Advertisement

Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 51, Issue 12, pp 1411–1418 | Cite as

Characterization of Humic Acids in Mountainous Meadow Soils and Burozems of the Crimea Using 13C-NMR

  • I. V. KostenkoEmail author
  • E. V. Abakumov
SOIL CHEMISTRY
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

A comparative analysis of organic matter in the mountainous soils under the main plant communities of the Crimea was performed. The humus state of burozems and mountainous meadow soils under natural meadow vegetation and planted forests was studied using traditional methods and 13C-NMR spectroscopy for the determination of the contents of total organic carbon, carbon of humic acids and optical density of humic acid solutions. The highest humus content in the A horizon was found in the dark burozem under the beech–hornbeam forest on the Chatyr-Dag Plateau. The meadow soils of the Ai-Petri Plateau were significantly inferior in terms of humus content than the dark burozem and meadow soils of other Crimean plateaus due to the intensive anthropogenic impact on these lands until the 1970s. The lowest humus content was found in the meadow soils of the forested Ai-Petri areas because of the strong degradation of the grass cover after planting trees. The investigation of humic acids using the 13C-NMR method showed that humic acids of Crimean mountainous soils were characterized by the elevated hydrogen content, which well agreed with the content of alkyl fragments. The structural molecular composition of humic acids was dominated by aliphatic components, aromatic components being weakly expressed. At the same time, the aromaticity was somewhat higher in the cases when the soil was formed in the meadow ecosystem; it was lower in the upper soil horizons of the forest ecosystems. The degree of aromaticity of humic acids is intermediate between that of podzolic and chernozem soils, which is typical for soils of semihumid regions. The substitution of herbaceous vegetation in the course of natural overgrowing or afforestation of areas with meadow soils has led to an increase in their acidity, but it had no noticeable effect on the elemental and structural composition of humic acids.

Keywords:

Luvisol mountainous meadow soil Phaeozem humus substances 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Science Park of the St-Petersburg State University; the resource centers are “Magnetic-Resonance Studies” and “Methods for Analysis of Substance Composition”.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    I. N. Antipov-Karataev and L. I. Prasolov, “Soils of the Crimean State Forest Nature Reserve and adjacent areas,” Tr. Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva 7, (1932).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. A. Bagrova and L. Ya. Garkusha, “Artificial forest plantations in Crimea,” Ekosist., Optim. Okhrana, No.  20, 134–145 (2009).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. A. Bogoslovskii, “Crimean soils,” Izv. Geol. Kom. 16 (8–9), 279–289 (1897).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. F. Vadyunina and Z. A. Korchagina, Methods of the Study of Soil Physical Properties (Agropromizdat, Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    GOST (State Standard) 26212-91: Soils, Determination of Hydrolytic Acidity by the Kappen Method Modified by TsIINAO (Izd. Standartov, Moscow, 1992) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. V. Dokuchaev, Russian Chernozem, Ed. by V. R. Williams (Sel’khoziz, Moscow, 1936) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. A. Dragan, Soil Resources of Crimea (Dolya, Simferopol, 2004) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. O. Kechaikina, A. G. Ryumin, and S. N. Chukov, “Postagrogenic transformation of organic matter in soddy-podzolic soils,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 44, 1077–1089 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Classification and Diagnostics of Soils of the Soviet Union (Kolos, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. L. Shishov, V. D. Tonkonogov, I. I. Lebedeva, and M. I. Gerasimova, Classification and Diagnostic System of Russian Soils (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2004) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. N. Klepinin, Soils of Crimea (Krymgiz ASSR, Simferopol, 1935) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. N. Klepinin, Soils of Crimea (Krymgosizdat, Simferopol, 1927) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. V. Kovalev, Doctoral Dissertation in Agriculture (Moscow, 2015).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. M. Kononova and N. P. Bel’chikova, “Rapid analysis of the composition of humus in mineral soils,” Pochvovedenie, No. 10, 75–87 (1961).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. V. Kostenko, Soil Atlas of Mountainous Crimea (Agrarna Nauka, Kiev, 2014) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. V. Kostenko, “The impact of artificial forest plantations on mountain-meadow soils of Crimea,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 51, 485–494 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. V. Kostenko, “Soils of the mountain plateaus of Crimea under artificial forest plantations,” in Proceedings of the VI All-Russia Scientific Conference with International Participation “Fundamental and Applied Problems in Forest Soil Science” (Komi Science Center, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Syktyvkar, 2015), pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    I. V. Kostenko, “Relationships between parameters of the humus status of forest and meadow soils and their altitudinal position on the main Crimean range,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 50, 515–525 (2017). doi 10.1134/ S1064229317050088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. A. Kochkin, Soils, Forests, and Climate of Mountainous Crimea and Their Rational Use (Kolos, Moscow, 1967) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. D. Lodygin, V. A. Beznosikov, and R. S. Vasilevich, “Molecular composition of humic substances in tundra soils (13C-NMR spectroscopic study),” Eurasian Soil Sci. 47, 400–406 (2014). doi 10.1134/S1064229314010074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O. M. Mikhailovskaya, “Soils of mountainous Crimea,” in Soils of USSR, Vol. 3: Soils of Forest-Steppe and Steppe Areas, Ed. by L. I. Prasolov (Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow, 1939), pp. 357–375.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O. A. Nekrasova, “Elemental composition of humic acids in southern taiga soils of Central Ural and adjacent areas,” Vestn. Krasn. Gos. Arar. Univ., No. 3, 23–28 (2013).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. V. Nesterova and V. A. Semal’, “Characteristics of humic acids of the southern Sikhote-Alin according to elemental analysis and IR spectrometry in the Ussuri Nature Reserve,” Vestn. Krasn. Gos. Arar. Univ., No. 10, 29–35 (2009).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. S. Orlov, L. K. Sadovnikova, and N. I. Sukhanova, Soil Chemistry (Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. A. Plotnikova and V. V. Ponomareva, “A simplified determination of the optical density of humic substances with a single light filter,” Pochvovedenie, No. 7, 73–85 (1967).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. Ya. Polovitskii and P. G. Gusev, Soils of Crimea and Improvement of Their Fertility (Tavriya, Simferopol, 1987) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. A. Kholodov, A. I. Konstantinov, and I. V. Perminova, “The carbon distribution among the functional groups of humic acids isolated by sequential alkaline extraction from gray forest soil,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 42, 1229–1233 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. N. Chukov, “Study of humus acids in anthropogenically disturbed soils using 13C-NMR spectroscopy,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 31, 979–986 (1998).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. Abakumov, N. Fujitake, and T. Kosaki, “Humus and humic acids of Luvisol and Cambisol of Jiguli Ridges, Samara region, Russia,” Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., art ID 671359, (2009).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Asakawa, H. Mochizuki, Y. Yanagi, and N. Fujitake, “Characterization of hydrophobic acid fractions in water-soluble organic matter in dystric Cambisol and in a stream in a small forested watershed: Seasonal and vertical variations in chemical properties,” Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 53 (5), 551–561 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015, International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, World Soil Resources Reports No. 106 (Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2015).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. Keeler, E. F. Kelly, and G. E. Maciel, “Chemical-structural information from solid-state 13C NMR studies of a suite of humic materials from a lower montane forest soil, Colorado, USA,” Geoderma 130, 124–140 (2006). doi 10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.01.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Kobl and I. Kogel-Knabner, “Content and composition of free and occluded particulate organic matter in a differently textured arable Cambisol as reveled by solid state 13C NMR spectroscopy,” J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 167, 45–53 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    W. Zech, R. Hempfling, L. Haumaier, H.-R. Schulten, and K. Haider, “Humification in subalpine Rendzinas: chemical analyses, IR and 13C NMR,” Geoderma 47 (1–2), 123–138 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nikitskii Botanical Garden—National Science Center, Russian Academy of SciencesYaltaRussia
  2. 2.Saint-Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations