Transformation of the Chernobyl 137Cs Contamination Patterns at the Microlandscape Level as an Indicator of Stochastic Landscape Organization

  • Vitaly G. LinnikEmail author
  • Anatoly A. Saveliev
  • Alexander V. Sokolov
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 26)


The issues of assessing heterogeneous structure of the microlandscape are considered using the example of two sites—in a semihydromorphic and automorphic condition. The research is based on the estimation of the 137Cs pattern transformation by the geostatistical analysis, as well as by the simulation of the relationships between radionuclide contamination and the microrelief parameters. We found evidence that the intensity of the 137Cs patterns transformation increases in semihydromorphic conditions as soil hydromorphism increases. Because of the initial heterogeneity of the microlandscape, a variogram analysis was applied to examine the 137Cs distribution patterns. We identified two scale levels of 137Cs contamination patches: 20–30 m and 1.5–2.0 m. In automorphic environments of the interfluve area, a weak transformation of the 137Cs patterns was found, which, in contrast to that of the semihydromorphic site, remains spatially uncorrelated. We analyzed the validity of the linear (LM) and nonlinear general additive models (GAM), which were built to establish the relationships between 137Cs patterns and microrelief parameters measured in two grid systems with resolution 0.1 and 0.25 m. Transformation of 137Cs patterns at different scale levels serves as a relevant tool for analyzing the stochastic self-organization of landscape structures, where the component relations inside are nonlinear.


Microlandscape Chernobyl Patterns Self-organization Geostatistics Semivariogram 



The study was performed with partial financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant No. 16-05-00915.


  1. Bellehumeur, C., & Legendre, P. (1998). Multiscale sources of variation in ecological variables: Modeling spatial dispersion, elaborating sampling designs. Landscape Ecology, 13(1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burrough, P. A., & McDonnell, R. A. (1998). Principles of geographical information systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dyakonov, K. N, Abramova, T. A, Seregina, I. P., & Bezdelova, A. P. (2008). Swamping middle taiga moraine and fluvioglacial landscape in the Holocene. In Proceedings of Moscow University, series 5 Geography (Vol. 2, pp. 28–34). (in Russian).Google Scholar
  4. Dyakonov, K. N., & Linnik, V. G. (2017). Some problems of the science of landscape in the 21st century. In K. N. Dyakonov (Ed.), Landscape science: Theory, methods, landscape and environmental support for nature management and sustainable development. Proceedings of the XII international landscape conference (Vol. 1, pp. 19–24). Tyumen: Tyumen State University Publishing House.Google Scholar
  5. Fridland, V. M. (1972). Structure of the soil cover. Moscow: Mysl. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  6. Gringarten, E., & Deutsch, C. V. (2001). Teacher’s aide variogram interpretation and modeling. Mathematical Geology, 33(4), 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hengl, T. A. (2007). Practical guide to geostatistical mapping of environmental variables. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  8. Jost, J. (2011). Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis (6th ed.). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karpachevsky, L. O, & Stroganova, M. N. (1981). Microrelief – function of forest biogeocenosis. Pochvovedeniye (Soil Science), 5, 83–93. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  10. Karpachevsky, L. O. (1977). Diversity of the soil cover in forest biogeocenosis. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  11. Linnik, V. G., Saveliev, A. A., Govorun, A. P., & Sokolov, A. V. (2007a). Spatial analysis and modeling of Cs-137 distribution at the microlandscape level (the Bryansk region). In K. N. Dyakonov, N. S. Kasimov, A. V. Khoroshev, & A. V. Kushlin (Eds.), Landscape analysis for sustainable development. Theory and applications of landscape science in Russia (pp. 190–199). Moscow: Alex Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Linnik, V. G., Saveliev, A. A., Govorun, A. P., Ivanitsky, O. M., & Sokolov, A. V. (2007b). Spatial variability and topographic factors of 137Cs soil contamination at a field scale. International Journal of Ecology & Development, 8(7), 8–25.Google Scholar
  13. O’Neill, R. V., Johnson, A. R., & King, A. W. (1989). A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecology, 3(3/4), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McBratney, A. B., Minasny, B., & Stockmann, U. (Eds.). (2018). Pedometrics. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Phillips, J. D. (2003). Sources of nonlinearity and complexity in geomorphic systems. Progress in Physical Geography, 27(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillips, J. D. (1998). On the relations between complex systems and the factorial model of soil formation (with discussion). Geoderma, 86, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips, J. D., & Marion, D. A. (2005). Biomechanical effects, lithological variations, and local pedodiversity in some forest soils of Arkansas. Geoderma, 124, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Richter, J. (1987). The soil as a reactor: Modelling processes in the soil. Cremlingen: Catena Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Saveliev, A. A., Romanov, A. V., & Mukharamova, S. S. (2005). Automated mapping using multilevel B-splines. Applied GIS, 1(2), 17/1–17/19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Targulian, V. O., & Krasilnikov, P. V. (2007). Soil system and pedogenic processes: Self-organization, time scales, and environmental significance. Catena, 71(3), 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Targulian, V. O., & Sokolova, T. A. (1996). Soil as a biotic/abiotic natural system: A reactor, memory, and regulator of biospheric interactions. Eurasian Soil Science, 29(1), 30–41.Google Scholar
  22. Vorobyov, G. T. (1993). Soils of the Bryansk region: (genesis, properties, distribution). Bryansk: Bryansk Survey Center for Chemicalization and Radiology of Agriculture “Agrochemicalradiology”. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  23. Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vitaly G. Linnik
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anatoly A. Saveliev
    • 3
  • Alexander V. Sokolov
    • 4
  1. 1.Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical ChemistryMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Geographical DepartmentLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Environmental Sciences, Kazan Federal UniversityKazanRussia
  4. 4.Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations