J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

1

Fertility Status of Selected Agricultural Soils Along Major Roads in Nasarawa

Eggon and Doma Areas of Nasarawa State, North Central, Nigeria

J. C. Onwuka1*, J. M. Nwaedozie

2, 3, E. H. Kwon – Dung

4, P. T. Terna

4

1Chemistry Science Technology Unit, Department of Science Laboratory Technology, Federal

University of Lafia, P. M. B 146, Lafia, Nasarawa State - Nigeria 2Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Lafia, P. M. B. 146, Lafia, Nasarawa State–Nigeria.

3Department of Chemistry, Nigeria Defence Academy, Kaduna State – Nigeria.

4Department of Botany, Federal University of Lafia, P. M. B 146, Lafia, Nasarawa State –Nigeria.

*Corresponding Author: email: emperor20062003@yahoo.com, Tel- +2348066896529.

Received 02 May 2020; accepted 27 May 2020, published online 29 June 2020

Abstract

Soil nutrient status determines its crop productivity and provide basis for appropriate soil

management. The soil samples which spread across the agricultural farms along major roads in

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma areas of Nasarawa State, Nigeria; were analyzed for both physical and

chemical properties. Most of the studied Nasarawa Eggon and Doma soils were extremely acidic.

Textural class showed high sand content (>80) of the investigated soils, indicating possible high rate

of water infiltration in these soils which will lead to their low water holding capacity. The organic

carbon (OC) contents in both locations, were rated high as it varied from 1.50 to 1.85 %, whereas total

nitrogen (TN) levels ranged from 0.07 to 0.21 % in the studied soils. The levels of available P, Ca, K

and Mg were inadequate for satisfactory plant growth, considering their respective critical level

established for Nigerian soils. Mineral analysis showed the presence of essential elements such as S,

K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, Ni, Co, Mo and Zn. Beneficial/functional elements such as Ti, V, Rb and Sr,

were found in significant quantities in the investigated soils of both studied areas. Thus, Potential K

and Ca deficiency could be greatly compensated by Rb and Sr uptake. The quantities of non –

beneficial elements such as Sn, Sb, Te, Cs, Ba and Sc were significant in soils from Nasarawa Eggon

but were insignificant in Doma soils. Thus, this study revealed that nutrient content of the soil differs

from the nutrient availability for plant uptake and the fertility of investigated soils in both locations

depended on the soil pH and textural class. Also, the conditions of the soils at both studied locations,

are unfavourable for plant uptake of certain important nutrients and could lead to low crop yields if

there is no effective nutrient and soil management.

Key words: Soil Fertility; Physicochemical Properties; Essential Nutrients; Beneficial

Nutrients; Non – Beneficial Nutrients

1.0 Introduction

Food availability has been a global concern to

stakeholders and world leaders for a very long

time due to drastic population growth. Soil

fertility aid tremendously in ensuring food

security particularly in the production of crops of

which the country spend a huge amount on its

importation [1]. The quality of soils does not

depend on its nutrient contents and ability to

supply adequate nutrients alone but also in the

availability of nutrients for plant uptake which

must be in the right proportion as needed by

plants [2][3]. Characterization of variabilities of

nutrients in an agricultural soils is very important

because soil nutrient availability controls the

crop productivity [4].

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma towns are the

administrative headquarters of their respective

Local Government Areas in Nasarawa State,

Nigeria. The towns are predominantly

agricultural areas with majority of the inhabitants

known to be farmers and traders. Nasarawa

Eggon is located along the ever busy Lafia –

Abuja road while Doma town is along the busy

Lafia – Rukubi road. Thus, these towns are

located along the high way characterized with

heavy vehicular and human traffic which results

to high human activities. Consequently, there are

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

2

presence of markets (illegal and legal), illegal car

parks, hawkers, food vendors, welders,

automobile workshops (which includes

mechanics, panel beaters, spraying painters,

vulcanizers, car wash personnel etc.), business

centers operators, gas stations, etc. The activities

of each of these workers generate different kinds

of wastes (gaseous, liquid and solid) which

comprises of vehicular and electrical generator

emissions, faeces, urine, garbage, sludge from

sewage, damaged vehicle parts, car paint dust,

engine oils, grease, gasoline spill etc. Due to

unregulated disposal of waste in these towns, the

generated wastes are dumped indiscriminately

and openly on the immediate environment which

are the surrounding agricultural soils. These

wastes accumulates in the soils and could alter

the nutrient content and availability of the soils

through natural biochemical reactions during

degradation of the wastes. Anikwe and Nwobodo

[5] reported that long term dumping of municipal

wastes can influence soil properties and

productivity.

Soil characteristics are made up of physical and

chemical properties. A good knowledge of the

variations of soil physical – chemical properties

as it relates to micronutrient status is essential for

good land evaluation which is a pre-requisite for

sound land use planning [6]. The ability of a soil

to support plant growth depends on its physical

and biological properties which have been found

to play significant roles in crop production. A

soil with favourable pH and other conditions of

growth such as biological and physical

properties, and supplies adequate nutrients

needed by plants, will produce better crop quality

and yield [1]. The declining soil fertility have

been reported as a major limitation to increasing

yields, and a threat to sustainability of crops [6].

Information on the distribution of required soil

nutrients for arable crop growing will provide the

basis for making informed decision with respect

to fertilization and other soil management

practices. Very scarce information is available on

the nutrient status of agricultural soils close to

heavy vehicular and human traffic roads in

Nasarawa State. Therefore, assessment of

nutrient availability on these soils is essential to

delineate the extent of deficiencies for making

strategic plans to mitigate the deficiency and to

boost up the agricultural production on these

soils. Hence, for sustainable crop production, this

study diagnoses the fertility status of selected

agricultural soils along major roads of Nasarawa

Eggon and Doma towns which are characterized

with heavy vehicular and human traffic activities.

2.0 Materials and Methods

2.1 Description of Study Areas

Nasarawa Eggon (NE) town is in NE Local

Government Area (LGA) of Nasarawa State,

Nigeria and it lies between latitudes 8°33‟ and

8°52‟ N and between longitudes 8°14‟ and

8°39‟ E. The climate of NE falls within the

tropical savannah climate with two clearly

marked seasons; wet and dry. It has a mean

temperature of 15.6 °C and 26.7 °C with an

annual rainfall between 1317 mm and 1450 mm.

1t rains from April to October, and the months

from December to February experience the

north-east trade winds, and thus the dry

Harmattan [7] winds. The accessibility of

Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory (Abuja)

through this town, attract a lot of vehicular and

human traffic which boost human activities. The

GPS coordinates of the sampling points in NE

town are shown in Table 1.

Doma town is in Doma LGA of Nasarawa State,

Nigeria and located at latitude 8024’N and 8

05’N

and longitude 60E and 6

030’E of the Greenwich

meridian.

Table 1: GPS Coordinates of Sampling Sites Nasarawa Eggon Doma

Sampling

Site

GPS Coordinate Sampling

Site

GPS Coordinate

N1 N 080 42.045’

E 008o 32.656’

D1 N 080 18.912’

E 008o 21.926’

N2 N 080 44.485’

E 008o 32.637’

D2 N 080 19.403’

E 008o 22.170’

N3 N 080 44.464’

E 008o 33.253’

D3 N 080 19.987’

E 008o 22.225’

N4 N 080 43.944’

E 008o 32.376’

D4 N 080 20.486’

E 008o 21.799’

N5 N 080 43.319’

E 008o 32.537’

D5 N 080 21.003’

E 008o 21.471’

N6 N 080 42.595’

E 008o 31.315’

D6 N 080 24.397’

E 008o 22.521’

N7 N 080 42.270’

E 008o 30.824’

D7 N 080 24.896’

E 008o 22.869’

N8 N 080 41.927’

E 008o 30.326’

D8 N 080 25.479’

E 008o 23.212’

N9 N 080 43.944’

E 008o 32.376’

D9 N 080 26.221’

E 008o 23.948’

N10 N 080 41.794’

E 008o 32.501’

D10 N 080 26.805’

E 008o 24.720’

The entire local government is generally

characterized by low land area about 100-200

meters above sea level although there exist a

kind of spatial variation in the surface area [8].

The accessibility to Rukubi (which houses the

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

3

largest rice mill in Africa) through Doma town,

attracts large vehicular and human traffic

activities .The GPS coordinates of the sampling

points in Doma town are presented in Table 1.

2.2 Sample Collection and Preparation

A total of 20 (twenty) composite soil samples

were collected from 20 (twenty) agricultural

farms at both studied areas (Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma). The investigated agricultural farms are

within 50 m from the major road but more than 1

km apart from each other. At each agricultural

farm, six quadrats were marked. In each quadrat,

four core soil samples were collected randomly

at 0–20 cm depth using a soil auger and mixed

together properly to form a composite of that

agricultural farm. Thus, 10 (ten) composite soil

samples were collected from each studied area.

Foreign materials such as plant debris, waste

polyethenes, metal scraps, and plastics were

removed from the soil samples. They were air-

dried for a week, ground and sieved through 2

mm sieve. The samples were then stored in a

dried plastic container for analysis.

2.3 Physicochemical Analyses

The pH was measured at 1:2 (w/v) ratio of soil to

water and also soil to 0.01 M CaCl2, using

Beckman Zero Metric pH meter. The percentage

organic carbon (% OC) was determined using the

potassium dichromate wet oxidation method of

Walkley and Black [9] and the organic matter

(OM) was calculated from the % OC (i.e. % OC

× 1.724). Total Nitrogen (TN) was determined

using the modified Kjeldahl distillation methods

[10]. Conventional Bray 1 method described by

Bray and Kurt2 [11] was used to determine the

amount of available phosphorus in the soil

samples. Exchangeable bases or cations such as

potassium (K), Sodium (Na), calcium (Ca) and

magnesium (Mg) were determined by the

extraction of the soil with neutral 1 N

NH4OHAC solution using saturation method.

The exchangeable K and Na contents of the

extracts were measured using flame photometer

while the Ca and Mg were determined by the

EDTA titration of the extracts. Exchangeable

acidity (i.e. H+ + Al

3+) was determined by

titration method [10]. The particle size

distribution also known as mechanical analysis

was determined by hydrometer method [12]. The

textural class was determined by subjecting the

particle size distribution to Marshall’s textured

triangular diagram [13].

2.4 Elemental Analysis

The concentration of elements in the soil samples

was determined using x – supreme8000 model of

Energy Dispersive X – ray fluorescent (XRF)

Analyzer [Detection limit: 0.0001 % (1 ppm) –

99.9999 %]. Recovery test was carried out on the

XRF machine by spiking analyses so as to ensure

reliability of the result.

3.0 Results and Discussion

3.1 Physicochemical Parameters

The physical and chemical properties of the

investigated soil samples are presented in Table

2.

The availability of nutrients to plants and the

type of organism found in the soil are influenced

by soil pH. Thus, soil pH is an important

indicator of soil quality and index of

biogeochemical processes in terrestrial

ecosystems which serves as a guide for fertilizer

recommendations and liming requirements [14].

The pH of the soils were measured in water {i.e.

pH(H2O)}and 0.01 M CaCl2 {i.e. pH(CaCl2)}.

However, the pH(CaCl2) measurement is more

accurate and consistent of the two pH

measurements, as it reflects what the plant

experiences in the soil since it is less affected by

soil electrolyte concentration [15][16]. The

pH(H2O) values of soil samples under

investigation from Nasarawa Eggon and Doma

varied from 4.92 – 5.70 and 4.09 – 5.69

respectively (Table 2) and hence, are all acidic.

The pH(H2O) values obtained in this study are

lower than the reported pH(H2O) level of 6.0 –

6.5 [17] for the production of most crops. Result

(Table 2) showed that the values of pH(CaCl2)

for all investigated soils are lower than their

respective pH(H2O) values. This is agreement

with reports by Minasny et al. [16] and Kome et

al. [14], which states that the pH(CaCl2) values

are usually lower than the values of pH(H2O). It

was observed that except for samples N7

(Nasarawa Eggon) and D4 (Doma), the

pH(CaCl2) values of all investigated soil samples

are extremely acidic following USDA – SCS

[18] classification. They are also found to be

lower than the reported soil pH(CaCl2) range of

5.2 – 8.0 for optimum growth of most

agricultural plants [15]. This suggests that

beneficial and essential elements such as

molybdenum (Mo), phosphorus (P), potassium

(K), magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) are less

available for uptake by plants grown in the

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

4

investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma [15]. This is attributed to the displacement

of these nutrients from the surface of the soil, by

hydrogen ions [19] and due to high rainfall in

these studied areas these basic cations are

leached from the soil surfaces.

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

5

Table 2: Physicochemical Properties of the Studied Soil Samples

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SC pH (H20) pH(CaCl2)

OC

(%)

OM

(%)

TN

(%)

Avail. P

(mg/kg)

K

(C mol/kg)

Na

(C mol/kg)

Mg

(C mol/kg)

Ca

(C mol/kg)

EA

(Meq/100g)

CEC

(C mol/kg)

SAND

(%)

SILT

(%)

CLAY

(%) TEXTURE

Nasarawa Eggon Soil Samples

N1 5.11±0.03 4.01±0.11 1.85±0.04 3.19±0.07 0.14±0.03 3.26±0.11 0.23±0.03 0.18±0.02 0.04±0.00 0.19±0.04 1.33±0.53 0.64±0.01 87.60±6.49 3.40±0.32 9.00±2.08 LS

N2 5.06±0.10 4.04±0.09 1.85±0.01 3.19±0.02 0.14±0.01 3.18±0.27 0.21±0.01 0.14±0.04 0.05±0.00 0.17±0.02 1.33±0.87 0.57±0.06 83.60±2.81 5.40±0.17 11.00±1.79 SL

N3 5.26±0.09 4.33±0.28 1.85±0.06 3.19±0.10 0.14±0.01 3.47±0.36 0.25±0.03 0.19±0.05 0.03±0.00 0.04±0.00 1.16±0.26 0.51±0.00 87.60±4.32 4.00±0.47 8.00±1.52 LS

N4 5.01±0.22 4.23±0.04 1.83±0.02 3.15±0.03 0.14±0.02 3.08±0.15 0.20±0.04 0.15±0.02 0.03±0.00 0.03±0.00 1.00±0.19 0.41±0.03 87.60±5.64 3.40±0.21 9.00±2.03 LS

N5 4.99±0.31 4.15±0.24 1.81±0.03 3.12±0.05 0.07±0.00 3.01±0.22 0.18±0.02 0.13±0.01 0.04±0.00 0.05±0.00 1.33±0.42 0.40±0.01 87.60±3.03 4.40±0.64 8.00±1.18 LS

N6 4.69±0.29 4.30±0.15 1.79±0.05 3.08±0.09 0.07±0.01 2.86±0.19 0.16±0.09 0.12±0.00 0.03±0.01 0.02±0.00 1.33±0.77 0.33±0.02 87.60±5.52 3.40±0.26 9.00±0.93 LS

N7 5.70±0.07 4.67±0.11 1.79±0.04 3.08±0.07 0.21±0.04 3.86±0.76 0.29±0.03 0.22±0.05 0.04±0.00 0.06±0.01 1.00±0.39 0.61±0.08 86.60±4.06 4.40±0.71 9.00±1.04 LS

N8 4.92±0.41 4.35±0.18 1.77±0.03 3.05±0.05 0.07±0.00 2.93±0.29 0.17±0.02 0.14±0.02 0.03±0.00 0.02±0.00 1.33±0.65 0.36±0.04 83.60±3.92 5.40±0.39 11.00±1.87 SL

N9 5.05±0.32 4.08±0.09 1.75±0.01 3.01±0.02 0.14±0.04 3.20±0.41 0.20±0.04 0.13±0.01 0.03±0.00 0.03±0.00 1.16±0.13 0.39±0.07 87.60±7.01 3.40±0.33 9.00±1.44 LS

N10 5.61±0.07 4.32±0.13 1.87±0.06 3.22±0.10 0.21±0.06 3.84±0.68 0.28±0.06 0.20±0.04 0.03±0.00 0.09±0.02 1.00±0.09 0.60±0.09 87.60±5.21 4.40±0.23 8.00±1.05 LS

Doma Soil Samples

D1 4.43±0.33 3.65±0.17 1.85±0.02 3.19±0.03 0.07±0.00 2.93±0.24 0.17±0.01 0.10±0.01 0.03±0.00 0.01±0.00 1.33±0.44 0.31±0.01 84.60±2.09 6.40±0.76 11.00±1.51 SL

D2 4.31±0.06 3.73±0.07 1.85±0.00 3.19±0.00 0.07±0.01 2.76±0.63 0.16±0.03 0.09±0.00 0.05±0.00 0.08±0.02 1.33±0.36 0.38±0.07 81.80±4.13 4.40±0.53 13.80±1.47 SL

D3 4.91±0.17 4.37±0.04 1.87±0.04 3.22±0.07 0.07±0.00 2.94±0.31 0.20±0.05 0.12±0.03 0.05±0.00 0.07±0.00 1.00±0.28 0.44±0.03 84.80±5.74 3.40±0.34 13.80±2.21 SL

D4 5.69±0.57 5.01±0.10 1.87±0.08 3.22±0.14 0.21±0.05 3.92±0.58 0.27±0.08 0.20±0.05 0.05±0.01 0.05±0.00 1.33±0.45 0.57±0.10 80.80±3.64 5.40±0.49 13.80±1.84 SL

D5 4.09±0.26 3.50±0.02 1.87±0.02 3.22±0.03 0.07±0.00 2.36±0.13 0.16±0.04 0.09±0.01 0.04±0.00 0.15±0.03 1.33±0.31 0.44±0.06 81.80±2.27 3.40±0.82 14.80±2.33 SL

D6 4.61±0.39 3.90±0.24 1.77±0.03 3.05±0.05 0.07±0.00 2.80±0.33 0.18±0.02 0.11±0.03 0.02±0.00 0.01±0.00 0.66±0.05 0.32±0.02 81.80±3.84 4.40±0.22 13.80±1.68 SL

D7 4.67±0.21 4.01±0.08 1.67±0.06 2.88±0.10 0.07±0.01 2.84±0.43 0.20±0.05 0.12±0.02 0.02±0.00 0.01±0.00 1.33±0.73 0.35±0.00 81.80±2.93 5.40±0.11 12.80±1.01 SL

D8 4.49±0.16 3.70±0.09 1.83±0.05 3.15±0.09 0.07±0.00 2.80±0.72 0.16±0.03 0.08±0.01 0.03±0.00 0.01±0.00 1.33±0.52 0.28±0.03 82.80±3.71 6.40±0.28 12.80±2.49 SL

D9 4.40±0.09 3.65±0.01 1.49±0.01 2.57±0.02 0.07±0.01 2.79±0.54 0.15±0.02 0.07±0.00 0.02±0.00 0.09±0.01 0.83±0.09 0.33±0.01 82.80±4.18 5.40±0.52 13.80±1.38 SL

D10 4.71±0.34 4.05±0.21 1.83±0.03 3.15±0.05 0.07±0.00 2.90±0.41 0.20±0.06 0.10±0.02 0.04±0.00 0.05±0.00 0.83±0.01 0.39±0.07 82.80±1.25 5.40±0.43 13.80±1.82 SL

Keys: SC: Sample Code; OC: Organic Carbon; OM: Organic matter; TN: Total Nitrogen; Avail. P: Available Phosphorus; EA: Exchangeable Acidity; CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity;

LS: Loamy Sandy; SL: Sandy Loamy

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

6

Table 3: Concentration of Mineral Elements Present in the Investigated Soils from Nasarawa Eggon and Doma Urban Areas

Doma Soil Samples Nasarawa Eggon Soil Samples

E D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10

Essential Macronutrients K 6920.95 3172.27 2782.47 2520.14 4085.38 1391.07 1080.58 1092.84 762.00 1444.69 49434.96 26245.20 17851.67 22087.23 37215.38 49392.61 22087.94 23336.92 40908.30 33192.69

S BDL BDL 253.32 304.63 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 289.76

Ca BDL 1055.64 1970.22 3518.85 BDL 273.56 95.55 109.80 BDL 318.58 812.28 1609.52 808.52 1989.44 1584.03 785.24 BDL 509.36 1215.12 2522.87

Mg BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Essential Micronutrients

Fe 8431.96 35423.02 14948.09 81069.8 21401.33 4016.14 4476.67 4262.81 2385.52 5205.55 4403.79 30662.08 25894.28 15335.66 22065.54 5255.97 12455.85 12790.33 24990.22 16634.97

Mn 197.21 609.75 330.26 1261.60 204.95 375.85 174.73 153.88 166.94 194.21 220.43 838.78 513.95 334.15 834.16 480.78 444.98 452.24 761.82 971.81

Ni BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 64.59 BDL BDL BDL Cu BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Zn 19.58 41.71 17.35 64.27 26.94 5.32 5.68 BDL BDL BDL 28.67 55.09 32.84 96.11 35.19 14.76 23.41 23.96 16.30 142.35

Mo 14.84 4.01 6.43 4.87 6.57 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 8.33 4.08 10.31 2.74 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Co BDL 203.76 BDL 203.42 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Se BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Beneficial/ Functional Nutrients Ti 8068.04 12924.56 10400.58 6002.43 6147.51 4545.4 4096.27 4370.12 2469.94 5026.69 4812.85 5291.00 5399.77 3310.35 3952.69 3972.81 3976.07 3902.29 4208.13 4942.97

V 68.93 168.49 96.85 124.29 84.12 38.58 32.11 31.66 23.54 44.20 BDL 99.15 87.19 BDL 46.08 BDL BDL 52.86 108.79 BDL

Rb 27.44 26.20 22.78 22.56 29.67 7.53 5.39 5.17 3.44 7.20 124.83 127.94 84.38 309.67 160.79 117.76 54.81 53.45 104.74 143.44

Sr 42.40 57.15 79.97 66.96 38.57 7.07 4.09 4.79 3.19 6.67 86.51 106.39 5.07 23.22 86.80 74.01 50.14 51.61 119.42 56.26

Non – Beneficial Nutrients Zr 1666.98 1200.52 1460.36 675.4 853.57 494.65 349.24 468.61 261.77 443.65 1230.11 911.46 1423.57 290.48 418.85 473.52 346.98 332.95 852.64 679.72

Sn BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 99.95 169.10 45.39 13.55 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Sb BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 13.39 BDL BDL BDL 21.37 BDL BDL 14.06 BDL BDL Te BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 57.64 BDL BDL BDL 58.77 41.92 BDL 56.52 BDL BDL Cs BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 30.90 28.23 BDL BDL 48.40 23.90 BDL 32.46 BDL BDL Ba BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 761.55 551.56 172.27 BDL 759.57 498.82 BDL 334.99 607.26 BDL Sc BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

Key: E = Elements

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

7

Hence, high soil acidity will result to decrease in

root growth and will not favour proper yield of

tuber crops. The extreme acidic nature of most of

the investigated soils also indicates that metals

such as iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn),

manganese (Mn), and aluminium (Al) will

become more available in these soils and thus, Al

and Mn may reach levels that are toxic to plants

grown on the soils [15]. This is because the

availability and mobility of these metals are

greatly favoured by decrease in soil pH [15][1]

due to increased solubility of these metal ions in

acidic environment [20].

Organic carbon (OC) and organic matter (OM)

are important factors that greatly influence soil

fertility and moisture availability which are used

to express the organic enrichment of the soil

environment [21]. Table 2 showed that the OC

content of investigated Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma soil samples ranged from 1.75 – 1.87 %

and 1.49 – 1.87 % respectively. This implies that

the investigated Nasarawa Eggon and Doma soils

has high OC content as their OC values are

within 1.5 – 2.0 % range of high OC rating by

Metson [22]. This could be attributed to

decomposition of the plants, animals and

anthropogenic sources such as chemical

contaminants, fertilizers or organic rich waste

[23]. No significant difference was observed in

the OC contents of the soils from the both

(Nasarawa Eggon and Doma) studied areas.

However, OC content can be considered

sufficient at both locations based on the critical

value of 1.0 % recommended by Agboola and

Ayodele [17].

Organic material is very important to soil

formation and fertility [21] because it indicates

the soils usefulness for agricultural purposes

[24]. The quantity of organic matter (OM) in any

soil determines the nutrient content and any

changes will alter the quality and quantity of soil

fertility. The OM content of the investigated soils

from Nasarawa Eggon and Doma ranged from

3.01 – 3.22 % and 2.57 – 3.22 % respectively.

Metson [22] rating/classification shows that the

investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma, has low OM contents as they are even

below the critical value of 3.4 % [25] required to

maintain a desirable soil function. This implies

that the investigated soils from the studied areas

has low essential nutrients and less capacity to

hold water and absorb cations [24] and thus are

not suitable for agricultural purposes in their

present state. There also no significant difference

in the OM content of the soils from the both

studied areas.

Total nitrogen (TN) is required for proper plant

growth [26] and it undergoes different

transformation in the soil, which determines its

availability to plants [27]. Mineralization

converts TN present in soil organic matter, crop

residues, and manure to inorganic nitrogen [21].

Applying Metson [22] classification, some of the

studied soil samples from Nasarawa Eggon, has

very low (N5, N6 & N8), low (N1, N2, N3, N4

& N9) and moderate (N7 & N10) level of TN.

Thus, most of the sampled soils in Nasarawa

Eggon has low level of TN as they are below 0.2

% (Metson, 1961) recommended for suitable

crop production. It was also observed that with

the exception of sample D4, all the investigated

soil samples from Doma has very low TN

content (Table 2). This suggests that the level of

TN present in the soils of the studied areas, are

inadequate for plant growth.

Phosphorus (P) is an essential macronutrient

required for plants to complete their life cycle. P

taken up from the soil by the roots, is transported

to the rest of the plant and ultimately stored in

seeds [28]. The concentration of available P in

the studied soils from Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma varied from 2.86 – 3.86 mg/kg and 2.36 –

3.92 mg/kg respectively. The highest available P

content from studied soils from Nasarawa Eggon

and Doma, was observed in samples N7 (3.86

mg/kg) and D4 (3.92 mg/kg) respectively and

this could be attributed to the higher pH(CaCl2)

values of these soil samples (i.e. N7 and D4)

compared to their other respective studied soil

samples. Higher pH values encourages

microbiological processes that converts P to a

more available form for crop use, thereby,

preventing losses by fixation. Thus, high soil

acidity results to complex change in the soil,

such as inhibition of microbial processes, and

reduced availability of soil P [19]. Sufficient

availability of P contributes to good growth of

plants [24] while P deficiency in plants results in

change of leaf colours to red and purple, stunted

root and top growth and delayed time to

flowering and growth of new shoots [29]. Rating

by Enwezor et al. [30] showed that all

investigated soils from the studied areas has low

available P. This could be due to the soils high

acidity which inhibit microbial activities and

thus, favours P losses due to fixation. Low

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

8

availability of inorganic P to plants could also be

as a result of inorganic P (HPO42−) interaction

with soil cations such as zinc (Zn2+

) or iron

(Fe2+

), which form an insoluble complex

[31][32]. It was also observed that the

concentration of available P in all the

investigated soil samples are lower than critical

value of 17 mg/kg [33] considered suitable for

crop production. Thus, plants grown on these

soils are more vulnerable to P deficiency.

Potassium (K) accounts for 3 % of plants tissue.

The exchangeable K varied from 0.16 – 0.29

cmol/kg and 0.15 – 0.27 cmol/kg for investigated

soils in Nasarawa Eggon and Doma respectively

(Table 2). It was observed that the higher the pH

values, the higher the concentration of

exchangeable K in all investigated soils in both

studied areas. Thus, soils with higher pH values

had higher concentration of exchangeable K.

This could be attributed to the displacement of K

by hydrogen ion as earlier stated. The result

(Table 2) also showed that the level of

exchangeable K in four (N1, N3, N7 & N10) and

one (D4) of the investigated soil(s) from

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma respectively, is

marginal sufficient for plant growth when

compared to critical value of 0.24 cmol/kg [17].

Consequently, the concentration of exchangeable

K for other investigated soils in both studied

areas, are inadequate for plant growth. This is an

indication of possible K deficiency in the

investigated soils from the studied areas.

However, the levels exchangeable K of all

investigated soils are low by Hazelton and

Murphy [34] rating. Umeri et al [1] and Dawaki

et al. [35] reported similar range of exchangeable

K concentration for selected soils in mangrove

swamp zones of Delta State, Nigeria and soils in

Kano urban agricultural lands respectively.

Result presented in Table 2 showed that

exchangeable sodium (Na) content for

investigated soils in Nasarawa Eggon and Doma

ranged from 0.12 – 0.22 cmol/kg and 0.07 – 0.20

cmol/kg respectively. Thus, most of the

investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon has

higher Na content than the soils from Doma.

Following Hazelton and Murphy [34] rating, the

exchangeable Na content of all investigated soils

from Nasarawa Eggon is rated low while that of

most soils from Doma is very low. It was

observed that the concentrations of exchangeable

Na for all locations in the studied areas, was

lower than the concentration of their respective

exchangeable K. This suggests that the plants

uptake of exchangeable Na and K from the

studied soils, will not pose Na K ratio health

challenge when the plant is consumed by human.

The range of exchangeable Na concentration

reported in this study is lower than those reported

by Umeri et al [1] and Hayatu et al. [36] for

selected soils in mangrove swamp zones of Delta

State and selected soils in Sokoto State

respectively.

Exchangeable magnesium (Mg) content for the

investigated soils in Nasarawa Eggon and Doma

varied from 0.03 – 0.05 cmol/kg and 0.02 – 0.05

cmol/kg respectively. This is rated very low by

Metson [22] rating. Based on the critical level of

1.90 cmol/kg [17], all the investigated soils in

both studied areas has insufficient exchangeable

Mg content required for proper plant growth.

This suggests possible poor photosynthesis of the

plants grown on these soils and this will inhibit

the growth and vitality of the plants [19]. Higher

concentration of exchangeable Mg was reported

by Umeri et al [1], Hayatu et al. [36] and Dawaki

et al. [35].

Exchangeable calcium (Ca) may be the single

most important soil and plant element [37].

However, the exchangeable Ca concentrations in

Table 2 showed that all the investigated soils

from the studied areas (Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma) were found to be deficient in

exchangeable Ca when compared to the

established critical value of 3.80 cmol/kg [33].

The implication of this, is that plants grown in

these soils will exhibit stunted roots and stress

symptoms in new leaves and discoloration and

distortion of the growth of the plants [37]. Result

obtained in this study is below the range reported

by Hayatu et al. [36] for selected soil in Sokoto

State and also contradicts Kowal and Knabe [38]

report that Ca and Mg are the predominant basic

cations in West Africa soils.

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) indicates

capacity of soil to hold cation nutrients that plays

important role in soil fertility. It depends on the

amount of clay and organic matter content of the

soil [39]. Result in this study (Table 2) showed

that the amount of CEC for investigated soils

from Nasarawa Eggon and Doma varied from

0.33 – 0.64 cmol/kg and 0.28 – 0.57 cmol/kg.

This indicates that the CEC of all the

investigated soils are rated very low by Metson

[22] rating. This could be attributed to the low

organic matter contents of the investigated soils

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

9

as earlier stated. The low CEC also suggest that

the soil samples has high sandy contents which cannot hold much water or cation nutrients and

hence, plants cannot take up nutrients easily

[39][19]. Thus, food crops would not grow well

in these soils, if there are no modifications to

improve their fertility. Umeri et al. [1], Amos-

Tautua et al. [24], Hayatu et al [36] and

Unanaonwi and Chinevu [19] reported higher

CEC of their respective soil samples.

Exchangeable acidity (EA) is the amount of acid

cations; aluminium (Al3+

) and hydrogen (H+),

occupied on the CEC. Different forms of Al may

exist in the soil such as inorganic, soluble, and/or

organic forms. Inorganic forms of Al are

exchangeable and are primarily bound to silicate

clays, hydrous oxides, phosphates, and sulfates

[40]. There is significant correlation between soil

pH and phytotoxicity of Al species. Trivalent

(Al3+

) is the most abundant Al specie and is very

toxic [41]. The level of EA in this study is

generally low ranging from 1.00 – 1.33 Meq/100

g and 0.66 – 1.33 Meq/100 g in the investigated

soils from Nasarawa Eggon and Doma

respectively. However, the toxic impact of Al3+

in the investigated soils will be significant

because in acidic soil (pH < 5), Al is solubilized

into [Al(H2O)6]3+

, which is usually referred to as

Al3+

and Al3+

has the greatest impact on plant

growth at pH<4.3 [41]. The solubilization of Al

occurs due to the inception of soil acidification

which leads to the release of phytotoxic Al3+

[42]. Akpan – Idiok [43] and Amos – Tautua et

al. [24] reported similar range of EA levels for

soils formed from coastal plain sands in

southwest and surface soils of municipal open

waste dumpsite in Yenagoa respectively.

Soil texture is a measure of the physical

properties of the soil such as soil plasticity, water

retention capacity, soil productivity, soil

permeability and ease or toughness of tillage of

the soil [24]. Soil physical properties play

important role in soil fertility because the amount

and sizes of soil particles determine the porosity

and bulk density which account for nutrients

retention or leaching of nutrients [19]. Present

studies showed that all the soil samples exhibited

the same trend in the amount of sand, silt and

clay, i.e. sand > clay > silt. Highest percentage

composition of sand (> 80 %) was obtained in all

investigated soils which varied from 83.6 – 87.6

% and 80.8 – 84.6 % for Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma respectively. Silt was the lowest

percentage composition in all the investigated

soils ranging from 3.4 – 5.4 % and 4.4 – 6.4 %

for Nasarawa Eggon and Doma respectively. The

high sand content of the investigated soils could

be responsible for the poor nutrient status of the

soils from both studied areas because sand has no

ability to retain water and good water retention

capacity of the soil is an important factor in soil

fertility. Thus, the investigated soils has high

pollutant leaching potentials [44] due to their low

water retention capacity. Similar findings was

reported by researchers [1][21][24][36][19]. The

percentage of sand, clay and silt are categorized

as textural class. The textural class in this study

revealed that investigated soils from Nasarawa

Eggon varied from loamy sand to sandy loam but

most (about 8) of the soils are loamy sand while

investigated soils from Doma are of sandy loam

textural class and this could be as a result of the

nature of the parent material. Ofoegbu and

Amajor [45] that the soils formation of Nasarawa

State is dominated by combination of breccia,

shale, silt stone, marl with manganeferous sand

stone.

3.2 Soil Nutrients

Nutrients are basic requirements for plant growth

and performance that are absorbed from the soil

and air surrounding the plants. A well-balanced

nutrient supply has known to be crucial for all

the crops in order to avoid excessive growth or

mineral deficiency, since mineral elements affect

plant physiology and development [46].

Soils do not only vary in the amounts and

composition of mineral nutrients (macro- and

micro-elements) but also in the degree of the

uptake availability by the plant roots. Nutrient

storage capacity and accessibility are influenced

by soil texture, rooting depth, and organic matter

content, but the availability is modified by soil

pH and moisture content [47]. Soil nutrients can

be classified as essential (Macro – and

Micronutrients), beneficial/functional and non –

beneficial nutrients. The levels of the different

nutrients determined in the studied soil samples

are presented in Table 3.

3.2.1 Essential Macronutrients

An element is considered essential if its action is

specific, must be present for completion of the

plant's life cycle; and must be unable to be

replaced by any other element [48].

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

10

The primary essential macronutrients such as

carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N),

potassium (K) and phosphorus (P) are required

by in large quantities during their life cycle. The

secondary essential macronutrients (S, Ca and

Mg) are required in moderate quantity by the

plants. Among the primary essential

macronutrients, only total K was determined by

X – ray fluorescence (XRF) while all secondary

macronutrients were measured and result

presented in Table 3.

Potassium (K) is one of the most important

primary nutrients required by crop plants. In

plants, its accumulation rate during early stages

of growth precedes nitrogen accumulation.

Therefore, its supply to plants seems to be

decisive for nitrogen utilization, in turn

significantly affecting plants growth rate and the

degree of yield potential realization [49]. Table 3

showed that K is the most abundant essential

macronutrient in the investigated soils of both

studied areas. The total K content varied from

17851.67 – 40908.30 mg/kg and 762.00 –

4085.38 mg/kg for investigated soils from

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma respectively. This

indicates that soils from Nasarawa Eggon are

highly rich in total K compared to Doma soils.

However, despite the significant variability in

their (Nasarawa Eggon and Doma soils) total K

contents, only trace amounts of K are available

for plant uptake in the investigated soils as

shown in the exchangeable K concentration of

these investigated soils earlier reported. This low

K availability was earlier attributed to the low

pH (extremely acidic) of the investigated soils.

Thus, this investigation shows that no matter the

level of supply of total K on the soil, the pH

effect is the same. Khan et al. [48] reported that

though the supply of total K in soils is quite

large, relatively small amounts are available for

plant growth at any one time and he related this

to the fact that almost all K is in the structural

component of soil minerals and isn’t available

for plant growth. This result of this study implies

that there is possibility of inadequate supply of K

to plants grown on the investigated soils since

large quantities of K is required in the life cycle

of the plants [50]. Consequently, soil remediation

is required to improve the supply of K to plants

for proper yield and growth.

Sulphur (S) is the fourth essential secondary

macronutrient required for crop production. It is

mostly found in the organic matter of the soil but

not available to plants in its elemental form. S is

first released from the organic matter and

converted to sulphate form (SO42-

) through

mineralization process which is as a result of

microbial activity [51]. The sulphate form (SO42-

) is readily available for plant uptake and also

highly mobile in the soil because it is negatively

charge [52]. S concentration within the range of

instrumental detection, were obtained in only one

(N10) and two (D3 and D4) of the investigated

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma soils while the S

contents of the remaining soils from both studied

areas, were below instrumental detectable limit

(Table 3). Sample N10 (Nasarawa Eggon soil)

contain S level of 289.76 mg/kg while D3 and

D4 (Doma soils) sulphur contents are 253.32

mg/kg and 304.63 mg/kg respectively. Amount

of sulphur adequate for proper crop production

depends on the plant species [53]. The extremely

acidic nature of the investigated soils indicate

high availability of S in the soil because of the

negatively charge nature of it availability form

(SO42-

) for plant uptake in soil. However, low

total S content of most of the investigated soils,

sandy textural class and low organic matter of

the investigated soils, suggest possibility of

sulphur deficiency in the investigated soils

especially during high rainfall because it is

comparatively required in large quantity during

the life cycle of a plant [54].

Calcium (Ca) is one of the three (along with Mg

and sulphur) secondary essential nutrients

required for plant growth and development.

Similarly as we observed in K, the concentration

of total Ca was found significantly higher in

investigated Nasarawa Eggon soils than in Doma

soils. Table 3 showed that total Ca content of the

investigated soils varied from 509.36 – 2522.87

mg/kg and 95.55 – 3518.80 mg/kg for Nasarawa

Eggon and Doma respectively. It was also

observed that the total Ca contents of three of the

sample Doma soils, were below instrumentation

limit of detection. Despite the variation in the Ca

abundancy in both studied areas, the level

exchangeable Ca earlier reported showed that

only trace amount of Ca which varied

insignificantly between the studied areas, were

available for plant uptake from these investigated

soils. Thus, the low soil pH has the same level of

negative effect on the availability of Ca for plant

uptake despite the variation in the abundancy of

total Ca. This investigation suggest possible Ca

deficiency since the amount required for healthy

plant growth is relatively higher than those of

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

11

micronutrients. Adequate Ca level has a role in

maintaining soil physical properties, and in

reclaiming sodic soils. Ca contributes to soil

fertility by helping maintain a flocculated clay

and therefore with good aeration [37].

3.2.2 Essential Micronutrients

Iron (Fe) exist as Fe2+

or Fe3+

in the soil. pH and

aeration status of the soil determines the

predominant form of Fe in the soil but Fe is

absorbed by plants as Fe2+

[55]. Soil pH, soil

aeration and organic matter influences Fe

availability in soil [56]. This study shows that Fe

is the most abundant nutrient in the investigated

soils. Its concentration ranges from 4403.99 –

30662.08 mg/kg and 2385.52 – 81069.80 mg/kg

for Nasarawa Eggon and Doma investigated soils

respectively. The pH of the investigated soils

suggest high availability of Fe in these soils for

plant uptake since their pH values are extremely

acidic. This suggests possible abundancy of Fe

uptake by plants depending on the manganese

(Mn) and calcium (Ca) uptake efficiency of the

plants grown in the studied soils. Fe and other

cations primarily Mn and Ca, often compete for

absorption, as abundance of one of these

nutrients makes the other less available to plant

roots [57]. The amount of Fe required for healthy

plant growth and tolerance level of Fe, varies in

different plant species [56]. High accumulation

of Fe is toxic because it can act catalytically

through Fenton reaction, generate hydroxyl

radicals, which can damage lipids, proteins and

DNA [58].

Manganese (Mn) is absorbed by plants as Mn2+

and is required by plants in the second greatest

quantity compared to Fe. Similar to Fe, Mn

deficiency occurs mainly in soils with high pH,

high organic matter content and in poorly aerated

soils. Result in Table 3 showed that the Mn level

in Nasarawa Eggon and Doma investigated soils

ranged from 220.43 – 838.78 mg/kg and 153.88

– 1261.60 mg/kg respectively. Mn level of 20 to

40 mg/kg in plant tissue is sufficient for healthy

growth of most plants [59]. The critical

concentration for Mn deficiency is generally

below 20 ppm dry weight [60]. The extremely

acidic status of the studied soils suggest high

availability of Mn for plant uptake. However, the

competing behaviour of Mn and Fe could imply

less possibility of high accumulation of Mn in

plants grown on these soils. When in excess, Mn

damages the photosynthesis process and other

processes, such as enzyme activity. The

threshold of Mn toxicity is highly dependent on

the plant species [61] perhaps because the

phytotoxic mechanisms of Mn involve different

biochemical pathways in different plant

genotypes [62]. Toxicity might occur when Mn

tissue levels are greater than 400 mg/kg [61].

Nickel (Ni) is available for plant uptake in the

form of Ni2+

and the absorption of its trace

amount improves crop yield by positive impact

on nitrogen fixation, seed germination and

disease suppression. However, a much positive

impact occurs when nitrogen is provided in the

form of urea or symbiotically fixed [63]. Thus Ni

is required in the nitrogen (N) nutrition of plants

[64]. The tolerance level of Ni depends on the

plant species. Plant uptake of Ni concentration

greater than 10 mg/kg is considered toxic in

sensitive crop species. Ni becomes toxic in

moderately tolerant species at concentrations

greater than 50 mg/kg. Hyperaccumulator plant

species can tolerate Ni concentrations in plant

tissue as high as 50,000 mg/kg without

phytotoxicity [65]. However, these Ni tolerance

values depend on concentrations of competing

cations such as zinc (Zn2+

), copper (Cu2+

), cobalt

(Co2+

) and iron (Fe2+

) [63]. Ni concentration of

64.59 mg/kg was determined in sample N7 while

Ni concentrations in all other investigated soils

(Nasarawa Eggon and Doma) were below

instrumentation limit of detection. Thus,

suggesting that plants grown on these soils are

not vulnerable to Ni deficiency and

phytotoxicity. This is because the low

concentration of Ni present in these soils are

readily soluble and available for plant uptake

based on the extremely acidic nature of these

soils. Ni solubility and availability for plant

uptake is highly dependent on the soil pH. Other

factors that can inhibit Ni uptake by plants

include cool and/or dry soil conditions in the

early spring, nematode damage to feeder roots

and high concentrations of other metal cations

such as Zn2+

, Cu2+

, Fe2+

and cobalt (Co2+

) in soils

[66].

The concentration of Copper (Cu) in all the

investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma, are below instrumental detectable limits.

Low concentration of Cu was similarly reported

by Osakwe [67] for soils from automobile

workshops in Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria.

However, Cu concentration range of 4.95 – 5.99

mg/kg was reported by Dawaki et al. [35] for

Kano urban agricultural soils. At minute

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

12

quantity, Cu is an essential element required for

plant growth. The low pH of the investigated

soils in this study, suggest high availability of the

little Cu concentration in these soils, for plant

uptake. Shulte and Kelling [68] reported that

decreasing pH increases Cu availability while

high organic matter lowers Cu availability

because organic matter binds copper more tightly

than any other micronutrient.

Zinc (Zn) concentration varied from 14.76 –

142.35 mg/kg and 5.32 – 64.27 mg/kg for

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma investigated soils

(Table 3). Three (3) of the investigated Doma

soils, did not contain significant amount of Zn

that could be determined by the analytical

instrument. Thus, Nasarawa Eggon investigated

soils are more enriched with Zn than Doma soils.

In agricultural soils, Zn is mostly distributed

unevenly and its content ranges between 10 and

300 mg/kg [69][70] with contents above 150

mg/kg regarded as high [71] and likely result to

reduced plant growth. Extractable Zn content

above 10 mg/kg in acidic soils, is considered

potentially harmful [72]. The pH of the

investigated soils in this study indicates high Zn

uptake by plants grown on these soils because Zn

solubility increases at low pH. Consequently, the

level of Zn in some of the investigated soils

could have adverse/toxic effect on the plants. pH

is the important factor that determines Zn

availability for plant uptake. Although level of

Phosphorus and soil texture affect Zn availability

in soils [73][72]. Result obtained in this study is

within the Zn concentration reported by Dawaki

et al [35] for Kano urban agricultural soils but

higher than Zn concentrations found in

automobile workshop soils as reported by

Osakwe [67].

Molybdenum (Mo) and cobalt (Co) are referred

to as essential ultra‐micronutrients as they are

needed in particularly smaller quantities for plant

growth. Mo is a transition element found in the

soil which is required in minute quantity for

plant growth. It is one of the least abundant

essential micronutrients found in plant tissues

and can exist in several oxidation states ranging

from 0 to 6, where 6 is the most common form

found in most agricultural soils [74][68]. Mo

differs from the other micronutrients in that it is

taken up from the soil as an anion (MoO42−

). The

concentrations of Mo in 60 % and 50 % of the

investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon and

Doma respectively, were below instrumental

limit of detection. The amount of Mo found in

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma investigated soils

varied from 2.74 – 10.31 mg/kg and 4.01 – 14.84

mg/kg respectively. This implies low

concentration of Mo in the investigated soils

when compared to Mo guideline value of 50

mg/kg in agricultural soils [75]. This low Mo

concentration could be attributed the acidic and

sandy nature of the soils [75][76][56][74]. Shulte

[56] reported that in acid soils, Mo is strongly

held by iron and aluminium hydroxides. Soluble

MoO4– can form ionic complexes with various

ions in solution including Na, K, Ca and Mg, and

can also be complexed with organic matter,

particularly humic and fulvic acids [77]. The

formation of these complexes can decrease the

amount of MoO4– bound by metal oxides, and

there by increasing the amount of available

MoO4– in solution [78][76]. Consequently, the

investigated soils are Mo deficient and would

require Mo supplemental (primarily liming) for

proper plant growth.

Co is a transition element required at low

concentration for better plant growth and yield. It

most often assumes the +2, +3, and less often a

+1 oxidation states, with Co2+

the stable state

available for plant uptake [79]. The

bioavailability of Co2+

and, thus, its toxicity is

also affected by the physicochemical properties

of the soil environment such as structure, organic

matter, pH, and complexing compounds [80].

Low concentration of Co2+

in medium stimulates

plants growth and yield but toxic at higher

concentrations. High concentrations of cobalt

hamper RNA synthesis, and decrease the

amounts of the DNA and RNA probably by

modifying the activity of a large number of endo-

and exonucleases [81]. Exposure to increased

amounts of Co2+

in soil causes side effects in

plants [82]. The response to an excess of Co2+

in

a plant is heightened activity of superoxide

dismutase (SOD), an enzyme responsible for O2

dismutation and an increase in iron sequestration

and ferritin synthesis [83]. The concentration of

Co in the studied soils were below instrumental

detectable limit (BDL) except in two (D2 and

D4) of the studied Doma soils. Co concentration

of these soils (203.76 mg/kg for D2 and 203.42

mg/kg) are above 1 – 2 mg/kg requirement for

healthy and productive soil [81]. They are also

higher than the critical value of 100 mg/kg which

can be toxic to the plants. The insignificant Co

content of most of the investigated soils could

suggest the non-use of fertilizer and non-

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

13

spreading of sewage sludge in the studied

agricultural farms [84] and this implies less

potential of Co phytotoxic effect on the plants

but possible Co deficiency challenges. This is

because studies have shown that Co

concentration less than 1 – 2 mg/kg will likely

result in cobalt deficient plants even if the low

level of soil cobalt is natural [81].

Selenium (Se) has not yet been classified as an

essential element for plants, although its role has

been considered to be beneficial for plants that

are is capable of accumulating large amounts of

the element [85]. Higher plants have different

capacities to accumulate and tolerate Se. They

are classified into non-accumulators, indicators

and accumulators [86]. Se may be present in four

different oxidation states: selenate (+6), selenite

(+4), elemental Se (0) and as inorganic and

organic selenide (-2). The chemical form, the soil

redox potential, pH and clay content determine

the bioavailability of Se in the soil [87]. The

predominant Se inorganic forms in cultivated

soils are selenate and selenite. Selenate is more

soluble and available for plants under oxidized

and alkaline soil conditions [88]. Selenite is less

available to plants than selenate because it is

adsorbed more strongly by iron oxide surfaces

and soil clays [89]. The concentrations of Se in

all the investigated soils in this study, are below

instrumentation limit of detection. This is in

agreement with report of Dhillon and Dhillon

[90] that Se content of most soils varies between

0.1 and 2.0 mg kg-1

depending on geographical

area. The role of Se in plant depends mainly on

its concentration. Se uptake and metabolism also

differ due to the plant species, growth stage and

the plant organs. Several studies showed that Se

is taken up from the soil by plants primarily as

selenate (SeO42¯) or selenite (SeO3

2¯) [91]. Se

when applied at low concentrations 0.1 mg/kg,

enhances growth and antioxidative capacity of

both mono- and dicotyledonous plants but exert

harmful effect on plants at high concentrations

>1.0 mg kg-1

depending on the plant species [92].

3.2.3 Beneficial/Functional Nutrients

The beneficial elements are not deemed essential

for all crops but may be vital for particular plant

taxa. These elements are not critical for all plants

but may improve plant growth and yield.

Pertinently, beneficial elements reportedly

enhance resistance to abiotic stresses (drought,

salinity, high temperature, cold, UV stress, and

nutrient toxicity or deficiency) and biotic stresses

(pathogens and herbivores) at their low levels

[93]. Among beneficial elements, are titanium

(Ti), rubidium (Rb) and strontium (Sr) which are

also referred to as functional nutrients because

they exert sparring effects.

Ti is considered a beneficial element for plant

growth that could be used as biostimulants for

improving crop production. The beneficial roles

Ti plays in plants depends on its interaction with

other nutrient elements primarily iron (Fe). Fe

and Ti have synergistic and antagonistic

relationships. Ti is the second most abundant

element present in all the investigated soils

(Table 3). This confirms the report of Zhang et al

[94] that Ti is the second most abundant

transition metal after iron (Fe). The amount of Ti

found in the investigated soils from Nasarawa

Eggon and Doma ranged from 3310.35 –

5399.77 mg/kg and 2469.94 – 12924.56 mg/kg

respectively. The pH range (3.50 – 5.01) and

textural class (sandy loam/loamy sandy) obtained

in this study suggest high solubility of Ti in the

investigated soils which will result to high uptake

of Ti by the plants grown on these soils [95]. The

possible significant uptake of the high amounts

of Ti and Fe in the investigated soils indicates

that Ti could have a phytotoxic effect on the

plants grown on these soils. This is because at

high concentration of Ti in plants, it competes

with Fe for ligands or proteins which could be

severe, resulting in Ti phytotoxicity. Thus, the

beneficial effects of Ti become more pronounced

at a period when plants experience low or

deficient Fe supply. When plants experience Fe

deficiency, Ti helps induce the expression of

genes related to Fe acquisition, thereby

enhancing Fe uptake and utilization and

subsequently improving plant growth. Plants

may have proteins that either specifically or non-

specifically bind with Ti [96]. Studies by

Wallace et al. [97] also showed that Ti supplied

to plants at low concentrations positively affects

plant growth but causes phytotoxicity at high

concentrations.

Vanadium (V) is also a plant beneficial element

with the potential to be used in biostimulation

approaches of crops. Unlike Ti, Vanadium has

synergistic effect with macro and micronutrients

in stem and root parts of plants [98]. Pentavalent

oxidation form (V+5

) of V is toxic to plants while

the tetravalent form (V+4

) can contribute to plant

development [99]. However, though V+4

is the

least toxic form of V, it is also considered the

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

14

least mobile and the most predominant in soil

[100]. The concentration of V in 50 % of the

investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon was

below detectable limit (BDL) and all investigated

soils from Doma contained appreciable amount

of V. The concentration of V varied from 46.08 –

108.79 mg/kg and 23.54 – 168.49 mg/kg for

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma investigated soils

respectively. Baken et al. [101] reported close

range of 20 – 120 mg/kg of V in earth crust.

Although the concentration of V in the

investigated soils are high, only minute amount

of it will be available for plant uptake because

studies have shown that due to the slow mobility

property of V (especially V+4

), only about 1 % of

the total V concentration is extractable and

leachable with water [102][100]. Thus,

concentration of V in this study, indicates that it

will enhance plant growth and development

because V could positively influence plant

growth at low concentration [99]. The studies of

Garcia – Jimenez et al.[98] showed that at low

concentration, V stimulates the concentrations of

chlorophylls in the leaves, as well as amino

acids and sugars in leaves, stems, and roots by

enhancing the enzymatic activity of vital

proteins.

Rubidium (Rb) is a functional nutrient available

in it monovalent form (Rb+) for plant uptake

from the soil. Rb+ exerts a sparring effect on

potassium ion (K+) absorption by plants [103].

Rb has a slight stimulatory effect on metabolism,

probably because it is like potassium. The two

elements are found together in soils, although K

is much more abundant than Rb and plant will

adsorb Rb quite quickly [104]. It increased the

growth of plants significantly when supplied in

small doses to a nutrient medium deficient or

adequately supplied with K. while High Rb

concentrations are toxic, especially to the growth

of fibrous roots [105]. In this study, investigated

soils from Nasarawa Eggon contain significantly

higher amount of Rb than those from Doma. Rb

level ranged from 53.45 – 309.67 mg/kg and 3.44

– 27.44 mg/kg for investigated soils from

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma respectively (Table

3). Rb is readily absorbed by plants, from acidic

soils. Thus, in this study, the possible K+

deficiency in the investigated soils (usually

aggravated by high soil acidity which causes K+

leaching losses) is greatly compensated by

increased uptake of Rb+ by plants as a result of

high acidic nature of the investigated soils [106].

Thus, the growth of the plants in Nasarawa

Eggon and Doma investigated soils will be

enhanced while the high Rb+ concentrations

suggests possibility of phytotoxic effect of Rb+

on plants grown in Nasarawa Eggon investigated

soils

Strontium (Sr) is an element naturally found in

most soils and available for plant uptake in its

stable divalent (Sr2+

) form. Sr can be classified as

functional nutrient because it exert a sparing

effect on the utilisation of calcium (Ca). The

sparing effect or partial replacement of an

essential element by a functional nutrient can be

envisaged as a replacement of one relatively

unspecific function among several functions of

the essential element [103]. Sr level varied from

5.07 – 119.42 mg/kg and 3.19 – 79.97 mg/kg for

Nasarawa Eggon and Doma investigated soils

respectively (Table 3). This shows that

investigated Nasarawa Eggon soils significantly

contain higher Sr than Doma soils. The pH of the

investigated soils suggest preferential uptake of

Ca over Sr by plants because of the soils acidic

nature [107]. This implies that the growth of

plants grown on these investigated soils will be

stimulated by the possible minute availability of

Sr because studies has shown that a partial

replacement of Ca (from about 1/100 to 1/10) by

Sr, increased plant growth but total replacement

of Ca by Sr in a nutrient medium retarded the

plant growth [108]. Thus, Sr cannot make up for

Ca deficiency in these investigated soils.

Mobility and availability of Sr to plant roots in

soil are controlled by external factors such as

chemical composition of the soil and pH,

temperature and agricultural soil cultivation as

well as soil biological networks built by

microbial communities [109]. Ca and Sr ions

have many similar properties, including the same

ionic charge, similar ionic radii, and the ability to

form complexes and chelates of varying levels of

solubility [110]. Sr is taken up by plants in

similar ways to Ca; however, Sr and Ca

accumulations in plants cannot be predicted

simply from the behaviour of Ca because Ca and

Sr can interact competitively for uptake into

biological systems [110]. The plants seem to

absorb Sr2+

and Ca2+

in proportion to their

relative concentrations in the soil solution [111].

3.2.4 Non – beneficial Nutrients

These mineral nutrients have no know biological

function or role in plants but are absorbed by the

plants through the root. Studies have shown that

at their high concentration, they exert negative

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

15

impact on plant growth and yield

[112][113][114].

Zr forms various complexes with soil

components, which reduces its soil mobility and

phytoavailabilty. The mobility and

phytoavailabilty of Zr in soil depend on its

speciation and the physicochemical properties of

soil that include soil pH [115], texture [116] and

organic contents [117]. Despite having low soil

mobility and phytoavailability, trace amounts of

Zr are absorbed by few plants, mainly through

the root system [117]. Table 3 showed the

presence of abundant amount of Zr in

investigated Nasarawa Eggon and Doma soils

which ranged from 290. 48 – 1230.11 mg/kg and

261.77 – 1666.98 mg/kg respectively. Despite Zr

abundancy, only a small fraction of Zr is

available for uptake by very few plant species

because Zr has strong binding with organic and

inorganic ligands in soils [118]. Studies revealed

that Zr does not have any known essential

function in plant metabolism but however,

generally exhibit low phytotoxic effect.

Notwithstanding, it can significantly reduce plant

growth and can affect plant enzyme activity

[117].

The concentration of non – beneficial elements

like Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Terriluim (Te)

cesium (Cs) and Barium (Ba) were below the

instrumentation detectable limit in investigated

soils from Doma. However, they were found in

significant quantities in some of the investigated

soils from Nasarawa Eggon. This could be

related to the mining activities in Nasarawa

Eggon [119]. Sn, Sb, Te, Cs and Ba contents in

the investigated soils from Nasarawa Eggon

ranges from 13.55 – 169.10 mg/kg, 13.39 –

21.37 mg/kg, 41.92 – 57.64 mg/kg, 23.90 –

48.40 mg/kg and 172.27 – 761.55 mg/kg

respectively (Table 3).

White and Broadley [120] reported that Cs+

exists naturally at very low concentrations in the

soil. Cs is absorbed from the soil through K

uptake machineries in plants. Cs+ has no known

beneficial function in plants but however, at high

concentrations, it can cause toxicity, observed as

growth inhibition.

Scandium (Sc) sulfate in very dilute aqueous

solution is used in agriculture as a seed treatment

to improve the germination of corn, peas, wheat,

and other plants. However, in this study the level

of Sc was below instrumental limit of detection

in all investigated soils.

4.0 Conclusion

This study showed low fertility status of the

investigated soils at both studied areas, which is

much dependent on the pH and textural class of

the soils rather than human activities.

Investigation revealed that agricultural soils from

both studied (Nasarawa Eggon and Doma) varied

from loamy sand to sandy loam. Thus, the water

holding capacity of these soils are low. The

physicochemical characterization established that

the soils are extremely acidic, with moderate

organic carbon, low TN, OM, available P,

exchangeable bases (K, Mg, Ca and Na) and

CEC. This indicated that the quality of the

investigated soils are generally poor. Result

showed that soils varied in the amounts of

mineral nutrients and the nutrient availability for

plant uptake was dependent on the soil pH and

textural class. Nutrient investigation showed that

despite the poor availability of exchangeable

bases, the soils at both studied areas were rich in

K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Zn, Ti, V, Rb, Sr and Zr.

However, S, Mg, Ni, Cu, Mo, Co and Se were

present in small quantities while boron was not

present in any of the investigated soils. Mineral

elements associated with mining such as Tin

(Sn), Sb, Te, Cs, Ba and Sc were found

significantly in most of the investigated soils

from Nasarawa Eggon while they were all below

the instrumentation limit of detection in Doma. K

and Ca deficiency were greatly compensated by

high availability of Rb and Sr for plant uptake.

Generally, the fertility of the soils at both studied

areas is low and this could lead to low crop

yields if there is no proper soil management. Soil

management such as liming, planting acid

tolerant crops and application of fertilizer, are

required to maintain the fertility of the soils.

Acknowledgement

We appreciate the efforts of Mr Tsaku Namson

of Agronomy Research Laboratory, Faculty of

Agriculture, Nasarawa State University (NSU),

Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria; for his efforts in

ensuring that all the laboratory analysis was

successful.

Funding

This study was funded by the Federal

Government of Nigerian through Tertiary

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

16

Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) Institutional

Based Research (IBR) grant of 2016/2017.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. C. Umeri, R. C. Onyemekonwu and H.

Moseri (2017). Evaluation of physical and

chemical properties of some selected soils in

mangrove swamp zones of Delta State,

Nigeria. Archives of Agriculture and

Environmental Science, 2(2), 92-97.

2. L. S. Ayeni and E. O. Adeleye (2011). Soil

nutrient status and nutrient interactions as

influenced by agro wastes and mineral

fertilizer in incubation study in the

Southwest Nigeria. International Journal of

Soil Science, 6 (1), 60-68.

3. C. Umeri (2015). Nitrogen and potassium

status of selected soils and their effect on the

growth, yield and cyanide content of cassava

(Manihot esculenta Crentz) in Delta State,

Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis Department of Crop

Science, Ambrose, Alli University, Ekpoma,

Edo State, Nigeria.

4. T .R. Seastedt, J. M. Briggs and D. J. Gibson

(1991). Controls of nitrogen limitation in

tallgrass. prairie. Oecologia, 87: 72-79.

5. M. A. N. Anikwe and K. C. A. Nwobodo

(2001). Long term effect of municipal waste

disposal on soil properties and productivity

of sites used for urban agriculture in

Abakaliki, Nigeria. Biosour. Technol. 83(3),

241-250.

6. H. Nkhuzenje, S. K. Mughogho, W. D.

Sakala and A. R. Saka (2002). Contribution

of Promiscuous and specific Soybean

Varieties to Soil Fertility improvement and

maize yield for Smallholder Farmers in

Zomba District of Malawi.

7. J. G. Laah and E. Ayiwulu (2010). Socio-

demographic characteristics of patients

diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in Nasarawa

Eggon. Asian J. Med. Sci., 2(3), 114-120.

8. Y. O. Yusuf and A. A. Akashe (2014). The

Doma Dam and Its Socio-economic

Implication in Doma Local Government

Area of Nasarawa State. BEST: International

Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and

Sciences (BEST: IJHAMS), 2 (4), 87-98.

9. A. Walkley and I. A. Black (1934). An

examination of the degtjarett method of

determining soil organic matter and proposed

modification of the chromic acid titration

method soil. Soil Soc., 37, 29-38.

10. A. S. R. Juo (1979). Selected Methods for

Soil and Plant Analysis. International

Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),

Ibadan, Nigeria.

11. R. H. Bray and L. T. Kurtz (1945).

Determination of Total, Organic, and

Available Forms of Phosphorus in Soils. Soil

Science, 59, 39-45.

12. G. J. Bouyoucos (1962). Hydrometer method

improved for making particle size analyses

of soils. Agro. J. 54, 464.

13. P. Loganathan (1984). Laboratory Manual of

Soil and Plant Analysis. Rivers State

University of Science and Technology, Port-

Harcourt, Nigeria.

14. G. K. Kome, R. K. Enang, B. P. K. Yerima

and M. G. R. Lontsi (2018). Models relating

soil pH measurements in H2O, KCl and

CaCl2 for volcanic ash soils of Cameroon.

Geoderma Regional, 14, e00185.

15. B. Lake (2000). Understanding Soil pH

Leaflet No. 2. NSW Agriculture publication

Agfact AC.

16. B. Minasny, A. B. McBratney, D. M. Brough

M and D. Jacquier (2011). Models relating

soil pH measurements in water and calcium

chloride that incorporate electrolyte

concentration. European Journal of Soil

Science, 62(5), 728-732.

17. A. A. Agboola and O. Ayodele (1987). Soil

test for upland rice in southwestern Nigeria.

Fertilizer Research, 14, 227-234.

18. USDA SCS (Soil Conservation Service).

(1974). Soil conditioning rating indices for

major irrigated and non-irrigated crops

grown in the western Unites States.

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

17

Technical Note No. 27, West Technical

Service Center, Portland, Oregon.

19. O. E. Unanaonwi and C. N. Chinevu (2013).

Physical and Chemical Characteristics of

Forest Soil in Southern Guinea Savanna of

Nigeria. Global Journal of Science Frontier

Research, 13(10),

20. P. O. Oviasogie and C. L. Ndiokwere (2008).

Fractionation of lead and cadmium in refuse

dump soil treated with cassava milling

effluent. J. Agric. Environ. 9,10.

21. O. S. Edori and W. A. Iyama (2017)

Assessment of Physicochemical Parameters

of Soils from Selected Abattoirs in Port

Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. J Environ

Anal Chem 4(3), 194.

22. A. J. Metson (1961). Methods of Chemical

Analysis of Soil Survey Samples. Govt.

Printers, Wellington, New Zealand, Pp, 207.

23. P. Avramidisa, K. Nikolaoua and V. Bekiarib

(2015). Total Organic Carbon and Total

Nitrogen in Sediments and Soils: A

Comparison of the Wet Oxidation-Titration

Method with the Combustion-Infrared

Method. Agri Agri Sci Proc 4, 425-430.

24. B. M. W. Amos-Tautua, A. O. Onigbinde

and D. Ere (2014). Assessment of some

heavy metals and physicochemical properties

in surface soils of municipal open waste

dumpsite in Yenagoa, Nigeria. Afr J Environ

Sci Technol, 8, 41-47.

25. P. J. A. Howard and D. M. Howard (1990).

Use of organic carbon and loss-on-ignition to

estimate soil organic matter in different soil

types and horizons. Biology and Fertility of

Soils, 9, 306-310.

26. N. C. Brady and R. R. Weil (2008). Soil

Colloids: Seat of soil chemical and physical

acidity. In: N. C. Brady and R. R. Weil RR

(eds.). The Nature and Properties of Soils.

Pearson Education Inc.; Upper Saddle River,

NJ, USA, Pp, 311-358.

27. J. A. Lamb, F. G. Fernandez, E. Daniel and

D. E. Kaiser (2014). Understanding nitrogen

in soils. University of Minnesota, USA.

28. S. Heuer, R. Gaxiola, R. Schilling, L.

Herrera-Estrella, D. López-Arredondo, M.

Wissuwa, E. Delhaize and H. Rouached

(2017). Improving phosphorus use

efficiency: A complex trait with emerging

opportunities. Plant J., 90, 868–885.

29. E. Sideman (2010). Managing Soil

Phosphorus. Maine Organic Farmers and

Gardeners Association Publication.

30. W. O. Enwezor, E. J. Udo, N.J. Usoroh, K.A.

Ayotade, J.A. Adepetu, V.O. Chude and C.I.

Udegbe (1989). Fertilizer Use and

Management for Crops in Nigeria. FPDD,

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water

Resources and Rural Development, Lagos,

Nigeria, Pp, 163.

31. N. Bouain, Z. Shahzad, A. Rouached, G. A.

Khan, P. Berthomieu, C. Abdelly, Y. Poirier

and H. Rouached (2014). Phosphate and zinc

transport and signalling in plants: Toward a

better understanding of their homeostasis

interaction. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 5725–5741.

32. J. Mongon, N. Chaiwong, N. Bouain, C.

Prom-u-Thai, D. Secco and H. Rouached

(2017). Phosphorus and Iron Deficiencies

Influences Rice Shoot Growth in an Oxygen

Dependent Manner: Insight from Upland and

Lowland Rice. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 18, 607.

33. A. A. Agboola and R. B. Corey (1993). Soil

test calibration for NPK for maize. Journal

of West Africa Science Association, 17, 93-

100.

34. P. Hazelton and B. Murphy (2007).

Interpreting soil test results: what to do all

the numbers mean? Published by CSIRO

Publishing. Collingwood Victoria –

Australia.

35. U. M. Dawaki, A. U. Dikko, S. S. Noma and

U. Aliyu (2013). Heavy Metals and

Physicochemical Properties of Soils in Kano

Urban Agricultural Lands. Nigerian Journal

of Basic and Applied Science, 21(3), 239-

246.

36. N. G. Hayatu, C. D. Samuel, A. Sale, I. L.

Abdullahi, M. B. Sharu, I. Buji, A. Nabayi,

F. D. Haruna and R. M. Sharif (2018).

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

18

Effect of Land Use Systems on Selected

Chemical Properties of Soils in Gidan Sule,

Wamakko, Sokoto State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and

Innovation in Applied Science (IJRIAS),

3(11), 19 – 23.

37. M. Boudsocq, M. R. Willmann, M.

McCormack, H. Lee, L. Shan, P. He, et al.

(2010). Differential innate immune

signalling via Ca2+

sensor protein kinases.

Nature 464, 418–423.

38. D. J. Kowal and D.T., Knabe (1972). An

Agroclimatological Atlas of the Northern

States of Nigeria. Ahmadu Bello University

Press, Zaria, Nigeria.

39. C. Aydinalp and S. Marinova (2003).

Distribution and forms of heavy metals in

some agricultural soils. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

12(5), 629-630.

40. S. K. Jaiswal, J. Naamala and F. D. Dakora

(2018). Nature and mechanisms of

aluminium toxicity, tolerance and

amelioration in symbiotic legumes and

rhizobia. Biol. Fert. Soils, 54, 309–318.

41. V. Kisnieriené and I. Lapeikaité (2015).

When chemistry meets biology: The case of

aluminium—A review. Chemija, 26, 148–

158.

42. S. Singh, D. K. Tripathi, S. Singh, S.

Sharma, N. K. Dubey, D. K. Chauhan and

M. Vaculík (2017). Toxicity of aluminium

on various levels of plant cells and organism:

A review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 137, 177–193.

43. A. U. Akpan – Idiok (2012).

Physicochemical Properties, Degradation

Rate and Vulnerability Potential of Soils

Formed on Coastal Plain Sands in Southeast,

Nigeria. International Journal of

Agricultural Research, 7(7), 358 – 366.

44. C. B. Nyles and R. N. Ray (1999). The

Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th Ed.

United States of America. pp, 743 – 785.

45. C. O. Ofoegbu and L. C. Amajor (1987). A

geochemical comparison of the pyroclastic

rocks from Abakaliki and Ezillo,

southeastern Benue Trough. J. Min. Geol.,

23 (1&2), 45-51.

46. W. Bergmann (1992). Nutritional Disorders

of Plants. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil

Science, 156(4), 377-377.

47. M. Keller (2005). Deficit irrigation and vine

mineral nutrition. American Journal of

Enology and Viticulture, 56, 267-283.

48. S. A. Khan, R. L. Mulvaney and T. R.

Ellsworth (2014). The potassium paradox:

Implications for soil fertility, crop production

and human health. Renewable Agriculture

and Food Systems, 29 (1), 3-27.

49. W. Grzebisz, W. Szczepaniak, J. Potarzycki

and R. Łukowiak (2012). Sustainable

Management of Soil Potassium–A Crop

Rotation Oriented Concept. Soil Fertility,

317-330.

50. W. Grzebisz, P. Barłóg and M. Feć (1998).

The dynamics of nutrient uptake by sugar

beet and its effect on dry matter and sugar

yield. Bibliotheka Fragmenta Agronomica,

3(98), 242-249.

51. R. D. B. Lefroy, W. Chaitep and G. J. Blair

(1994). Release of sulfur from rice residues

under flooded and non-flooded soil

conditions. Australian Journal of

Agricultural Research, 45, 657-667.

52. D. Santoso, R. D. B. Lefroy and G. J. Blair

(1995). Sulfur and phosphorus dynamics in

an acid soil/crop system. Australian Journal

of Soil Research, 33, 113-24.

53. K. Spencer (1975). Sulphur requirements of

plants. In ‘Sulphur in Australian

Agriculture.’ (Ed K. D. McLachlan). Sydney

University Press, Sydney, Australia. pp, 98-

108

54. H. V. Jordan and L. E. Ensminger (1959).

The Role of Sulfur in Soil Fertility. Advances

in Agronomy, 10, 407-434.

55. W. L. Lindsay and A. P. Schwab (1982). The

chemistry of iron in soils and its availability

to plants, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 5(4-7),

821-840.

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

19

56. E. E. Shulte (2004). Soil and Applied

Molybdenum. Cooperative Extension

Publications, United States of America.

57. A. V. Barker and D. J. Pilbeam (2007).

Handbook of plant nutrition. Taylor and

Francis. New York.

58. E. L. Connolly and M. L. Guerinot (2002).

Iron stress in plants. Genome Biol. 3(8), 1–4.

59. G. Sela (2019). Fertilization and Irrigation;

Theory and Best Practices. Kindle Edition

60. M. Hakala, S. Rantamaki, E. M. Puputti, T.

Tyystjarvi and E. Tyystjarvi (2006).

Photoinhibition of manganese enzymes:

insights into the mechanism of photosystem

II photoinhibition. J Exp Bot 57, 1809-1816.

61. P. Marschner (2012). Marschner’s Mineral

Nutrition of Higher Plants (3rd

ed). Elsevier

Science

62. T. El‐Jaoual and D. A. Cox (1998).

Manganese toxicity in plants, Journal of

Plant Nutrition, 21(2), 353-386.

63. P. H. Brown, (2006). Ni. pp. 329-350. En: A.

V. Barker and D.J. Pilbeam (eds.). Handbook

of plant nutrition. CRC Press, Boca Raton,

FL.

64. G. Liu, E. H. Simonne and Y. Li. (2014).

Univ. of Florida, IFAS Extension. [Available

online at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs1191]

65. K. H. Hsiao, P.H. Kao and Z.Y. Hseu.

(2007). Effects of chelators on chromium

and Ni uptake by Brassica juncea on

serpentine mine tailings for phytoextraction.

J. Hazard. Materials 148, 366-376.

66. B. H. Robinson, E. Lombi, F. Zhao and S. P.

McGrath (2003). Uptake and distribution of

Ni and other metals in the hyperaccumulator

Berkheya coddii. New Phytol. 158, 279-285.

67. S. A. Osakwe (2014). Heavy Metal

Contamination and Physicochemical

Characteristics of Soils from Automobile

Workshops in Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria.

International Journal of Natural Sciences

Research, 2 (4), 48-58.

68. E. E. Shulte and K. A. Kelling (1999). Soil

and Applied Cupper (A2527). Cooperative

Extension Publications, United States of

America.

69. K. G. Malle (1992). Zink in der Umwelt,

Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 20, 196–204.

70. S. A. Barber (1995). Soil Nutrient

Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach,

second Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New

York.

71. J. R. Landon (1991). Booker Tropical Soil

Manual. Longman Scientific and Technical

Essex, UK. pp, 474.

72. C. Noulas, M. Tziouvalekas and T. Karyotis

(2018). Zinc in soils, water and food crops.

Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and

Biology, 49, 252–260.

73. B. Singh, S. K. A. Natesan, B. K. Singh and

K. Usha (2005). Improving zinc efficiency of

cereals under zinc deficiency, Curr. Sci. 88,

36–44.

74. B. N. Kaiser, K. L. Gridley, J. N. Brady, T.

Phillips and S. D. Tyerman (2005). The Role

of Molybdenum in Agricultural Plant

Production. Annals of Botany, 96, 745–754.

75. S. B. Hornick, D. E. Baker and S. B. Guss

(1977). Molybdenum in the Environment,

Marcel Dekker, New York.

76. N. H. Herbold (2003). Field Guide to

Appropriate Technology: Soil Fertility.

Academic Press

77. E. A. Jenne (1977). Trace element sorption

by sediments and soils—sites and processes.

In: Gould RF, ed. Molybdenum in the

environment. New York, NY: Marcel

Dekker.

78. K. J. Reddy, L. C. Munn and L. Wang

(1997). Chemistry and mineralogy of

molybdenum in soils. In: Gupta UC, ed.

Molybdenum in agriculture. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

20

79. S. Albanese, M. Sadeghi, A. Lima, D.

Cicchella, E. Dinelli, P. Valera, M. Falconi,

A. Demetriades and B. Vivo (2015).

GEMAS: cobalt, Cr, Cu and Ni distribution

in agricultural and grazing land soil of

Europe. Journal of Geochemical

Exploration, 154, 81–93.

80. D. Luo, H. Zheng, Y. Chen, G. Wang and D.

Fenghua (2010). Transfer characteristics of

cobalt from soil to crops in the suburban

areas of Fujian Province, southeast China. J

Environ Manage. 91(11), 2248-53.

81. S. Palit, A. Sharma and G. Talukder (1994).

Effects of cobalt on plants. Bot. Rev., 60,

149–18.

82. J. Chatterjee and C. Chatterjee (2003).

Management of phytotoxicity of cobalt in

tomato by chemical measures. Plant Science,

164, 793–801.

83. R. K. Tewari, P. Kumar, P. N. Sharma and S.

S. Bisht (2002). Modulation of oxidative

stress responsive enzymes by excess cobalt.

Plant Science, 162, 381–388.

84. E. I. Hamilton (2000). Environmental

variables in a holistic evaluation of land

contaminated by historic mine wastes: a

study of multi-element mine wastes in West

Devon, England using arsenic as an element

of potential concern to human health. Sci

Total Environ, 249(1-3), 171-221.

85. A. K. Shanker (2006). Countering UV-B

stress in plants: Does selenium have a role?

Plant Soil, 282, 21-26.

86. P. J. White, H. C. Bowen, P. Parmaguru, M.

Fritz and W. Spracklen et al. (2004).

Interactions between selenium and sulphur

nutrition in Astragalus thaliana. J. Exp. Bot.,

55, 1927-1937.

87. J. M. McNeal and L. S. Balistrieri (1989).

Geochemistry and Occurrence of Selenium:

An Overview. In: Selenium in Agriculture

and the Environment, Jacobs, L.W. (Ed).

American Society of Agronomy and Soil

Science Society of America, Madison, WI,

pp, 2−13.

88. H. F. Mayland (1994). Selenium in Plant and

Animal Nutrition. In: Selenium in the

Environment, Frankenberger, Jr. W.T. and S.

Benson (Eds.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New

York, USA. pp, 29-45.

89. R. L. Mikkelsen, G. H. Haghnia and A. L.

Page (1989). Factors Affecting Selenium

Accumulation by Crop Plants. In: Selenium

in Agriculture and the Environment, Jacobs,

L.W. (Ed.). American Society of Agronomy

and Soil Science Society of America,

Madison, WI., USA., pp, 65-94.

90. K. S. Dhillon and S. K. Dhillon (2003).

Distribution and management of seleniferous

soils. Adv. Agron., 79, 119-185.

91. D. R. Ellis and D. E. Salt (2003). Plants,

selenium and human health. Curr. Opin.

Plant Biol., 6, 273-279.

92. T. Xue, H. Hartikainen and V. Piironen

(2001). Antioxidative and growth-promoting

effect of selenium in senescing lettuce. Plant

Soil, 27, 55-61.

93. S. Kaur, N. Kaur, K. H. M. Siddique and H.

Nayyar (2016). Beneficial elements for

agricultural crops and their functional

relevance in defence against stresses.

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science,

62(7), 905 – 920.

94. W. Zhang, Z. Zhu and C. Y. Cheng (2011).

A literature review of titanium metallurgical

process. Hydrometallurgy, 108, 177–188.

95. W. H. O. Ernst (1985). Bedeutung einer

veranderten Mineralstoffverfiigbarkeit

(Schwer-metalle, AI, Ti) fiir Wachsrums und

Selektionsprozesse in Waldern. Bielefelder

Okol. Beitr. 1,143–158.

96. S. Lyu, X, Wei, J. Chen, C. Wang, X. Wang

and D. Pan (2017). Titanium as a Beneficial

Element for Crop Production. Front. Plant

Sci. 8,597.

97. A. Wallace, G. V. Alexander and F. M.

Chaudhry (1977). Phytotoxicity of cobalt,

vanadium, titanium, silver, and chromium.

Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 8, 751–756.

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

21

98. A. GarcõÂa-JimeÂnez, L. I. Trejo-TeÂllez,

D. GuilleÂn- SaÂnchez and F. C. GoÂmez-

Merino (2018). Vanadium stimulates pepper

plant growth and flowering, increases

concentrations of amino acids, sugars and

chlorophylls, and modifies nutrient

concentrations. PLoS ONE 13(8), e0201908.

99. M. A. Larsson, S. Baken, J. P. Gustafsson,

G. Hadialhejazi and E. Smolders (2015).

Vanadium bioavailability and toxicity to soil

microorganisms and plants. Environ Toxicol

Chem., 201(32), 2266±2273.

100. L. Y. Tian, J. Y. Yang and J. H. Huang

(2015). Uptake and speciation of vanadium

in the rhizosphere soils of rape (Brassica

juncea L.) Environ Sci Pollut Res. 22,

9215±9223.

101. S. Baken, M. A. Larsson, J. P. Gustafsson,

F. Cubadda and E. Smolders (2012). Ageing

of vanadium in soils and consequences for

bioavailability. Eur J Soil Sci. 63: 839±847.

102. J. Yang, Y. Tang, K. Yang, A. A. Rouff, E.

J. Elzinga and J. H. Huang (2014). Leaching

characteristics of vanadium in mine tailings

and soils near a vanadium titanomagnetite

mining site. J Hazard Mater. 264, 498±504.

103. D. J. D. Nicholas (1961). Minor Mineral

Nutrients. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 12, 63-

90.

104. G. Tyler (1983). Rubidium ‐ availability

and plant uptake in natural soils.

Communications in Soil Science and Plant

Analysis, 14(11), 1075-1089.

105. A. M. El-Sheikh, A. Ulrich and T. C.

Broyer (1967). Sodium and rubidium as

possible nutrients for sugar beet plants.

Plant Physiology, 42(9), 1202-1208.

106. N. E. I. Nyholm and G. Tyler (2000).

Rubidium content of plants, fungi and

animals closely reflects potassium and

acidity conditions of forest soils. Forest

Ecology and Management, 134 (1–3), 89-

96.

107. A. Poszwa, E. Dambrine, B. Pollier and O.

Atteia (2000). A comparison between Ca

and Sr cycling in forest ecosystems. Plant

Soil, 225, 299–310.

108. C. Myttenaere (1963). Absorption of

radiocaesium by flooded rice: relative

importance of roots and shoot base in the

transfer of radioactivity. Ann. Physiol.

Vegetale Univ. Bruxelles, 8, 47-60.

109. A. Burger and I. Lichtscheidl-Schultz

(2018). Strontium in the environment:

Review about reactions of plants towards

stable and radioactive strontium isotopes.

Science of the Total Environment, 653.

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.312.

110. I. Shtangeeva, E. Steinnes and S. Lierhagen

(2011). Macronutrients and trace elements

in rye and wheat: similarities and

differences in uptake and relationships

between elements. Environ Exp Bot, 70,

259–265.

111. E. J. Hamilton and M. J. Minski (1972).

Abundance of the chemical elements in

man’s diet and possible relations with

environmental factors, Sci. Total

Environment, 1, 375–394.

112. M. Tschan, B. H. Robinson and R. Schulin

(2009). Antimony in the soil–plant system –

a review. Environ. Chem., 6, 106–115.

113. F. A. Monteiro, R. C. Nogueirol, L. C. A.

Melo, A. G. Artur and F. Rocha (2011).

Effect of Barium on Growth and

Macronutrient Nutrition in Tanzania Guinea

grass Grown in Nutrient Solution.

Communications in Soil Science and Plant

Analysis, 42(13), 1510 – 1521.

114. T. Burkholz and C. Jacob (2013). Tellurium

in Nature. In: R. H. Kretsinger, V. N.

Uversky, E. A. Permyakov (eds)

Encyclopedia of Metalloproteins. Springer,

New York, NY.

115. J. F. Peng, Y H. Song, P. Yuan, X – Y. Cui

and G – L. Qiu (2009). The remediation of

heavy metals contaminated sediment. J

Hazard Mater, 161, 633–640.

116. O. J. Owojori, A. J. Reinecke and A. B.

Rozanov (2010). Influence of clay content

on bioavailability of copper in the

earthworm Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol

Environ Saf, 73, 407–414.

J. Chem. Soc. Nigeria, Vol. 45, No.4, pp 587 -608 [2020]

22

117. M. Shahid, E. Ferrand, E. Schreck and C.

Dumat (2013). Behavior and impact of

zirconium in the soil-plant system: plant

uptake and phytotoxicity. Rev Environ

Contam Toxicol., 221,107-127.

118. M. L. Sammut, Y. Noack, J. Rose, J. L.

Hazemann, O. Proux, M. Depoux, A. Ziebel

and E. Fiani (2010). Speciation of Cd and

Pb in dust emitted from sinter plant.

Chemosphere, 78, 445–450.

119. H. Muller, P. Rufin, P. Griffiths, A. J. B.

Siqueira and P. Hosterta (2015). Mining

dense Landsat time series for separating

cropland and pasture in a heterogeneous

Brazilian savanna landscape. Remote

Sensing of Environment, 156, 490–499.

120. P. J. White and M. R. Broadley (2000).

Mechanisms of caesium uptake by plants.

New Phytol. 147, 241–256.