Advertisement

Generation, sink, and emission of greenhouse gases by urban soils at different stages of the floodplain development in Moscow

  • Yana Lebed-SharlevichEmail author
  • Svetlana Kulachkova
  • Nadezhda Mozharova
SUITMA 9: Urbanization — Challenges and Opportunities for Soil Functions and Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Greenhouse gas emission Methane oxidation Technosols Urban soils 

Notes

References

  1. Allaire SE, Dufour-L'Arrivée C, Lafond JA, Lalancette R, Brodeur J (2008) Carbon dioxide emissions by urban turfgrass areas. Can J Soil Sci 88:529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ananyeva ND, Susyan EA, Chernova OV, Wirth S (2008) Microbial respiration activities of soils from different climatic regions of European Russia. Eur J Soil Bio l44:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bousquet P, Ciais P, Miller JB, Dlugokencky EJ, Hauglustaine DA, Prigent C, Van der Werf GR, Peylin P, Brunke E-G, Carouge C (2006) Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability. Nature 443:439–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bridges EM, Batjes NH (1996) Soil gaseous emissions and global climatic change. Geography 81:155–169Google Scholar
  5. Chen Y, Day SD, Shrestha RK, Strahm BD, Wisemana PE (2014) Influence of urban land development and soil rehabilitation on soil–atmosphere greenhouse gas fluxes. Geoderma 226:348–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Decina SM, Hutyra LR, Gately CK, Getson JM, Reinmann AB, Short Gianotti AG, Templer PH (2016) Soil respiration contributes substantially to urban carbon fluxes in the greater Boston area. Environ Pollut 212:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dlugokencky EJ, Nisbet EG, Fisher R, Lowry D (2011) Global atmospheric methane: budget, changes and dangers. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:2058–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Folberth GA, Butler TM, Collins WJ, Rumbold ST (2015) Megacities and climate changee: a brief overview. Environ Pollut 203:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gollapalli M, Kota SH (2018) Methane emissions from a landfill in north-East India: performance of various landfill gas emission models. Environ Pollut 234:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goncharova OY, Telesnina VM (2010) The biological activities of post-agrogenic soils (based on an example from the Moscow region). Moscow Univ Soil Sci Bull 65:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groffman PM, Pouyat RV (2009) Methane uptake in urban forests and lawns. Environ Sci Technol 43:5229–5235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutyra LR, Duren R, Gurney KR, Grimm N, Kort EA, Larson E, Shrestha G (2014) Urbanization and the carbon cycle: current capabilities and research outlook from the natural sciences perspective. Earth’s Future 2:473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Jerman V, Danevčič T, Mandic-Mulec I (2017) Methane cycling in a drained wetland soil profile. J Soils Sediments 17:1874–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Kaye JP, Burke IC, Mosier AR, Guerschman JP (2004) Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from urban soils to the atmosphere. Ecol Appl 14:975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy C, Steinberger J, Gasson B, Hansen Y, Hillman T, Havranek M, Pataki D, Phdungsilp A, Ramaswami A, Mendez GV (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Environ Sci Technol 43:7297–7302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy C, Steinberger J, Gasson B, Hansen Y, Hillman T, Havranek M, Pataki D, Phdungsilp A, Ramaswami A, Mendez GV (2010) Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Energ Policy 38:4828–4837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koerner B, Klopatek J (2002) Anthropogenic and natural CO2 emission sources in an arid urban environment. Environ Pollut 116:S45–S51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kulachkova SA, Mozharova NV (2015) Generation, sink, and emission of greenhouse gases by urban soils of reclaimed filtration fields. J Soils Sediments 15:1753–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Livesley SJ, Dougherty BJ, Smith AJ, Navaud D, Wylie LJ, Arndt SK (2010) Soil-atmosphere exchange of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in urban garden systems: impact of irrigation, fertiliser and mulch. Urban Ecosyst 13:273–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRae JE, Graedel TE (1979) Carbon dioxide in the urban atmosphere: dependencies and trends. J Geophys Res 84:5011–5017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Satterthwaite D (2008) Cities’ contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Urban 20:539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Semenov M, Kravchenko I, Semenov V, Kuznetsova T, Dulov L, Udal’tsov S, Stepanov A (2010) Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide fluxes in soil catena across the right bank of the Oka River (Moscow oblast). Eurasian Soil Sci 43:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Smagin AV (2005) The gaseous phase of soils. Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Smith KA (1980) A model of the extent of anaerobic zones in aggregated soils, and its potential application to estimates of denitrification. J Soil Sci 31:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stepanov AL, Manucharova NA (2006) Generation and consumption of greenhouse gases in soils agregates. Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Takahashi HA, Hiyama T, Konohira E, Takahashi A, Yoshida N, Nakamura T (2001) Balance and behavior of carbon dioxide at an urban forest inferred from the isotopic and meteorological approaches. Radiocarbon 43:659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 83:308–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vadunina AF, Korchagina ZA (1986) Methods of research of physical properties of soils. Agropromizdat, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Vorobyova LF (2006) Theory and practice of chemical analysis of soils. GEOS, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  42. West AE, Schmidt SK (2002) Endogenous methanogenesis stimulates oxidation of atmospheric CH4 in alpine tundra soil. Microb Ecol 43(4):408–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zavarzin GA, Kudeyarov VN (2006) Soil as the key source of carbonic acid and reservoir of organic carbon on the territory of Russia. Her Russ Acad Sci 76:12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zvyagintsev DG (1991) Methods of soil microbiology and biochemistry. Moscow State University, MoscowGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yana Lebed-Sharlevich
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Svetlana Kulachkova
    • 1
  • Nadezhda Mozharova
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil ScienceLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Centre for Strategic PlanningRussian Ministry of HealthMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations