work on the Faculty Farm, University of Abuja, 2012.
406