Advertisement

Moscow University Soil Science Bulletin

, Volume 73, Issue 4, pp 164–174 | Cite as

Application of Biotesting Methods at Assessment of Ecological State of Soils

  • I. O. PlekhanovaEmail author
  • O. A. Zolotareva
  • I. D. Tarasenko
Ecological Safety

Abstract

Concentrations of heavy metals (HM) that may have a significant negative impact on plants and soil microbiota have been identified at different pollution levels for sod-podzolic, gray forest, leached chernozem and chestnut soils. The investigated soils can be arranged in descending resistance to HM in the following order: leached chernozem, gray forest soil, chestnut, sod-podzolic soil. A comparison of the results of phytotoxicity determination in growing plants on soils and on soil extracts showed that phytotoxicity on soils polluted with HM appears at lower concentrations than on soil extracts. This is a consequence of low solubility of heavy metal compounds that are strongly sorbed by the mineral and organic components of soils, and also remain in the form of poorly soluble compounds.

Keywords

heavy metal compounds phytotoxicity soil respiration assessment of the ecological state of soils 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrokhimicheskie metody issledovaniya pochv (Agrochemical Methods for Soils Research), Sokolov, A.V., Ed., Moscow, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anan’eva, N.D., Sus’yan, E.A., Ryzhova, I.M., et al., Microbial biomass carbon and the microbial carbon dioxide production by soddy-podzolic soils in postagrogenic biogeocenoses and in native spruce forests of the southern taiga (Kostroma oblast), Eurasian Soil Sci., 2009, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezel’, V.S., Zhuikova, T.V., Gordeeva, V.A., et al., Aboveground phytomass and rate of plant debris decomposition in Herbaceous communities exposed to soil pollution with heavy metals, Russ. J. Ecol., 2016, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulgakov, N.G., The way to indicate natural ecosystems state and to normalize the environmental factors. Methodological review, Usp. Soverm. Biol., 2002, vol. 122, no. 2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vedrova, E.F., Shugalei, L.S., and Stakanov, V.D., Carbon balance in natural and disturbed forests of south taiga of Northern Siberia, Geogr. Prir. Resur., 2002, no. 4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vinogradov, A.P., Geokhimiya redkikh i rasseyannykh elementov v pochvakh (Geochemistry of Rare and Scattered Elements in Soils), Moscow, 1957.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vorobeichik, E.L., Sadykov, O.F., and Farafontov, M.G., Ekologicheskoe normirovanie tekhnogennykh zagryaznenii (Ecological Normalizing of Anthropogenic Pollutions), Yekaterinburg, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vorob’eva, L.A., Teoriya i metody khimicheskogo analiza pochv (Soils Chemical Analysis: Theory and Methods), Moscow, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    GN 2.1.7.204206. Gigienicheskie normativy. Orientirovochno dopustimye kontsentratsii (ODK) khimicheskikh veshchestv v pochve (GN 2.1.7.204206: Hygienic Standards. Approximate Permissible Concentration of Chemical Substances in Soil), MoscowGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glazovskaya, M.A., Metodologicheskie osnovy otsenki ekologo-geokhimicheskoi ustoichivosti pochv k tekhnogennym vozdeistviyam: Metodicheskoe posobie (Methodological Grounding for Estimating Soils Ecological-Geochemical Stability against Anthropogenic Impacts. Handbook), Moscow, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    GOST R ISO (ISO Russian State Standard) 22030-2009: Soil Quality. Biological Methods. Chronic Phytotoxicity of Higher Plants, Moscow, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Ivashchenko, K.V., Anan’eva, N.D., Vasenev, V.I., et al., Biomass and respiration activity of soil microorganisms in anthropogenically transformed ecosystems (Moscow Region), Eurasian Soil Sci., 2014, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 892–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Il’in, V.B., Soil buffer properties and permissible level of its pollution by heavy metals, Agrokhimiya, 1997, no. 11.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Il’in, V.B. and Syso, A.I., Mikroelementy i tyazhelye metally v pochvakh i rasteniyakh (Microelements and Heavy Metals in Soils and Plants), Novosibirsk, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kabata-Pendias, A. and Pendias, H., Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaznina, N.M. and Titov, A.F., The influence of cadmium on physiological processes and productivity of Poaceae plants, Biol. Bull. Rev., 2014, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kudeyarov, V.N. and Kurganova, I.N., Respiration of Russian soils: database analysis, long-term monitoring, and general estimates, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2005, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 983–993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levin, S.V., Guzev, V.S., Aseeva, I.V., and Bab’eva, I.P., Heavy metals as an anthropogenic impact factor onto soil microbiota, in Mikroorganizmy i okhrana pochv (Microorganisms and Nature Preservation), Moscow, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plekhanova, I.O. and Kutukova, Yu.D., How to prepare waste water deposits and soils fertilized by sludges for analysis under heavy metals content monitoring, Agrokhimiya, 2004, no. 12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Polyanskaya, L.M. and Zvyagintsev, D.G., The content and composition of microbial biomass as an index of the ecological status of soil, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2005, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 625–634.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SanPiN 2.1.7.573-96. 2.1.7. Pochva. Ochistka naselennykh mest. Bytovye i promyshlennye otkhody. Sanitarnaya okhrana pochvy. Prilozhenie 10. Metodika biotestirovaniya po prorashchivaniyu semyan (SanPiN 2.1.7.573-96. 2.1.7. Soil. Cleaning of Residential Areas. Household and Industrial Wastes. Sanitary Protection of Soil, Appendix 10: Biotesting Method for Seed Germination), Moscow: Minzdrav Rossii, 1997Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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. 464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sokolova, T.A., Specificity of soil properties in the rhizosphere: analysis of literature data, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2015, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 968–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stepanov, A.L. and Lysak, L.V., Metody gazovoi khromatografii v pochvennoi mikrobiologii: Uch.-metod. pos. (Gas Chromatography for Soil Microbiology. Student’s Book), Moscow, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Telesnina, V.M., Vaganov, I.E., Klimovich, E.Yu., and Chalaya, T.A., The distinctive features of biological turnover in postagrogenic ecosystems of the south taiga and their effects on the chemical properties and biological activities of soils, Moscow Univ. Soil Sci. Bull., 2013, vol. 68, no. 2, p. 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Timofeev, M.A., Terekhova, V.A., and Kozhevin, P.A., Biotesting for Cd pollution in soils, Moscow Univ. Soil Sci. Bull., 2010, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Trifonova, T.A., Sakhno, O.N., Zabelina, O.N., and Feoktistova, I.D., Comparative assessment of the state of urban soils based on their biological activity, Moscow Univ. Soil Sci. Bull., 2014, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 112–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yakovlev, A.S., Kaniskin, M.A., and Terekhova, V.A., Ecological evaluation of artificial soils treated with phosphogypsum, Eurasian Soil Sci., 2013, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coleman, D.C., From peds to paradoxes: linkages between soil biota and their influences on ecological processes, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2008, vol. 40, pp. 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hargreaves, P.R., Brookes, P.S., Ross, G.J.S., and Poulton, P.R., Evaluating soil microbial biomass carbon as an indicator of long-term environmental change, Soil Biol. Biochem., 2003, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gesch, R.W., Reicosky, D.C., Gilbert, R.A., and Moms, D.R., Influence of tillage and plant residue management on respiration of a Florida everglades histosol, Soil Tillage Res., 2007, vol. 92, pp. 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meychik, N.R. and Yermakov, I.P., Ion-exchange properties of plant root cell walls, Plant Soil, 2001, vol. 234, no. 2, pp. 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schlesinger, W.H. and Andrews, J.A., Soil respiration and global carbon cycle, Biogeochemistry, 2000, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, M., Markert, B., Shen, W., et al., Microbiol biomass carbon and enzyme activities of urban soils in Beijing, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2011, vol. 18, no. 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Allerton Press, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. O. Plekhanova
    • 1
    Email author
  • O. A. Zolotareva
    • 1
  • I. D. Tarasenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations