Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 1255–1262 | Cite as

Intrahorizon differentiation of the structural-functional parameters of the humic acids from a typical chernozem

Soil Chemistry

Abstract

It is shown that some structural-functional parameters of humic acids from the surface (0–5 cm) layer of a typical chernozem differ from those in a deeper (5–20 cm) layer. The Cha-to-Cfa ratio in the surface layer is by 1.7 times lower, and the concentration of free radicals is by almost an order of magnitude lower than that in the layer of 5–20 cm. The stimulating effect of humic acids from the surface layer on the processes of photosynthesis is sharply retarded, whereas their effect on respiration of Chlorella vulgaris is more pronounced. Humic acids from the deeper layer of chernozem have a much stronger stimulating effect on photosynthesis and a very weak stimulating effect of respiration. The concentration of free radicals in humic acids and the activity of physiological processes of photosynthesis in Chlorella vulgaris display a tight correlative relationship.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. V. Bul’on, Primary Productivity of Plankton in Inner Basins (Nauka, Leningrad, 1983), 150 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. A. Waksman, Humus: Origin, Chemical Composition, and Importance in Nature (The Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore, 1936), 508 pp.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. G. Vinberg, “Methods of Quantitative Examination of Food Consumption and Assimilation by Water-Dwelling Animals,” Zh. Obshch. Biol. 25(4), 254–266 (1964).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. A. Glagoleva, M. V. Chulanovskaya, and O. V. Zalenskii, Photosynthetic Metabolism and Energetics of Chlorella (Ecological Aspects) (Nauka, Leningrad, 1987), 119 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. I. Gorovaya, D. S. Orlov, and O. V. Shcherbenko, Humic Substances: Structure, Functions, Mechanisms of Action, Protective Properties, and Ecological Significance (Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1995), 304 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. A. Guminskii, “Modern Views on the Mechanisms of Physiological Effects of Humic Substances in Plants,” Pochvovedenie, No. 9, 92–98 (1968).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. A. Guminskii and L. E. Guminskaya, “Chemical Basis of the Physiological Activity of Humus-Like Substances,” Acta Soc. Bot. Polon, No. 4, 45–53 (1953).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. V. Demin, V. A. Terent’ev, and Yu. A. Zavgorodnyaya, “Probable Mechanism of the Action of Humic Substances on Living Cells,” Proc. Int. Conf. Humic Substances in the Biosphere ((Moscow, 2004), pp. 37–40 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. A. Maleshin and N. I. Zolotukhin, et al., “The Development of an Ecological Network Based on the Existent and Restored Steppe Ecosystems,” Tr. Tsentr. Chernozem. Zapovedn. (1999) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. A. Kovda, Biogeochemistry of the Soil Cover (Nauka, Moscow, 1985), 263 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. M. Kononova, Problems and Modern Challenges of the Study of Soil Humus (Moscow, 1951), 390 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. S. Orlov, Soil Humic Acids and the General Theory of Humification (Moscow, 1990), 325 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. V. Perminova, Extended Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation in Chemistry (Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 2000).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. V. Ponomareva, “Some Properties of Humic Acids and Their Meaning in Agriculture and Soil Reclamation,” Agrokhimiya, No. 1, 77–84 (1979).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. V. Ponomareva, “On the Genesis of the Humus Profile of Chernozems,” Pochvovedenie, No. 7, 27–37 (1974).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. V. Ponomareva, “Organic Matter of Podzolic Soils in Nature and under Agricultural Conditions,” Abstr. Rep. at the V Congress of the All-Union Soil Science Soc. (Minsk, 1977), Vol. 8, pp. 52–55 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. V. Ponomareva, “A Comparative Analysis of Humus Profiles in the Typical Chernozems, Dark Gray Forest Soils, and Dark Chestnut Soil,” Pochvovedenie, No. 7, 54–64 (1975).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. I. Popov, Humic Substances: Properties, Structure, and Origin (St. Petersburg, 2004), 248 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. A. Khristeva, “Participation of Humic Acids and Other Organic Substances in Plant Nutrition,” Pochvovedenie, No. 10, 35–41 (1953).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. N. Chukov, “The Paramagnetic Activity and Functional Properties of the Organic Matter of Soil Soils,” Vestn. St.-Peterb. Univ., Ser. 3: Biol., No. 10, 106–108 (1992).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. N. Chukov, Extended Abstract of Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Moscow, 1985).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. N. Chukov, Structural-Functional Parameters of Soil Organic Matter under Conditions of Anthropogenic Loads (St.-Peterb. Gos. Univ., St. Petersburg, 2001), 216 pp. [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. N. Chukov and M. S. Golubkov, “A Comparative Study of Physiological Activity of Humic Acids Produced upon Cultivation of Chlorella vulgaris,” Vestn. St.-Peterb. Univ., Ser. 3: Biol., No. 1, 103–119 (2005).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. N. Chukov, V. D. Talashkina, and M. A. Nadporozhskaya, “Physicological Activity of Growth Stimulators and Soil Humic Acids,” Pochvovedenie, No. 2, 169–174 (1995).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. N. Chukov, A. G. Ryumin, A. S. Koposov, and M. S. Golubkov, “Distribution Patterns of Organic Matter in the Anthropogenically Transformed Forest-Steppe Soils,” Vestn. St.-Peterb. Univ., Ser. 3: Biol., No. 4, 76–89 (2005).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Blair, N. Blair, R. Lefroy, et al., “Relationships between KMNO, Oxidizable C and Soil Aggregate Stability and the Derivation of a Carbon Management Index,” in The Role of Humic Substances in the Ecosystem and Environmental Protection (Transactions of the 8th Meeting of IHSS, Sept. 9–14, 1996, Wroclaw, Poland), p. 28.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    W. Flaig, Die Chemie Orgaisher Staffe Boden und Deren Phisiologische Wurking. Vernanl 2.4 Komm. Bodenkindlicher (Hamburg, 1958), 231 pp.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    H. L. Golterman, Physiological Limnology (Elsevier, Amsterdam-Oxford-New York, 1975), 489 pp.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    N. A. Kulikova, E. V. Stepanova, and O. V. Koroleva, “Mitigation Activity of Humic Substances: Direct Influence on Biota,” in Use of Humic Substances to Remediate Polluted Environments: From Theory to Practice (Springer, Netherlands, 2005), pp. 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Nardi, D. Pizzeghello, A. Muscolo, and A. Vianello, “Physiological Effects of Humic Substances on Higher Plants,” Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 1527–1536 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Penkov, “Influence of the Anthropogenic Factors on the Decreasing of Humus in Soils in Bulgaria Nature,” in The Role of Humic Substances in the Ecosystem and Environmental Protection (Transactions of the 8th Meeting of IHSS, Sept. 9–14, 1996, Wroclaw, Poland), p. 197.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Report of SCOR-UNESCO Working Group 17 on Determination of Photosynthetic Pigments (June 4–6, 1964) (UNESCO, Paris, 1964), 12 pp.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. M. Salter and T. C. Green, “Factors Affecting the Accumulation and Loss of Nitrogen and Organic Carbon in Cropped Soils,” J. Am. Soc. Agron. 25, 622–630 (1933).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. D. H. Stricland and T. R. Parsons, “A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis,” Fish. Res. Board Can. Bull., No. 167, 1–311 (1968).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. A. Visser, “Effect of Humic Substances on Mitochondrial Respiration and Oxidative Phosphorylation,” Sci. Total Environ. 62, 347–354 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Zoological InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations