Biology Bulletin Reviews

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 480–492 | Cite as

The effect of technogenic contamination on carbon dioxide emission by soils in the Kola Subarctic

Article

Abstract

Carbon dioxide emission (CO2) is the most important part of carbon turnover, which characterizes the biological activity of soils. This parameter was investigated in background ecosystems and those that have undergone atmospheric contamination in the subarctic zone of the Kola Peninsula, the large industrial region. The Pechenganikel’ plant located in the region is the largest source of sulfur dioxide and heavy metals in northern Europe. Long-term contamination by its waste products has resulted in a technogenic digression of forest ecosystems: destruction and death of the tree layer, poorer species composition of phytocenoses, lower soil biota activity, soil contamination, disturbance of biogeochemical cycles of elements, and a drop in ecosystem productivity. Technogenic wastelands have been formed near the plant. Field studies have shown a slowing down of CO2 emission by soils in situ from 190–230 C–CO2/m2 h in the background pine forests to 130–160 mg C–CO2/m2 h in pine forests at the defoliation stage, to 100 mg C–CO2/m2 h in a technogenic pine thin forest, and to 5–20 mg C–CO2/m2 h in technogenic wastelands. CO2 emission from soils is more intensive in birch forests when compared to pine forests, and there is a tendency to decrease with soil contamination from 290 mg C–CO2/m2 h in the background soils to 210–220 mg C–CO2/m2 h in birch forests at the defoliation stage and to 170–190 mg C–CO2/m2 h in technogenic thin forests. The CO2 emission by soils of technogenic thin soils and wastelands differs significant from the background levels. Soil CO2 emission is characterized by a great spatial variability within biogeocenoses. It becomes lower in pine forests upon a rise in soil contamination. Soil respiration (CO2 emission) shows the total production of carbon dioxide as a result of autotrophic (plant roots) and heterotrophic (soil microorganisms and animals) respiration. A decrease in part of the root respiration, contrary to soil contamination, was revealed in the region for the first time: it comprises from 38–57% in the background forests to 0% in wastelands. This is evidence that plants in biogeocenoses die first, while microorganisms are more resistant. Correlation analysis shows that soil respiration, and the role of roots in it, are directly related to the distance from the plant, the mass of small roots, and the content of carbon and nitrogen. An adverse correlation is seen for the content of available nickel and copper compounds in soils. The remediation of technogenic wastelands has favored intensification of biological activity of the soils. Soil respiration becomes more active, and the role of roots in it is more effective under willow plantations with grass cover formed on man-made fertile soil layer than in contaminated soils after lime and fertilizer application (chemo-phytostabilization).

Keywords

Soil Respiration Kola Peninsula Root Respiration Forest Litter Birch Forest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alekseev, V.A., Diagnostics of living status of trees and tree stands, Lesovedenie, 1989. no. 4, pp. 51–57.Google Scholar
  2. Bååth, E., Effects of heavy metals in soil on microbial processes and populations (a review), Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 1989, vol. 47, nos. 3–4, pp. 335–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babich, H. and Stotzky, G., Heavy metal toxicity to microbe-mediated ecologic processes: a review and potential application to regulatory policies, Environ. Res., 1985, vol. 36, pp. 111–137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blagodatskaya, E.V., Pampura, T.V., Bogomolova, I.N., Koptsik, G.N., and Lukina, N.V., Effect of emissions from a Copper-Nickel Smelter on soil microbial communities in forest biogeocenoses of the Kola Peninsula, Biol. Bull., 2008, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringmark, E. and Bringmark, L., Disappearance of spatial variability and structure in forest floors–a distinct effect of air pollution? Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 1995, vol. 85, pp. 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dai, J., Becquer, T., Rouiller, J.H., Reversat, G., BernhardReversat, F., and Lavelle, P., Influence of heavy metals on C and N mineralization and microbial biomass in Zn-, Pb-, Cu-, and Cd-contaminated soils, Appl. Soil Ecol., 2004, vol. 25, pp. 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dmitriev, E.A., Rekubratskii, I.V., Gorelova, Yu.V., and Vityazev, V.G., Properties and structure of soil under spruce, in Strukturno-funktsional’naya rol’ pochvy v biosfere (Structural and Functional Role of Soil in Biosphere), Moscow: GEOS, 1999, pp. 59–69.Google Scholar
  8. Dumontet, S., Dinel, H., and Levesque, P.E.N., The distribution of pollutant heavy metals and their effect on soil respiration and acid phosphatase activity in mineral soils of the Rouyn-Noranda region, Quebec, Sci. Total Environ., 1992, vol. 121, pp. 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evdokimova, G.A., Ekologo-mikrobiologicheskie osnovy okhrany pochv Krainego Severa (Ecological and Microbiological Principles of Soil Protection in the Extreme North), Apatity: Karel. Nauch. Tsentr, Ross. Akad. Nauk, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Evdokimova, G.A., Mozgova, N.P., and Korneikova, M.V., The content and toxicity of heavy metals in soils affected by aerial emissions from the Pechenganikel plant, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2014, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 504–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freedman, B. and Hutchinson, T.C., Effects of smelter pollutants on forest leaf litter decomposition near a nickelcopper smelter at Sudbury, Ontario, Can. J. Bot., 1980, vol. 58, pp. 1722–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fritze, H., Vanhala, P., Pietikainen, J., and Malkonen, E., Vitality fertilization of Scots pine stands growing along a gradient of heavy metal pollution: short-term effects on microbial biomass and respiration rate of the humus layer, Fresenius J. Anal. Chem., 1996, vol. 354, pp. 750–755.Google Scholar
  13. Hees van, P.A.W., Jones, D.L., Finlay, R., Godbold, D.L., and Lundstrom, U.S., The carbon we do not see–the impact of low molecular weight compounds on carbon dynamics and respiration in forest soils: a review, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2005, vol. 37, pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, D. and Hale, B., White birch (Betula papyrifera Marshall) foliar litter decomposition in relation to trace metal atmospheric inputs at metal-contaminated and uncontaminated sites near Sudbury, Ontario and Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, Canada, Environ. Pollut., 2004, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, D.L., Nguyen, C., and Finlay, R.D., Carbon flow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soil-root interface, Plant Soil, 2009, vol. 321, nos. 1–2, pp. 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2013, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1107–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karelin, D.V., Zamolodchikov, D.G., Zukert, N.V., Chestnykh, O.V., Pochikalov, A.V., and Kraev, G.N., Interannual changes in PAR and soil moisture during warm season may be more important than temperature fluctuations in directing annual carbon balance in Tundra, Biol. Bull. Rev., 2013, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khomik, M., Arain, M.A., and McCaughey, J.H., Temporal and spatial variability of soil respiration in a boreal mixed wood forest, Agric. For. Meteorol., 2006, vol. 140, pp. 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koptsik, S.V. and Koptsik, G.N., Multivariate statistical analysis of the response of forest litters to atmospheric pollution, Russ. J. Ecol., 2000, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koptsik, S., Koptsik, G., Livantsova, S., Eruslankina, L., Zhmelkova, T., and Vologdina, Zh., Heavy metals in soils near the nickel smelter: chemistry, spatial variation, and impacts on plant diversity, J. Environ. Monit., 2003, vol. 5, pp. 441–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Koptsik, S.V., Koptsik, G.N., and Meryashkina, L.V., Ordination of plant communities in forest biogeocenoses under conditions of air pollution in the Northern Kola Peninsula, Russ. J. Ecol., 2004, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koptsik, G.N., Koptsik, S.V., and Smirnova, I.E., Efficiency of remediation of technogenic barrens around the Pechenganikel works in the Kola Subarctic, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2014, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koptsik, G., Lofts, S., Karavanova, E., Naumova, N., and Rutgers, M., Heavy Metals in Forest Soils: Speciation, Mobility, and Risk Assessment, Ch. 6: Heavy Metal Contamination of Soil: Problems and Remedies, Ahmad, I., Hayat, S., and Pitchel, J., Eds., New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 2005, pp. 105–156.Google Scholar
  24. Kozlov, M.V., Zvereva, E.L., and Zverev, V.E., Impacts of point polluters on terrestrial biota. Comparative analysis of 18 contaminated areas, Environ. Pollut., 2009, vol. 15, pp. 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuzyakov, Y., Separating microbial respiration of exudates from root respiration in non-sterile soils: a comparison of four methods, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2002, vol. 34, pp. 1621–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuzyakov, Ya. and Raskatov, A., Effect of heavy metals contamination on root-derived and organic matter-derived CO2 efflux from soil planted with Zea mays, Eur. J. Soil Biol., 2008, vol. 44, pp. 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larionova, A.A., Sapronov, D.V., Lopez de Gerenyu, V.O., Kuznetsova, L.G., and Kudeyarov, V.N., Contribution of plant root respiration to the CO2 emission from soil, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2006, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1127–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laskowski, R., Maryafiski, M., and Nikliflska, M., Effect of heavy metals and mineral nutrients on forest litter respiration rate, Environ. Pollut., 1994, vol. 84, pp. 97–102. iaPollution), Alekseev, V.A., Ed., Leningrad: Nauka, 1990.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lukina, N.V. and Nikonov, V.V., Pitatel’nyi rezhim lesov severnoi taigi (prirodnye i tekhnogennye aspekty) (Nutritive Regime of Northern Taiga Forests: Natural and Technogenic Aspects), Apatity: Karel. Nauch. Tsentr, Ross. Akad. Nauk, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. Mikroorganizmy i okhrana pochv (Microorganisms and Protection of Soils), Zvyagintsev, D.G., Ed., Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1989.Google Scholar
  31. Obukhov, A.I., Environmental consequences of heavy metal pollution of soils and purification measures, in Povedenie pollyutantov v pochvakh i landshaftakh (Behavior of Pollutants in Soils and Landscapes), Pushchino: Nauch. Tsentr. Biol. Issled., Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1990, pp. 52–59.Google Scholar
  32. Paton, G.I., Viventsova (Ruth), E., Kumpene, J., Wilson, M.J., Weitz, H.J., and Dawson, J.J.C., An ecotoxicity assessment of contaminated forest soils from the Kola Peninsula, Sci. Total Environ., 2006, vol. 355, pp. 106–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pochikalov, A.V. and Karelin, D.V., A field study of tundra plant litter decomposition rate via mass loss and carbon dioxide emission: the role of biotic and abiotic controls, biotope, season of year, and spatial-temporal scale, Biol. Bull. Rev., 2015, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Puly i potoki ugleroda v nazemnykh ekosistemakh Rossii (Carbon Reserves and Flows in Terrestrial Ecosystems of Russia), Zavarzin, G.A., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 2007.Google Scholar
  35. Raich, J.W. and Tufekcioglu, A., Vegetation and soil respiration: correlations and controls, Biogeochemistry, 2000, vol. 48, pp. 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramsey, P.W., Rillig, M.C., Feris, K.P., Moore, J.N., and Gannon, J.E., Mine waste contamination limits soil respiration rates: a case study using quantile regression, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2005, vol. 37, pp. 1177–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Savel’eva, I.N., Assessment of spatial variability of parameters of humic and biological status of technical lands in Nazarovskaya depression, Vestn. Krasn. Gos. Agrar. Univ., 2009. no. 2, pp. 19–27.Google Scholar
  38. Schimel, D.S., Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle, Global Change Biol., 1995, vol. 1, pp. 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. 464–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tyler, G., Balsberg Påhlsson, A.-M., Bengtsson, G., Bååth, E., and Tranvik, L., Heavy-metal ecology of terrestrial plants, microorganisms and invertebrates, Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 1989, vol. 47, nos. 3–4, pp. 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vesterdal, L., Elberling, B., Christiansen, J.R., Callesen, I., and Schmidt, I.K., Soil respiration and rates of soil carbon turnover differ among six common European tree species, For. Ecol. Manage., 2012, vol. 264, pp. 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vorobeichik, E.L., Environmental standardization of toxic loads on terrestrial ecosystems, Doctoral (Biol.) Dissertation, Yekaterinburg: UrO, Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2003.Google Scholar
  43. Werth, M. and Kuzyakov, Ya., 13C fractionation at the rootmicroorganisms-soil interface: A review and outlook for partitioning studies, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2010, vol. 42, pp. 1372–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yevdokimov, I.V., Larionova, A.A., Lopes de Gerenyu, V.O., Schmitt, M., and Bahn, M., Determination of root and microbial contributions to the CO2 emission from soil by the substrate-induced respiration method, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2010., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yevdokimov, I.V., Larionova, A.A., Lopes de Gerenyu, V.O., Schmitt, M., and Bahn, M., Experimental assessment of the contribution of plant root respiration to the emission of carbon dioxide from the soil, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2010., vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1373–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zavarzin, G.A. and Kudeyarov, V.N., Soil as the key source of carbonic acid and reservoir of organic carbon on the territory of Russia, Herald Russ. Acad. Sci., 2006, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. N. Koptsik
    • 1
  • M. S. Kadulin
    • 1
  • A. I. Zakharova
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Soil ScienceMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations