CHARACTERIZATION AND MAPPING OF GULLY EROSION FEATURES IN TWO GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS OF EASTERN NIGERIA USING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
Table Of Contents
Chapter ONE
INTRODUCTION
- 1.1Introduction
- 1.2Background of study
- 1.3Problem Statement
- 1.4Objective of study
- 1.5Limitation of study
- 1.6Scope of study
- 1.7Significance of study
- 1.8Structure of the research
- 1.9Definition of terms
Chapter TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
- 2.1Overview of Gully Erosion
- 2.2Geological Formations in Eastern Nigeria
- 2.3Causes of Gully Erosion
- 2.4Impacts of Gully Erosion
- 2.5Previous Studies on Gully Erosion Mapping
- 2.6Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology
- 2.7Remote Sensing Techniques
- 2.8GIS Applications in Erosion Mapping
- 2.9Data Collection Methods
- 2.10Mapping and Characterization Techniques
Chapter THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
- 3.1Research Design
- 3.2Sampling Techniques
- 3.3Data Collection Procedures
- 3.4Data Analysis Methods
- 3.5GPS Surveying Procedures
- 3.6Remote Sensing Data Processing
- 3.7GIS Mapping Procedures
- 3.8Accuracy Assessment Methods
Chapter FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
- 4.1Overview of Study Area
- 4.2Gully Erosion Features Identification
- 4.3GPS Mapping Results
- 4.4Remote Sensing Analysis Findings
- 4.5GIS Mapping Outputs
- 4.6Comparison of Mapping Techniques
- 4.7Interpretation of Results
- 4.8Discussion on Findings
Chapter FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- 5.1Summary of Findings
- 5.2Conclusion
- 5.3Recommendations for Future Research
- 5.4Practical Implications
- 5.5Contributions to Knowledge
Project Abstract
With the aid of Global Positioning System (GPS) and Satellite Aerial Photo, a comparativecharacterization and mapping of soil gully erosion features on two geological formationswere carried out in Nsukka area of eastern Nigeria. The two geological formations wereAjali and Mamu formations. The study involved the use of base map created using aGeographic Information System (GIS) (GPS Track Marker) and Satellite Photo downloadedfrom the internet using the same GIS (GPS Track Marker). This aided the field work forerosion site study and data collection. A total of seventy (70) erosion sites with an averagelength of about 1606.5 meters, average width of about 64.2 meters and average depth of 8.6meters were visited in Ajali formation. On the other hand, only nine with an average lengthof about 484.2 meters, average width of about 6.5 meters and an average depth of about 3.7meters were visited in Mamu. In Ajali formation, forty three new erosion sites wereidentified to add to the twenty seven old sites while in Manu formation only five new siteswere identified to add to the four old sites. Three profile pits were dug in each formation torepresent the soils. They are sites of Ada (Mpt1), Agu-Orba (Mpt2) and Agu-Ekwegbe(Mpt3) on Mamu Formation while Iheaka (Apt1), Ede-Oballa (Apt2) and Aku (Apt3) weresites on Ajali Formation.The soils from the pits were sampled and analyzed for some physical and chemical properties. The properties were, colour, texture, soil reaction, organic matter, exchangeable bases, total nitrogen and available phosphorus, exchangeable acidity, cation exchange capacity, and aggregate stability. There was a significant difference in the value of gully length and width while the depth was statistically the same. There was a positive significant correlation between length and width (r = 0.409), depth and width (r = 0.862), but non significant correlation between length and depth (r = 0.188) in Mamu Formation, while a positive and significant correlation was found between length and depth (r = 0.635), length and width (r = 0.578), depth and width (r = 0.689) in Ajali formation. The results of the soil percentage state of aggregation (PSA) and percentage aggregate stability (PAS) was low at both soils. There was no significant difference between their mean weight diameters (MWD). Their low MWD values (1.1mm) in the soil of Mamu formation and 1.2mm in the soil of Ajali formation were indication that the soil were highly susceptible to erosion. Both soils of the studied area have low silt content (8% in the soil of Ajali and 5% in the soil of Mamu), but moderate to high fine sand values (18% in Ajali and 49% in Mamu). These could be one of the factors promoting the soil erodibility.
Project Overview