
Measures devised to contain the COVID-19, including isolation, social distancing, and quarantine, have profoundly affected people's lives around the world. One of the consequences of these actions has been a general reduction in the habitual daily physical activity among children and young people for whom schools represent the major setting for the promotion of sports, physically active play, movement skills learning, and other activity supportive of healthy, active lifestyles. Whilst acknowledging the seriousness of these changes, and their concomitant health risks, we suggest that COVID-19 offers an opportunity to think again about important features of school-based activity promotion in light of new lessons learnt during lockdown, emerging technologies, and adapted pedagogies. In these specific cases, COVID-19 could be judged a “fortuitous disruptor” to the extent that it has opened a window of opportunity to schools and teachers to reflect on their assumptions about the scope, content, and delivery of their curricula, and on the new professional knowledge that has emerged. Active Homework, or physical activity-related tasks assigned to students by teachers that are meant to be carried out before, after and away from school, that students can do on their own or with family members, is not a new idea, but the enforced changes to school provision have made it considerably more common since the pandemic. Perhaps Active Homework is a concept worth retaining as schools start to return to “normal”? We offer a typology of Active Homework, and examine opportunities to expand, extend, and enhance physical education and physical activity opportunities by breaking down the presumed boundary between school and home. In conclusion, we suggest that Active Homework is worth exploring as a potentially valuable approach to enhancing the quantity and quality of students' school-based health-related physical activity. If so, considerably more research and curriculum development is needed.
Citation: Richard Bailey, Claude Scheuer. The COVID-19 pandemic as a fortuitous disruptor in physical education: the case of active homework[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 423-439. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022029
[1] | Fitri Damayanti, Salprima Yudha S, Aswin Falahudin . Oil palm leaf ash's effect on the growth and yield of Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 553-565. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023030 |
[2] | Tuan Syaripah Najihah, Mohd Hafiz Ibrahim, A'fifah Abd Razak, Rosimah Nulit, Puteri Edaroyati Megat Wahab . Effects of water stress on the growth, physiology and biochemical properties of oil palm seedlings. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 854-868. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.854 |
[3] | Widowati, Sutoyo, Hidayati Karamina, Wahyu Fikrinda . Soil amendment impact to soil organic matter and physical properties on the three soil types after second corn cultivation. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 150-168. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.150 |
[4] | Methuselah Mang’erere Nyamwange, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, Monicah Mucheru-Muna, Felix Ngetich . Soil management practices affect arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi propagules, root colonization and growth of rainfed maize. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(2): 120-134. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.120 |
[5] | Murimi David Njue, Mucheru-Muna Monicah Wanjiku, Mugi-Ngenga Esther, Zingore Shamie, Mutegi James Kinyua . Nutrient management options for enhancing productivity and profitability of conservation agriculture under on-farm conditions in central highlands of Kenya. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 666-680. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.666 |
[6] | W. Mupangwa, I. Nyagumbo, E. Mutsamba . Effect of different mulching materials on maize growth and yield in conservation agriculture systems of sub-humid Zimbabwe. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(2): 239-253. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.239 |
[7] | Nicholas Mawira Gitonga, Gilbert Koskey, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, John M. Maingi, Richard Cheruiyot . Dual inoculation of soybean with Rhizophagus irregularis and commercial Bradyrhizobium japonicum increases nitrogen fixation and growth in organic and conventional soils. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 478-495. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021028 |
[8] | Emmanuel Hanyabui, Samuel Obeng Apori, Kwame Agyei Frimpong, Kofi Atiah, Thomas Abindaw, Muhammed Ali, Joshua Yeboah Asiamah, John Byalebeka . Phosphorus sorption in tropical soils. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 599-616. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.599 |
[9] | Thamires Monteiro Silva Maués, Rafael Rodrigo da Silva Costa, Marcos Antônio Souza dos Santos, Gisele Barata da Silva . Agroeconomic performance of banana tree under nutritional management with Trichoderma asperellum, in a family production system. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(2): 297-311. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022019 |
[10] | Zhi Yuan Sia, Huck Ywih Ch'ng, Jeng Young Liew . Amending inorganic fertilizers with rice straw compost to improve soil nutrients availability, nutrients uptake, and dry matter production of maize (Zea mays L.) cultivated on a tropical acid soil. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 1020-1033. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.1020 |
Measures devised to contain the COVID-19, including isolation, social distancing, and quarantine, have profoundly affected people's lives around the world. One of the consequences of these actions has been a general reduction in the habitual daily physical activity among children and young people for whom schools represent the major setting for the promotion of sports, physically active play, movement skills learning, and other activity supportive of healthy, active lifestyles. Whilst acknowledging the seriousness of these changes, and their concomitant health risks, we suggest that COVID-19 offers an opportunity to think again about important features of school-based activity promotion in light of new lessons learnt during lockdown, emerging technologies, and adapted pedagogies. In these specific cases, COVID-19 could be judged a “fortuitous disruptor” to the extent that it has opened a window of opportunity to schools and teachers to reflect on their assumptions about the scope, content, and delivery of their curricula, and on the new professional knowledge that has emerged. Active Homework, or physical activity-related tasks assigned to students by teachers that are meant to be carried out before, after and away from school, that students can do on their own or with family members, is not a new idea, but the enforced changes to school provision have made it considerably more common since the pandemic. Perhaps Active Homework is a concept worth retaining as schools start to return to “normal”? We offer a typology of Active Homework, and examine opportunities to expand, extend, and enhance physical education and physical activity opportunities by breaking down the presumed boundary between school and home. In conclusion, we suggest that Active Homework is worth exploring as a potentially valuable approach to enhancing the quantity and quality of students' school-based health-related physical activity. If so, considerably more research and curriculum development is needed.
Active homework;
Health enhancing physical activity;
Physical education
In most developing countries, oil palm is considered the most productive vegetable oil crop per unit area and contributes to economic growth mostly in developing countries [1,2]. Oil palm is the second most significant tree crop in Ghana economy after cocoa however, it is considered to be the leading cash crop in the rural economy in the forest belt of Ghana [3]. In 2010, Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), stated the total estimated area of oil palm in Ghana as 330,000/ha [4]. The product obtained from palm oil is known as the palm fruit. The palm fruit is processed into palm oil, palm kernel oil and palm cake oil whilst the crude palm oil is further processed into cooking oil, margarine, cosmetics, soaps and detergents. According to Ofosu-Budu and Sarpong [3], palm oil is noted to be the largest natural source of Vitamin E which is essential as well as dietary magnesium. Oil palm utilizes a high amount of nutrients from the soil for their optimum growth and development. This results in excessive removal of nutrients from the soil leading to a decline in soil fertility. Several studies show that the availability and use of inorganic and organic fertilizer have been low especially in large plantation farms. As a result, the decline in soil fertility in oil palm plantations is widespread [5,6]. Ofosu-Budu and Sarpong [3], emphasized inadequate demand-driven research especially in soil nutrient management is the major challenge to the local industry. Farmers in Mpohor district in the western region of Ghana have complained immensely of small fruit bunch of their oil palm despite the application of fertilizers, but in oil palm plantation, nutrient management is the key to higher fruit bunch of crops. Several studies have shown that N, P, K and Mg are the major soil nutrients required by oil palm for optimum vegetative growth and higher yield of fruit bunch. Joseph et al. [7] initiated research on the assessment of soil fertility status for cassava cultivation in some areas of Kogi east Agro-ecological zone of Kogi state and concluded that the potential yield of cassava depends on the soil quality indicators. In Ghana, Arthur et al. [8], did an assessment of soil fertility status in cocoa farms around the Ankasa National Park in the Jomoro District of the Western Region of Ghana Many kinds of research have been done on soil fertility status globally on various crops, particularly Ghana, but unfortunately, in the Mpohor district in the Western Region of Ghana none of this research has been conducted. It is, therefore, no surprise that farmers are complaining of the low yield of the oil palm in the district. Therefore the main objective of this study was to evaluate the fertility status of oil palm plantations in the Mpohor district in the Western Region of Ghana. The main hypothesis being tested is that the low oil palm yield recorded among farmers in Mpohor district is due to the low fertility of the soil. The results will guide us to advise farmers in the study area regarding types of fertilizer, rate of fertilizer application and soil fertility management strategy.
The study was carried out in the two farming communities, Odumase (A) and Edum Banso (B) in the Mpohor district in the Western Region of Ghana (Figure 1).
The annual rainfall in the area is around 1400 mm, with a bimodal rainfall pattern. The major season normally begins in February; reaches its peak in June and drops sharply in August. The minor season starts in September with the lowest occurring in December and January. Mean monthly temperatures remain high throughout the year and only fall to around 26℃ in August. February and March are the hottest months recording nearly 40℃. An absolute minimum temperature of 21℃ is usually recorded in January with an absolute maximum temperature of about 40℃ recorded in February.
Two farming communities namely Odumase and Edum Banso were selected for soil sampling. Farmers in Odumase (A) were sufficient with the yield obtained from the oil palm plantation whiles Farmers in Edum Banso (B) always complained of their low yield from their farms. Hence Odumase (A) was used as a reference to compare to Edum Banso (B). The Edum Banso (B) community was selected because of the high complaint of low yield of oil palm by the farmers. According to the farmers in the Odumase community, they applied organic manure and 10-20-20 N-P-K during the transplanting stage and at the fruiting stage, they applied potassium and phosphorus from muriate of potash and dia ammonium phosphorus, respectively. However, farmers in the Edum Banso (B) applied 17-17-17, N-P-K once in a while. The majority of the farms selected for the study were previously used for cassava and plantain cultivation. Twenty-five (25) soil samples were collected in between trunks each from the communities at the depth of 0–20 cm with a diagonal pattern using soil augur. This was done in 2018 when the farmers were about to harvest the fruits for palm oil production and were sampled within 48 hours. The samples were placed in polythene bags, labeled and transported to the CSIR-Soil Research Institute laboratory for analysis. All soil samples were then air-dried to constant weight to avoid microbial degradation [9]. They were made lump-free by gently grinding repeatedly using a pulverizing machine and passed through a 2 mm plastic sieve before analysis. Samples were subjected to laboratory analysis for the major soil nutrients and the results obtained are presented below.
Soil pH was measured in the soil to water ratio of 1:2.5 soil: water (w/v) suspension [10]. Total nitrogen was measured by the modified Macro-Kjeldahl method [11]. Available phosphorus was extracted with Bray 1 solution and measured on a spectrophotometer [12]. Organic carbon was determined using the method of Nelson & Sommers [13] Exchangeable bases were extracted with 1.0M ammonium acetate solution. Sodium and potassium contents in the extract were determined using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS), while calcium and magnesium were determined by titration. The method of Thomas [14], was used for the determination of exchangeable acidity. Effective cation exchange capacity (ECEC) was then calculated as the sum of exchangeable cations (K, Ca, Mg, and Na) and exchangeable acidity (Al + H). Particle size analysis was done using the pipette method [15].
To assess the nutrient availability status of the soil in the study area, organic carbon, available P, exchangeable K, calcium, magnesium and total nitrogen were calculated based on the specific rating chart (Table 1) and the nutrient index in soils was calculated using the method adopted by Ravikumar and Somashekar [16] (Table 2); Nutrient index (N.I.) = (L × 1 + NM × 2 + NH × 3) / TNS, Where L = Number of samples in the low category; M = Number of the sample in the medium category; H = Number of the sample in High category; TNS = Total number of samples. The nutrient index is used to predict the sufficiency of each soil quality indicators in fertile soil using soil test results obtained from the laboratory.
Soil pH | |||
Acidity | Neutrality | Alkaline | |
Range | Below 6.0 | 6.0–8.0 | Above 8.0 |
Soil reaction index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Organic matter (OM) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (%) | Below 4 | 4–20 | Above 20 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Total nitrogen | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (%) | Below 0.08 | 0.08–0.15 | Above 0.25 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Calcium (Ca) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Magnesium (Mg) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Sodium (Na) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Potassium (K) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 0.08 | 0.08–0.15 | Above 0.25 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Available phosphorus (P) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 20 | 22–54 | Above 54 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 6 | 12–15 | Above 18 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
S.N. | Nutrient Index | Value |
I | Low | Below 1.67 |
II | Medium | 1.67–2.33 |
III | High | Above 2.33 |
Descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, standard error, ranges and coefficient of variation for each physicochemical parameter of the soil were calculated.
The results of the soil fertility assessment are present in Tables 3 and 4 while the nutrient index is presented in Table 5.
Particle size distribution | ||||||
Descriptive Statistics | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | |||
A | B | A | B | A | B | |
Mean ± SE | 60.2 ± 12.6 (46, 86) | 67.2 ± 10.16 (56, 84) | 15 ± 5.12 (8, 26) | 17.8 ± 7.15 (8, 28) | 24 ± 9.17 (2, 38) | 15 ± 9.72 (6, 38) |
Standard deviation | 12.6 | 10.16 | 5.12 | 7.15 | 10.41 | 9.72 |
Cv % | 18 | 15.1 | 38 | 40.1 | 74.4 | 64.8 |
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; Mean ± SE = Mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum in parenthesis. |
Selected soil chemical properties | Mean ± SE | SD | % CV | |||||
A | B | A | B | A | B | |||
pH | 5.45 ± 0.35 (4.39, 6.3) |
5.03 ± 0.35 (4.29, 5.42) |
1.05 | 0.07 | 6.91 | 26.43 | ||
OM (%) | 2.31 ± 0.43 (1.84, 2.97) |
1.38 ± 0.38 (0.91, 2.1) |
1.296 | 1.13 | 18.7 | 27.4 | ||
OC (%) | 1.23 ± 0.34 (0.45, 2.15 |
0.71 ± 0.35 (0.45, 1.98) |
2.12 | 1.34 | 21.5 | 32.45 | ||
Avail. P (mg kg-1) | 7.69 ± 8.92 (0.4, 23.28) |
3.31 ± 5.66 (0.32, 19.29) |
16.98 | 26.76 | 45.0 | 52.4 | ||
K (cmol kg-1) | 0.26 ± 0.16 (0.07, 0.54) |
0.21 ± 0.09 (0.04, 0.27) |
0.478 | 0.26 | 71.1 | 80.8 | ||
TN (%) | 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.11, 0.18) |
0.09 ± 0.03 (0.06, 0.13) |
0.081 | 0.07 | 19.3 | 26.4 | ||
Na (cmol kg-1) | 0.75 ± 0.26 (0.23, 83) |
0.64 ± 1.72 (0.23, 0.75) |
2.28 | 5.15 | 39 | 57 | ||
Mg (cmol kg-1) | 0.42 ± 0.20 (0.21, 1.17) |
0.39 ± 0.26 (0.21, 1.17) |
0.89 | 0.77 | 64.9 | 65.5 | ||
Ca (cmol kg-1) | 1.22 ± 0.21 (0.64, 4.05) |
0.70 ± 0.20 (0.53, 1.28) |
3.12 | 0.61 | 85.6 | 30.60 | ||
CEC (cmol kg-1) | 3.03 ± 0.46 (1.92, 3.44) |
2.28 ± 1.25 (2.18, 6.47) |
1.389 | 3.756 | 20.3 | 41.3 | ||
BS (cmol kg-1) | 60.99 ± 13.43 (38.93, 83.7) |
52.75 ± 8.89 (39.7, 70.93) |
26.94 | 40.29 | 17 | 22 | ||
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; Mean ± SE = Mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum in parenthesis. OM = organic matter; OC = organic carbon; TN = total nitrogen; P = available Phosphorus; K = potassium; Ca = calcium; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; CEC = cation exchange capacity; Na = sodium; and BS = base saturation. |
Parameters | Nutrient index | Remarks | ||
A | B | A | B | |
TN | 1.96 | 1.56 | medium | low |
OM | 2.1 | 1.00 | Medium | low |
Ca | 1.4 | 1.28 | low | low |
Mg | 1.0 | 1.0 | low | low |
K | 2.04 | 1.84 | Medium | Medium |
Na | 1.68 | 1.8 | low | low |
P | 2.0 | 1.44 | medium | low |
ECEC | 1.96 | 1.44 | medium | low |
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; OM = organic matter; TN = total nitrogen; P = available Phosphorus; K = potassium; Ca = calcium; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; CEC = cation exchange capacity; Na = sodium. |
The relative proportions of sand, silt and clay in a particular type of soil determine its soil class, textural class, textural grade, and texture. Soil productivity and sustainability depend on soil texture which has a direct influence on crop productivity. The properties of soil texture are dynamic. This means it changes depending on weathering rate and the initial mineralogy of the parent material or the deposition of material from streams, runoff, and erosion [17]. Soil texture influences soil quality indices. There wasn’t much difference that exists among the soil in the two separate locations. For site A, the % sand of soil samples ranged from 46 to 86% with the mean value of 60.2% and that of % silt were 8 to 26% with a mean of 25.8% while the range of % clay was 2 to 38% with a mean of 25.42%. The location B soil recorded a mean percentage of 67.2, 17.8 and 15 respectively (Table 3). The higher % portion of sand was recorded in soil samples from Edum Banso (B) will have a direct influence on soil fertility and crop productivity in the study area due to their low nutrient and water retention capacity [18,19], hence contributing to the low yield of palm fruit obtained by farmers. The application of organic amendments such as manure and compost will improve the physicochemical properties of such soil.
Soil pH is an important chemical parameter of soil because it has direct effects on nutrient availability [20]. The pH of the soil samples analyzed varied from 4.44 to 6.56 with a mean value of 5.41. The pH of the soil samples analyzed varied from 4.29 to 5.42 with a mean value of 5.45 for A, while B recorded a mean of 5.05. The low acid recorded by location A was due to the application of manure and compost be done regularly by the farmers. The pH recorded for the study area was weakly acidic which plays a significant role in the metal bioavailability to plant, toxicity, microbial growth and leaching capacity of soil to surrounding areas [21]The factors that may influence the low pH of soil samples from Edum Banso are prolonged use of inorganic fertilizer, acidic rainfall and decomposition of organic matter. According to Jusop [22], palm trees are tolerant of acid soils, however, they grow well in the pH range between 4.3 to 6.5. Oil palm can tolerate the level of acidity of the soil, therefore, liming will not be needed (Table 4).
Organic matter is a reservoir of nutrients that can be released into the soil. It improves soil structure and plays an important role in carbon sequestration. Higher organic matter results in higher organic carbon in the soil. Organic matter results from the decomposition of plants and animals which is an important source of plant essential nutrients. Organic matter increases the physicochemical properties of the soil hence, increasing soil productivity. Johnston, [23], stated that organic matter aid in availability of plant nutrient, improve the soil structure, water infiltration and retention, feeds soil micro-flora and fauna, and the retention and cycling of applied fertilizer. Site A and site B recorded organic matter means the value of 2.31% and 1.38% respectively. Soil samples from Edum Banso (B) farming community recorded low organic matter due to poor soil management practices by the farmers. Low organic matter recorded for soil samples from Edum Banso (B) indicates low decomposition waste plants, animals, and microorganisms in the soil hence resulting in low soil carbon (0.71%). However, farmers in odumasi (A) community have been applying manure as well as using their pruned palm front as mulching materials hence leading to the high organic matter and organic carbon recorded (1.23 %) recorded. The organic carbon recorded for soil samples from Edum Banso (B) falls below the OC critical threshold at 1.2 % for oil palm trees [24]. Low organic matter can be corrected by mulching the farm with the pruned palm front. The pruned palm front should be cut into smaller pieces for mulching to facilitate decomposition (Table 4).
Plants require a relatively large amount of nitrogen for their development. This explains why most of the plant growth is restricted by a deficiency of nitrogen than any other nutrient. Soil from locations [A and B], recorded nitrogen mean values of 0.16 and 0.09% respectively. The N recorded for soil samples from Odumase (A) and Edum Banso (B) were above and below the N critical threshold of (0.15%) for the oil palm tree, respectively [24]. The higher nitrogen recorded was due to the high OC recorded since there is a direct relationship that exists between organic matter and nitrogen. The higher the organic matter content in the soil, the higher N content in the soil. However, location B needs to improve its low N content to meet the N requirement for the Oil Palm tree. Application of nitrogenous base fertilizer and organic resources (compost, manure) is key to increasing the N content of the soil for soils from Edum Banso (B) (Table 4).
The available phosphorus ranged from 0.32 to 19.29 mg kg-1 with a mean value of 3.31 mg kg-1 for soil samples from Odumase (A) while soil from Edum Banso (B) recorded phosphorus mean value of 7.6 mg kg-1. According to Goh et al. [26], available P content less than 25 mg kg-1 is below the phosphorus threshold for oil palm trees. However, soil from Odumase (A) recorded high available phosphorus than Edum Banso (B). The low available phosphorus recorded by the soil from Edum Banso (B) was due to the strong acid nature of the soils. Application of phosphorus fertilizers, liming and P solubilizing microorganisms will be necessary to increase available phosphorus in the soil (Table 4).
Except for nitrogen, potassium is present in plants in larger quantities than any mineral derived from the soil. Potassium is responsible for the metabolism in the movement of the stomata resulting in the activation of cell division [27]. The potassium content of soil of the particular region is related to parent material and the degree of weathering. There were no significant differences among the soil samples from Odumase (A) and soil from Edum Banso (B). Both locations A and B recorded available potassium of 0.22 and 0.21 cmol kg-1, respectively. The potassium content recorded for two locations [A and B] was above the critical K threshold of 20 cmol kg-1 for oil palm [24]. However, farmers may be advised to either maintain or increase the potassium fertilizer rate to prevent the depletion of potassium in the soil. According to Ogeh and Osiomwan [28], the calcium content of the soil differs at various points depending on directional changes and the distance from nearby samples. The result from the present study showed that site A recorded higher variability (85.6%) as compared to site B (30.60%) for Ca content in the samples analyzed (Table 5). The analysis showed that calcium content for both site ranged from 0.53 to 4.05 cmol kg-1 while site A obtained a range from 0.64 to 4.05 cmol kg-1 and site B also obtained a range from 0.53 to 1.28 cmol kg-1. The mean value observed for sites A and B were 1.22 cmol kg-1 and 0.70 cmol kg-1 respectively. The calcium content recorded for both Odumase and Edum Banso were above the critical level of Ca for oil palm tree [29]. However, soil samples from Edum Banso recorded high Ca content due to its high base saturation recorded. The Mg recorded for the two sites [A and B] were very high than the proposed critical Mg threshold (0.30 cmol kg-1) for oil palm. Therefore, the application of magnesium source fertilizer is usually not required unless to correct for nutrient imbalance [24]. According to Cha-Um et al. [30], the salt-affected soil problem is a member of abiotic stresses, which are a major problem worldwide. They further stated that it is a soil composing of various salts, which are quickly dissolved in water to produce toxic ions, especially sodium ions (Na+). Sodium-ion (Na+) is well established for negatively affecting plant growth and development before plant cell death [31,32,33]. The sodium (Na) content recorded for both site A and site B had a mean value of 0.75 and 0.64 cmol kg-1 respectively. The sodium (Na) content recorded had a low mean value of 0.04 cmol kg-1. The level of Sodium (Na+) accumulated in the soils of the oil palm fields depends on the degree of salt treatments in terms of EC (dS m-1) [33] (Table 4).
Base saturation (BS) is defined as the percentage of CEC occupied by Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+. Base saturation (BS) content of soil samples from Odumasi (A) recorded a high mean value of 60.99 cmol kg-1 compared to soil samples from Edum Banso (B) (52.72) cmol kg-1. The availability of Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+ depends on the high BS. Hence the low BS recorded by Edum Banso (B) was due to the low availability of Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+ in the soils. The content of Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) recorded by the two sites (A and B) was 3.03 and 2.28 cmol kg-1 respectively. Farmer’s application of manure in site A influenced the high CEC in site A since Cation Exchange Capacity is influenced by soil organic matter (SOM) and high clay particles especially in humic form, contributed to soil colloids having charges which can hold cations [34].
Soil samples from Edum Banso recorded a low content of nutrient availability index of TN, OM, Ca, Mg, Na, P and moderate content of K whiles soil samples from Odumase recorded a moderate level of TN, P, OM and ECEC and this was due to the application of the manure being done by the farmers in the region. However, a low Ca, Mg and Na were recorded for the nutrient availability index.
The study revealed that the nutrients content of both sites was different. Soil samples from Odumase (A) recorded a high OM, OC, TN, P, Ca which are above their critical value for oil palm tree whiles soil samples recorded a low nutrient of OM, OC, TN, P and Ca. The nutrient availability index indicated a low nutrient availability of TN, OM, P and Mg. Hence the low palm yield being recorded by farmers in Edum Banso (B) is due to the low nutrient content of the soils. Hence proper nutrient management approaches such as the application of inorganic fertilizer should be adopted especially for nutrients that are deficient and low.
The authors thank the African Center of Excellence in Agroecology and Livelihood System for their financial support and encouragement.
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
[1] | Lincoln A Annual Message to Congress, Washington, DC: December 1, 1862 (1862). Available from: http://www.https://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/40533 |
[2] | World Bank (2022) Global economic prospects. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. |
[3] | Meyerowitz-Katz G, Bhatt S, Ratmann O, et al. (2021) Is the cure really worse than the disease? The health impacts of lockdowns during COVID-19. BMJ Glob Health 6: e006653. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006653 |
[4] | Pietrobelli A, Pecoraro L, Ferruzzi A, et al. (2020) Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on lifestyle behaviors in children with obesity living in Verona, Italy: a longitudinal study. Obesity 28: 1382-1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22861 |
[5] | Ravens-Sieberer U, Kaman A, Erhart M, et al. (2021) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents in Germany. Eur Child Adoles Psy 1–11. https//doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01726-5 |
[6] | Schwab K (2016) The fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum. |
[7] | UNICEFEducation disrupted: The second year of the COVID-19 pandemic and school closures (2021). Available from: https://data.unicef.org/resources/education-disrupted |
[8] | Goldfeld S, O'Connor E, Sung V, et al. (2022) Potential indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children: a narrative review using a community child health lens. Med J Aust 216: 364-372. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51368 |
[9] | Viner RM, Ward JL, Hudson LD, et al. (2021) Systematic review of reviews of symptoms and signs of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Arch Dis Child 106: 802-807. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-320972 |
[10] | OECD (2021) La situation de l’enseignement scolaire, Paris: OECD. |
[11] | World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEFThe state of the global education crisis: A path to recovery (2021). Available from: https://www.unicef.org/reports/state-global-education-crisis |
[12] | Bloom BS (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans Group. |
[13] | (2015) UNESCOInternational Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport. Paris: UNESCO. |
[14] | Kristjánsson K (2019) Flourishing as the aim of education: A neo-Aristotelian view. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464898 |
[15] | Dunton GF, Do B, Wang SD (2020) Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and sedentary behavior in children living in the US. BMC Public Health 20: 1351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09429-3 |
[16] | Schmidt SCE, Burchatz A, Kolb S, et al. (2021) Zur Situation der körperlich-sportlichen Aktivität von Kindern und Jugendlichen während der COVID-19 Pandemie in Deutschland: Die Motorik-Modul Studie (MoMo).Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) Scientific Working Papers. |
[17] | Wunsch K, Nigg C, Niessner C, et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on the interrelation of physical activity, screen time and health-related quality of Life in children and adolescents in Germany: results of Motorik-Modul Study. Children 8: 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8020098 |
[18] | Derigny T, Schnitzler C, Gandrieau J, et al. (2022) Resilience of adolescents in physical activity during the covid-19 pandemic: a preliminary case study in France. Phys Act Rev 10: 86-97. https://doi.org/10.16926/rp.2020.12.10 |
[19] | Zenic N, Taiar R, Gilic B, et al. (2020) Levels and changes of physical activity in adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Contextualizing urban vs. rural living environment. Appl Sci 10: 3997. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10113997 |
[20] | Margaritis I, Houdart S, El Ouadrhiri Y, et al. (2020) How to deal with COVID-19 epidemic-related lockdown physical inactivity and sedentary increase in youth?. Arch Public Health 78: 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00432-z |
[21] | Vanderloo LM, Carsley S, Aglipay M, et al. (2020) Applying harm reduction principles to address screen time in young children amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J Dev Behav Pediatr 41: 335-336. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000825 |
[22] | Moore SA, Faulkner G, Rhodes RE, et al. (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and play behaviours of Canadian children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 17: 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00987-8 |
[23] | Xiang M, Zhang Z, Kuwahara K (2020) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents' lifestyle behavior larger than expected. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 63: 531-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.04.013 |
[24] | Ten Velde G, Lubrecht J, Arayess L, et al. (2021) Physical activity behaviour and screen time in Dutch children during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pre-, during-and post-school closures. Pediatric Obes 16: e12779. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12779 |
[25] | Greier K, Drenowatz C, Bischofer T, et al. (2021) Physical activity and sitting time prior to and during COVID-19 lockdown in Austrian high-school students. AIMS Public Health 8: 531. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2021043 |
[26] | Hyunshik K, Jiameng M, Sunkyoung L, et al. (2021) Change in Japanese children's 24-hour movement guidelines and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Rep 11: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01803-4 |
[27] | Ostermeier E, Tucker P, Clark A, et al. (2021) Parents' report of Canadian elementary school children's physical activity and screen time during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18: 12352. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312352 |
[28] | Grgic J, Dumuid D, Bengoechea EG, et al. (2018) Health outcomes associated with reallocations of time between sleep, sedentary behaviour, and physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 15: 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0691-3 |
[29] | Breidokienė R, Jusienė R, Urbonas V, et al. (2021) Sedentary behavior among 6–14-Year-Old children during the COVID-19 lockdown and its relation to physical and mental health. Healthcare 9: 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9060756 |
[30] | Van Sluijs EM, Ekelund U, Crochemore-Silva I, et al. (2021) Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet 398: 429-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01259-9 |
[31] | Okazaki K, Suzuki K, Sakamoto Y, et al. (2015) Physical activity and sedentary behavior among children and adolescents living in an area affected by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami for 3 years. Prev Med Rep 2: 720-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.08.010 |
[32] | Cope E, Bailey RP (2016) A review of research and evidence on factors that impact on children's sport and physical activity behaviours and attitudes. London: Sport England. |
[33] | Daly-Smith A, Quarmby T, Archbold VS, et al. (2020) Using a multi-stakeholder experience-based design process to co-develop the Creating Active Schools Framework. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 17: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-0917-z |
[34] | Bailey RP (2018) Is sport good for us?. Sport and Health. London: Routledge 7-35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315266459-2 |
[35] | McKenzie TL, Lounsbery MA (2014) The pill not taken: Revisiting physical education teacher effectiveness in a public health context. Res Q Exerc Sport 85: 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.931203 |
[36] | Bailey RP, Vašíčková J, Vlček P, et al. (2019) An international review of the contributions of school-based physical activity, physical education, and school sport to the promotion of health-enhancing physical activity. Timeline . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5899571 |
[37] | Gobbi E, Maltagliati S, Sarrazin P, et al. (2020) Promoting physical activity during school closures imposed by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17: 9431. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249431 |
[38] | Varea V, González-Calvo G, García-Monge A (2022) Exploring the changes of physical education in the age of Covid-19. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 27: 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1861233 |
[39] | Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, et al. (2011) Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: a review. Am J Prev Med 41: 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.036 |
[40] | Masonbrink AR, Hurley E (2020) Advocating for children during the COVID-19 school closures. Pediatrics 146: e20201440. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-1440 |
[41] | Bailey R, Hillman C, Arent S, et al. (2013) Physical activity: an underestimated investment in human capital?. J Phys Act Health 10: 289-308. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.10.3.289 |
[42] | Schmidt SC, Anedda B, Burchartz A, et al. (2020) Physical activity and screen time of children and adolescents before and during the COVID-19 lockdown in Germany. Sci Rep 10: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78438-4 |
[43] | Ding D, del Pozo Cruz B, Green MA, et al. (2020) Is the COVID-19 lockdown nudging people to be more active. Br J Sports Med 54: 1183-1184. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102575 |
[44] | Schnaiderman D, Bailac M, Borak L, et al. (2021) Psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdown in children and adolescents from San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina. Arch Argent Pediatr 119: 170-176. https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2021.eng.170 |
[45] | Perez D, Thalken JK, Ughelu NE, et al. (2021) Nowhere to go: Parents' descriptions of children's physical activity during a global pandemic. Front Public Health 9: 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.642932 |
[46] | Davies BR, Wood L, Banfield K, et al. (2014) The provision of active after-school clubs for children in English primary schools: implications for increasing children's physical activity. Open J Prev Med . https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2014.47069 |
[47] | Elflein P, Huh Y (2014) Sport und Sportunterricht im Rahmen einer gesunden Schule. Die berufsbildende Sch 66: 168-173. |
[48] | Maltagliati S, Carraro A, Escriva-Boulley G, et al. (2021) Changes in physical education teachers' motivations predict the evolution of behaviors promoting students' physical activity during the COVID-19 lockdown. SportRxiv . https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/h4mw8 |
[49] | Zhu X, Liu J (2020) Education in and after Covid-19: Immediate responses and long-term visions. Postdigit Sci Educ 2: 695-699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00126-3 |
[50] | Gadamer HG (1960) Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr. |
[51] | Gard M, Pluim C (2014) Schools and public health: Past, present, future.Lexington Books. |
[52] | Scheuer C, Bailey RP (2021) The active school concept. Physical Activity and Sport During the First Ten Years of Life. London: Routledge 173-187. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429352645-19 |
[53] | Illi U (1995) Bewegte Schule. Die Bedeutung Und Funktion Der Bewegung Als Beitrag Zu Einer Ganzheitlichen Gesundheitsbildung Im Lebensraum Schule. Sportunterricht 44: 404-415. |
[54] | Thiel A, Teubert H (2018) Die Bewegte Schule. Handbuch Bildungsreform und Reformpädagogik. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07491-3_47 |
[55] | Fox KR (1996) Physical activity promotion and the active school. New directions in physical education. London: Farmer 94-109. |
[56] | Fox K, Harris J (2003) Promoting physical activity through schools. Perspectives on health and exercise. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 181-201. |
[57] | Bailey RP, Heck S, Scheuer C (2022) Active Homework: an under-researched element of the active schools concept. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-022-00802-5 |
[58] | Smith MA, Claxton DB (2003) Using active homework in physical education. J Phys Educ Recreat 74: 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2003.10608482 |
[59] | St Ours E, Scrabis-Fletcher KA (2013) Implementing active homework in secondary physical education. Strategies 26: 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2013.839433 |
[60] | Smith J, Cluphf D, O'Connor J (2001) Homework in elementary physical education: a pilot study. Percept Mot Skills 92: 133-136. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.92.1.133 |
[61] | Kohl HW, Cook HD (2012) Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. Washington DC: National Academies Press. |
[62] | Storey KE, Montemurro G, Flynn J, et al. (2016) Essential conditions for the implementation of comprehensive school health to achieve changes in school culture and improvements in health behaviours of students. BMC Public Health 16: 1133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3787-1 |
[63] | Beets MW, Okely A, Weaver RG, et al. (2016) The theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced opportunities for youth physical activity promotion. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0442-2 |
[64] | Terhart E (2009) Didaktik. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam. |
[65] | Bull F, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, et al. (2020) World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med 54: 1451-1462. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955 |
[66] | Wagner I (2016) Wissen im Sportunterricht. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783840311796 |
[67] | Kääpä M, Palomäki S, Vähä-Ypyä H, et al. (2019) The role of physical education homework to adolescent girls' physical activity in Finland. Adv Phys Educ 9: 223-239. https://doi.org/10.4236/ape.2019.94016 |
[68] | Cooper H (1989) Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman. https://doi.org/10.1037/11578-000 |
[69] | Cooper H, Robinson JC, Patall EA (2006) Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Rev Educ Res 76: 1-62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001 |
[70] | Vogel P (2007) Hausaufgaben in einer Bewegten Schule. Bewegte Schule: Schule bewegt gestalten. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren 246-259. |
[71] | (2011) BASPO (Bundesamt für Sport (BASPO)Die bewegte Schule. Erklärungen zum Schweizer Modell. Magglingen: BASPO. |
[72] | Duncan S, Stewart T, McPhee J, et al. (2019) Efficacy of a compulsory homework programme for increasing physical activity and improving nutrition in children: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 16: 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0840-3 |
[73] | Williams SM, Hannon JC (2013) Physical education homework that involves the family. Strategies 26: 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2013.779848 |
[74] | Brown TD, Penney D (2017) Examination physical education: policy, practice and possibilities. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753997 |
[75] | Hill K (2018) Homework in physical education?. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance 89: 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1440263 |
[76] | Kinchin GD, O'Sullivan M (2003) Incidences of student support for and resistance to a curricular innovation in high school physical education. J Teach Phys Educ 22: 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.22.3.245 |
[77] | Smith M, Madden M (2014) Middle School Students' Reactions to the Implementation of Active Homework in Physical Education. Global J Health Phys Educ Pedagog . |
[78] | Smith J, Cluphf D, O'Connor J (2001) Homework in elementary physical education. Percept Mot Skills 92: 133-136. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.92.1.133 |
[79] | Pantanowitz M, Lidor R, Nemet D, et al. (2011) Feasibility of physical education homework assignments in high-school. Children and Exercise XXVII. London: Routledge 169-173. |
[80] | Brazendale K, Beets MW, Weaver RG, et al. (2017) Understanding differences between summer vs. school obesogenic behaviors of children: the structured days hypothesis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 14: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0555-2 |
[81] | Moreno JP, Johnston CA, Woehler D (2013) Changes in weight over the school year and summer vacation. J Sch Health 83: 473-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12054 |
[82] | Fairclough SJ, Boddy LM, Mackintosh KA, et al. (2015) Weekday and weekend sedentary time and physical activity in differentially active children. J Sci Med Sport 18: 444-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.005 |
[83] | Sailer M, Murböck J, Fischer F (2021) Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology?. Teach Teach Educ 103: 103346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346 |
[84] | OECDDigital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring education policies on digital technologies (2020). Avaliable from: https://www.oecd.org/education/digital-strategies-in-education-across-oecd-countries-33dd4c26-en.htm |
[85] | Scully D, Lehane P, Scully C (2021) ‘It is no longer scary’: digital learning before and during the Covid-19 pandemic in Irish secondary schools. Technol Pedagog Educ 30: 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844 |
[86] | Jie ND (2016) Towards a framework of education policy analysis. THF Literature Rev . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002666-8 |
[87] | Bailey RP, Callary B (2022) Sport education from a global perspective. Education in Sport and Physical Activity: Future Directions and Global Perspectives. London: Routledge. |
[88] | Kirk D (2009) Physical education futures. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874622 |
[89] | Colao A, Piscitelli P, Pulimeno M, et al. (2020) Rethinking the role of the school after COVID-19. Lancet Public Health 5: e370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30124-9 |
1. | Eric Opoku Mensah, Richard Asare, Philippe Vaast, Christiana A. Amoatey, Bo Markussen, Kwadwo Owusu, Bismark Kwesi Asitoakor, Anders Ræbild, Limited effects of shade on physiological performances of cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) under elevated temperature, 2022, 201, 00988472, 104983, 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.104983 | |
2. | Sanjib Kumar Behera, Arvind Kumar Shukla, Kancherla Suresh, Kamireddy Manorama, Ravi Kumar Mathur, Kaushik Majumdar, Yield Variability in Oil Palm Plantations in Tropical India Is Influenced by Surface and Sub-Surface Soil Fertility and Leaf Mineral Nutrient Contents, 2022, 14, 2071-1050, 2672, 10.3390/su14052672 | |
3. | Thanh-Tu Thi Nguyen, Anh Viet Nguyen, Tai The Diep, Nhuan Ngoc Doan, Thao-Tran Thi Nguyen, Essential oil profiles of seeds, peels, and leaves obtained from Limnocitrus littoralis (Miq.) swingle species, in the Southcentral coast of Vietnam, 2022, 15, 2689-5293, 908, 10.1080/26895293.2022.2112766 | |
4. | Ehsan Jolous Jamshidi, Yusri Yusup, Chee Wooi Hooy, Mohamad Anuar Kamaruddin, Hasnuri Mat Hassan, Syahidah Akmal Muhammad, Helmi Zulhaidi Mohd Shafri, Kek Hoe Then, Mohd Shahkhirat Norizan, Choon Chek Tan, Predicting oil palm yield using a comprehensive agronomy dataset and 17 machine learning and deep learning models, 2024, 81, 15749541, 102595, 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102595 | |
5. | Vimlesh Chand, Abu Reza Md Towfiqul Islam, Md Yousuf Mia, Md Saiful Islam, Md Abdullah Al Masud, Rahat Khan, Subodh Chandra Pal, Sudhir Kumar Singh, Rozleen Roslyn Deo, Investigating soil physicochemical factors influencing trace element contamination at the semi-urban-rural home gardening interfaces on the Fiji Islands, 2024, 39, 23520094, e00884, 10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00884 | |
6. | Auwalu Garba Gashua, Zulkefly Sulaiman, Martini Mohammad Yusoff, Mohd Yusoff Abd. Samad, Mohd Fauzi Ramlan, Shafar Jefri Mokhatar, Short-Term Effects of Bokashi Fertilizer with Reduced NPK Fertilization on Soil Fertility, Growth, and Yield of Rubber Trees, 2023, 46, 2231-8542, 839, 10.47836/pjtas.46.3.07 | |
7. | Sirojul Munir, Kudang Boro Seminar, Heru Sukoco, 2023, The Application of Smart and Precision Agriculture (SPA) for Measuring Leaf Nitrogen Content of Oil Palm in Peat Soil Areas, 979-8-3503-2095-4, 650, 10.1109/ICCoSITE57641.2023.10127812 |
Soil pH | |||
Acidity | Neutrality | Alkaline | |
Range | Below 6.0 | 6.0–8.0 | Above 8.0 |
Soil reaction index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Organic matter (OM) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (%) | Below 4 | 4–20 | Above 20 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Total nitrogen | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (%) | Below 0.08 | 0.08–0.15 | Above 0.25 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Calcium (Ca) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Magnesium (Mg) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Sodium (Na) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Potassium (K) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 0.08 | 0.08–0.15 | Above 0.25 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Available phosphorus (P) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 20 | 22–54 | Above 54 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 6 | 12–15 | Above 18 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
S.N. | Nutrient Index | Value |
I | Low | Below 1.67 |
II | Medium | 1.67–2.33 |
III | High | Above 2.33 |
Particle size distribution | ||||||
Descriptive Statistics | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | |||
A | B | A | B | A | B | |
Mean ± SE | 60.2 ± 12.6 (46, 86) | 67.2 ± 10.16 (56, 84) | 15 ± 5.12 (8, 26) | 17.8 ± 7.15 (8, 28) | 24 ± 9.17 (2, 38) | 15 ± 9.72 (6, 38) |
Standard deviation | 12.6 | 10.16 | 5.12 | 7.15 | 10.41 | 9.72 |
Cv % | 18 | 15.1 | 38 | 40.1 | 74.4 | 64.8 |
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; Mean ± SE = Mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum in parenthesis. |
Selected soil chemical properties | Mean ± SE | SD | % CV | |||||
A | B | A | B | A | B | |||
pH | 5.45 ± 0.35 (4.39, 6.3) |
5.03 ± 0.35 (4.29, 5.42) |
1.05 | 0.07 | 6.91 | 26.43 | ||
OM (%) | 2.31 ± 0.43 (1.84, 2.97) |
1.38 ± 0.38 (0.91, 2.1) |
1.296 | 1.13 | 18.7 | 27.4 | ||
OC (%) | 1.23 ± 0.34 (0.45, 2.15 |
0.71 ± 0.35 (0.45, 1.98) |
2.12 | 1.34 | 21.5 | 32.45 | ||
Avail. P (mg kg-1) | 7.69 ± 8.92 (0.4, 23.28) |
3.31 ± 5.66 (0.32, 19.29) |
16.98 | 26.76 | 45.0 | 52.4 | ||
K (cmol kg-1) | 0.26 ± 0.16 (0.07, 0.54) |
0.21 ± 0.09 (0.04, 0.27) |
0.478 | 0.26 | 71.1 | 80.8 | ||
TN (%) | 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.11, 0.18) |
0.09 ± 0.03 (0.06, 0.13) |
0.081 | 0.07 | 19.3 | 26.4 | ||
Na (cmol kg-1) | 0.75 ± 0.26 (0.23, 83) |
0.64 ± 1.72 (0.23, 0.75) |
2.28 | 5.15 | 39 | 57 | ||
Mg (cmol kg-1) | 0.42 ± 0.20 (0.21, 1.17) |
0.39 ± 0.26 (0.21, 1.17) |
0.89 | 0.77 | 64.9 | 65.5 | ||
Ca (cmol kg-1) | 1.22 ± 0.21 (0.64, 4.05) |
0.70 ± 0.20 (0.53, 1.28) |
3.12 | 0.61 | 85.6 | 30.60 | ||
CEC (cmol kg-1) | 3.03 ± 0.46 (1.92, 3.44) |
2.28 ± 1.25 (2.18, 6.47) |
1.389 | 3.756 | 20.3 | 41.3 | ||
BS (cmol kg-1) | 60.99 ± 13.43 (38.93, 83.7) |
52.75 ± 8.89 (39.7, 70.93) |
26.94 | 40.29 | 17 | 22 | ||
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; Mean ± SE = Mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum in parenthesis. OM = organic matter; OC = organic carbon; TN = total nitrogen; P = available Phosphorus; K = potassium; Ca = calcium; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; CEC = cation exchange capacity; Na = sodium; and BS = base saturation. |
Parameters | Nutrient index | Remarks | ||
A | B | A | B | |
TN | 1.96 | 1.56 | medium | low |
OM | 2.1 | 1.00 | Medium | low |
Ca | 1.4 | 1.28 | low | low |
Mg | 1.0 | 1.0 | low | low |
K | 2.04 | 1.84 | Medium | Medium |
Na | 1.68 | 1.8 | low | low |
P | 2.0 | 1.44 | medium | low |
ECEC | 1.96 | 1.44 | medium | low |
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; OM = organic matter; TN = total nitrogen; P = available Phosphorus; K = potassium; Ca = calcium; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; CEC = cation exchange capacity; Na = sodium. |
Soil pH | |||
Acidity | Neutrality | Alkaline | |
Range | Below 6.0 | 6.0–8.0 | Above 8.0 |
Soil reaction index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Organic matter (OM) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (%) | Below 4 | 4–20 | Above 20 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Total nitrogen | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (%) | Below 0.08 | 0.08–0.15 | Above 0.25 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Calcium (Ca) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Magnesium (Mg) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Sodium (Na) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 1.5 | 1.5–4.5 | Above 4.5 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Potassium (K) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 0.08 | 0.08–0.15 | Above 0.25 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Available phosphorus (P) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 20 | 22–54 | Above 54 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) | |||
Low | Medium | High | |
Range (cmol kg-1) | Below 6 | 12–15 | Above 18 |
Nutrient index | Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ |
S.N. | Nutrient Index | Value |
I | Low | Below 1.67 |
II | Medium | 1.67–2.33 |
III | High | Above 2.33 |
Particle size distribution | ||||||
Descriptive Statistics | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | |||
A | B | A | B | A | B | |
Mean ± SE | 60.2 ± 12.6 (46, 86) | 67.2 ± 10.16 (56, 84) | 15 ± 5.12 (8, 26) | 17.8 ± 7.15 (8, 28) | 24 ± 9.17 (2, 38) | 15 ± 9.72 (6, 38) |
Standard deviation | 12.6 | 10.16 | 5.12 | 7.15 | 10.41 | 9.72 |
Cv % | 18 | 15.1 | 38 | 40.1 | 74.4 | 64.8 |
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; Mean ± SE = Mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum in parenthesis. |
Selected soil chemical properties | Mean ± SE | SD | % CV | |||||
A | B | A | B | A | B | |||
pH | 5.45 ± 0.35 (4.39, 6.3) |
5.03 ± 0.35 (4.29, 5.42) |
1.05 | 0.07 | 6.91 | 26.43 | ||
OM (%) | 2.31 ± 0.43 (1.84, 2.97) |
1.38 ± 0.38 (0.91, 2.1) |
1.296 | 1.13 | 18.7 | 27.4 | ||
OC (%) | 1.23 ± 0.34 (0.45, 2.15 |
0.71 ± 0.35 (0.45, 1.98) |
2.12 | 1.34 | 21.5 | 32.45 | ||
Avail. P (mg kg-1) | 7.69 ± 8.92 (0.4, 23.28) |
3.31 ± 5.66 (0.32, 19.29) |
16.98 | 26.76 | 45.0 | 52.4 | ||
K (cmol kg-1) | 0.26 ± 0.16 (0.07, 0.54) |
0.21 ± 0.09 (0.04, 0.27) |
0.478 | 0.26 | 71.1 | 80.8 | ||
TN (%) | 0.16 ± 0.02 (0.11, 0.18) |
0.09 ± 0.03 (0.06, 0.13) |
0.081 | 0.07 | 19.3 | 26.4 | ||
Na (cmol kg-1) | 0.75 ± 0.26 (0.23, 83) |
0.64 ± 1.72 (0.23, 0.75) |
2.28 | 5.15 | 39 | 57 | ||
Mg (cmol kg-1) | 0.42 ± 0.20 (0.21, 1.17) |
0.39 ± 0.26 (0.21, 1.17) |
0.89 | 0.77 | 64.9 | 65.5 | ||
Ca (cmol kg-1) | 1.22 ± 0.21 (0.64, 4.05) |
0.70 ± 0.20 (0.53, 1.28) |
3.12 | 0.61 | 85.6 | 30.60 | ||
CEC (cmol kg-1) | 3.03 ± 0.46 (1.92, 3.44) |
2.28 ± 1.25 (2.18, 6.47) |
1.389 | 3.756 | 20.3 | 41.3 | ||
BS (cmol kg-1) | 60.99 ± 13.43 (38.93, 83.7) |
52.75 ± 8.89 (39.7, 70.93) |
26.94 | 40.29 | 17 | 22 | ||
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; Mean ± SE = Mean ± standard error, minimum and maximum in parenthesis. OM = organic matter; OC = organic carbon; TN = total nitrogen; P = available Phosphorus; K = potassium; Ca = calcium; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; CEC = cation exchange capacity; Na = sodium; and BS = base saturation. |
Parameters | Nutrient index | Remarks | ||
A | B | A | B | |
TN | 1.96 | 1.56 | medium | low |
OM | 2.1 | 1.00 | Medium | low |
Ca | 1.4 | 1.28 | low | low |
Mg | 1.0 | 1.0 | low | low |
K | 2.04 | 1.84 | Medium | Medium |
Na | 1.68 | 1.8 | low | low |
P | 2.0 | 1.44 | medium | low |
ECEC | 1.96 | 1.44 | medium | low |
Notes: A = soil samples from Odumase; B = soil samples from Edum Banso; OM = organic matter; TN = total nitrogen; P = available Phosphorus; K = potassium; Ca = calcium; K = potassium; Mg = magnesium; CEC = cation exchange capacity; Na = sodium. |