Advertisement

Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 51, Issue 9, pp 1086–1094 | Cite as

Soils of Different Land Use Categories in the City of Petrozavodsk

  • S. G. Novikov
  • G. V. Akhmetova
Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

In the territory of the city of Petrozavodsk, the following categories of land use were distinguished: lands of common use, lands of urban and rural development, natural recreation zone, and reserved land. In each area, soil pits were made, and each full profile was analyzed for its morphological structure and physicochemical properties. Among soils, urbostratozems (Urbic Technosols) predominate, urbistratified natural soils (Plaggic Cambisols, Technic Podzols), and technogenic surface formations are spread to a lesser extent. The undisturbed natural soil cover is preserved in suburban forests and on lands of reserve and rural development. The urban soils differ in their physicochemical properties from the zonal natural soils by the elevated base saturation and high content of mineral nutrients. Heavy metal concentrations are mainly at the level of regional background characteristics. Maximum/tentatively permissible concentrations of lead, copper and zinc are exceeded on the lands of common use, building areas, and in the natural recreational zone of the city, which was influenced in the past by the activity of the city-forming plant.

Keywords

urban soils physicochemical properties of soils anthropogenic transformation of soils heavy metals soil pollution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrochemical Methods of Soil Studies (Moscow, 1975) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. A. Alekseenko and A. V. Alekseenko, Chemical Elements in Geochemical Systems. Soil Clusters in Residential Landscapes: Monograph (Southern Federal Univ., Rostov-on-Don, 2013) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. F. Aparin and E. Yu. Sukhacheva, “Classification of megapolis soils by the example of St. Petersburg,” Vestn. S.-Peterb. Univ., Ser. 3: Biol., No. 2, 115–123 (2013).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. F. Aparin and E. Yu. Sukhacheva, “Principles of soil mapping of a megalopolis with St. Petersburg as an example,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 47, 650–661 (2014). doi 10.1134/S1064229314070035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. V. Akhmetova and S. G. Novikov, “Lead contamination of soils of different land uses on the territory of Petrozavodsk city,” Sovrem. Probl. Nauki Obraz., No. 1, (2014). http://www.science-education.ru/115-12194. Accessed September 11, 2017.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. R. Bityukova, M. S. Kasimov, and D. V. Vlasov, “Ecological description of Russian cities,” Ekol. Prom. Ross., No. 4, 6–18 (2011).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geology of Karelia, Ed. by V. A. Sokolov (Nauka, Leningrad, 1987) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. I. Gerasimova, M. N. Stroganova, N. V. Mozharova, and T. V. Prokof’eva, Anthropogenic Soils (Yurait, Moscow, 2017) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    GN 2.1.7.2041-06. Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Chemical Substances in Soils, Approved by General Sanitary Physician of Russian Federation on January 19, 2006 (Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, Moscow, 2006) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    GN 2.1.7.2511-09. Tentatively Permissible Concentration of Chemical Substances in Soil, Approved by General Sanitary Physician of Russian Federation on May 18, 2009 (Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The State Report on the Environmental Status in the Republic of Karelia in 2016, Ed. by A. N. Gromtsev, O. L. Kuznetsov, and G. T. Shkiperova (Ministry of Nature Management and Ecology of Republic of Karelia, Petrozavodsk, 2017) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. N. Gromtsev, Fundamentals of Landscape Ecology of European Taiga Forests of Russia (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2008) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. A. Dymov, D. A. Kaverin, and D. N. Gabov, “Properties of soils and soil-like bodies in the Vorkuta area,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 46, 217–224 (2013). doi 10.1134/S1064229313020038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Z. Eremchenko, I. E. Shestakov, and N. V. Moskvina, Soils and Technogenic Surface Formations in Urban Areas of Perm Kama Region: Monograph (Perm State National Research Univ., Perm, 2016) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. T. Zemlyanitskii, “Specific urban soils and grounds,” Pochvovedenie, No. 5, 75–84 (1963).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. L. Shishov, V. D. Tonkonogov, I. I. Lebedeva, and M. I. Gerasimova, Classification and Diagnostic System of Russian Soils (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2004) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ya. B. Legostaeva, N. E. Sivtseva, A. G. Dyagileva, M. I. Ksenofontova, L. A. Tomskaya, and P. E. Yablovskaya, “Ecological and geochemical evaluation of the territories of largest cities of Yakutia,” Probl. Reg. Ekol. No. 4, 49–54 (2011).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forests and Their Multipurpose Use in the Northwest of the European Part of the Taiga Zone of Russia (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. N. Matinyan, K. A. Bakhmatova, and V. A. Korentsvit, “Soils of the Summer Garden (Saint Petersburg),” Eurasian Soil Sci. 50, 637–645 (2017). doi 10.1134/S1064229317060060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. N. Matinyan, E. V. Gostintseva, and K. A. Bakhmatova, Soils and Soil Cover of Gardens and Parks of Prunzenskii District of St. Petersburg (Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, 2015) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. M. Morozova, Forest Soils of Karelia (Nauka, Leningrad, 1991) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. V. Motuzova and O. S. Bezuglova, Ecological Monitoring of Soils (Akademicheskii Proekt, Moscow, 2007) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. G. Novikov, “Evaluation of the degree of soil pollution with heavy metals within different land uses in Petrozavodsk,” Tr. Karel. Nauch. Tsentr, Ross. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Ekol. Issled., No. 1, 78–85 (2015). doi 10.17076/eco23Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. G. Novikov, “Radial distribution of the bulk and mobile forms of heavy metals in soils of Petrozavodsk city on the lands of general use,” Sovrem. Probl. Nauki Obraz., No. 1, (2014). http://www.science-education. ru/115-12088. Accessed September 11, 2017.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soil, City, and Ecology, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii (Za Ekonomicheskuyu Gramotnost’, Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. V. Prokof’eva, M. I. Gerasimova, O. S. Bezuglova, K. A. Bakhmatova, A. A. Gol’eva, S. N. Gorbov, E. A. Zharikova, N. N. Matinyan, E. N. Nakvasina, and N. E. Sivtseva, “Inclusion of soils and soil-like bodies of urban territories into the Russian soil classification system,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 47, 959–967 (2014). doi 10.1134/S1064229314100093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    T. V. Prokof’eva, I. A. Martynenko, and F. A. Ivannikov, “Classification of Moscow soils and parent materials and its possible inclusion in the classification system of Russian soils,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 44, 561–571 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diversity of Soils and Biological Diversity in Forest Ecosystems of Central Taiga, Ed. by N. G. Fedorets (Nauka, Moscow, 2006) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. S. Rybakov and V. I. Kevlich, “Microelements in anthropogenically contaminated soils in the central part of Petrozavodsk,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 50, 708–719 (2017). doi 10.1134/S1064229317060102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. V. Smagin, “Urban soils,” Priroda (Moscow), No. 7, 15–23 (2010).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. P. Sorokina and B. I. Bogachkova, “Analysis of population health of an industrial city related to technogenic pollution of urban territories,” in Ecological and Geochemical Analysis of Technogenic Pollution (Institute of Mineralogy, Geochemistry, and Crystallochemistry of Rare Elements, Moscow, 1991), pp. 158–161.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Z. A. Tatgi, “Soil cover as a geochemical factor related to morbidity frequency of stomach cancer of Karelia population,” in Adaptation of Organisms to the North Conditions (Petrozavodsk State Univ., Petrozavodsk, 1978), pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. G. Fedorets, O. N. Bakhmet, A. N. Solodovnikov, and A. K. Morozov, Soils of Karelia: Geochemical Atlas (Nauka, Moscow, 2008) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    N. G. Fedorets and M. V. Medvedeva, Ecological and Microbiological Analysis of Soils of Petrozavodsk City (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2005) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Andersson, R. T. Ottesen, and M. Langedal, “Geochemistry of urban surface soils—monitoring in Trondheim, Norway,” Geoderma 156 (3–4), 112–118 (2010). doi 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    W. Burghardt, “Soils in urban and industrial environments,” Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenkd. 157, 205–214 (1994). doi 10.1002/jpln.19941570308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    IUSS Working Group SUITMA, Soils within Cities. Global Approaches to Their Sustainable Management (Catena Soil Sciences, Stuttgart, 2017).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, Update 2015, World Soil Resources Reports No. 106 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2015).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006, World Soil Resources Reports No. 103 (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2006).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Jarva, R. T. Ottesen, and T. Tarvainen, “Geochemical studies on urban soil from two sampling depths in Tampere Central Region, Finland,” Environ. Earth Sci. 71 (11), 4783–4799 (2014). doi 10.1007/s12665-013-2869-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Lehmann, “Technosols and other proposals on urban soils for the WRB (World Reference Base for Soil Resources),” Int. Agrophys. 20 (2), 129–134 (2006).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. Lehmann and K. Stahr, “Nature and significance of anthropogenic urban soils,” Soils Sediments 7 (4), 247–260 (2007). doi 10.1065/jss2007.06.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    X. Luo, S. Yu, and X. Li, “Distribution, availability, and sources of trace metals in different particle size fractions of urban soils in Hong Kong: implications for assessing the risk to human health,” Environ. Pollut. 159 (5), 1317–1326 (2011). doi 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    C. E. Mullis, “Physical properties of soils in urban areas,” in Soils in the Urban Environment, Ed. by P. Bullock and P. J. Gregory (Blackwell, Oxford, 1991), pp. 87–118. doi 10.1002/9781444310603.ch6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    M. A. Pavao-Zuckerman, “The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities,” Restor. Ecol. 4, 642–649 (2008). doi 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00486.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    I. Puskas and A. Farsang, “Diagnostic indicators for characterizing urban soils of Szeged, Hungary,” Geoderma 148 (3–4), 267–281 (2009). doi 10.1016/j.geoderma. 2008.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    D. G. Rossiter, “Classification of urban and industrial soils in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources,” Soils Sediments 7 (2), 96–100 (2007). doi 10.1065/jss2007.02.208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    D. G. Rossiter and W. Burghard, “Classification of urban & industrial soils in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources: Working Document SUITMA 2003, 2nd International Conference of the Working Group Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (SUITMA 2003) of the International Union of Soil Science (IUSS), July 9–11, 2003 (Nancy, 2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Research InstituteKarelian Research Center of the Russian Academy of SciencesPetrozavodskRussia

Personalised recommendations