Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 47, Issue 9, pp 952–958 | Cite as

The triad approach to ecological assessment of urban soils

  • V. A. Terekhova
  • M. A. Pukalchik
  • A. S. Yakovlev
Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils


The “triad” approach was suggested by Chapman [22] for assessing the risk of contamination of bottom deposits. We applied this approach for the analysis of urban soils under different loads from motor transport. On its basis, the results of chemical analysis (heavy metals, biogenic elements, and pH), bioindication parameters of the communities of microorganisms, and the results of toxicological investigations with the use of test-organisms were generalized to obtain an integral index of the soil status (IS). A comparison of IS values for test plots at different distances from a highway in the city of Kirov (58.3729–58.624722 N, 49.3743–49.628611 E) showed that the ecological status of the soils could be qualified as disturbed on the plots adjacent to the highway and as slightly disturbed at distances of 30–200 m from the highway. The IS calculated on the basis of data of three disciplines (chemistry, ecology, and toxicology) seems to be a more comprehensive characteristic for assessing the ecological status of urbanozems as compared to Zc indices of the chemical contamination of soils (suggested by Saet) or indices of the integral biological characteristics of soil quality.


urban soils heavy metals biotesting bioinication integral index of the soil status 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    N. G. Bulgakov, “Indication of the state of natural ecosystems and norming of the environmental factors. A review of approaches,” Usp. Sovrem. Biol. 122(2), 115–135 (2002).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. V. Verkhovtseva and G. A. Osipov, “Method of gas chromatography-mass-spectrometry for studying microbial communities in the soils of agrocenoses,” Probl. Agrokhim. Ekolog., No. 2, 51–54 (2008).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. V. Vinogradov, V. P. Orlov, and V. V. Snakin, “Biotic criteria of the zones of ecological disaster in Russia,” Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., No. 5, 77–89 (1993).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. L. Vorobeichik, O. F. Sadykov, and M. G. Farafontov, Ekological Norming of Technogenic Pollution of Terrestrial Ecosystems (Local Level) (UIF “Nauka”, Yekaterinburg, 1994) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. V. Dobrovol’skii and E. D. Nikitin, Ecological Functions of Soil (Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. G. Zvyagintsev, I. P. Bab’eva, G. M. Zenova, and L. M. Polyanskaya, “Diversity of fungi and actinomycetes and their ecological functions,” Eur. Soil Sci. 29(6), 635–642 (1996).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Sh. Kazeev, S. I. Kolesnikov, and V. F. Val’kov, Methods of the Biological Diagnostics and Indication of Soils (Izd. Rostovsk. Gos. Univ., Rostov-on-Don, 2003) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. P. Levich, N. G. Bulgakov, D. V. Risnik, and E. S. Mil’ko, “Methodological problems of the analysis of ecological data and ways to solve them: a method of local ecological norms,” Dokl. Ekologich. Pochvoved., No. 1, 9–22 (2013).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Yu. Opekunov, Ecological Norming and Environmental Impact Assessment (Izd. SPbGU, St. Petersburg, 2006) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    On the State of the Environment in Kirov Oblast in 2010. Regional Report, Ed. by A.V. Albegova (Staraya Vyatka, Kirov, 2011) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. O. Poputnikova and V. A. Terekhova, “Establishment of a landfill impact zone on soils using structural and functional modifications of microbial communities” Moscow University Soil Science Bulletin, Vol. 65, Issue 2, 94–97 (2010). DOI 10.3103/S0147687410020079.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soil, City, Ecology, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii (Fond “Za ekonomicheskuyu gramotnost’,” Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. A. Pukal’chik and V. A. Terekhova, “Ecotoxicological assessment of urban soils and detoxifying effect of a nanocomposite preparation,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 17: Pochvoved., No. 4, 26–31 (2012).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. V. Risnik, S. D. Belyaev, N. G. Bulgakov, and A. P. Levich, “Approaches toward quality norming of the environment. Legislative and scientific foundations of the existing systems of ecological norming,” Usp. Sovrem. Biol. 132(6), 531–550 (2012).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. N. Stroganova, T. V. Prokof’eva, A. N. Prokhorov, L. V. Lysak, A. P. Sizov, A. S. Yakovlev, “Ecological Status of Urban Soils and Economic Evaluation of Lands,” Eur. Soil Sci. 36(7), 780–787 (2003).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. A. Terekhova, “The Importance of Mycological Studies for Soil Quality Control,” Eur. Soil Sci. 40(5), 583–587 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. N. Shikhova, Extended Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation in Agriculture (Kirov, 2005).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ecological Functions of Urban Soils, Ed. by A. S. Kurbatova and V. N. Bashkin (Smolensk, 2004) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. S. Yakovlev and O. A. Makarov, “Ecological assessment, ecological norming, and reclamation of land: major terms and definitions,” Ispol’zovan. Okhrana Prir. Resurs. Rossii, 87(3), 64–70 (2006).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Frostegard, A. Tunlid, and E. Baath, “Microbial biomass measured as total lipid phosphate in soils of different organic content,” J. Microbiol. Methods 14(3), 151–163 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Dagnino, S. Sforzini, F. Dondero, S. Fenoglio, E. Bona, J. Jensen, A. Viarengo, “A “weight-of-evidence” approach for the integration of environmental “triad” data to assess ecological risk and biological vulnerability,”” Integr. Environ. Assess. Managem., No. 4, 314–326 (2008).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. A. Chapman, “Decision making framework for sediment assessment developed for the Great Lakes,” Human Ecolog. Risk Assessm. 8(7), 1641–1655 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Linkov, F. K. Satterstrom, G. Kiker, C. Batchelor, T. Bridges, E. Ferguson, “From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications,” Environ. Int. 32(8), 1072–1093 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. R. Long and P. M. Chapman, “A sediment quality triad: measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound,” Mar. Pollut. Bull., No. 16, 405–415 (1985).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. Ribé, E. Auleniusa, M. Nehrenheima, U. Martellb, M. Odlarea, “Applying the triad method in a risk assessment of a former surface treatment and metal industry site,” J. Hazard. Mater. 207–208(15), 15–20 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Rutgers and P. Den Besten, “Approach to legislation in a global context. B. The Netherlands perspective—soils and sediments,” in Environmental Toxicity Testing, Ed. by K. C. Thompson, K. Wadhia, and A. P. Loibner (Blackwell Publ., CRC Press, Oxford, UK, 2005), pp. 269–289.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Semenzin, A. Critto, M. Rutgers, and A. Marcomini, “Integration of bioavailability, ecology and ecotoxicology by three lines of evidence into ecological risk indexes for contaminated soil assessment,” Sci. Total Environ., No. 389, 71–86 (2008).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    V. A. Terekhova, “Soil bioassay: problems and approaches,” Eur. Soil Sci. 44(2), 173–179 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. A. Yakovlev, M. A. Kaniskin, and V. A. Terekhova, “Ecological evaluation of artificial soils treated with phosphogypsum,” Eur. Soil Sci. 46(6), 697–703 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. A. Terekhova
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. A. Pukalchik
    • 1
  • A. S. Yakovlev
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Soil ScienceMoscow State UniversityLeninskie gory, MoscowRussia
  2. 2.Severtsov Institute of Ecology and EvolutionRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations