International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2 (4), pp. 139-149, 2014 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsres ISSN: 2322-4983; 2014 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2014-p0139-0149

Full Length Research Paper Assessment of Soil Degradation Due to Compaction Resulting From Cattle Grazing Using Infiltration Parameters
Henry Oppong Tuffour1, 2*, Mensah Bonsu2, Abdul Aziz Khalid2
1

School of Agriculture and Bio-Resources Engineering, Anglican University College of Technology, Nkoranza Campus, Nkoranza, Ghana 2 Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana * Corresponding Author: hoppongtuffour@gmail.com
Received 31 January 2014; Accepted 19 March 2014

Abstract. The most essential effect of grazing is soil compaction due to animal traffic. The study was conducted to investigate the role of cattle grazing in soil degradation resulting from compaction using infiltration parameters at the Beef and Dairy Cattle Research Station of the Department of Animal Science of the Faculty of Agriculture, KNUST. Two fields, ungrazed and grazed (with a stocking rate of 120 cattle for three weeks) were used for the study. Physical properties such as soil texture, moisture content, bulk density, total porosity and aeration were determined. Field infiltration studies from which sorptivity (S) and steady state infiltrability (Ko) were determined were conducted with a double ring infiltrometer for one hour to determine the cumulative infiltration amount (I). The time-to-incipient ponding or runoff initiation time (tp) was calculated from the S and Ko values. Mean values of I were 1490 mm and 500 mm; S 2.72 mm/s1/2 and 1.030 mm/s1/2; Ko, 0.060 mm/s and 0.0080 mm/s for the ungrazed and grazed fields, respectively. The tp at a rainfall rate of 5 mm/h was recorded as 79.00 s on the grazed field and 419.00 s for the ungrazed field. It was observed that rainfall rates in excess of 10 mm/h would cause instantaneous ponding and/or runoff on both fields. Grazing by cattle was, thus, established to be deleterious to soil structure and infiltration due to soil compaction. Overall, infiltration parameters were found to be very useful tools for the evaluation of soil degradation due to compaction. Keywords: Infiltration amount, Sorptivity, Steady state infiltrability, Time-to-incipient ponding, Compaction.

1. INTRODUCTION The compaction of pastoral soils by animal treading has been recognized as an important process for physical degradation of agricultural soils, yet, this problem has received little attention. Livestock have two main effects on soil: they remove vegetation, thereby, exposing the soil to wind and rain and either trample the soil surface dislodging soil particles or compact the surface reducing infiltration. The result of these actions is to increase soil removal through soil erosion. Studies on grazing and soil compaction have in general shown that the exposure to livestock grazing generally, compacts soils and that soil compaction increases greatly with grazing intensity. Further, Compaction under livestock treading can be substantial and this contributes directly to decreased porosity, loss of pore continuity, higher bulk density and soil strength (Packer 1988; Greenwood and McKenzie, 2001). As consequence, pressures exerted by grazing animals and the expected compaction can adversely affect water and air movements, seedling

emergence and root penetration (Marshall and Holmes, 1988). The rates and pattern of damage, therefore, vary according to type of livestock, water availability and whether or not particular trails are regularly followed (Barrow, 1994). Cattle can weigh 500 kg or more (Roberson, 1996) and the pressure exerted on soil by moving cattle has been estimated at between 1.7 to 4.2 kg cm-2; by comparison, tractors exert pressure of up to 2.04 kg cm-2, whereas a 68 kg human being exerts a static pressure of 0.4 kg cm-2 (Ratliff, 1985; Abdel-Magid et al., 1987b; Drewry and Paton, 2005). In view of this, dairy practices can be expected to cause soil compaction due to the intense and continual stocking pressure and machinery traffic, especially when the soil is wet and most vulnerable to compaction (Brady 1984; Warren, 1987; AgResearch, 2003). The destructive effects of livestock grazing on the physical properties of soil have, therefore, been reported by many researchers in scientific literature (Severson and Debano, 1991; Sun and Liddle, 1993; Fleischner, 1994; Lauenroth et al., 1994). The severity of these

139

Tuffour et al. Assessment of Soil Degradation Due to Compaction Resulting From Cattle Grazing Using Infiltration Parameters

impacts can be evaluated by assessing rangeland and soil conditions (Curtis and Wright, 1993). Thrash (1997) reported that the concentration of large herbivores on a field has negative impacts on the infiltration rate of the soils, with the implication for increased rate of soil and water losses. Accordingly, Singleton et al. (2000) observed that grazing animals can severely alter the hydrology and drainage pathways at a site by compacting the topsoil, which is indicated by increased bulk density and decreased macroporosity. This can result in a rigorous decrease of the infiltrability of the soil (Pietola et al., 2005). Also, since the compaction of soil is connected with reduction of porosity, and macropores are the primary pathways for water movement in wet soil (Bevan, 1980), a reduction in these by reason of compaction can restrict the transmission of water, therefore, the soil is frequently too wet, thus, increasing the amount of overland flow and erosion. However, studies aimed at defining and quantifying the grazing treatment

employed for experiments on the impact of grazing on infiltration have been inadequately carried out (Tate, 1995). The objective of the study was to assess the possibility of using infiltration parameters as indices for soil compaction resulting from cattle tracking. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Site location and management The study was conducted at the Dairy and Beef Cattle Research Station of the Faculty of Agriculture, KNUST. Two fields, grazed and ungrazed were used as the study sites for the soil physical and hydrological properties under investigation. One hundred and twenty (120) cattle were put on a field of 100 m x 75 m to graze for a period of three weeks. A reference (ungrazed) field at the research station was also located and used as the control site.

Fig. 1: Map of study area

2.2. Data collection Random sampling procedure was adopted and soil samples were taken from five different spots on each field for the determination of soil physical properties. Moisture content (by volume) was determined by the destruction method (Klute, 1986), texture by the

hydrometer method (Klute, 1986), bulk density by the core sampling method (Klute, 1986). Total porosity and aeration porosity were subsequently determined from bulk density and moisture content. Field infiltration was measured using the double-ring infiltrometer (Klute, 1986). The cumulative infiltration amounts (I) were plotted as a function of

140

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2 (4), pp. 139-149, 2014

time for each spot on a linear scale. The slopes of the cumulative infiltration amounts taken at different time scales represented the infiltration rates (i). The infiltration rates were plotted against time and the steady state infiltrability (Ko) was obtained at the point where the infiltration rate curve became almost parallel to the time axis. Plots of Cumulative infiltration amount (I) as function of the square root of time (t1/2) for the first five minutes were performed and sorptivity (S) was obtained from the slope of each plot. Analysis of Time-to-incipient ponding (tp) or runoff initiation time from sorptivity (S) and steady state infiltrability (Ko) using the relation (Perroux et al., 1981):

LSD was employed in the final data analyses using Genstat Discovery Edition 3 software. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1. Soil Physical properties The results from the experimental data of hydrophysical properties are summarized in Tables and graphs below. The values expressed as means as well as standard deviations illustrate variability of the individual data sets obtained from the two sites. Again, the differences in the soil properties within each field could be attributed to the effects of spatial variability emanating from the interaction of the various factors and processes of soil formation that operate with different intensities and at different scales as well as the anthropic effects of agriculture. The results also showed that the soil physical effects of compaction were as not as severe as was expected from the visual appearance and were generally restricted to the 0-5 cm soil depth (Drewry et al., 1999). The percent composition of sand, silt and clay from the particle size analysis, when read from the textural triangle indicated that the soil texture in both fields was sandy clay loam. Table 1 presents a statistical summary of the results of the soil physical properties obtained from the study sites.

where,R is the rainfall rate (mm/h). Rainfall rates ranging from 2 mm/h to 32 mm/h (6.0 x 10-4 mm/s to 9.0 x 10-3 mm/s) were hypothetically selected. 2.3. Statistical analyses Since all measurements were done in five replicates, the resultant data was analysed using means and standard deviations. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) utilizing Complete Randomized Design (CRD) at 5%

Table 1: Summary of results of measured soil physical properties

Soil Physical property Texture v (%) Experimental Field Ungrazed SCL 17.00 (1.30) Grazed SCL 24.00 (3.32)

b (g/cm3) 1.39 (0.04) 1.43 (0.08) f (%) 48.00 (2.16) 46.00 (2.94) fa (%) 31.00 (2.89) 22.00 (1.30) Values in brackets represent standard deviations, SCL = Sandy Clay Loam, v = Volumetric moisture content, b = Bulk density, f = Porosity, fa = Aeration porosity.

The bulk density was lower in the ungrazed field (1.39 g cm-3) compared to grazed field (1.43 g cm-3). On the other hand, the total porosity and aeration porosity were found to be higher in the ungrazed field (31%) than the grazed field (22%). The results from bulk density measurements, thus, confirmed that grazing led to compaction of the topsoil in the grazed field. In addition, the porosity data (total porosity and aeration porosity) indicated that cattle grazing caused substantial reduction of the soil pore space. It was, therefore, observed that grazing can affect the surface porosity of soils as a result of trampling and removal of vegetation. Accordingly, Hillel (1980) found that grazing animals caused an increase in topsoil bulk density from 1.22 g cm-3 to 1.43 g cm-3 with a responsive decrease in porosity from 17.3% to 7.2%.

The higher bulk density and lower porosity established an incidence of compaction on the grazed field. These observations confirmed that bulk density and porosity are the most useful indicators of topsoil compaction caused by cattle treading Drewry et al. (2000). The moisture content of the soil was lower in the ungrazed field (17%) in relation to the grazed field (24%). This result could be attributed to lower porosity resulting from the higher bulk density in the grazed field. Since soil pores are responsible for water transport in the soil, their reduction may have caused a restriction in the transmission of water with the soil becoming frequently too wet (Relf, 1997) resulting in increased amount of water available on the soil surface. Additionally, the grooves created by the cattle

141

Tuffour et al. Assessment of Soil Degradation Due to Compaction Resulting From Cattle Grazing Using Infiltration Parameters

hooves may have served as storage points for water in the grazed field, therefore, increasing the amount of water present in the soil. The significantly higher soil moisture content in the grazed field indicates that cattle tracking had resulted in a disturbance of the soil by increasing the surface roughness (Betteridge et al., 1999). Increased surface roughness may have reduced water runoff and sediment loss by lowering kinetic energy of surface water and acting as a trap for detached soil particles (Warren et al., 1986a) and running water.

3.2. Infiltration parameters Table 2 presents the statistical summary of infiltration parameters measured in both experimental fields. The variations of cumulative infiltration amount with time for the experimental fields are shown in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. All the respective spots on the ungrazed field had higher infiltration amounts than the grazed field. For instance, the terminal infiltration amount of spot 1 on the ungrazed field was 1320 mm compared to 510 mm of the grazed field.

Table 2: Summary of results of infiltration parameters in the study fields

Experimental Field Infiltration parameter I (mm) S (mm/s1/2) Ko (mm/s) Ungrazed 1490 (121.9) 2.72 (0.19) 0.060 (0.028) Grazed 500 (29.15) 1.030 (0.22) 0.0080 (0.0081)

Values in brackets represent standard deviations, I = Cumulative infiltration amount,; S = Sorptivity; Ko = Steady state infiltrability.

The plot of cumulative infiltration as a function of the square root of time for a period of 5 minutes for the study sites are shown in Figures 3a and 3b, respectively. Straight line plots were obtained and the slopes of the plots gave values for the sorptivities. The sorptivities were higher in the ungrazed field than grazed field. The mean sorptivity of the ungrazed field was more than double of that of the grazed field (Table 2). The plots of infiltration rates as a function of time for the study areas are given in Figures 4a and 4b, respectively. The steady state infiltrability (Ko) was determined by extrapolating the line asymptotic to the time axis (x-axis) to the infiltration rate axis (y-axis). The Ko values were significantly lower for the grazed field than the ungrazed field. The mean Ko value of the ungrazed field was 7.5 times higher than the mean value for the grazed field (Table 2).

The results arising from the infiltration measurements clearly show the detrimental effects of cattle grazing on soil. Infiltration rates on grazed site were statistically lower than on ungrazed site. The lower porosity (46%) in the grazed field depicts a substantial decrease in pore structure in topsoil. This observation clearly points out that grazing at any intensity does influence the infiltration process in a field. Livestock grazing effects on infiltration, runoff, erosion, on-site water use, and consequent downstream impact are, therefore, of great concern particularly in highland agriculture (Mwendera and Mohamed Saleem, 1996). With the decline in vegetation cover on the grazed site, soil bulk density increased, while the rate of water infiltration decreased with a concomitant lowering of tp.

142

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2 (4), pp. 139-149, 2014

Fig. 2a: Plot of cumulative infiltration amount against time for the ungrazed field

Fig. 2b: Plot of cumulative infiltration amount against time for the grazed field

3.3. Time-to-incipient ponding or runoff initiation time (tp) The mean values of sorptivity and steady state infiltrability used in estimating the time-to-incipient

ponding or runoff initiation time (tp) at the various theoretically selected rainfall rates are given in Table 2. The variations in tp with rainfall rate for both sites are given in Figures 5a and 5b, respectively.

Table 3: Critical time-to-incipient ponding or runoff initiation time on the experimental sites at a rainfall rate of 5 mm/h
Time-to-incipient ponding (sec.) Minimum Maximum Mean Experimental Field Ungrazed 400.00 450.00 417.00 (28.87) Grazed 74.00 85.00 79.00 (5.57)

Values in brackets represent standard deviations, CV (%) = 8.40, LSD (5%) = 47.13.

The tp decreased sharply as rainfall rate increased (Fig. 5a and b). However, it is evident from the results that it would take a lesser time for ponding to occur on the grazed field than the ungrazed field.

Nevertheless, rainfall rates over and above 10 mm/h would produce an instantaneous ponding or runoff in both fields. Table 3 also shows the critical time-toincipient ponding for rainfall rate of 5 mm/h. On the

143

Tuffour et al. Assessment of Soil Degradation Due to Compaction Resulting From Cattle Grazing Using Infiltration Parameters

ungrazed field the time varied from 400 to 450 seconds, while on the grazed field, it varied from 74 to 85 seconds. The mean critical times were 79 seconds for the grazed field and 417 seconds for the ungrazed field. The statistical analysis (LSD at 5%) also indicated that this difference in tp in both fields was significant. The analysis showed that it would take less than five times the time needed for runoff to begin on grazed field than on ungrazed field. This effect could be inferred from the higher soil bulk density resulting from livestock trampling in the grazed field (Warren et al., 1986c, 1986d) with a resultant reduction in water infiltration into the soil. This may result in an

increase in surface water flow and sediment loss (Thurow et al., 1986, 1988a, Warren et al., 1986a, 1986d). The smaller time-to-runoff generation or ponding in the grazed field could thus, be attributed to lack of soil cover, high bulk density and the lower capillarity and porosity. These cover and soil effects of cattle grazing could therefore act collectively to increase the erosion hazard of the soil surface in the grazed field. This increased overland flow and the subsequent erosion can actually affect surface water quality due to greater amounts of dissolved nutrients and suspended sediments, pathogenic organism loading and transport.

Fig. 3a: Plot of cumulative infiltration amount against square root of time for the ungrazed field

Fig. 3b: Plot of cumulative infiltration amount against square root of time for the grazed field

144

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2 (4), pp. 139-149, 2014

Fig. 4a: Plot of infiltration rate against time for the ungrazed field

Fig. 4b: Plot of infiltration rate against time for the grazed field

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS During their foraging activities, cattle hooves affected several important soil characteristics, mainly through surface compaction as revealed by the results from the soil analysis at the sites examined in this study. The presence of cattle led to changes in the physical properties of the topsoil. Bulk density and moisture content were higher and porosity (total porosity and aeration) as well as infiltration parameters was lower in the grazed field. Although the grazing period (3 weeks) in comparison with those reported by other

authors was significantly shorter, the results showed significant impacts of cattle grazing soil physical properties and infiltration parameters. These changes could favour the occurrence of overland flow and its attendant soil erosion on the grazed field. It is further concluded that infiltration parameters are ideal for the evaluation of compaction directly in the field. There is, therefore, little doubt that the presence of livestock can create detrimental impacts on soil quality, but the relative impacts of different grazing tactics are less clear.

145

Tuffour et al. Assessment of Soil Degradation Due to Compaction Resulting From Cattle Grazing Using Infiltration Parameters

Fig. 5a: Relationship between rainfall rate and time-to-incipient ponding for the ungrazed field

Fig. 5b: Relationship between rainfall rate and time-to-incipient ponding for the grazed field

Since removal of all livestock (cattle) from the landscape is not possible, management strategies need to be evaluated with the knowledge that compaction is likely to occur. Detrimental impacts can be minimised by a number of intervention or strategies. Therefore, from the study, the following recommendations have been made: (a) Confinement and supplementary feeding of cattle. (b) Using amelioration tactics to repair subsequent damage. (c) Soil improvement strategies such as drainage of wet areas within the paddock. (d) Temporary relocation of livestock to more resilient areas at times when pasture soil quality may be compromised. (e) Rotational grazing strategies.

(f) Future research needs to be focused on the best known grazing management practices, not the worst. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the field and laboratory facilities provided by Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, KNUST, Ghana, to carry out this work. The intellectual support provided by the scholars whose articles are cited and included in references of this manuscript is also fully acknowledged. The authors are also grateful authors / editors / publishers of all those articles, journals and books from where the literature for this article has been received and discussed.

146

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2 (4), pp. 139-149, 2014

REFERENCES Abdel-Magid AH, Trlica MJ, Hart RH (1987b). Soil and vegetation responses to simulated trampling. Journal of Rangeland Management, 40(4): 303-6. AgResearch (2003). Pasture Renovation Manual. New Zealand Pastoral Agriculture Research Institute, Hamilton. Barrow CJ (1994). Land degradation development and breakdown of terrestrial environments. Cambridge University Press. Betteridge K, Mackay AD, Barker DJ, Shepherd TG, Budding PJ, Devantier BP, Costall, DA (1999). Effect of cattle and sheep treading on surface configuration of a sedimentary hill soil. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 37: 743 760. Bevan K (1980). The Grendon Underwood field drainage experiment. Institute of hydrology Report, 65. Brady NC (1984). The Nature and Properties of Soils. 9th Edition. MacMillan Co. New York, NY. Curtis D, Wright T (1993). Natural regeneration and grazing management a case study. Australian Journal of Soil Conservation, 6:304. Drewry JJ, Paton RJ (2005). Soil physical quality under cattle grazing of a winter-fed brassica crop. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 43. Drewry JJ, Littlejohn RP, Paton R J (2000). A survey of soil physical properties on sheep and dairy farms in Southern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 43. Drewry JJ, Lowe JAH, Paton RJ (1999). Effect of sheep stocking intensity on soil physical properties and dry matter production on a Pellic soil in Southland. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 42. Fleischner TL (1994). Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology, 8 (3): 629-44. Greenwood KL, McKenzie BM (2001). Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41. Hillel D (1980). Fundamentals of Soil Physics. London, Academic Press. Klute A (1986). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Second Edition. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Lauenroth WK, Milchunas DG, Dodd JL, Hart RH, Heitschmidt RK, Rittenhouse LR (1994). Effects of grazing on ecosystems of the Great Plains. In: M Vavra, WA Laycock and RD Pieper Eds. Ecological Implications of

Livestock herbivory in the West Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. Marshall TJ, Holmes JW (1988). Soil Physics. Second Edition. Mwendera EJ, Mohamed Saleem MA (1996). Infiltration, surface runoff, and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use and Management, 12:18. Packer IJ (1988). The effects of grazing on soils and productivity: a review. Technical Report 4, Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales. Perroux KM, Smiles DE, White I (1981). Water movement in uniform soils during constant-flux infiltration. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 45. Pietola L, Horn R, Yli-Halla M (2005). Effects of trampling by cattle on the hydraulic and mechanical properties of soil. Soil Tillage Research, 82. Ratliff RD (1985). Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Albany, CA. Relf D (1997). Managing Compacted and Heavy Soils. The Virginia Newsletter, 8 (6). Roberson E (1996). Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Soils and Recommendations for Management. Severson KE, Debano LF (1991). Influence of Spanish goats on vegetation and soils in Arizona chaparral. Journal of Rangeland Management, 44:1117. Singleton PL, Boyes M, Addison B (2000). Effects of treading by dairy cattle on topsoil physical conditions for six contrasting soil types in Waikato and Northland, New Zealand with implications for monitoring. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 43. Sun D, Liddle MJ (1993). A survey of trampling effects on vegetation and soil in eight tropical and sub-tropical areas. Journal of Environmental Management, 17:467510. Thrash I (1997). Infiltration rate of soil around drinking troughs in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments, 35. Thurow TL, Blackburn WH, Taylor Jr.CA (1986). Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as affected by livestock grazing systems, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of Range Management, 39:505509. Thurow TL, Blackburn WH, Taylor Jr.CA (1988a). Infiltration and interrill erosion responses to selected livestock grazing strategies, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of Rangeland Management, 41:296302.

147

Tuffour et al. Assessment of Soil Degradation Due to Compaction Resulting From Cattle Grazing Using Infiltration Parameters

Warren SD (1987). Soil hydrologic response to intensive grazing: a state of knowledge. In: YS Fok Ed. Infiltration Development and Application. Pre-conference proceedings of International Conference on Infiltration Development and Application. Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu. Warren SD, Blackburn WH, Taylor Jr.CA (1986a). Effects of season and stage of rotation cycle on hydrologic condition of rangeland under

intensive rotation grazing. Journal of Rangeland Management, 39:486491. Warren SD, Nevill MB, Blackburn WH, Garza NE (1986c). Soil response to trampling under intensive rotation grazing. Journal of Soil Science, 50:13361341. Warren SD, Thurow TL, Blackburn WH, Garza NE (1986d). The influence of livestock trampling under intensive rotation grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. Journal of Rangeland Management, 39:491495.

148

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2 (4), pp. 139-149, 2014

Henry Oppong Tuffour is a Ph.D. candidate in Soil Physics / Soil Hydrology at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana and a Soil Science lecturer at the Anglican University College of Technology, Nkoranza Campus, Ghana. He received his first degree in 2008 with the award of a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and a Master of Science in Soil Science in 2012 with major in Soil Physics and Geostatistics from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana. His current research focuses on hydrological modelling of infiltration involving the soil particle phase and groundwater quality.

Rev. Fr. Professor Mensah Bonsu is a Visiting Professor (Post-retirement from the University of Cape Coast) in Soil Science (Soil physics, soil conservation and management) at the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences of the Kwame University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. He obtained his first degree in Agricultural Mechanization in 1972 and a Masters degree in Soil Science with Soil Physics major in 1978 from the University of Ghana. He later pursued another Masters degree in Soil Science (Soil Physics / Soil Hydrology Major) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 1984. He received his Ph.D. in Soil Science with major in Soil Physics / Soil Hydrology Major at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 1987. He has published numerous refereed articles covering soil physics, soil hydrology, soil conservation and management, climate change and agronomy in professional journals.

Abdul Aziz Khalid obtained his first degree from the University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana in General Agriculture in 2007. He later obtained his Masters degree in Soil Science with focus on soil conservation and management from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in 2010. He is currently studying for a Ph.D. in Soil Science at KNUST. His current research is focused on the impact of crop residue management on soil organic carbon, hydrology and agronomic production in a tropical forest zone.

149