Identification of Some Priority Heavy Metals Driver of Environmental Degradation Caused by Agricultural Activity; A Case Study in Ebonyi State Nigeria

Identification of Some Priority Heavy Metals Driver of Environmental Degradation Caused by Agricultural Activity; A Case Study in Ebonyi State Nigeria | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Identification of Some Priority Heavy Metals Driver of Environmental Degradation Caused by Agricultural Activity; A Case Study in Ebonyi State Nigeria Emmanuel Igwe, Valérien Baharane, Benedictha Chinenye Ugwu, Simbo Diakite, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314926/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Agriculture operation remained the main emitter of top priority pollutants in the environment. This research identified actual agricultural activities that led to unabated emission heavy metal pollutant into the environment while signaling how it has contaminated agricultural yields. Descriptive statistic were used to analze quantification of the pollutants from various sources. It was reported non-sustainable agricultural operation is mother of all environmental issues verified with statistical data which showed it constituted (80%) caused ecological deterioration and deforestation. This study identified, atleast a majority (86%) of the farmers used agrochemical in their farming activities which has led to intensification of agriculture that triggered environmental degradation. Moreso, majority (88%) of the farmers used NPK fertilizer while 82% used ammonium nitrate fertilizer on their yields. It was reported that these chemical caused serious threat to life e.g N 2 O in particular in severe situation. The study identified, majority (75%) of the pollutants entered into the environment through erosion (leasing) of soil nutrients. The variants responsible for determining effects conventional approach to agricultural on the environment correlation relationship was tested with multiple regression analysis the was R 2 82.6% which is statistically important variables that constituted the main sources of ecological crisis. The study recommended new orientation for more sustainable context approach to agriculture to produce health food and the ecosystem. unsustainable-intensification agriculture unabated-discharge nature-degradation ecological crisis food-contamination Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction There is rising concerns from ecologist, environmentalist about the state of nature and its management method without prejudice to future generation accessibility to natural resources. Agriculture constitute about 80% of anthropogenic activity that led to deforestation, loss of species and desert encroachment (EPA, 2021). Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in the world. Pesticides, fertilizers and other toxic farm chemicals can poison fresh water, marine ecosystems, air and soil. In fact, it was reported that due to the surplus of nutrients from agriculture has been recognized as one of the main reasons for European water bodies not achieving good ecological status according to the European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. Agricultural activity constitutes about 80% cause of annual forest deforestations. There is tendency that in future more agricultural land will be contaminated by the agrochemicals. Agricultural activities constitute main driver of global climatic change and is the only largest contributor to the rising environmental risks of the Anthropocene. This paper study tends to identify agriculture pollutant procures in the environment due to agrochemical usage as well their impact in the ecosystem. Study by show agriculture can directly contaminate the soil through farmer’s application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer and indirectly inputs (diffuse pollution) such as flooding and atmospheric deposition. Polluted soils can be transmitted by secondary emission such as air, surface waters, groundwater as contaminants into to oceans. Global food system is the primary driver for biodiversity loss. Biodiversity loss through agricultural operation (bush burning, tillage and farm settlement structure) will continue to accelerate, unless we change the way we produce food. The destruction of ecosystems and habitats will threaten our ability to sustain human populations and this can lead to loss of important species of biota. Industrial agriculture accounts for around 85% of deforestation worldwide. However climate change is another cause of deforestation. Extreme weather events like wildfires are responsible for an estimated 10% of degradation annually, droughts, and storm surges destroy millions of hectares of forest every year and their intensity is only increasing with global warming. The research is deemed necessary since the mainstay economic is agriculture while taking in consideration limited available of agricultural technology to the farmer. Its believe native system of farming is prevailing among local farmers hence this study is intended to investigate the consequence of un-sustainable method of food production in the study area. 2. Materials and methods 2.1 Study area The survey was conducted in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, an agrarian land whose population mainstay source of living is farming. Records shows, agriculture employed around 70 percent of the country’s workforce and generated an average of 22% of GDP (Paul et al., 2019). There is good reason to state these non-sustainable agricultural activities has contributed to some of ecological crisis as witness impacts of climate change resulting inefficient resource management and accountability. In 2016, the population increased to 2,880,383 persons (Steffen et al., 2015 ) The people are known as smallholder crop farmers whom dominate agricultural production include but not limited rice, cassava, yam, potato, maize, plantain, and vegetables using inorganic method for maximum yield. 2.2 Research design This study adopted the multistage sampling procedure in selecting respondents for the survey. The three agricultural zones. In the first stage, three local government areas (LGAs) in each agricultural i.e. North, central and south zone. were selected. In each zone, the study selected three LGAs. In each selected LGA, three communities of farmer settlers were randomly selected. At the third stage, the study selected fifteen crop farmers in each community with track record. This made the sample size for the study four hundred and five (405) inorganic crop farmers. The main instrument for data collection was a structured questionnaire with detail explanation for easy response. It was administered to the farmers by recruited and trained enumerators on their farm gate. The paper used a questionnaire that captured the data required to answer the research questions and administered the questionnaire to the respondents. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the ordinary least square multiple regression was used to determine the impact of this agrochemicals usage in the environment. The level of environmental degradation (Y) was chosen as the dependent variable, while the independent variables of the respondents (rural farmers) are as follows; farming experience (X 1 ), Income of farmer (X 2 ), marital status (X 3 ), family size (X 4 ), NPK application (X 5 ), gender (X 6 ), age (X 7 ), genetic mutilator (X 8 ), educational level (X 9 ), growth inhibitor (X 10 ), pesticides (X 11 ), herbicides (X 12 ), preservative (X 13 ), organic fertilizer (X 14 ), farm size (X 15 ). 3.3 Implication of Agrochemical usage on food production. The model is implicitly represented below as; Y = F(X 1 ,X 2 ,X 3 ,X 4 ,X 5 ,X 6 ,X 7 ,X 8 ,X 9 ,X 10 ,X 11 ….X 15 )…………………………….3.1 The model is explicitly represented below as; Y = B 0 + B 1 X 1 + B 2 X 2 + B 3 X 3 + B 4 X 4 + B 5 X 5 + B 6 X 6 ……. B 15 X 15 … ET 3.2 Where, Y = Effect of use of Agrochemical in the Environment Degradation(N) X 1 farming experience (years) X 2 = income level (Naira) X 3 = marital status (married = 1, not married = 0) X 4 = household size (number of persons) X 5 = used NPK fertilizer (dummy variable; yes = 1, no = 0) X 6 = gender (dummy variable; male = 1, female = 0) X 7 = age (years) X 8 = used genetic mutilator (dummy variable; yes = 1, no = 0) X 9 = education (years spent in school) X 10 = used growth inhibitors (dummy variable; yes = 1, no = 0) X 11 = use pesticides (dummy variable; yes = 1, no = 0) X 12 = used herbicides (dummy variable; yes = 1, no = 0) X 13 = Application of preservative chemicals (dummy variable, yes = 1, no = 0) X 14 = used organic fertilizers (dummy variable; yes = 1, no = 0) X 15 = farm size (ha) A piriori Expectation B 0 > 0 B 1 0 B 3 > 0 B 4 > 0 B 5 0 B 7 0 B 9 0 B 11 > 0 B 12 > 0 B 13 > 0 B 14 0 Autonomous level of income (B 0 ) This was expected to increase with or without the effect of adopted management practices, since most of the soil are still virgin land and so needs no input before it can yield reasonable outputs. Farming experience (X 1 ) It was expected the more experience the farmers become its will be a plus in reduction in emitting of heavy metals through agrochemical application. Income of farmer (X 2 ) It was predicted that income quotient has significant negative effect on the unsustainable system of agriculture as the farmer tends to use more of these agrochemicals to increase their yields. Marital Status (X 3 ) This research as predicts that marital status is another driver to that push the farmers to work hard to meet the ends needs thereby contributing significantly to environmental degradation. Family size (X 4 ) Same scenario is applicable in family size been another dominants force of need that drives farmer decision to increase their yields at all cost. NPK Application (X 5 ) Fertilizer application is expected to increase the level of nitrogen content in the soil thereby escalating environmental degradation. Gender (X 6 ) Its believe that males folk have are more active in unsustainable agriculture by using quick result based approach to increase their yield to cater for their family. Age (X 7 ) Based the study is according to NPC (2006) youth is major habitant of the study area hence its believe it will also play a role in the results Use of genetic mutilator (X 8 ) It’s expected that this chemical usage will be a threat to environment and safety of living organism in a long run. Educational level (X 9 ) This study expect that educational foundation should play a positive role in discouraging use of agrochemical by farmers knowing fully the danger it may cause nature and it habitants. Use of growth inhibitor (X 10) Its expected that as the farmers continue to use this chemical it will not only hamper the environment but will as will affects human genes in long run. Use of pesticides (X 11 ) This is also another key component the study expects to contribute towards environmental degradation if deploy in agricultural activities. Use of herbicides (X 12 ) Again this will as well be seen as priority causative factor of environmental degradation Use of preservative chemicals (X 13 ) This is another element this research considered to play active role in contribution to environmental degradation. Application of Organic fertilizer (X 14 ) Here it’s expected that farmers promote eco-friendly farming when they use organic manure. Farm size (X 15 ) By assumption it’s expected that the greater the land use for agriculture with this chemical the higher the chances of environmental degradation. 2.2 agricultural pollution into environment transition mechanism The pollutants are transfer to the environment through erosion (leasing) of soil nutrients into the water bodies, as well through atmospheric deposition. Furthermore, this pollutant can enter the environment as secondary emission such as air, surface waters, groundwater as contaminants into to oceans. Burning of forest as well decomposition and mineralization of soil nutrient is constituting major channel these pollutants e.g CO 2 , N 2 O, CH 4 are injected into the ecosystem. Furthermore, the routine antibiotic use in animal agriculture contributes to antibiotic resistance thereby diminishing the effectiveness of these drugs for human use. 3. Result/ Discussion 3.1 Farmers Agrochemical Usage in food production. 3.1.1 Farmer Agrochemicals Usage The result on agrochemical used by farmers presented in Fig. 1 shows that the majority (86%) of the farmers used agrochemicals in the agricultural operation. Heavy application of this into the soil is very dangerous to the environment and life, there is need to introduce ecological service in the study area to cut down cost of organic farming. This will encourage sustainable farming and reduce already accumulated nitric oxide in the agriculture land. The results agreed with United nations environment program (FAO, 2021) that reported that 80% of ecological crisis is cause by agriculture This result as in accordance with who named agriculture as mother of ecological and environmental problem. 3.1.2 Frequency distribution of Agrochemicals According the Types Used Table 1 Frequency distribution of farmers according to types of agrochemicals used according to survey (2022) Agrochemical Used Frequency (N = 405) Percentage (%) NPK fertilizer 358 88 Ammonium nitrate 336 82 Herbicides 270 67 Pesticides 341 84 Preservatives chemical 159 39 Growth inhibitor 95 23 Genetic mutilator 54 13 Source; Field Survey 2022 . *Multiple responses recorded The results in Table 1 show that NPK fertilizer contributed majority (88%) of farmers uses NPK fertilizer. This could be probably to boost their yields, follow by (82%) from ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Both result once again support study by independent group of scientist appoint by secretary general of united nation (Norton et al., 2015) devised an indicator for determining the level of environmental degradation. Another major (84%) recorded in this research was pesticides and herbicide (67%) these two result total aligns with a finding by indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability 3.2. Medium of Transfer of Environmental Pollutants Table 2 Percentage distribution agrochemical according to method of transfer Transfer Mechanism Frequency (405) Percentage (%) Erosion/flooding/leasing 305 75 Erosion/flooding/leasing 264 65 Farmworker contact 228 56 Diffusion by air 86 21 Increase in temperature range 83 20 Rainfall 78 19 Natural disaster 31 8 Field Survey, 2022 *Multiple responses recorded The result on the sources of environmental pollutants presented in Table 2 indicates that the majority (75%) of the pollutants enter the environment through erosion (leasing) of soil nutrients. The implication is it leads to absolute yield against actual yields expected from the applied nutrients in the soil as the plant are deprived from assimilating this nutrient also led to destruction of soil texture and contamination of water, of course endangering of aquatic lives. Another major source (65%) is contamination of agricultural byproducts. Both result is in once again agrees with the study by (Gattinger et al., 2011 ) the indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability. The long time danger of this to the people that feed on these ill agricultural products is serious health complication in while severe case can result to premature death. More so majority (56%) of the agrochemicals come in contact with the farmworker during the application process. This finding agrees with (UN SDG 2019) increased pesticide usage harms farmworkers via extended exposure times and contaminate ground and surface water sources, including harming downstream users and inland fisheries Furthermore the study identified that (21%) of this agrochemical are transmitted into the atmosphere during the application phase. This finding is in accordance with a research carried out by (Gattinger et al., 2011 ) showed that CO 2 emissions from agricultural sources account for approximately 21% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. Other methods the agrochemical can spread across the environment includes; high temperature (20%), rainfall (19%) among others. 4. Effects of heavy metal on environmental degradation in the study area The result of the multiple regression is summarizing in Table 2 below. Table 3 Ordinary least square multiple regression analysis on the effects Agricultural activities on the Surrounding Environment in the study area . Variant Symbol Coefficient Standard Error t-value Level of significant Constant B 0 1.359 0.098 13.867 NS farming experience X 1 0.281 0.025 11.242 ** income of farmers X 2 0.745 0.092 8.098 *** Marital status X 3 1.015 0.256 3.964 *** Family size X 4 1.455 0.903 1.611 *** NPK application X 5 4.254 0.335 12.694 *** Gender X 6 -1.231 0.959 -1.283 * Age X 7 -1.954 0.989 -1.976 * Genetic mutilators X 8 1.801 0.949 1.898 ** Educational level X 9 5.754 0.454 12.674 * Growth inhibitors X 10 3.467 0.506 6.852 ** Pesticides X 11 2.096 0.671 3.124 ** Herbicides X 12 1.976 0.530 3.728 * Preservatives X 13 0.674 0.165 4.085 *** Organic fertilizers X 14 1.455 0.903 1.611 *** Farm size X 15 2.097 0.896 2.340 ** Source: Field Survey, 2022 *, represent statistical significant at 1% level of significance **, represent statistical significant at 5% level of significance ***, represent statistical significant at 10% level of significance NS represent not statistically significant R2 = 82.6% Adjusted R2 = 84.4% Durbin Watson constant = 1.445 Table: 3 shows farming experience had a significant positive influence on agrochemical usage. This implies that the more experienced a farmer is the higher he cut down agrochemical usage bearing in mind it advance effect in the environment according to study by (Puciato et al., 2022 ) who opined reduction the inverse effect of agriculture on the environment by adopting strong and appropriate policies and technological transmission. Income had a positive and significant effect on agrochemical usage. This show that farmers tends to use more agrochemical when the have sufficient income maybe to boost their yields. Marital status generated a significant positive effect on agrochemical usage. This can simply mean married people have been known for a high sense of responsibility and the serious pursuance of means of income that invariably increase their productivity through using more agrochemical to meet their needs (Puciato et al., 2022 ). Household size significantly increased use of agrochemical as well rate of ecological crisis, this simply entails agriculture intensification according to FAO (Tilman et al., 2014) who reported Since population is one of the most important determinants of demand, a continuous increase in the world population increases the worldwide demand for food to meet basic human needs (Leonard et al., 2011 ) affirmed that farmers’ family size determines the extent of their involvement in farm operations. The need for NPK fertilizer will raise the level of agrochemical as well trigger significant negative effect in the ecosystem. This quite agree with (Olga et al., 2021) the indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability. Gender had a significant and positive influence on ecological crisis, meaning that men activities has more negative impact in the environment that its folk. Maybe because men are more active in farm activities hence nature tend to be more vulnerable to the perturbation of their action. This is also pointing to the fact that more integration of gender into agricultural policy for the successful implementation of climate adaption interventions in crop farming becomes critical (Tilman et al., 2014) Age significantly increases agrochemical usage. This shows that younger crop farmers use less agrochemical. It could be because of their exposure to innovation and sustainable farming system compare to old farmers. Age of farmers were related to farmers’ productivity level. Genetic mutilator has significant increase towards ecological issue. This should it contribute toward reducing quality of food product and reduce life expectancy. Level of education shows it has both significant decreases the environmental degradation. This means the more the farmers are educated they will understand the need to adopt sustainable agriculture and protect the environment. This is in accordance with united nation SDG 4 and 11 quality education and sustainable cities and communities respectively. Growth inhibitor show increase, meaning it will lead to the farmer loading more chemical in the ecosystem as the continue to make use of the chemical for production. Pesticides show increasing point the same toward tendency for farmer to continue to use agrochemical against the long term consequence for nature. Herbicides as well preservative both show significant increase on agrochemical usage. This in all means they above chemical constitute major environmental pollutant cause by unsustainable agriculture. The indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability. Use of organic fertilizer show significant decrease in ecological damage, that simply tell us its recommendable for farmer to embrace it to reduce ecological crisis cause by agricultural pollutants continually unabated releases into the environment. (Steffen et al., 2015 ) It is considered to be possible to reduce the inverse effect of agriculture on the environment by adopting strong and appropriate policies and technological transmission. Chlorinated water read an increase for agrochemical usage. This show us of potential damage to the environment. Hence there is need to avoid using it and use quality water consumption. Farm size also significant and negatively influences environmental degradation. This means that larger the land the less ecological issues will be experience. This quite agree with study by (World bank 2020), shows croplands and pastures are one of the largest terrestrial biomes on the planet, occupying ~ 40% of land surface, probably more since its over 18 years after this was documented. Fertilizer application knowledge, signal positive influence on agrochemical usage. This tell us how it can lead to more agrochemical pollutant in agriculture land if continue use. Ammonium nitrate with positive value show it play great role in loading the ecosystem with pollutant after being used by farmer. The implication of this have already been reported here by (Foley et al., 2005 ) whom clearly put it this way the indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability. Conclusion The research specified the preliminary factors of influence on agrochemical usage. They are: Increase in yields that attract higher income for the farmer. This shows that agrochemical usage has huge role to play to enable farmer achieve target quantity of yields even though this does not in any way guarantee food safety for the consumers or encourage eco-friendly agricultural practice. Need for NPK fertilizer negatively impact in the environment by causing degradation as well decline in essential microbial activity in the soil. Income is strong factor that enhance the farmer proximity to use agrochemical while gender as well show that men are the major user of agrochemical this show of their active nature in agriculture then their folk. farmers are male, literate, married, experienced, smallholders who uses agrochemicals like ammonium nitrate, NPK, herbicides, pesticides and preservative enhance their yield and preserve it since the lack basic amenities and storage facilities. The study shows that majority of the agrochemical pollutant are transfer to the environment by flooding as well contamination of agricultural by-product. Haven seen agriculture constitute 80% anthropogenic activities as is main economy mainstay especially in tropical region of the world, it will be absolutely brilliant to encourage farmers, and corporate society to sustainable intensify agricultural production to reduce rate of land expansion for farming. The effects of the agricultural operation were significant with the results of ordinary multiple regression analysis showing the overall independent variable determinant R2 82.6% this show that the heavy metals generated during agricultural is statistically significant to influence the state of the environment in the study area. Furthermore, farmer should shift towards organic farming and ecological services to neutralize cost effect. Environmental preservation, conservation education should be made compulsory for everyone by appropriate arm to promote environmental safety practice. And lastly there is need for new orientation for more sustainable context approach to agriculture to protect our environment. References Gattinger, J. Jawtusch, A. Muller, Mitigating Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture: A challenge and Opportunity for Agricultural Policies, Diakonisches Werk der EKDe.V, 2011. Norton, G.W. Evaluating Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research: What Have We Learned? Draft Seminar Paper; Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]. Puciato, D.; Rozpara, M.; Bugdol, M.; Mróz-Gorgoń, B. Socio-economic correlates of quality of life in single and married urban individuals: A Polish case study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2022, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar]. Liu, J.; Du, S.; Fu, Z. The impact of rural population aging on farmers’ cleaner production behavior: Evidence from five provinces of the North China Plain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]. Leonard, S.H.; Deane, G.D.; Gutmann, M.P. Household and farm transitions in environmental context. Popul. Environ. 2011, 32, 287–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version].. G. Jiang, et al., Effect of Agricultural Employment and Export Diversification Index on Environmental Pollution: Building the Agenda towards Sustainability, Sustainability 14 (2) (2022) 677. [19] Z. Ferdous, F. Zulfiqar, A. Datta, A. H.. W. Aktar, D. Sengupta, A. Chowdhury, Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards, Interdiscipl. Toxicol. 2 (1) (2009) 1–12. Central Bank of Nigeria. Statistical Bulletin: Domestic Production, Consumption and Prices; Central Bank of Nigeria: Abuja, Nigeria, 2019. Independent Group of Scientists Appointed by the Secretary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: the Future Is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York, 2019. Available: https://su stainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf. Paudyal, B.R.; Chanana, N.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Sherpa, L.; Kadariya, I.; Aggarwal, P. Gender integration in climate change and agricultural policies: The case of Nepal. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]. Central Bank of Nigeria. 2016 Statistical Bulletin of the Central Bank of Nigeria; Central Bank of Nigeria: Abuja, Nigeria, 2016. [Google Scholar. Tilman, D., and M. Clark. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515: 518–522. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855–1259855 (2015). Foley, J.A., et al. (2005) Global Consequences of Land Use. Science, 309, 570-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 Shindell, D.T., Y.H. Lee, and G. Faluvegi, 2016: Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2°C. Nat. Clim. Change, 6, no. 5, 503-507, doi:10.1038/nclimate2935. (2016) Helmut Haberl, Tim Beringer, Sribas Bhasttacharya, Monique Hoogwijk. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Published by Elsevier, Print ISSN: 1877-3435 (2016) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (researchgate.net) World Development Report 2020. World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains (worldbank.org) United Nations ’ World Population Prospects 2017 REVISION. Microsoft Word - 17-DBooklet V9-11-12-2017-3PM (un.org) Babatunde A. Giwa, Emmanuel O. George, Henry Okodua & Oluwasogo S.Adediran | (2020) Empirical analysis of the effects of foreign direct investment inflows on Nigerianreal economic growth: Implications for sustainable development goal-17, Cogent Social Sciences,6:1, 1727621, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1727621 (PDF) Empirical analysis of the effects of foreign direct investment inflows on Nigerian real economic growth: Implications for sustainable development goal-17. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339459937_Empirical_analysis_of_the_effects_of_foreign_direct_investment_inflows_on_Nigerian_ real_economic_growth_Implications_for_sustainable_development_goal-17 [accessed Mar 07 2023]. Olga Vigiak , Angel Udias, Alberto Pistocchi, Michela Zanni, Alberto Aloe, Bruna Grizzetti, Probability maps of anthropogenic impacts affecting ecological status in European rivers, Ecological Indicators 126 (2021) 107684 Ecological Indicators | Journal | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier. US Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/climate-change Jonathan A. Foley , Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Christine O’Connell, Deepak K. Ray, Paul C. West, Christian Balzer, Elena M. Bennett, Stephen R. Carpenter, Jason Hill, Chad Monfreda, Stephen Polasky, Johan Rockstro¨m , John Sheehan , Stefan Siebert, David Tilman, & David P. M. Zaks . Solutions for a cultivated planet (2014). (PDF) Solutions for a Cultivated Planet (researchgate.net) United Nations World Water Assessment 2016, The United Nations world water development report 2016: water and jobs - UNESCO Digital Library United nations food and agriculture organization (FAO) 2014 Report. The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) 2014 (fao.org) United nations environmental programme report (2021) Annual Report 2021 | UNEP - UN Environment Programme One Tree Planted (2021) One Tree Planted | Tree Planting Non-Profit: One Dollar, One Tree Faroque, M.A.A., Kashem, M.A. and Bilkis, S.E. (2011) Sustainable Agriculture: A Challenge in Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology, 1, 1-8 Jules Pretty. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2163 The Future of Food and Agriculture – Trends and Challenges, Rome, 2017. Avaiable: https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3314926","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":231007677,"identity":"0943e67f-7a50-4683-b222-33f99838e24b","order_by":0,"name":"Emmanuel Igwe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Peoples Friendship University of Russia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emmanuel","middleName":"","lastName":"Igwe","suffix":""},{"id":231007678,"identity":"18d9a052-ff45-4539-afe7-00959010838c","order_by":1,"name":"Valérien Baharane","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Peoples Friendship University of Russia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Valérien","middleName":"","lastName":"Baharane","suffix":""},{"id":231007679,"identity":"f4f5572d-9251-43ef-adc5-3c24cebc7e34","order_by":2,"name":"Benedictha Chinenye Ugwu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ebonyi State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Benedictha","middleName":"Chinenye","lastName":"Ugwu","suffix":""},{"id":231007680,"identity":"95a89d02-21a7-42d2-bcad-e6a4a1f0d18e","order_by":3,"name":"Simbo Diakite","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Peoples Friendship University of Russia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simbo","middleName":"","lastName":"Diakite","suffix":""},{"id":231007681,"identity":"05934529-ba25-4e07-aa2e-0d6077a46b4f","order_by":4,"name":"Francess Sia Saquee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Peoples Friendship University of Russia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Francess","middleName":"Sia","lastName":"Saquee","suffix":""},{"id":231007682,"identity":"c59a58b3-06c2-4225-8123-540f9d3afb11","order_by":5,"name":"John Julius Usman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"Julius","lastName":"Usman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-08-31 20:59:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314926/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314926/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":42831201,"identity":"8d6b574c-bacf-48a2-a498-b71bf71eda1f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-09-08 13:58:44","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":44733,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003epercentage distribution of farmers according to use of Agrochemical for farming\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource: Field Survey, 2022 *Multiple responses recorded (N=405)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3314926/v1/56c72e27a65810c3f0d5ab24.png"},{"id":43483785,"identity":"57738c3f-0ab7-4aad-8423-3c958d089ff0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-09-21 13:52:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":515264,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3314926/v1/065934e7-e21e-48ba-a3fb-e9be57b958fa.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Identification of Some Priority Heavy Metals Driver of Environmental Degradation Caused by Agricultural Activity; A Case Study in Ebonyi State Nigeria","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere is rising concerns from ecologist, environmentalist about the state of nature and its management method without prejudice to future generation accessibility to natural resources. Agriculture constitute about 80% of anthropogenic activity that led to deforestation, loss of species and desert encroachment (EPA, 2021). Agriculture is the leading source of pollution in the world. Pesticides, fertilizers and other toxic farm chemicals can poison fresh water, marine ecosystems, air and soil. In fact, it was reported that due to the surplus of nutrients from agriculture has been recognized as one of the main reasons for European water bodies not achieving good ecological status according to the European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. Agricultural activity constitutes about 80% cause of annual forest deforestations. There is tendency that in future more agricultural land will be contaminated by the agrochemicals. Agricultural activities constitute main driver of global climatic change and is the only largest contributor to the rising environmental risks of the Anthropocene. This paper study tends to identify agriculture pollutant procures in the environment due to agrochemical usage as well their impact in the ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy by show agriculture can directly contaminate the soil through farmer\u0026rsquo;s application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer and indirectly inputs (diffuse pollution) such as flooding and atmospheric deposition. Polluted soils can be transmitted by secondary emission such as air, surface waters, groundwater as contaminants into to oceans. Global food system is the primary driver for biodiversity loss. Biodiversity loss through agricultural operation (bush burning, tillage and farm settlement structure) will continue to accelerate, unless we change the way we produce food. The destruction of ecosystems and habitats will threaten our ability to sustain human populations and this can lead to loss of important species of biota. Industrial agriculture accounts for around 85% of deforestation worldwide. However climate change is another cause of deforestation. Extreme weather events like wildfires are responsible for an estimated 10% of degradation annually, droughts, and storm surges destroy millions of hectares of forest every year and their intensity is only increasing with global warming.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research is deemed necessary since the mainstay economic is agriculture while taking in consideration limited available of agricultural technology to the farmer. Its believe native system of farming is prevailing among local farmers hence this study is intended to investigate the consequence of un-sustainable method of food production in the study area.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey was conducted in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, an agrarian land whose population mainstay source of living is farming. Records shows, agriculture employed around 70 percent of the country\u0026rsquo;s workforce and generated an average of 22% of GDP (Paul et al., 2019). There is good reason to state these non-sustainable agricultural activities has contributed to some of ecological crisis as witness impacts of climate change resulting inefficient resource management and accountability. In 2016, the population increased to 2,880,383 persons (Steffen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) The people are known as smallholder crop farmers whom dominate agricultural production include but not limited rice, cassava, yam, potato, maize, plantain, and vegetables using inorganic method for maximum yield.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Research design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopted the multistage sampling procedure in selecting respondents for the survey. The three agricultural zones. In the first stage, three local government areas (LGAs) in each agricultural i.e. North, central and south zone. were selected. In each zone, the study selected three LGAs. In each selected LGA, three communities of farmer settlers were randomly selected. At the third stage, the study selected fifteen crop farmers in each community with track record. This made the sample size for the study four hundred and five (405) inorganic crop farmers. The main instrument for data collection was a structured questionnaire with detail explanation for easy response. It was administered to the farmers by recruited and trained enumerators on their farm gate. The paper used a questionnaire that captured the data required to answer the research questions and administered the questionnaire to the respondents. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the ordinary least square multiple regression was used to determine the impact of this agrochemicals usage in the environment. The level of environmental degradation (Y) was chosen as the dependent variable, while the independent variables of the respondents (rural farmers) are as follows; farming experience (X\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e), Income of farmer (X\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), marital status (X\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), family size (X\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e), NPK application (X\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e), gender (X\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e), age (X\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e), genetic mutilator (X\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e), educational level (X\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e), growth inhibitor (X\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e), pesticides (X\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e), herbicides (X\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e), preservative (X\u003csub\u003e13\u003c/sub\u003e), organic fertilizer (X\u003csub\u003e14\u003c/sub\u003e), farm size (X\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Implication of Agrochemical usage on food production.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model is implicitly represented below as;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;F(X\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e,X\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026hellip;.X\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;.3.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model is explicitly represented below as;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;B\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e+ B\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;B\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e + B\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e + B\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;. B\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003eX\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026hellip; ET 3.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Effect of use of Agrochemical in the Environment Degradation(N)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e farming experience (years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;income level (Naira)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;marital status (married\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, not married\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;household size (number of persons)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;used NPK fertilizer (dummy variable; yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;gender (dummy variable; male\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, female\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;age (years)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;used genetic mutilator (dummy variable; yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;education (years spent in school)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;used growth inhibitors (dummy variable; yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;use pesticides (dummy variable; yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;used herbicides (dummy variable; yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e13\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Application of preservative chemicals (dummy variable, yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e14\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;used organic fertilizers (dummy variable; yes\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, no\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;farm size (ha)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA piriori Expectation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e13\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e14\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAutonomous level of income (B\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e0\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis was expected to increase with or without the effect of adopted management practices, since most of the soil are still virgin land and so needs no input before it can yield reasonable outputs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFarming experience (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was expected the more experience the farmers become its will be a plus in reduction in emitting of heavy metals through agrochemical application.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIncome of farmer (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was predicted that income quotient has significant negative effect on the unsustainable system of agriculture as the farmer tends to use more of these agrochemicals to increase their yields.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMarital Status (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research as predicts that marital status is another driver to that push the farmers to work hard to meet the ends needs thereby contributing significantly to environmental degradation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFamily size (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSame scenario is applicable in family size been another dominants force of need that drives farmer decision to increase their yields at all cost.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eNPK Application (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilizer application is expected to increase the level of nitrogen content in the soil thereby escalating environmental degradation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGender (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIts believe that males folk have are more active in unsustainable agriculture by using quick result based approach to increase their yield to cater for their family.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAge (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased the study is according to NPC (2006) youth is major habitant of the study area hence its believe it will also play a role in the results\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eUse of genetic mutilator (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt\u0026rsquo;s expected that this chemical usage will be a threat to environment and safety of living organism in a long run.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEducational level (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study expect that educational foundation should play a positive role in discouraging use of agrochemical by farmers knowing fully the danger it may cause nature and it habitants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eUse of growth inhibitor (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e10)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIts expected that as the farmers continue to use this chemical it will not only hamper the environment but will as will affects human genes in long run.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eUse of pesticides (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is also another key component the study expects to contribute towards environmental degradation if deploy in agricultural activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eUse of herbicides (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgain this will as well be seen as priority causative factor of environmental degradation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eUse of preservative chemicals (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e13\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is another element this research considered to play active role in contribution to environmental degradation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eApplication of Organic fertilizer (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere it\u0026rsquo;s expected that farmers promote eco-friendly farming when they use organic manure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFarm size (X\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003e15\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy assumption it\u0026rsquo;s expected that the greater the land use for agriculture with this chemical the higher the chances of environmental degradation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 agricultural pollution into environment transition mechanism\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pollutants are transfer to the environment through erosion (leasing) of soil nutrients into the water bodies, as well through atmospheric deposition. Furthermore, this pollutant can enter the environment as secondary emission such as air, surface waters, groundwater as contaminants into to oceans. Burning of forest as well decomposition and mineralization of soil nutrient is constituting major channel these pollutants e.g CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO, CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e are injected into the ecosystem. Furthermore, the routine antibiotic use in animal agriculture contributes to antibiotic resistance thereby diminishing the effectiveness of these drugs for human use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Result/ Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Farmers Agrochemical Usage in food production.\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.1 Farmer Agrochemicals Usage\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe result on agrochemical used by farmers presented in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows that the majority (86%) of the farmers used agrochemicals in the agricultural operation. Heavy application of this into the soil is very dangerous to the environment and life, there is need to introduce ecological service in the study area to cut down cost of organic farming. This will encourage sustainable farming and reduce already accumulated nitric oxide in the agriculture land. The results agreed with United nations environment program (FAO, 2021) that reported that 80% of ecological crisis is cause by agriculture This result as in accordance with who named agriculture as mother of ecological and environmental problem.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1.2 Frequency distribution of Agrochemicals According the Types Used\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency distribution of farmers according to types of agrochemicals used according to survey (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgrochemical Used\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;405)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNPK fertilizer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e358\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmmonium nitrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e336\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHerbicides\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePesticides\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e341\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePreservatives chemical\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e159\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrowth inhibitor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGenetic mutilator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource; Field Survey 2022\u003c/strong\u003e. *Multiple responses recorded\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e show that NPK fertilizer contributed majority (88%) of farmers uses NPK fertilizer. This could be probably to boost their yields, follow by (82%) from ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Both result once again support study by independent group of scientist appoint by secretary general of united nation (Norton et al., 2015) devised an indicator for determining the level of environmental degradation. Another major (84%) recorded in this research was pesticides and herbicide (67%) these two result total aligns with a finding by indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Medium of Transfer of Environmental Pollutants\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage distribution agrochemical according to method of transfer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransfer Mechanism\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (405)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErosion/flooding/leasing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e305\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eErosion/flooding/leasing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e264\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarmworker contact\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e228\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiffusion by air\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncrease in temperature range\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRainfall\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNatural disaster\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eField Survey, 2022\u003c/strong\u003e *Multiple responses recorded\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe result on the sources of environmental pollutants presented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e indicates that the majority (75%) of the pollutants enter the environment through erosion (leasing) of soil nutrients. The implication is it leads to absolute yield against actual yields expected from the applied nutrients in the soil as the plant are deprived from assimilating this nutrient also led to destruction of soil texture and contamination of water, of course endangering of aquatic lives. Another major source (65%) is contamination of agricultural byproducts. Both result is in once again agrees with the study by (Gattinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) the indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe long time danger of this to the people that feed on these ill agricultural products is serious health complication in while severe case can result to premature death. More so majority (56%) of the agrochemicals come in contact with the farmworker during the application process. This finding agrees with (UN SDG 2019) increased pesticide usage harms farmworkers via extended exposure times and contaminate ground and surface water sources, including harming downstream users and inland fisheries Furthermore the study identified that (21%) of this agrochemical are transmitted into the atmosphere during the application phase. This finding is in accordance with a research carried out by (Gattinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) showed that CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions from agricultural sources account for approximately 21% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. Other methods the agrochemical can spread across the environment includes; high temperature (20%), rainfall (19%) among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Effects of heavy metal on environmental degradation in the study area","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe result of the multiple regression is summarizing in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrdinary least square multiple regression analysis on the effects Agricultural activities on the Surrounding Environment in the study area\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSymbol\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Error\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of significant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.359\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.867\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efarming experience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.281\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.242\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eincome of farmers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.745\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarital status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.964\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.455\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.903\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.611\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNPK application\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.335\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.694\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.231\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.959\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.283\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.954\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.989\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.976\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGenetic mutilators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.801\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.949\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.898\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.754\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.454\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.674\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrowth inhibitors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.467\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.506\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.852\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePesticides\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e11\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.096\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.671\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHerbicides\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e12\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.976\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.530\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.728\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePreservatives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e13\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.674\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.165\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganic fertilizers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e14\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.455\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.903\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.611\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarm size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003e15\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.097\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.896\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.340\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eSource: Field Survey, 2022\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e*, represent statistical significant at 1% level of significance\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e**, represent statistical significant at 5% level of significance\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e***, represent statistical significant at 10% level of significance\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNS represent not statistically significant\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eR2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82.6%\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eAdjusted R2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;84.4%\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eDurbin Watson constant\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.445\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable: 3 shows farming experience had a significant positive influence on agrochemical usage. This implies that the more experienced a farmer is the higher he cut down agrochemical usage bearing in mind it advance effect in the environment according to study by (Puciato et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) who opined reduction the inverse effect of agriculture on the environment by adopting strong and appropriate policies and technological transmission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncome had a positive and significant effect on agrochemical usage. This show that farmers tends to use more agrochemical when the have sufficient income maybe to boost their yields. Marital status generated a significant positive effect on agrochemical usage. This can simply mean married people have been known for a high sense of responsibility and the serious pursuance of means of income that invariably increase their productivity through using more agrochemical to meet their needs (Puciato et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Household size significantly increased use of agrochemical as well rate of ecological crisis, this simply entails agriculture intensification according to FAO (Tilman et al., 2014) who reported Since population is one of the most important determinants of demand, a continuous increase in the world population increases the worldwide demand for food to meet basic human needs (Leonard et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) affirmed that farmers\u0026rsquo; family size determines the extent of their involvement in farm operations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe need for NPK fertilizer will raise the level of agrochemical as well trigger significant negative effect in the ecosystem. This quite agree with (Olga et al., 2021) the indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender had a significant and positive influence on ecological crisis, meaning that men activities has more negative impact in the environment that its folk. Maybe because men are more active in farm activities hence nature tend to be more vulnerable to the perturbation of their action. This is also pointing to the fact that more integration of gender into agricultural policy for the successful implementation of climate adaption interventions in crop farming becomes critical (Tilman et al., 2014) Age significantly increases agrochemical usage. This shows that younger crop farmers use less agrochemical. It could be because of their exposure to innovation and sustainable farming system compare to old farmers. Age of farmers were related to farmers\u0026rsquo; productivity level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenetic mutilator has significant increase towards ecological issue. This should it contribute toward reducing quality of food product and reduce life expectancy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevel of education shows it has both significant decreases the environmental degradation. This means the more the farmers are educated they will understand the need to adopt sustainable agriculture and protect the environment. This is in accordance with united nation SDG 4 and 11 quality education and sustainable cities and communities respectively. Growth inhibitor show increase, meaning it will lead to the farmer loading more chemical in the ecosystem as the continue to make use of the chemical for production. Pesticides show increasing point the same toward tendency for farmer to continue to use agrochemical against the long term consequence for nature. Herbicides as well preservative both show significant increase on agrochemical usage. This in all means they above chemical constitute major environmental pollutant cause by unsustainable agriculture. The indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUse of organic fertilizer show significant decrease in ecological damage, that simply tell us its recommendable for farmer to embrace it to reduce ecological crisis cause by agricultural pollutants continually unabated releases into the environment. (Steffen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) It is considered to be possible to reduce the inverse effect of agriculture on the environment by adopting strong and appropriate policies and technological transmission. Chlorinated water read an increase for agrochemical usage. This show us of potential damage to the environment. Hence there is need to avoid using it and use quality water consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFarm size also significant and negatively influences environmental degradation. This means that larger the land the less ecological issues will be experience. This quite agree with study by (World bank 2020), shows croplands and pastures are one of the largest terrestrial biomes on the planet, occupying\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;40% of land surface, probably more since its over 18 years after this was documented. Fertilizer application knowledge, signal positive influence on agrochemical usage. This tell us how it can lead to more agrochemical pollutant in agriculture land if continue use. Ammonium nitrate with positive value show it play great role in loading the ecosystem with pollutant after being used by farmer. The implication of this have already been reported here by (Foley et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) whom clearly put it this way the indiscriminate usage of chemicals in agricultural production caused environmental deterioration, which in turn posed a threat to agricultural viability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research specified the preliminary factors of influence on agrochemical usage. They are:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncrease in yields that attract higher income for the farmer. This shows that agrochemical usage has huge role to play to enable farmer achieve target quantity of yields even though this does not in any way guarantee food safety for the consumers or encourage eco-friendly agricultural practice. Need for NPK fertilizer negatively impact in the environment by causing degradation as well decline in essential microbial activity in the soil. Income is strong factor that enhance the farmer proximity to use agrochemical while gender as well show that men are the major user of agrochemical this show of their active nature in agriculture then their folk. \u0026nbsp; farmers are male, literate, married, experienced, smallholders who uses agrochemicals like ammonium nitrate, NPK, herbicides, pesticides and preservative enhance their yield and preserve it since the lack basic amenities and storage facilities. The study shows that majority of the agrochemical pollutant are transfer to the environment by flooding as well contamination of agricultural by-product.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Haven seen agriculture constitute 80% anthropogenic activities as is main economy mainstay especially in tropical region of the world, it will be absolutely brilliant to encourage farmers, and corporate society to sustainable intensify agricultural production to reduce rate of land expansion for farming. The effects of the agricultural operation were significant with the results of ordinary multiple regression analysis showing the overall independent variable determinant R2 82.6% this show that the heavy metals generated during agricultural is statistically significant to influence the state of the environment in the study area. Furthermore, farmer should shift towards organic farming and ecological services to neutralize cost effect. Environmental preservation, conservation education should be made compulsory for everyone by appropriate arm to promote environmental safety practice. And lastly there is need for new orientation for more sustainable context approach to agriculture to protect our environment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGattinger, J. Jawtusch, A. Muller, Mitigating Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture: A challenge and Opportunity for Agricultural Policies, Diakonisches Werk der EKDe.V, 2011.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNorton, G.W. Evaluating Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research: What Have We Learned? Draft Seminar Paper; Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePuciato, D.; Rozpara, M.; Bugdol, M.; Mr\u0026oacute;z-Gorgoń, B. Socio-economic correlates of quality of life in single and married urban individuals: A Polish case study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2022, 20, 1\u0026ndash;16. [Google Scholar].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, J.; Du, S.; Fu, Z. The impact of rural population aging on farmers\u0026rsquo; cleaner production behavior: Evidence from five provinces of the North China Plain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeonard, S.H.; Deane, G.D.; Gutmann, M.P. Household and farm transitions in environmental context. Popul. Environ. 2011, 32, 287\u0026ndash;317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]..\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eG. Jiang, et al., Effect of Agricultural Employment and Export Diversification Index on Environmental Pollution: Building the Agenda towards Sustainability, Sustainability 14 (2) (2022) 677. [19] Z. Ferdous, F. Zulfiqar, A. Datta, A. H..\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eW. Aktar, D. Sengupta, A. Chowdhury, Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards, Interdiscipl. Toxicol. 2 (1) (2009) 1\u0026ndash;12.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCentral Bank of Nigeria. Statistical Bulletin: Domestic Production, Consumption and Prices; Central Bank of Nigeria: Abuja, Nigeria, 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIndependent Group of Scientists Appointed by the Secretary-General, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: the Future Is Now \u0026ndash; Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York, 2019. Available: https://su stainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaudyal, B.R.; Chanana, N.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Sherpa, L.; Kadariya, I.; Aggarwal, P. Gender integration in climate change and agricultural policies: The case of Nepal. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCentral Bank of Nigeria. 2016 Statistical Bulletin of the Central Bank of Nigeria; Central Bank of Nigeria: Abuja, Nigeria, 2016. [Google Scholar.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTilman, D., and M. Clark. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515: 518\u0026ndash;522.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSteffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855\u0026ndash;1259855 (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoley, J.A., et al. (2005) Global Consequences of Land Use. Science, 309, 570-574.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShindell, D.T., Y.H. Lee, and G. Faluvegi, 2016: Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2\u0026deg;C. Nat. Clim. Change, 6, no. 5, 503-507, doi:10.1038/nclimate2935. (2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHelmut Haberl, Tim Beringer, Sribas Bhasttacharya, Monique Hoogwijk. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Published by Elsevier, Print ISSN: 1877-3435 (2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (researchgate.net)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Development Report 2020. World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains (worldbank.org)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited Nations \u0026rsquo; World Population Prospects 2017 REVISION. Microsoft Word - 17-DBooklet V9-11-12-2017-3PM (un.org)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBabatunde A. Giwa, Emmanuel O. George, Henry Okodua \u0026amp; Oluwasogo S.Adediran | (2020) Empirical analysis of the effects of foreign direct investment inflows on Nigerianreal economic growth: Implications for sustainable development goal-17, Cogent Social Sciences,6:1, 1727621, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1727621\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e(PDF) Empirical analysis of the effects of foreign direct investment inflows on Nigerian real economic growth: Implications for sustainable development goal-17.\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003eAvailable from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339459937_Empirical_analysis_of_the_effects_of_foreign_direct_investment_inflows_on_Nigerian_\u003cbr\u003ereal_economic_growth_Implications_for_sustainable_development_goal-17 [accessed Mar 07 2023].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOlga Vigiak , Angel Udias, Alberto Pistocchi, Michela Zanni, Alberto Aloe, Bruna Grizzetti, Probability maps of anthropogenic impacts affecting ecological status in European rivers, Ecological Indicators 126 (2021) 107684 Ecological Indicators | Journal | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUS Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/climate-change\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJonathan A. Foley , Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Christine O\u0026rsquo;Connell, Deepak K. Ray, Paul C. West, Christian Balzer, Elena M. Bennett, Stephen R. Carpenter, Jason Hill, Chad Monfreda, Stephen Polasky, Johan Rockstro\u0026uml;m , John Sheehan , Stefan Siebert, David Tilman, \u0026amp; David P. M. Zaks . Solutions for a cultivated planet (2014). (PDF) Solutions for a Cultivated Planet (researchgate.net)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited Nations World Water Assessment 2016, The United Nations world water development report 2016: water and jobs - UNESCO Digital Library\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited nations food and agriculture organization (FAO) 2014 Report. The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) 2014 (fao.org)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited nations environmental programme report (2021) Annual Report 2021 | UNEP - UN Environment Programme\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOne Tree Planted (2021) One Tree Planted | Tree Planting Non-Profit: One Dollar, One Tree\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFaroque, M.A.A., Kashem, M.A. and Bilkis, S.E. (2011) Sustainable Agriculture: A Challenge in Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology, 1, 1-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJules Pretty. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2163\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Future of Food and Agriculture \u0026ndash; Trends and Challenges, Rome, 2017. Avaiable: https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"unsustainable-intensification agriculture, unabated-discharge, nature-degradation, ecological crisis, food-contamination","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314926/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314926/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAgriculture operation remained the main emitter of top priority pollutants in the environment. This research identified actual agricultural activities that led to unabated emission heavy metal pollutant into the environment while signaling how it has contaminated agricultural yields. Descriptive statistic were used to analze quantification\u0026nbsp; of the pollutants from various sources. It was reported non-sustainable agricultural operation is mother of all environmental issues verified with statistical data which showed it constituted (80%) caused ecological deterioration and deforestation. This study identified, atleast\u0026nbsp; a majority (86%) of the farmers used agrochemical in their farming activities which has led to intensification of agriculture that triggered environmental degradation. Moreso, majority (88%) of the farmers used NPK fertilizer while 82% used ammonium nitrate fertilizer on their yields. It was reported that these chemical caused serious threat to life e.g N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO in particular in severe situation. \u0026nbsp;The study identified, majority (75%) of the pollutants entered into the environment through erosion (leasing) of soil nutrients. The variants responsible for determining effects conventional approach to agricultural on the environment correlation relationship was tested with multiple regression analysis the was R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e 82.6% which is statistically important variables that constituted the main sources of ecological crisis. The study recommended new orientation for more sustainable context approach to agriculture to produce health food and the ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Identification of Some Priority Heavy Metals Driver of Environmental Degradation Caused by Agricultural Activity; A Case Study in Ebonyi State Nigeria","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-09-08 13:58:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3314926/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a9de818a-a64e-45d9-a366-c6a9b3298b65","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 8th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-09-21T13:44:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2023-09-08 13:58:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3314926","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3314926","identity":"rs-3314926","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"_2-kVJe1T_tPrBINL-cwx","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}