Advertisement

Heavy Metal Pollution in the Ganga River Enhances Carbon Storage Relative to Flux

  • Kavita Verma
  • Jitendra PandeyEmail author
  • Ekabal Siddiqui
Article

Abstract

This study evaluated the relationships between metal pollution and carbon production at six sites along a 285 km length of the Ganga River. Metal contaminated sites did show a significant reduction in microbial biomass, substrate induced respiration, fluorescein diacetate hydrolytic assay (FDAase) and β-d-glucosidase. Concordantly, despite a high concentration of total organic carbon at these sites, CO2 emission at the land–water interface remained low. We found a strong positive correlation between CO2 emission and TOC (r = 0.92; p < 0.001). However, this relationship weakens when the sum of total heavy metal (∑THM) exceed 400 µg g−1. Also, CO2 emission did show a positive correlation (r = 0.85; p < 0.001) with FDAase. The study shows that metal accumulation in riverbed sediment could potentially lead to better carbon sequestration on account of reduced microbial/enzyme activities. This carries significance for riverine carbon budget and modeling.

Keywords

CO2 emission FDAase Ganga River Heavy metal Land–water interface 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by National Academy of Science (India) (NAS/2012/2/2015-16) as a fellowship to KV and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi (09/013(0611)/2015-EMR-I) as a Fellowship to ES. The authors thank Co-ordinators CAS and DST-FIST, Banaras Hindu University for facilities.

Supplementary material

128_2019_2761_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 kb)

References

  1. Central Pollution Control Board (2013) Pollution assessment: River Ganga. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, Parivesh Bhawan, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman DC, Callaham MA, Crossley DA Jr (2017) Fundamentals of soil ecology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Dadhwal VK (2012) Assessment of Indian carbon cycle components using earth observation systems and ground inventory. Arch Photogr Remote Sens Spat Inform Sci 39(B8):249–254Google Scholar
  4. Dwivedi S, Mishra S, Tripathi RD (2018) Ganga water pollution: a potential health threat to inhabitants of Ganga basin. Environ Int 117:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1988) Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 20:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW, Bekunda M, Cai Z, Freney JR, Martinelli LA, Seitzinger SP, Sutton MA (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320:889–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gruber N, Galloway JN (2008) An Earth-system perspectives of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 451(7176):293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaiswal D, Pandey J (2018) Impact of heavy metal on activity of some microbial enzymes in the riverbed sediments: ecotoxicological implications in the Ganga River (India). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 150:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jaiswal D, Pandey J (2019) Carbon dioxide emission coupled extracellular enzyme activity at land-water interface predict C-eutrophication and heavy metal contamination in Ganga River, India. Ecol Indic 99:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson D, Hale B (2004) 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 127(1):65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martinez CE, Tabatabai MA (1997) Decomposition of biotechnology by-products in soils. J Environ Quali 26(3):625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nwachukwu OI, Pulford ID (2011) Microbial respiration as an indication of metal toxicity in contaminated organic materials and soil. J Hazard Mater 185(2–3):1140–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pandey J, Yadav A (2017) Alternative alert system for Ganga river eutrophication using alkaline phosphatase as a level determinant. Ecol Indic 82:327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pandey J, Pandey U, Singh AV (2014) Impact of changing atmospheric deposition chemistry on carbon and nutrient loading to Ganga River: integrating land–atmosphere–water components to uncover cross-domain carbon linkages. Biogeochemistry 119(1–3):179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schnürer J, Rosswall T (1982) Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis as a measure of total microbial activity in soil and litter. Appl Environ Microb 43(6):1256–1261Google Scholar
  16. Sinsabaugh RL, Foreman CM (2001) Activity profiles of bacterioplankton in a eutrophic river. Freshwater Biol 46:1239–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sinsabaugh RL, Lauber CL, Weintraub MN, Ahmed B, Allison SD, Crenshaw C, Contosta AR, Cusack D, Frey S, Gallo ME, Gartner TB (2008) Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecol Lett 11(11):1252–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tabatabai MA (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 775–833Google Scholar
  19. Tate KR, Ross DJ, Feltham CW (1988) A direct extraction method to estimate soil microbial C: effects of experimental variables and some different calibration procedures. Soil Biol Biochem 20:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Nevel L, Mertens J, Demey A, De Schrijver A, De Neve S, Tack FM, Verheyen K (2014) Metal and nutrient dynamics in decomposing tree litter on a metal contaminated site. Environ Pollut 189:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wardle DA, Ghani A (1995) A critique of the microbial metabolic quotient (qCO2) as a bioindicator of disturbance and ecosystem development. Soil Biol Biochem 27(12):1601–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wardle DA, Yeates GW, Watson RN, Nicholson KS (1993) Response of soil microbial biomass and plant litter decomposition to weed management strategies in maize and asparagus cropping systems. Soil Biol Biochem 25:857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wild B, Schnecker J, Alves RJE, Barsukov P, Bárta J, Čapek P, Gentsch N, Gittel A, Guggenberger G, Lashchinskiy N, Mikutta R (2014) Input of easily available organic C and N stimulates microbial decomposition of soil organic matter in arctic permafrost soil. Soil Biol Biochem 75:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kavita Verma
    • 1
  • Jitendra Pandey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ekabal Siddiqui
    • 1
  1. 1.Ganga River Ecology Research Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, Centre of Advanced Study in Botany, Institute of ScienceBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations