Advertisement

Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 535–542 | Cite as

Carbon Dioxide Emission by Soils as a Criterion for Remediation Effectiveness of Industrial Barrens Near Copper-Nickel Plants in the Kola Subarctic

  • M. S. KadulinEmail author
  • G. N. KoptsikEmail author
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Technogenic barren lands formed under the influence of sulfur dioxide and heavy metal emissions near nonferrous metallurgy enterprises on the Kola Peninsula are characterized by inhibited CO2 emission from soils (10–30 mg C m–2 h–1, or 12–26 g C m–2 summer–1). Remediation of barrens promotes the growth of plant roots and microorganisms, the respiration of which accelerates the flow of CO2 from the soil by half at chemophyto stabilization and five times at application of the fertile layer; at this, the proportion of root respiration increases from 0 to 40–60%. The intensity of CO2 emissions by soils and the structure of its production can be used as criteria for remediation effectiveness of technogenic barren lands.

Keywords:

soil respiration root respiration microorganisms Q10 qCO2 industrial pollution heavy metals soil remediation 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was financially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 18-04-01028).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Puly i potoki ugleroda v nazemnykh ekosistemakh Rossii (Carbon Pools and Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems of Russia), Zavarzin, G.A., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlesinger, W.H. and Andrews, J.A., Soil respiration and the global carbon cycle, Biogeochemistry, 2000, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 7–20.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006247623877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evdokimova, G.A., Kalabin, G.V., and Mozgova, N.P., Contents and toxicity of heavy metals in soils of the zone affected by aerial emissions from the Severonikel Enterprise, Euras. Soil Sci., 2011, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 237–244.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229311020037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kashulina, G.M., Extreme pollution of soils by emissions of the copper–nickel industrial complex in the Kola Peninsula, Euras. Soil Sci., 2017, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 837–849.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229317070031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koptsik, G.N., Koptsik, S.V., and Smirnova, I.E., Alternative technologies for remediation of technogenic barrens in the Kola Subarctic, Euras. Soil Sci., 2016, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1294–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229316090088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lyanguzova, I.V., Dynamic trends of heavy metal contents in plants and soil under different industrial air pollution regimes, Russ. J. Ecol., 2017, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 311–320.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413617040117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smorkalov, I.A. and Vorobeichik, E.L., Soil respiration of forest ecosystems in gradients of environmental pollution by emissions from copper smelters, Russ. J. Ecol., 2011, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 311–320.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413611060166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bujalský, L., Kaneda, S., Dvorscik, P., and Frouz, J., In situ soil respiration at reclaimed and unreclaimed post–mining sites: Responses to temperature and reclamation treatment, Ecol. Eng., 2014, vol. 68, pp. 53–59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yevdokimov, I.V., Larionova, A.A., Schmitt, M., et al., Experimental assessment of the contribution of plant root respiration to the emission of carbon dioxide from the soil, Euras. Soil Sci., 2010, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1373–1381. http://doi.org/10.1134 /S1064229310120070.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lloyd, J. and Taylor, J.A., On the temperature dependence of soil respiration, Funct. Ecol., 1994, vol. 8, pp. 315–323.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2389824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kadulin, M.S., Smirnova, I.E., and Koptsik, G.N., The emission of carbon dioxide from soils of the Pasvik Nature Reserve in the Kola Subarctic, Euras. Soil Sci., 2017, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1055–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229317090034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vance, E.D., Brookes, P.C., and Jenkinson, D.S., An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass, Soil Biol. Biochem., 1987, vol. 19, pp. 703–707.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smorkalov, I.A. and Vorobeichik, E.L., Mechanism of stability in CO2 emission from forest litter under industrial pollution, Lesovedenie, 2016, no. 1, pp. 34–43.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao, C.Y. and Zhao, Z.M., Contribution of root and rhizosphere respiration of Haloxylon ammodendron to seasonal variation of soil respiration in the Central Asian desert, Quat. Int., 2011, vol. 244, pp. 304–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2010.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kadulin, M.S. and Koptsik, G.N., Emission of CO2 by soils in the impact zone of the Severonikel smelter in the Kola Subarctic region, Euras. Soil Sci., 2013, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1107–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229313110045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koptsik, G.N., Kadulin, M.S., and Zakharova, A.I., Effect of technogenic pollution on carbon dioxide emission by soils in the Kola Subarctic, Zh. Obshch. Biol., 2015, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 48–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pochikalov, A.V., Larin, Ya.A., Areshin, A.V., and Karelin, D.V., Components of carbon budget in forest plantings for remediation of open-cut mining sites, Lesovedenie, 2015, no. 6, pp. 447–457.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalbitz, K. and Marschner, B., Controls of bioavailability and biodegradability of dissolved organic matter in soils, Geoderma, 2003, vol. 113, pp. 211–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00362-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karelin, D.V., Zamolodchikov, D.G., Kaganov, V.V., et al., Microbial and root respiration components in southern taiga soddy podzolic soils, Lesovedenie, 2017, no. 3, pp. 183–195.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davidson, E.A. and Janssens, I.A., Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change, Nature, 2006, vol. 440, pp. 165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04514 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Razavi, B.S., Blagodatskaya, E., and Kuzyakov, Y., Nonlinear temperature sensitivity of enzyme kinetics explains canceling effect: A case study on loamy haplic Luvisol, Front. Microbiol., 2015, vol. 6 (1126), pp. 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurganova, I.N., Rozanova, L.N., Myakshina, T.N., et al., Long-term monitoring of CO2 emission from soddy podzolic soil: Analysis of the influence of hydrothermal conditions and land use, Probl. Ekol. Monitor.Model. Ekosist., 2007, vol. 21, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boone, R.D., Nadelhoffer, K.J., Canary, J.D., and Kaye, J.P., Roots exert a strong influence on the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration, Nature, 1998, vol. 396, pp. 570–572.  https://doi.org/10.1038/25119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anan’eva, N.D., Mikrobiologicheskie aspekty samoochi-shcheniya i ustoichivosti pochv (Microbiological Aspects of Soil Self-Purification and Stability), Moscow: Nauka, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brookes, P.C., The use of microbial parameters in monitoring soil pollution by heavy metals, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 1995, vol. 19, pp. 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations