Research Article

Analysis of the Potential Soil Parent Rock Resources and Ecological Footprint in Jadaka, Kandahar, Kargo, Makada and Sarki Aska Villages of Dutse, Nigeria

S. Usman1*
1 Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Federal University Dutse, Nigeria.
* Corresponding author: susman@soilsjournalnigeria.com
Published: Apr, 2017
DOI: 10.67042/njss.2017.1foza4mz
Pages: 12-24
Views: 454
Downloads: 687

Abstract

A study of the parent materials and ecological analysis, covering five sites of Dutse area in Jigawa State, Nigeria was undertaken, applying the concepts of visual assessment and ecological footprint to describe the biophysical condition of the rock particles and human economy. The objectives of the study were to classify the basic parent rocks and ecological footprints around them and to draw conclusions regarding the proper utilization of rocks and sustainable economic development in the area. Assessment activities were carried out based on four concepts, which are a description of the underlying parent rocks, geomorphic surface soil characteristics, measurement of the rock size and ecological footprint by human demand on rocks. Factors recounting the true nature and condition of parent rocks such as classes, type, texture, colour, and pedogenesis were evaluated to guide biophysical characteristics of the rocks. The major surface features were recorded as anthropogenic-related to heating and breaking of rocks, cirque land, gullied land, and rock-outcrop. Data from the typical rock sizes in term of length and height were used for describing and contrasting the dimension of rock's formation and fragmentation in each site. This dimension was measured on average as 12.7 m Kargo, 10.8m Kandahar, 9.0 m Jadaka, 7.6 m Makada and 3.7m Sarkin Aska. Ecological footprint indicated that about 2.4 ha to 3.7 ha of the total rock areas are required to support the population of these villages. Proper utilization and management of the parent rocks can be used as a means of improving the sustainable livelihood of the population in the study sites.

Keywords

rocks geomorphic surface soil characteristics measurement of the rock size

References

  1. Ball BC, Campbell DJ, Douglas JT, Henshall JK, O’Sullivan MF., 1997. Soil structural quality, compaction and land management. European Journal of Soil Science, 1997; 48, 593–601.
  2. Ball, B.C.; Bayet Y.; Munkholm L.J., 2007. Field assessment of soil structural quality - a development of the peerlkamp test. Soil Use and Management, 23, 329–337.
  3. Blomqvist, L.; Brook, B.W.; Ellis, E.C.; Kareiva, P.M.; Nordhaus, T., 2013. “The ecological footprint remains a misleading metric of global sustainability”. Plos Biol. 11 (11): e1001702. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001702.
  4. Brady, N.C., Weil, R.R., 2014. Elements of the nature and properties of soil. 3rd edition. Pearson Prentice Hall Pub, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 614 pp.
  5. Carlson, D.H., Plummer, C.C. and Hammersley, L., 2008. Physical geology, earth revealed. McGrawHill. New York, NY 100200.
  6. Cerda, A., 2001. Effects of rock fragment cover on soil infiltration, inter-rill runoff and erosion. European Journal of Soil Science, 52, 59–68.
  7. Chambers, N., Simmons, C. and Wackernagel, M., 2000. Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan, London ISBN 1-85383-739-3.
  8. DESA, 2013. World Economic and Social Survey 2013: Sustainable Development Challenges, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) of the United Nations Secretariat. E/2013/50/Rev. 1 ST/ESA/344. ISBN 978-92-1-109167-0 eISBN 978-92-1-056082-5.
  9. Dudal, R.F.; Nachtergaele, F.; Purnell, M.F., 2002. The human factor of soil formation. Transactions 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok.EhlerWhiteisde. Symposium 18, Vol. II, No. 93.
  10. FAO, 2006. Guidelines for Soil Descriptions 5th ed. Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nation, Rome, Italy.
  11. FAO-SWALIM, 2007. Field Survey Manual. Project Report NOL-01. Somalia Water and Land Information Management in Association with European Union and FAO. 70-71pp.
  12. Fitzjohn, S; Weber, B.; Brown, M.; Jackson, J.; co-workers, 1990 Rock materials. Mitchell Beazley Encyclopaedia Ltd. Published by Oriole Publishing Ltd, Griffin House, London. The New Joy of Knowledge Encyclopaedia, 15, 854–857.
  13. Fitzpatrick, E.A. (1980) Soils: Their Formation, Classification and Distribution. Printed in Great Britain at the Printman press, Longman Group Ltd. London.
  14. Grazi, F., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Rietveld, P., 2007. Welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38 (1): 135–153. doi:10.1007/s10640-006-9067-2.
  15. Greenland, D.J. and Szabolcs, I. (eds.), 1993. Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. CAB International, Wallingford.
  16. Jenny, H., 2009. Factors of Soil Formation: A system of quantitative pedology, Dover publications Inc, New York, USA.
  17. Lenzen, Manfred; Murray Shauna A., 2001. A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics. 37 (2): 229–255. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00275-5.
  18. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Tengö, M., Bennett, E.M., Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., MacDonald, G.M. and Pfiefer, L., 2010. "Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-Being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade?". BioScience. 60 (8): 576–589. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4.
  19. Rees, W.E. and Wackernagel, M., 1994. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy, in Jansson, and co-workers: Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Washington D.C.:Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-316-6.
  20. Soil Survey Staff, 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services, Washington DC, USA.
  21. Tonkonogyov, V.D., 2001. Evolutionary-genetic classification of soils and nonsoil surface formations. Eurasian Soil Science, 34, 6–11.
  22. USDA-NRCS, 2002. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils, Version 2.0. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE, USA.
  23. Usman, S. and Kurdi, A.M., 2016. Role of soil science: an answer to sustainable crop production for economic development in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Soil Sci. 11(2): 61 – 70, 2016. DOI: 10.3923/ijss.2016.61.70
  24. Usman, S., 2013a. Understanding soils: Environment and properties under agricultural conditions. PublishAmerica, Baltimore, USA. 158pp.
  25. Usman, S., 2013b. Visual assessment and classification of surface soil type in dryland and fadama areas of Kebbi State Nigeria. International Journal of Development Research, 3, (11): 141-146.
  26. Usman, S. and Usman, B., 2013. New method of soil classification in defining the dynamic condition of agricultural surface soils. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 2, (6):32-42. DOI: 10.9790/2402-0263242.
  27. Usman, S., Burt, P.J.A., Aminu, A. S., Hamisu, I and Lawal, U.G., 2013. Improvements in geophysical surface soil assessment and classification using modifying Jenny’s equation of soil forming factors in the Sudan Savannah. Journal of Applied Physics, 2, (6): 37-46. ANED-DDL [American National Engineering Database number: 4861/iosr-jap-H0263746].
  28. Usman, S., 2016. Surface soil factors and soil characteristics in geo-physical milieu of Kebbi State Nigeria. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 5 (3) 209 - 220.
  29. Usman, S., Noma, S. S. and Kudiri, A. M., 2016. Dynamic surface soil components of land and vegetation types in Kebbi State Nigeria. Eurasian J Soil Sci 2016, 5 (2): 113 - 120. DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.18393/ejss.2016.2.113-120](http://dx.doi.org/10.18393/ejss.2016.2.113-120)
  30. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Verbruggen, H., 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint. Ecological Economics. 29 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00032-4.
  31. van den Bergh J.C.J.M and Fabio, G., 2014. "Ecological Footprint Policy: Land Use as an Environmental Indicator". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 18 (1): 10–19. doi:10.1111/jiec.12045.
  32. Wackernagel, M. and Rees. W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. ISBN 086571-312-X.
  33. Wackernagel, M.; Schulz, N.B.; Deumling, D.; Linares, A.C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J. and coworkers, 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (14): 9266–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.142033699.
  34. Whiteside, E.P., 1953. Some relationships between the classification of rocks by geologists and the classification of soils by soil scientists. Soil Science Society Proceedings 17: 138-142.
How to Cite

Usman, S. (2017). Analysis of the Potential Soil Parent Rock Resources and Ecological Footprint in Jadaka, Kandahar, Kargo, Makada and Sarki Aska Villages of Dutse, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Soil Science, 28(2), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.67042/njss.2017.1foza4mz

S. Usman, "Analysis of the Potential Soil Parent Rock Resources and Ecological Footprint in Jadaka, Kandahar, Kargo, Makada and Sarki Aska Villages of Dutse, Nigeria," Nigerian Journal of Soil Science, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 12-24, April 2017. doi: 10.67042/njss.2017.1foza4mz

Share this article:
Facebook X / Twitter LinkedIn
Download PDF Back to Articles