Classification, Characterization, and Suitability Evaluation of the Savanna Soils of Oyo North of Nigeria



A detailed soil survey of about 100 ha of Savanna ecoclimatic region of Oyo North of Nigeria was carried out to characterize and classify the soils and to assess the potential of the area for agricultural suitability. During this study, five soil mapping units were identified and delineated. Selected physical and chemical characteristics were determined to support soil taxonomy, FAO–UNESCO legend, and land fertility capability classification. Five soil pedons were classified according to USDA soil taxonomy as Arenic Kandiudults, Arenic Kanhapludults, Typic Kandiudults, Arenic Kandiudalfs, and Gross Arenic Kandiudalfs and according to FAO–UNESCO system as Ferric Lixisols, Stagnic Lixisols, and Haplic Lixisols, respectively. The studied pedons are assessed for fertility capability classification (FCC), and their FCC (Buol classification) is recognized as sandy topsoil (S), low CEC (e), and K deficient (k) and presented as pedon 1 and 2 as Sek (>35% gravels), pedon 3 as Sek (2–4% slope and >35% gravels), pedon 4 as Sek (4–7% slope and >35% gravels), and pedon 5 as Lek (>7% slope and >35% gravels). Sand-sized particles dominate in the entire profiles. The exchangeable bases are generally low, and the exchange sites are dominated by calcium. Total N and organic matter contents are also low. The soils are marginally suitable for commonly grown crops such as cassava, maize, and oil palm. Limitations to agricultural production include soil fertility (CEC), organic matter, poor texture, and climate (rainfall and length of dry season).


Classification Savanna soils Limitations Agricultural potentials Nigeria 


  1. Bouwer H (1986) Intake rate: cylinder infiltrometer method of soil analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part I Physical and Mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 825–844Google Scholar
  2. Bouyoucos GH (1951) A calibration of the hydrometer method for mechanical analysis of soils. Agron J 43:434–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 9:1149–1178Google Scholar
  4. Bremner JM (1965) Total nitrogen. In: Black CA (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part II, vol 9, American society of agronomy monograph. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 1149–1178Google Scholar
  5. Buol SW, Sanchez PA, Cate RB Jr, Grander M (1982) Soil acidity. Fertility capability classification. A technical soil classification system for fertility management. In: Bornemisza E, Alvarado A (eds) Soil management in tropical America. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 126–145Google Scholar
  6. Coleman NT, Thoman CW (1967) The basic chemistry of soil acidity. In: Pearson RN, Adams F (eds) Soil acidity and liming, vol 12, Agronomy monograph. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  7. De Gens JG (1978) Fertilizer guide for the tropics and subtropics. Centre d Etudel Azote, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  8. Eshett ET (1985) Soil characteristics and farming systems in Northern Cross River State of Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, p 225Google Scholar
  9. Faghami A, Udo EJ (1982) The characteristics of two soil toposequences in the basement complex in the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. J Agric 4(112):9–24Google Scholar
  10. FAO (1976) A framework for land evaluation, vol 32, Soils Bull. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO-UNESCO (1986) Provisional edition of the revised legend of the FAO-UNESCO soil map of the world. FAO of the United Nation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO-UNESCO (1994) Provisional edition of the revised legend of the FAO-UNESCO soil map of the world. FAO of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Lakanem E, Ervio ER (1971) A comparison of eight extractants in soils Scion. Maatal Scur Juk 123:223–232Google Scholar
  14. Nwaka GK, Kwari JJ (2000) The nature and properties of the soils of Jere Bowl near Maiduguri in Borno State. Samaru J Agric Res 16:25–40Google Scholar
  15. Peach ML, Alexander T, Dean LA (1947) Methods of soil analysis for soil fertility investigation. USDA Agric Circ No 757, USDA, Washington, DC, p 8Google Scholar
  16. Richards LA (ed) (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Handbook No 60. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki DA, Benham EC, Broderson WD (eds) (2002) Field book for describing and sampling soils, Version 2.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  18. Soil Survey Division Staff (1993) Soil survey manual. Agric Handb 18. USDA-NRCS. US Govt Print. Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Soil Survey Staff (2003) Keys to soil taxonomy, 6th edn. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Stoop WA (1987) Variation in soil properties along 3 toposequences in Burkina Faso and implications for the development of improved cropping systems. Agric Ecosyst 19:241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sys C (1985) Land evaluation, vols I, II, III. International Training Centre for Postgraduate Soil Scientist, State University of Ghent, GhentGoogle Scholar
  22. Walkley A, Black IA (1934) Determination of organic carbon in soils. Soil Sci 37:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Ado-EkitiAdo-EkitiNigeria

Personalised recommendations