Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 483–490 | Cite as

Changes in the biological activity of heavy metal- and oil-polluted soils in urban recreation territories

Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Urban recreation areas of different sizes were investigated in the city of Vladimir. The degree of their contamination with heavy metals and oil products was revealed. The content of heavy metals exceeded their maximum permissible concentrations by more than 2.5 times. The total content of heavy metals decreased in the sequence: Zn > Pb > Co > Mn > Cr > Ni. The mass fraction of oil products in the studied soils varied within the range of 0.016–0.28 mg/g. The reaction of soils in public gardens and a boulevard was neutral or close to neutral; in some soil samples, it was weakly alkaline. The top layer of all the soils significantly differed from the lower one by the higher alkalinity promoting the deposition of heavy metals there. As the content of Ni, Co, and Mn increased and exceeded the background concentrations, but did not reach the three-fold value of the maximum permissible concentrations, the activity of catalase was intensified. The stimulating effect of nickel on the catalase activity was mostly pronounced at the neutral soil reaction. The urease activity increased when heavy metals and oil products were present together in the concentrations above the background ones, but not higher than the three-fold maximal permissible concentrations for heavy metals and 0.3 mg/g for the content of oil products. The nitrifying activity was inhibited by oil hydrocarbons that were recorded in the soils in different amounts.

Keywords

urban soils pollution heavy metals biological activity enzyme activity Greyzemic Phaeozems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Yu. Altukhova, Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Moscow, 2010).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. V. Aristovskaya and M. V. Chugunova, “Express diagnostics of biological activity of soils,” Pochvovedenie, No. 11, 142–147 (1989).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. N. Barmin and A. V. Sintsov, “Modern problems of urban soils,” Geol., Geogr., Energiya, No. 2, 26–29 (2007).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. V. Galiulin and R. A. Galiulina, “Enzymatic indication of soil pollution by heavy metals,” Agrokhimiya, No. 11, 84–95 (2006).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. N. Gutina, Physiology of Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1963) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. V. Dobrovolsky and I. S. Urusevskaya, Map of Soil-Ecological Zonation of the East European Plain (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. A. Dospekhov, Methodology of Field Experiment with Statistical Data Processing (Agropromizdat, Moscow, 1985) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. V. Evreinova, A. A. Popovich, and S. I. Kolesnikov, “Use of biological activity parameters for monitoring and diagnosis of soil pollution by heavy metals of the II danger class,” Proceedings of International Scientific Conf. “Modern Problems of Soil Pollution” (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 2004), pp. 207–208.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. V. Ivanov and A. A. Tafeeva, “Hygienic evaluation of soil pollution in the oil mining regions of Tatarstan Republic,” Gig. Sanit., No. 3, 41 (2009).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. N. Ilyushkina, Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Rostov-on-Don, 2004).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. V. Lysak, E. V. Lapygina, and I. A. Konova, “Characteristic of bacterial communities of urban polluted soils,” Dokl. Ekol. Pochvoved. 18 (1), 202–213 (2013).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. N. Mynbaeva and A. V. Medvedeva, “Suppression of biochemical activity of urban polluted soils,” Izv. Altai. Gos. Univ., Nos. 3–2 (71), 23–25 (2011).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. V. Naprasnikova, “Urease activity and pH as indicators of the soil status in the cities of East Siberia,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 38, 1194–1200 (2005).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. N. Pavlova, A. I. Gorskii, and E. I. Sarapul’tseva, “Biological markers of low-intensity urban soil pollution by heavy metals and radionuclides,” Ekol. Urban. Territ., No. 1, 103–108 (2008).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu. I. Pikovskii, Natural and Technogenic Fluxes of Hydrocarbons in the Environment (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1993) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. M. Polyanskaya and D. G. Zvyagintsev, “The content and composition of microbial biomass as an index of the ecological status of soil,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 38, 625–633 (2005).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Practical Manual on Agrochemistry, Ed. by V. G. Mineev (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 2001), p. 69.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Practical Manual on Microbiology, Ed. by A. I. Netrusov (Academia, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Yu. Saet, Geochemistry of the Environment (Nauka, Moscow, 1990) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. L. Stepanov, N. A. Manucharova, A. V. Smagin, A. S. Kurbatova, A. D. Myagkova, and V. N. Bashkin, “Characterization of the biological activity of the microbial complex in urban soils,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 38, 864–869 (2005).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. N. Stroganova, A. D. Myagkova, and T. V. Prokof’eva, “Genesis, classification, and functions of urban soils,” in Soil, City, and Ecology (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 1997), pp. 15–88.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. N. Y. Badiane, J. L. Chotte, and E. Pate, “Use of soil enzyme activities to monitor soil quality in natural and improved fallows in semiarid tropical regions,” Appl. Soil Ecol. 18 (3), 229–238 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Bahrampour and V. Moghanlo Sarvi, “Evaluation of soil biological activity after soil contaminating by crude oil,” Int. J. Agric.: Res. Rev. 2 (6), 671–679 (2012).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. M. Bowles, V. Acosta-Martínez, F. Calderón, and L. E. Jackson, “Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscapes,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 252–262 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. V. Evans, D. S. Fanning, and J. R. Short, “Humaninfluenced soils,” Agron. Monogr. 39, 33–67 (2000).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Gil-Sotres, C. Trasar-Cepeda, and V. C. Leirós, “Different approaches to evaluate soil quality using biochemical properties,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 877–887 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. Heidt and M. Neef, “Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate,” in Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2008), pp. 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Sardar, C. Qing, H. Abd El-Latif, X. Yue, and H. Jizheng, “Soil enzymatic activities and microbial community structure with different application rates of Cd and Pb,” J. Environ. Sci. 19, 834–840 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Kızılkaya, T. Askın, and B. Bayraklı, “Microbiological characteristics of soils contaminated with heavy metals,” Eur. J. Soil Biol. 40, 95–102 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Lehmann and K. Stahr, “Nature and significance of anthropogenic urban soils,” J. Soils Sediments 7 (4), 247–260 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Biology and EcologyVladimir State UniversityVladimirRussia

Personalised recommendations