GIS and remote sensing-based physical land suitability analysis for major cereal crops in Dabo Hana district, South-West Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location map of the study area (own source).

Table 1. Cereal crop production of 4 years of yield/quintal

No	Type of Cereal Crops	Cropping Year
		2012/2013		2013/2014		2014/2015		2015/2016
		Land (Ha.)	Yield (Q/Ha)	Land (Ha.)	Yield (Q/Ha)	Land (Ha.)	Yield (Q/Ha)	Land (Ha.)	Yield (Q/Ha)
1	Teff	8071	78,826	8295	100,369	7660	71,910	7012	75,574
2	Maize	4780	85,661.9	4889	249,358	4714	247,547	5574	276,666
3	Sorghum	2945	73,305	3017	105,621	3060	123,270	3065	130,270
4	Wheat	1222	24,164	1467	40,190	1230	34,544	1053	36,627
5	Barley	949	16,147	969	24,225	989	29,560	895	32,824
Total		17,967	278,104	18,637	519,763	17,653	506,831	17,599	551,961

Source: (Dabo Hana District Agricultural and Natural Resource report, 2018).

*Quintal = 100 kg.

*In this research study, even if sorghum production covers a large hectare of land compared to the other major crops in the area. We did not include sorghum in our study due to financial and time constraints.

Table 2. Data types and sources

No	Data Type	Source	Resolution	Resample to	Software’s used	Date of Acquisition
1	Sentinel-2 (2018)	USGS	10*10 m	Original	ERDAS 2015, ArcGIS 10.5	20/01/2018
2	DEM	USGS	30*30 m	10*10 m	ArcGIS 10.5, ERDAS 2015	20/01/2018
3	Soil	FAO	30arc-second (~1 km)	10*10 m	ArcGIS 10.5	15/02/208
4	Climate	Worldclim-2	1 km	10*10 m	ArcGIS 10.5	21/03/2018
5	Market and Road	Field survey by GPS	-	-	ArcGIS 10.5, ERDAS 2015	03/04/2018
6	KII(key informants interview)	Field survey	-	-	-	12/4/2018
9	Digital Photo	Field survey	-	-	-

* Bilinear re-sample technique was used for it performs a bilinear interpolation and determines the new value of a cell-based on a weighted distance average of the four nearest input cell centers. It is useful for continuous data like rainfall, temperature, and soil data using ArcGIS 10.5.

Table 3. Cereal crop environmental requirements at different suitability classes

		Range of suitability				Source
Crops	Factor	Highly suitability (s1)	Moderately suitable (S2)	Marginally suitable (S3)	No suitable (N1)
Teff	Depth (cm)	>50	30–50	20–30	<10	(Driessen et al., 2001a; Duguma, 2010; FAO, 1984; Hurni, 1998; Landon, 1991; Sys et al., 1993)
	Texture(class)	Si, SiC, C	SiC	SiL, CL,SC	L, SCL.,S, LS,SL
	Drainage	M	PW	VP	SE
	PH	5.5‐7.5	5.2‐5.5 and 7.5‐ 7.8	5.0‐5.2 and 7.8‐8.0	<4.5 and >8.5
	Slope/%	0–7	7–15	15–25	>25
	Altitude(m)	1600–2200	1000–1600/2200–2400	2400–2800	<1000/>2800
	Temperature(^oC)	15–21	14–15/21–22	12–14/22–23	<11 or >25
	Rainfall(mm)	450–550	300–450/550–800	800–1200	<200,>1200
	LULC	F.L	-	Bshl	F, Res.&Sw
	Market(km)	0–4	4–8	8–12	12–15	(Widiatmaka, 2016)
	Road(km)	0–2	2–4	4–7	7–10
Wheat	Depth (cm)	>100	75–100	50–75	<50	(Driessen et al., 2001a; Duguma, 2010; FAO, 1984; Hurni, 1998; Landon, 1991; Sys et al., 1993)
	Texture(class)	C, Si, SiC, SiL, SC	L, CL, SiCL	SCL	LS,S
	Drainage	W,SE/somewhat excessive	MW (moderately well drained)	I	VP (very poorly drained)
	PH	6.0‐8.0	5.2‐6.0 and 8.0‐8.3	5.0‐5.2 and 8.3‐8.5	<5 and >8.5
	Slope	0–13	13–25	25–40	>40
	Altitude	1600–2200	1000–1600/2200–2400	2400–2800	<1000/>2800
	Temperature	14.9‐18.4	14.4‐14.9, 18.4‐19.4	13.4‐14.4,19.4‐20.8	<13 or >20.8
	Rainfall	450–650	350‐450,650‐850	300‐350, 850‐1000	<300,>1000
	LULC	F.L	-	Bshl	F, Res.&Sw
	Market(km)	0–4 km	4–8 km	8–12 km	12–15 km	(Widiatmaka, 2016)
	Road(km)	0–2	2–4	4–7	7–10
Barely	Depth (cm)	>50	30–50	20–30	<10	(Driessen et al., 2001a; Duguma, 2010; FAO, 1984; Hurni, 1998; Landon, 1991; Sys et al., 1993)
	Texture(class)	Si, SiC, C	SiC	SiL, CL,SC	L, SCL., S, LS,SL
	Drainage	W,MW	I	E	VP
	PH	5.5‐7.5	5.2‐5.5 and 7.5‐ 7.8	5.0‐5.2 and 7.8‐8.0	<4.5 and >8.5
	Slope	0–7	7–15	15–25	>25
	Altitude	2200–2323	2000–2200	1800–2000	<1800
	Temperature	12–18	18–24	24–28	>28
	Rainfall	900–1100	1100–1300	1300–1500	>1500
	LULC	F.L	-	Bshl	F, Res.&Sw
	Market(km)	0–4	4–8	8–12	12–16	(Widiatmaka, 2016)
	Road(km)	0–2	2–4	4–7	7–10
Maize	Depth (cm)	>50	30–50	20–30	<10	(Driessen et al., 2001a; Duguma, 2010; FAO, 1984; Hurni, 1998; Landon, 1991; Sys et al., 1993)
	Texture(class)	Si, SiC, C	SiC	SiL, CL,SC	L, SCL., S, LS,SL
	Drainage	W	M,P	VP	E,SE
	PH	5.5‐7.5	5.2‐5.5 and 7.5‐ 7.8	5.0‐5.2 and 7.8‐8.0	<4.5 and >8.5
	Slope	0–7	7–15	15–25	>25
	Altitude	1600–2200	1000–1600/2200–2400	2400–2800	<1000/>2800
	Temperature	15–21	14–15/21–22	12–14/22–23	<11 or >25
	Rainfall	500–750	450–500/ 750–1200	300–400, 1200–1600	<300,>1600	(Driessen et al., 2001a; Duguma, 2010; FAO, 1984; Hurni, 1998; Landon, 1991; Sys et al., 1993)
	LULC	F.L	-	Bshl	F, Res.&Sw
	Market(km)	0–4 km	4–8 km	8–12 km	12–15 km	(Widiatmaka, 2016)
	Road(km)	0–2	2–4	4–7	7–10

P = poorly drained, VP = very poorly drained, SP = somewhat poorly drained, MW = moderately well drained = well drained, SE = somewhat excessively drained = excessively drained, I = imperfectly.

Table 4. Scale of rating influence of factors (Saaty, 2002)

Intensity of Importance	Definition	Explanation
1	Equal Importance	Two activities contribute equally to the objective.
3	Moderate Importance	Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another
5	Strong Importance	Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
7	Very Strong or Demonstrated Importance	An activity is favored very strongly over another, its dominance demonstrated in practice.
9	Extreme Importance	The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation.
2,4,6,8	Intermediate Values	When compromise is needed

Figure 2. Socio-environmental data suitability (a) Land-use land cover (b) Temperature (c) Rainfall (d) Altitude (e) Slope (f) Soil property (g) Soil (h) Market proximity (i) Road proximity.

Figure 2. (Continued).

Figure 2. (Continued).

Figure 2. (Continued).

Figure 2. (Continued).

Figure 3. Map of cereal crops land suitability in Dabo Hana district. (a) Teff (b) Wheat (c) Barley (d) Maize.

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 4. Map of optimum land suitability allocation for major cereal crops in Dabo Hana district.

Dabo Hana District Agricultural and Natural Resource report. (2018). Cereal crops yield report.

 Google Scholar

Driessen, P., Deckers, J., Spaargaren, O., & Nachtergaele, F. (2001). Lectures and notes on the major soils of the world (World Soil Resources Reports No. 94).

 Google Scholar

Duguma, D. W. (2010). GIS and remote sensing-based land suitability analysis for agricultural crops in Mojo watershed, upper Awash sub-basin, Ethiopia.

 Google Scholar

FAO. (1984). Crop environmental requirements; report prepared for the Government of Ethiopia by FAO acting as executing agency for the UNDP (Land evaluation: Technical report 5, Part III).

 Google Scholar

Hurni, H. (1998). Agroecological belts of Ethiopia: Explanatory notes on three maps at a scale of 1:1,000,000 (Research Report, Soil conservation research program).

 Google Scholar

Landon, J. R. (1991). Booker tropical soil manual: A handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Longman, Booker.

 Google Scholar

Sys, C., Van Ranst, E., Debaveye, J., & Beernaert, F. (1993). Land evaluation part III. CROP requirements. International training centre for post graduate soil scientists. University of Ghent. https://doi.org/org/233235

 Google Scholar

Widiatmaka. (2016). Integrated use of GIS, AHP and remote sensing in land use planning for tropical high altitude vegetable crops (Vol. 18). Bogor Agricultural University.

 Google Scholar

Saaty, T. L. (2002). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Scientia Iranica, 9(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590

 Google Scholar