Generation, sink, and emission of greenhouse gases by urban soils at different stages of the floodplain development in Moscow
The purpose of this research was to study the generation, sink, and emission of greenhouse gases by soils on technogenic parent materials, created at different stages of the Moskva River floodplain development (1—construction and 2—landscaping of residential areas).
Materials and methods
Field surveys revealed the spatial trends of concentration and emission of the greenhouse gases in following groups of soils: Retisols (RT-ab-ct) and Fluvisols (FL-hu, FL-hi.gl) before land engineering preparation for the construction, Urbic Technosols Transportic (TC-ub-ar.tn and TC-ub-hu.tn) at stage 1 and Urbic Technosols Folic (TC-ub-fo) at stage 2. CO2 and CH4 concentration in soils and their emission were determined using subsurface soil air equilibration tubes and the closed chamber method, respectively. Bacterial methane generation rate (MGR) and methane oxidation rate (MOR) were measured by kinetic methods.
Results and discussion
In natural soils MOR is caused only by intra-aggregate methanogenesis. The imbalance of methane generation and oxidation was observed in FL-hi.gl. It caused CH4 accumulation in the profile (7.5 ppm) and its emission to the atmosphere (0.11 mg CH4 m−2 h−1). RT-ab-ct acted as the sink of atmospheric methane. CO2 emission was 265.1 ± 24.0 and 151.9 ± 37.2 mg CO2 m−2 h−1 from RT-ab-ct and FL-hi.gl, respectively. In Technosols CH4 concentration was predominantly low (median was 2.7, 2.9, and 3.0 ppm, in TC-ub-ar.tn, TC-ub-hu.tn, and TC-ub-fo, respectively), but due to the occurrence of peat sediments under technogenic material, it increased to 1–2%. Methane emission was not observed due to functioning of biogeochemical barriers with high MOR. In TC-ub-ar.tn and TC-ub-hu.tn, the barriers were formed at 60-cm depth. In TC-ub-fo, the system of barriers was formed in Folic and Technic horizons (at 10- and 60-cm depth). CO2 emission was 2 times lower from TC-ub-ar.tn and TC-ub-hu.tn and 1.5 times higher from TC-ub-fo than from natural soils.
Greenhouse gas generation, sink, and emission by natural soils and Technosols in floodplain were estimated. CO2 and CH4 content in Technosols varied depending on the properties of parent materials. Technosols at stage 1 did not emit CH4 due to formation of biogeochemical barriers—soil layers of high CH4 utilization rates. Urbic Technosols (Folic) at stage 2 performed as a source of significant CO2 emission.
KeywordsGreenhouse gas emission Methane oxidation Technosols Urban soils
- Bridges EM, Batjes NH (1996) Soil gaseous emissions and global climatic change. Geography 81:155–169Google Scholar
- IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds). IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) World Reference Base for soil resources 2014, update 2015 international soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Kallistova AJ, Glagolev MV, Shnirev NA, Kevbrina MV, Nekrasova VK, Chistotin MV, Faustova EV, Serebryanaya MI, Nozhevnikova AN (2006) Emission of methane from the surface of the landfill for solid domestic waste disposal (SDW), depending on the age of the landfill and on the season. Ecol Chem 15(1):13–21Google Scholar
- Kurganova IN (2010) Emission and balance of carbon dioxide at terrestrial ecosystems in Russia. Dissertation, Institute of Soil Science and Photosynthesis, Russian Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
- Miller JB, Lehman SJ, Montzka SA, Sweeney C, Miller BR, Karion A, Wolak C, Dlugokencky EJ, Southon J, Turnbull JC, Tans PP (2012) Linking emissions of fossil fuel CO2 and other anthropogenic trace gases using atmospheric 14CO2. J Geophys Res 117. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017048
- Novikov V, Stepanov A, Pozdnyakov A, Lebedeva E (2004) Seasonal dynamics of CO2, CH4, N2O, and NO emissions from peat soils of the Yakhroma River floodplain. Eurasian Soil Sci 37:755–761Google Scholar
- Semenyuk OV, Il'yashenko MA, Bobrik AA (2013) Estimation of ecological functions of park soils on the basis of indicators of their biological activity. Problems Agrochem Ecol 3:35–39Google Scholar
- Smagin AV (2005) The gaseous phase of soils. Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar
- Smagin AV, Shoba SA, Makarov OA (2008) Ecological assessment of soil resources and technologies for their reproduction (by the example of Moscow). Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar
- Stepanov AL, Manucharova NA (2006) Generation and consumption of greenhouse gases in soils agregates. Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar
- Stepanov A, Manucharova N, Smagin A, Kurbatova A, Myagkova A, Bashkin V (2005) Characterization of the biological activity of the microbial complex in urban soils. Eurasian Soil Sci 38:864–869Google Scholar
- Takahashi HA, Konohira E, Hiyama T, Minami M, Nakamura T, Yoshida N (2002) Diurnal variation of CO2 concentration, Δ14C and δ13C in an urban forest: estimate of the anthropogenic and biogenic CO2 contributions. Tellus 54B:97–109Google Scholar
- Vadunina AF, Korchagina ZA (1986) Methods of research of physical properties of soils. Agropromizdat, MoscowGoogle Scholar
- Vizirskaya MM, Epikhina AS, Vasenev VI, Mazirov IM, Gusev D, Tikhonova MV, Vasenev II (2013) Ecological assessment of the role of urban lawns in the formation of greenhouse gas emission. Bulletin of the RUDN University. Series: Agronomy and Animal Husbandry 5:38–48Google Scholar
- Vorobyova LF (2006) Theory and practice of chemical analysis of soils. GEOS, MoscowGoogle Scholar
- Zvyagintsev DG (1991) Methods of soil microbiology and biochemistry. Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar