Response of hydro-physical properties of a Chromic Luvisol in Ghana to different methods of application of Mucuna pruriens as a soil amendments

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-5, Sep-Oct- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.5.37 ISSN: 2456-1878
www.ijeab.com Page |2559
Response of hydro-physical properties of a
Chromic Luvisol in Ghana to different methods of
application of Mucuna pruriens as a soil
amendments
Benette Yaw Osei, Kofi Agyarko, Kwabena Kyere, Emmanuel Kwasi Asiedu
College of Agriculture Education, University of Education, Winneba, Mampong-Campus, Ghana.
Abstract— The study assessed the response of hydro-
physical properties of Chromic Luvisol to different methods
of application of Mucuna pruriens as a soil amendments in
two separate experiments. A Randomized Complete Block
Design (RCBD) with three replications was used with the
following treatments: 7.04t/ha Mucuna pruriens as green
manure (GM), 7.04t/ha Mucuna pruriens as live mulch
(LM), 7.04t/ha Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch (IM) and
a control plot which had no Mucuna pruriens as soil
amendment. Data were collected on gravimetric (𝜃𝑔) and
volumetric moisture content ( 𝜃𝑣), residual moisture
storage(R), sorptivity(s), cumulative infiltration (I), bulk
density (𝜌 𝑏), total porosity (𝑓), aeration porosity (𝜉 𝑎),
aggregate stability (ASt) and soil temperature, for
assessment of hydro-physical properties of the soil. The
results from the experiments indicated that Mucuna pruriens
as live mulch used as amendment significantly reduce bulk
density (𝜌 𝑏), increased total porosity (𝑓) and aeration
porosity (𝜉 𝑎) thus it gave significant improvement on those
soil physical properties measured while Mucuna pruriens as
in-situ mulch improved aggregate stability (ASt) and gave
optimal soil temperature. In the assessment of soil volumetric
moisture content ( 𝜃𝑣), residual moisture storage(R),
sorptivity(s), cumulative infiltration(I), the study shows that
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch recorded the optimal
values and was closely followed by Mucuna pruriens as live
mulch.
Keywords— Mucuna pruriens, live mulch, in-situ mulch,
green manure, Chromic Luvisol.
I. INTRODUCTION
Most tropical soils are inherently low in nutrients and are
prone to erosion, especially after deforestation and
subsequent cultivation with conventional mechanical tillage
(Hartmans et al., 1982). Vargas- Ayala' et al. (2002), noted
that farmers in their response to combat hunger rather deplete
the soil resources through continuous cropping, bush burning
and environmentally unfriendly systems of farming.
According to Nyakande et al. (1981), ecosystems need to be
conserved so as to support plant and animal lives. To reverse
this trend of loss of soil fertility and to increase food
production, practices such as green manuring, mulching,
composting, agro-forestry as well as the use of short-duration
improved fallow leguminous plants have evolved for
adoption (Whitehead, 1995).
Mucuna pruriens, commonly known as velvet bean is one of
the herbaceous leguminous crop which has been used for
mulching purposes is botanically known as Mucuna pruriens
var utilis (Buckles et al., 1998).The genus, Mucuna, is used
to describe various species of annual and perennial legumes
belonging to the Fabaceae family including the velvet bean
(Buckles, 1995). According to Duke (1981) Mucuna
pruriens is self-pollinating, hence natural out-crossing is
rare. Bailey (1993) gives the gestation period (from
flowering to dry seed harvest) of Mucuna pruriensas between
100-290 days. Gardener (1965) wrote that Mucuna pruriens
grows well on a wide range of soil types including heavy
clays provided they are well drained. Velvet bean thrives best
with warm, moist conditions with plenty of rainfall (Chavez,
1993). Most Mucuna spp. exhibit reasonable tolerance to a
number of abiotic stresses, including drought, low soil
fertility, and high soil acidity, although they are sensitive to
frost and grow poorly in cold, soils (Duke,1981; Hairiath, et
al.1993). Gallagher et al. (1999) asserted that Mucuna
pruriens, due to its vegetative cover, reduces the impact of
the rain drop splashes which create soil crust and therefore
enhances percolation. As a cover crop, Reijntes (1997) noted
that, Mucuna pruriens helps to reduce the rate of run-off

especially on hilly and sloppy areas and also reduces the rate
of leaching and losses of mineral nutrients.
Although mulch farming has proven to be effective in
controlling soil erosion and in improving soil properties,
resource-poor farmers have always been reluctant to adopt
conventional mulching, because of the large amount of
labour needed to gather, transport and apply the mulch. The
search for inexpensive and more attractive mulching
methods has led to the development of in-situ and live mulch.
Therefore, the objective of this work was to determine the
influence of different methods of application of Mucuna
pruriens as soil amendments on the hydro-physical
properties of a Chromic Luvisol in Ghana.
II. MATERIALS AND METHOD
2.1 Study area
The experiment was carried out at the Multi-purpose nursery
of the University of Education, Winneba, Mampong –
Campus. Mampong lies at 457.5meters above sea level and
falls within the transitional zone that is between the southern
rain forest and Guinea Savannah belt of the North. Rainfall
distribution in the area is bimodal and classified into major
and minor rainy seasons. The major season commences from
April to July and the minor season from early September to
late November (Meteorological Service Department,
Mampong, 2012). The soil is of the savannah Ochrosol type
which belongs to the Bediesi series known as Chromic
Luvisol in F.A.O/UNESCO classification, 1990 and derived
from the voltaian sandstone (Soil Research Institute, 1999).
2.2 Treatments and design
There were four treatments and arranged in a Randomised
Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 3 replications. These
treatments were (i) Mucuna pruriens as green manure (ii)
Mucuna pruriens as live mulch (iii) Mucuna pruriens as in-
situ mulch and (iv) Control (no soil amendment). Each plot
measured 6m by 4m giving a total area of 24m2
per plot. A
path of 1m was left between each plot for easy movement.
The demarcated field of 6m by 4m per plot was left for five
months to be stable as it had recently been farmed on. The
plots were all sprayed with an herbicide (Sunphosate with
glyphosate as active gradient at a rate of 2.5L ha-1
) to control
the weeds on them. Lining and pegging was done for planting
of Mucuna pruriens at a planting distance of 0.8m by 0.8m.
The plots with treatment (i), (ii) and (iii) were planted (mid-
May, 2012) with Mucuna pruriens for the first experiment
while for the second experiment the Mucuna pruriens was
planted in mid-January, 2013.
Mucuna pruriens as green manure. On this
particular plot, the Mucuna pruriens which was at the
flowering stage (a growth period of 120 days for maximum
foliage) was incorporated into the soil using a hoe. The plot
was left for three weeks to ensure that at least the
decomposition of simple sugars had taken place and the heat
produced during the initial stage of decomposition had
reduced.
Mucuna pruriens as live mulch. The Mucuna pruriens
which was at the flowering stage (a growth period of 120
days for maximum foliage) was allowed to grow without any
disturbance till the end of the experiment.
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch. The term in-situ mulch
refers to the residues of dead or chemically killed cover crops
which are used on the same land on which they were grown
as mulch (Wilson et al,. 1982). On this plot Mucuna pruriens
at the flowering stage (a growth period of 120 days for
maximum foliage) was cut at the base with a knife. The
Mucuna pruriens was then left on the plot as in-situ mulch.
Control (No Mucuna pruriens). This plot did not have any
Mucuna pruriens planted on it from the inception of the
experiments.
2.3 Determination of parameters
The dry bulk density was determined from soil cores
collected at 0-15cm depth on the field with core sampler
(Klute, 1986). Moisture content was determined on
gravimetric and volume basis (Hillel, 1982) while residual
moisture storage was obtained from the measurement of the
gravimetric moisture content of the soil at the end of the
experiment, using the method by Gardener (1965). Total
porosity was calculated by the formula; f = 1- ρb/ρs where f
is total porosity, ρb is bulk density and ρs is particle density
(2.65 g cm-1
) (Hillel, 1982). Air filled porosity was calculated
by the formula, af = f - θv where af is air filled porosity
(Klute, 1986), f is the total porosity and θv is volumetric
water content.
A modified wet sieving method was used to measure the
aggregate stability (ASt) (Kemper and Rosenau, 1986).
Twenty grams (20 g) of the aggregates were weighed unto a
0.25 mm sieve. The sieve was immersed in water contained
in a basin and manually rotated gently for five minutes. The
wet sieved aggregates were dried to a constant mass. Another
20 g sub sample was weighed and oven dried to a constant
mass. After oven drying, the wet sieved aggregates were
divided by the sub sample to give the aggregate stability,
which was expressed as a percentage
Sorptivity was measured by dividing the first 5-minute
cumulative infiltration by the square root of the time (Philip,
1957).The single ring infiltrometer method (Klute, 1986)
was used to determine the cumulative infiltration in the flied.

Soil temperature was determined by inserting a soil
thermometer into the soil to a depth of about 5cm for 8 days.
The readings were taken every 6:00 am, 12:00 noon and 6:00
pm for each day and recorded.
2.4 Data analysis.
The data collected on various parameters were subjected to
analysis of variance using Genstat software programme
2013. The means were separated using Least Significant
Difference (LSD) at 5% probability level.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Results of initial analysis of hydro-physical soil properties
of the area are presented in Table. 1
Table 1 Summary of initial hydro-physical soil properties
Soil property value
Bulk density (𝝆 𝒃) (g/cm3) 1.6
Total porosity (𝒇) (%) 40
Aeration porosity (𝝃 𝒂)
(%)
29.26
Gravimetric moisture
content (𝜽 𝒈 ) (%)
6.71
Volumetric moisture
content( 𝜽 𝒗) (%)
10.736
Degree of saturation (𝜽 𝒔)
(%)
26.84
Sand (%) 73.18
Silt (%) 16.54
Clay (%) 10.28
Texture Sandy loam
Table 2 shows that Mucuna as live mulch recorded the least
bulk density in both experiments while the control recorded
the highest. It was significantly (p<0.05) different from the
in-situ mulch and the control but not from the green manure.
This could have been as result of the biological activity
provided by the roots of the live Mucuna pruriens and the
burrowing activity of earth worms since live Mucuna
pruriens promotes earthworm activity. This confirms the
assertion made by Houngnanadan et al. (2000), that the
presence of live Mucuna pruriens in the soils as well as its
biomass application to the soil provides favourable
conditions for growth, survival and breeding of earthworms.
The control recorded the highest bulk density and can be
explained by the fact that it had the least volume of loose soil
as it had no Mucuna pruriens on it and thereby less
interference by biological or mechanical agents. Lower bulk
densities are important productivity index in agriculture.
According to Devis and Freitas (1970), the lower the bulk
density the more productive the soil is, as it allows for easy
root penetration.
Table.2: Influence of Treatments on Dry Bulk Density, Total Porosity and Air-Filled Porosity
The data (Table 2) revealed that Mucuna as live mulch
recorded the highest total porosity in both experiments. This
trend could have been as results of the burrowing activities
of the roots of live Mucuna pruriens and earthworm. The
result affirms Akinsanmi (1994), assertion that high total
porosity of soil is a result of high organic matter obtained
from Mucuna pruriens fallow. And also according to Devis
and Freitas (1970) Mucuna pruriens fallows produce crumb
structure which facilities soil cultivation and growth of roots
of crop plants, as it permeates the soil with roots and pores,
and are able to loosen, break up and process the soil. The
control recorded the least total porosity in both experiments
(Table 2). This might be explained with the fact that the
control recorded the highest bulk density therefore had more
compaction hence less pores. It could also be that, it had
fewer disturbances as it had no Mucuna pruriens on it.
From the results of the experiments (2012 and 2013), it was
observed that the Mucuna as live mulch had the highest air-
filled porosity ,this could have been as result of it recording
the least bulk density (Table 2) therefore least compaction,
highest total porosity and coupled with one of the lowest
volumetric moisture content. This trend in air-filled porosity
Dry Bulk Density(g/cm3
) Total Porosity (%) Air-Filled Porosity (%)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Control 1.567 1.550 40.88 44.51 28.00 26.21
Green manure 1.330 1.370 49.81 48.30 39.05 34.58
Live mulch 1.303 1.330 50.82 49.81 39.82 35.61
In-situ mulch 1.470 1.460 44.53 44.90 30.39 27.88
L S D (0.05) 0.0935 0.02825 3.523 1.067 3.667 2.008
C V (%) 2.0 0.4 2.3 0.4 4.6 2.2

is common knowledge, in that the moisture content of the soil
is a principal determinant of the content of soil air. This
affirms Hodgson and Macleod (1989) that air-filled porosity
of a soil increases with decreasing moisture content. It also
conforms to Brady (1990) that the moisture content of the
soil principally determines the content of soil air, since the
soil pores not filled with water are occupied by air. The
control also recorded the least air-filled porosity in both
experiments. This might be attributed to it recording the least
aggregate stability (Table 3), highest bulk density and
therefore the least porosity. This affirms (Brady, 1990) that
Soil texture, bulk density and aggregate stability are among
the soil properties that influence soil aeration.
Table.3: Influence of Treatments on Aggregate Stability
Aggregate Stability (%)
2012 2013
Control 41.82 41.20
Green manure 41.16 41.64
Live mulch 43.74 44.71
In-situ mulch 51.68 52.77
L S D (0.05) 6.50 5.932
C V (%) 4.0 3.8
Stability of soil aggregates is defined as the ability of soil
aggregate to resist disruption when outside forces (usually
associated with water) are applied (USDA-NRCS, 2008).
The results of the experiment (Table 3) shows that in both
experiments the Mucuna as in-situ mulch recorded aggregate
stability values that were significantly (p<0.05) higher than
all the other treatments. This trend could be attributed to the
fact that Mucuna as in-situ mulch had its surface cover with
Mucuna pruriens throughout the experiment and therefore it
provided protection against the full impact of raindrop.
Gallagher et al. (1999) asserted that Mucuna pruriens, due to
its vegetative cover, reduces the impact of the rain drop
splashes which create soil crust and therefore enhances
percolation. The result could also be due to the
decomposition of the Mucuna which helped to stabilize the
soil aggregate. This confirms Van-Camp et al. (2004) that
organic matter from organic materials stabilizes soil structure
by at least two different mechanisms: by increasing the inter-
particle cohesion within aggregates and by enhancing their
hydrophobicity, thus decreasing their breakdown. In
experiment two (2013) the control recorded the lowest
aggregate stability. It might have been as results of the
control being bare throughout the experiment and had no
protection from the full impact of the raindrop. However
Mucuna as green manure recorded the lowest aggregate
stability in experiment one, might be due to the mechanical
forces operating on the soil surface during the incorporation
of the Mucuna pruriens and tillage could cause significant
soil loosening which causes the destruction of soil aggregates
(Aksakal and Oztas, 2010)
Fig.1: Daily Soil temperatures reading of treatments (2012)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SoilTemperature(oC)
Period (Days)
Control
Green manure
Live mulch
In-situ mulch

Fig.2: Daily Soil temperatures reading of treatments (2013)
By the fifth day of measuring daily temperature(Figure 1)
Mucuna as live mulch recorded the lowest temperature (290
C).However, it was not significantly (p<0.05) different from
Mucuna as in-situ mulch(300
C) but they were both
significantly(p<0.05) different from Mucuna as green
manure (33.670
C)and the control(36.670
C) in experiment
one. A similar trend was observed in the second experiment
(2013), where by the seventh day of measuring daily
temperature, Mucuna as live mulch (33.67o
C) and Mucuna
as in-situ mulch (33.67o
C) recorded the lowest temperature
which was significantly (p<0.05) different from Mucuna as
green manure (430
C) and the control (380
C) in experiment
two. This trend (Figure 1 and 2) could be attributed to the fact
that, both Mucuna as live mulch and Mucuna as in-situ mulch
had Mucuna giving a protective cover and thus reducing the
effect of direct sunshine and hence leading to lower
temperatures. This affirms the assertion of Parson (1996),
that Mucuna pruriens is a successful cover crop because it
exerts certain influence on the soil, protecting the soil surface
from direct heat of the sun, keeping the soil cool and warm
in the extremes of the weather. Organic mulch maintains
more uniform soil temperature by acting as an insulator that
keeps the soil warm during cool spells and cooler during the
warm month of the year (Ameroso, 2010).Generally the low
temperature recorded by Mucuna as live mulch and Mucuna
as in-situ mulch could be that they recorded the highest
gravimetric moisture content (Table 4). This conforms to
Raison (1986) who after series of trials in Australia, reported
that soil temperatures reduced as the soil water content
increased.
Table.4: Influence of Treatments on Soil Moisture
Gravimetric Moisture Content
(g/g)
Volumetric Moisture Content
(cm3
/cm3
)
Residual Moisture Content (cm)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Control 8.13 9.87 12.74 15.29 1.93 2.26
Green manure 8.22 10.03 10.93 13.74 1.61 2.06
Live mulch 8.44 10.93 11.00 14.53 1.65 2.18
In-situ mulch 9.61 11.66 14.14 17.03 2.12 2.55
L S D (0.05) NS 1.468 2.272 1.983 0.3449 0.3102
C V (%) 3.3 2.0 5.0 2.4 4.9 1.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
SoilTemperature(oC)
Period (Days)
Control
Green manure
Live mulch
In-situ mulch

Table 4 indicates that the Mucuna as in-situ mulch recorded
the highest volumetric moisture content in both experiments
with the control recording the lowest. This result could be
attributed to the fact that Mucuna as in-situ mulch and the
live mulch had a ground cover which reduced water loss
through evaporation. A similar trend was observed by
Akubundu et al, (2000) that Mucuna pruriens plant serves as
a ground cover to prevent loss of water through evaporation
and decreases soil run off and thus keeping the soil moist.
Erenstein (2002) also observed that there was a reduction in
runoff, evaporation and increased infiltration for effective
soil water storage for crop’s water requirement after
mulching.
The high residual moisture content (Table 4) recorded by
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch in both years could be
attributed to the fact that the Mucuna pruriens on that plot
reduced the contact between the soil and dry air and this
reduced the water loss into the atmosphere through
evaporation from sunshine and desiccating winds (Olabode
et al., 2006). It also conforms to Agyenim-Boateng and Safo
(1999) in an experiment conducted on Mucuna pruriens as a
cover crop that there was improved moisture content of the
soil; from 9.4% to between 10.30% and 11.40%. Hartfield et
al.(2001) in farming matters found 34-50% reduction in
evaporation and a considerable decrease of soil temperature
as results of the ground cover protection by mulch (Mucuna
pruriens as in-situ mulch).The trend observed might have
been as a result of the low temperatures recorded by Mucuna
pruriens as in-situ mulch (Figure1 and Figure 2).This
conforms to Srivastava (1992) who observed that low
temperature leads to a low evaporative demand and increases
the scope for excess soil water conditions. The lower the
temperature, the lower the evaporation losses and the more
moisture retention for cultivated crop. The highest residual
moisture content recorded by Mucuna pruriens as in-situ
mulch could be attributed to the highest gravimetric and
volumetric moisture content recorded (Table 4) as antecedent
moisture is key to residual moisture content.
Fig.3: Cumulative infiltration curves for treatments (2012)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
60 180 300 600 960 1500 2700 3600
CumulativeInflitration(mm)
Time (s)
Control
Green manure
Live mulch
In-situ mulch

Fig.4: Cumulative infiltration curves for treatments (2013)
The results (Figure 3 and 4) of the experiment showed that,
by the hour mark, Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch recorded
the highest cumulative infiltration amount in both
experiments with the control recording the least value.
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch was significantly different
from Mucuna pruriens as green manure and the control but
not significantly different from Mucuna pruriens as live
mulch in the first experiment. This findings could also be
attributed to the fact that Mucuna pruriens as live mulch plot
recorded the highest Total porosity and air-filled porosity
(Table 2) and likely to have more macro pores for good water
infiltration. This confirms that it is not only antecedent water
that influences infiltration but other factors like structure,
texture porosity and tillage Jury et al. (1991). These findings
are very important as infiltration influence runoff and time of
ponding. The temporal distribution of soil moisture controls
numerous catchment processes including runoff generation,
groundwater recharge, ET, soil respiration, and biological
productivity (Williams et al., 2009).
Fig.5: Influence of mucuna on soil drying (2012)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
60 180 300 600 960 1500 2700 3600
CumulativeInflitration(mm)
Time (s)
Control
Green manure
Live mulch
In-situ mulch
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5
Gravimetricmoisturecontent(g/g)
Period (Days)
Control
Green manure
Live mulch
In-situ mulch

Fig.6: Influence of mucuna on soil drying (2013)
It was observed that, Mucuna pruriens as live mulch scored
the highest gravimetric moisture content value (7.05) after
the five days of studying soil drying in experiment one
(2012) with the control scoring the lowest (2.71). In 2013 the
in-situ mulch recorded the highest value (7.69) while the
control again recorded the least value (1.70). The observation
above could be attributed to the fact that the treatment
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch and Mucuna pruriens as
live mulch had mulch which reduced water loss by
evaporation and reduced direct impact of sunshine on the
surface of the soil. It could also be attributed to the low
temperature recorded by Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch
as low temperatures also reduces soil moisture loss. This
affirms Parson (1996) assertion that Mucuna pruriens is a
successful cover crop because it exerts certain influence on
the soil, protecting the soil surface from direct heat of the sun,
keeping the soil cool and warm in the extremes of the
weather.
Table.5: Influence of Treatments on Sorptivity
SORPTIVITY(mm/s)
2012
SORPTIVITY (mm/s)
2013
S60 S180 S300 S60 S180 S300
Control 10.3 15.6 16.7 14.84 25.72 25.40
Green manure 24.7 27.9 35.7 24.73 37.82 42.02
Live mulch 34.2 56.5 69.4 29.46 42.60 50.95
In-situ mulch 35.7 55.5 70.1 35.27 56.76 67.80
LSD 7.77 16.02 20.35 8.8 11.12 12.18
CV 7.3 6.8 4.8 9.2 6.5 4.1
Sorptivity is a measure of the soils ability to absorb water.
Generally Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch recorded the
highest sorptivity value followed by the live mulch in both
experiments with the control recording the lowest sorptivity
value (Table 5). This could be attributed to Mucuna pruriens
as live mulch and Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch were
better drained with higher porosity and therefore, likely to
have more macro pores and the greater ability to absorb and
conduct initial water during infiltration. Also the Mucuna
treatment had a protective ground cover by the Mucuna
pruriens and therefore reduced the impact of raindrop and
splash which in turn reduced soil compaction, reducing the
surface sealing and increasing porosity, reducing surface
runoff and increasing infiltration, and readily making soil
water available to the plant. This assertion is supported by
Chancellor (1977) and Olabode et al. (2006). The reverse is
true for the control plot which recorded the lowest sorptivity
value. This was supported by Jury et al. (1991), that besides,
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 2 3 4 5
Gravimetricmoisturecontent(g/g)
Period( Days)
Control
Green manure
Live mulch
In-situ mulch

antecedent moisture, sorptivity is influenced by porosity and
pore size distribution, aggregate stability, bulk density,
permeability.
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch, Mucuna pruriens as live
and Mucuna pruriens as green manure as soil amendments
improve gravimetric (𝜃𝑔) and volumetric moisture content (
𝜃𝑣), residual moisture storage(R), sorptivity (s), cumulative
infiltration(I) with Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch
recording significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher values while the
control recorded the least values in the above mentioned
parameters. The soil bulk density (𝜌 𝑏), total porosity (𝑓) and
aeration porosity (𝜉 𝑎), were significantly improved by
Mucuna pruriens as live and Mucuna pruriens as green
manure as they were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher than
Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch and the control in both
years. Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch in both years was
significantly higher in aggregate stability (ASt) than all the
other treatments while there was no significant difference
amongst them. Soil temperature was steadily reduced by
Mucuna pruriens as live and Mucuna pruriens as in-situ
mulch with each been significantly different from the control
in the first and second year respectively. From this results,
the application of Mucuna pruriens as in-situ mulch, Mucuna
pruriens as live as soil amendments is recommend as the
most effective soil conservational technology for
improvement soil hydro-physical properties.
REFERENCES
[1] Agyenim-Boateng, S. and Safo E.Y.(1999).Mucuna
pruriens pruriens and its effect on some physical,
chemical and biological properties of a acrisol. Paper
presented at the 16th
Annual General meeting of the soil
science society of Ghana. From 16th
to 19th
February,
1999 at Cocoa Research Institute, Tafo.
[2] Akinsami, O. (1994). Agricultural Science for Senior
Secondary Schools. United Kingdom, Longman Group
Ltd, Pp. 51-66.
[3] Aksakal, E. L. and Oztac, T. (2010). Changes in
distribution patterns of soil penetration resistance
within a silage-corn field following the use of heavy
harvesting equipment. Turk. J. Agric. For. 34: 173-179.
[4] Akubundu, I. O., Udensi, U. E., Chikoye, D. (2000).
Valvet-bean (Mucuna pruriens spp) suppresses spear
grass (Imperata cylindrical (L) Raeuschel) and increase
maize yield. International-Journal–of-pest-
management 46: 2, 103-108
[5] Ameroso, L. (2010). Indicated Plan now to conserve
water in your Garden. Cornell Co-op. Extension, New
York City Gardening Program
[6] Bailey, L. H. (1993). The standard encyclopedia of
horticulture. Macmillan New York. P.11.
[7] Brady, N.C. (1990).The nature and properties of
soils.10th
Ed. Mac Millan Publishing Company, New
York.621 pp.
[8] Buckles, D. Triomphe, B. and Sain (1998). Cover Crops
In. Hillside Agriculture. Farmer innovation with
Mucuna pruriens. Ottawa, Canada, IDRC/CIMMYT pp
11-25
[9] Buckles, D. (1995). Velvet bean a ‘new’ plant with a
history.Economic Botany 49(1) pp 13-25
[10]Chancellor, W. J. (1977).Compaction of Soil by
Agricultural Equipment. Division of Agricultural
Sciences, University of Califonia Bulletin (88).
[11]Chavez, R. L. (1993). Residual effect of Mucuna
pruriens on maize. CIMMYT, Mexico City.p.8
[12]Devis, J. and Freitas, F. (1970). Soil Physical Methods
of Soil and Water Analysis. F.A.O. Soil Bulletin No 10
[13]Duke, J. A. (1981). Hand book of legumes of World
economic importance. Plennum Press, New York. Pp
260-269
[14]Erestein, O. (2002).Crop Residue Mulching in Tropical
and Semi-Tropical Countries. Evaluation of Residual
availabilities and other Technological Implication. Soil
and Tillage Research 67, 11-133
[15]FAO/UNESCO (1990). Soil Map of the world. Revised
Legend. FAO, Rome, Italy.
[16]Gallagher, R. S., Fernandes, E.C. M., McCallie, E. L.,
Buresh, R. J., Cooper, P.J.M. (1999) .Weed
management through short-term improved fallows in
tropical agro- ecosystems Agro forestry systems
47;13,197-221;5pp of ref.
[17]Gardner, W. H. (1965). Water content: direct method
In: Methods of soil analysis, I C.A Black (Ed).
American Society Agronomy Inc. Madison, Wisconsin,
U.S.A. 82-84p
[18]Hariath, K., Van-Noordwijl, M. and Setijiond, S.
(1993).Tolerance to Acid Condition of velvet bean
plant and soil 152pp175-185
[19]Hartfield, J. L., Sauer, T. J. and Prueger, J. L. (2001).
Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency.
A review Argon J. 93, 217-280
[20]Hartmans, E. H., Kang, B. T., Wilson, G. F. and
Akobundu I. O. (1982). Role of planted fallow in
developing stable cropping systems. Paper presented at
the Multiple Cropping System Meeting of the

Latinoamerican Association of Agricultural Sciences
(ALCA), Chapingo, Mexico. 24-26 June.
[21]Hillel, D. (1982). Introduction to soil physics. Academi
Kemper,W.D. and Rosenau, R.C. (1986). Aggregate
stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.);
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical Analysis.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI, 425–442.c Press, Inc.
San Diego, California.
[22]Hodgson, A. S. and Macleod, S. (1989). Oxygen flux,
air-filled porosity and bulk density as indices of
Vertisol structure. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 53:2, 540-543
[23]Houngnanadan, P., Sanginga, N., Woomer, P.,
Vanlauwe, B., Cleemput, O.O. (2000). Response of
Mucuna pruriens pruriens to symbiotic nitrogen
fixation by rhizobia following inoculation in farmers
field in the derived savannah of Benin Biology- and
fertility of soil 30;5-6,5588-568:18ref
[24]Jury, W. A., Gardner, W.R., and Gardner, W. H. (1991).
Soil Physics, 5th Ed. Wiley, New York. 268-293
[25]Kemper, W. D. and Rosenau, R. C. (1986). Aggregate
stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.);
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical Analysis.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI, 425–442.
[26]Klute, A. (1986). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1.
Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Second Edition.
Am. Soc. Agron., Inc.
[27]Meteorological Service Department (2012).Rainfall
Distribution for the period January to December 2002
Mampong –Ashanti.
[28]Nyakande, C., Mariga, I. K., Dzowela, B. H., (1981).
Introduction of improve fallows of Serbian seban and
Pigeon pea. Under a maize stand. University of
Zimbabwe.
[29]Olabode, O. S., Ogunyemi, S. and Awodoyin, R. O.
(2006). Response of Okra
[30](Abelmoschus esculentus (L). Moench) to Weed
Control by Mulching. Ghana Journal of Agricultural
Science 39 (1). 35-40).
[31]Parson, A. J. (1996).The effect of seasonal production
and management of growth of in grass crops. London
Pp. 129-977.
[32]Philip, J. R. (1957). The theory of infiltration, 4,
Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations, Soil Sci.,
84: 257–264.
[33]Raison, R. J., Woods, P. V., Jakobsen, B. F., and Bary,
G. A. V. (1986).Soil temperatures during and following
low-intensity prescribed burning in a Eucalyptus
pauciflora forest. Australian Journal of Soil Research
24(1) 33 – 47.
[34]Reijntes, C. (1997). Sustaining the soil (Indigenous
soil) and water Conservation in Africa Cover crops in
West Africa. IITA Ibadan, Nigeria pp8-13.
[35]Soil Research Institute (1999). Guidelines to
interpretation of soil analytical data Srivastava, K.L.
(1992). Management of Vertisols in Africa: ICRISAT
experience.In: t Management of Vertisols in
Africa.Network Ducument no.3:131-140. Bangkok
IBSRAM.
[36]USDA-NRCS, (2008). Soil Quality Indicators:
Available Water Capacity. Soil Quality Information
Sheet, June 2008.
[37]Vargas, O., Ayala, R., Rodriguez –Kabana, R. Morgan-
Jones, G., Mclnroy J. A. and Kloepper, J.W. (2002).
Shift in soil Micro flora induced by Valvet bean in
cropping systems to control root-knot
nematodes.Biological control.2002, 17.
[38]Van-Camp, L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A. R., Jones,
R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C., Selvaradjou S.
K. (2004). Reports of the Technical Working Groups
Established Under the Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection, EUR 21319 EN/3, 872 P., Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
[39]Williams, C.J., McNamara, J.P. and Chandler, D.G.
(2009). Controls on the temporal and spatial variability
of soil moisture in a mountainous landscape: the
signature of snow and complex terrain. Hydrology.
Earth Syst. Sci., 13: 1325–1336.
[40]Wilson, G. F. Lal, R. and Okigbo, B.N. (1982). Effects
of cover crops on soil structure and yield of subsequent
arable crops grown under strip tillage on an eroded
alfisol. Soil tillageres.2: 233-250.
[41]Whitehead, D. (1995). Grassland Nitrogen. London
press.pp. 36-38

Response of hydro-physical properties of a Chromic Luvisol in Ghana to different methods of application of Mucuna pruriens as a soil amendments

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Response of hydro-physical properties of a Chromic Luvisol in Ghana to different methods of application of Mucuna pruriens as a soil amendments (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Response of hydro-physical properties of a Chromic Luvisol in Ghana to different methods of application of Mucuna pruriens as a soil amendments