Advertisement

Eurasian Soil Science

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 621–629 | Cite as

Features of abandoned cemetery soils on sandy substrates in Northern Poland

  • L. Majgier
  • O. RahmonovEmail author
  • R. Bednarek
Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils

Abstract

Morphological and chemical features of cemetery soils (Necrosols and undisturbed cemetery soils) have been studied with Northern Poland as an example. Special attention has been given to the contents of the total phosphorus (as an indicator of the anthropogenic impact); the organic carbon; the total nitrogen; the calcium carbonate; and the changes in the acidity and total Ca, Na, K, Al, Fe, Mg, Zn, Cd, and Pb. The soil profiles have been compared to the control soil (a Brunic Arenosol according to the WRB classification) occurring beyond the cemetery area. The changes in the studied burial soils are mainly manifested in their morphology: the disturbance of the primary genetic horizons and the presence of mixed soil horizons and artifacts (bones, coffin remains, limestone-concrete debris of the cemetery infrastructure). Such changes in the chemical properties as an increase in the contents of the organic carbon and total nitrogen and the soil reaction were observed. Our studies have shown that the highest Ptotal concentration is observed in the A horizons of the anthropogenic burial horizons and undisturbed cemetery soils. The content of phosphorus in the Necrosols is significantly higher than that in the control soil profile, as is observed for the Cgrb layers of burial Necrosols. The morphology and chemistry of the undisturbed cemetery soils are very similar to those of the control profile.

Keywords

Necrosols anthropogenic soils abandoned cemeteries northern Poland 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. I. Gerasimova, M. N. Stroganova, N. V. Mozharova, and T. V. Prokof’eva, Anthropogenic Soils: Genesis, Geography, and Rehabilitation (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2003) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bednarek, “Age, Origin and Systematic Position of Rusty Soils in the Light of Paleopedological Investigations in the Environs of Osie (Tuchola Forests),” Wyd. Naukowe UMK. (1991).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bednarek, “The use of pedological and paleopedological methods in archaeological studies,” in Czlowiek i srodowisko przyrodnicze we wczesnym sredniowieczu w swietle badan interdyscyplinarnych Wyd. Naukowe UMK, 63–106 (2008).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Bednarek, M. Jankowski, A. Kwiatkowska, M. Markiewicz, M. S-witoniak, “Differences in the content of phosphorus in soils within the complex in Kaldus settlement and its surroundings,” Wczesnosredniowieczny zespol osadniczy w Kaldusie. Studia przyrodniczo-archeologiczne. Seria: Mons Sancti Laurentii, No. 2, 199–208 (2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Brzezin-ski, M. Dulinicz, and Z. Kobylin-ski, “The phosphorus content in the soil as an indicator of early human activity,” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej, No. 31, 277–297 (1983).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Burghardt, “The german double track concept of classifying soils by their substrate and their antroponatural genesis: the adaptation to urban areas,” Proc. First Intern. Conf. on Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (Germany), Vol. 1, 217–222 (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Burghardt, “Soil in urban and industrial environments,” Zeitschrift Planzenernahr. Bodenkunde, No. 157, 205–214 (1994).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Charzyński, R. Bednarek, M. Świtoniak, and B. Żołnowska, “Ekranic technosols and urbic technosols of Torun necropolis,” Geologija, No. (76), 179–185 (2010).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Czarnowska, “Total content of heavy metals in the parent rocks as background of soil,” Roczniki Gleboznawcze, No. 57 (1996).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FAO-IUSS-ISRIC, World References Base for Soil Resources, World Soil Resources Report No. 84, Rome, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Fiedler, K. Schnecenberger, M. Graw, F. Shweinsberg, K. Stahr, “Bildung so gennannter fettwachsleichen in redoximorphen nekrosolen—beispiel St. Georgen,” Wasser und Boden, No. 11, 1–4 (2002).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Gebhardt, “Phosphatkartierung und bodenkundliche gelandeuntersuchungen zur eingrenzung historischer siedlungs — und wirtschaftsflachen der geestinsel flogeln,” in Kreis Cuxhaven, Verlag August des Hildesheim, No. 10 (1982).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Greinert, “The study of soils in urbanized area of Zielona Góra,” Zielona Gora (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Zielonogorskiego. 2003) [in Polish].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. W. Hopkins, P. E. J. Wiltshire, and B. D. Turner, “Microbial characteristics of soil from graves: an investigation at the interface of soil microbiology and forensic science,” Appl. Soil Ecol. No. 14, 283–288 (2000).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Kondracki, Regional Geography of Poland (Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa, 2009).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Kosse, “Pedogenesis in the Urban Environment,” Proc. First Intern. Conf. on Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (Germany), Vol. 1, 241–246 (2000).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Majgier and O. Rahmonov, “Selected chemical properties of Necrosols from the abandoned cemeteries S abowo and Szymonka (Great Mazurian Lakes District),” Bull. Geogr., Physical Geogr. Ser., No. 5, 43–56 (2012).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Z. Marczenko and M. Balcerzak, Spectrophotometric Methods for the Inorganic Analysis. (Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa, 1998).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Płotek, Difficult Beginnings. Masurian District in the 1945–1946 (Oficyna Retman, Dabrowno, 2011) [in Polish].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. V. Prokofeva, I. A. Martynenko, and F. A. Ivannikov, “Classification Moscow soils and parent materials and its possible inclusion in the classification system of Russian soils,” Eur. Soil Sci. 44(5), 561–571 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. V. Prokofeva and V. O. Poputnikov, “Anthropogenic transformation of soils in the Pokrovskoe-Streshnevo park (Moscow) and adjacent residential areas,” Eur. Soil Sci. 43(6), 701–7011 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. V. Prokofeva, O. A. Varava, S. N. Sedov, and A. M. Kuznetsova, “Morphological diagnostics of pedogenesis on the anthropogenically transformed floodplains in Moscow,” Eur. Soil Sci. 43(6), 701–711 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O. Rahmonov, K. Jedrzejko, and L. Majgier, “The secondary succession in the area of abandoned cemeteries in northern Poland,” in Landscape Ecology—Methods, Applications and Interdisciplinary Approach, Ed. by M. Barančoková, J. Krajčí, J. Kollár, and I. Belčáková (Inst. Landscape Ecol., Bratislava, 2010), pp. 647–657.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regulation of the Minister of the Environment on the Quality Standards of Soil. No. 1065 (2002) [in Polish].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Smolik, Pedologie (Praga, 1957).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    N. I. Skvortsova, A. V. Rappoport, T. V. Prokofeva, and A. E. Andreeva, “Biological properties of soils in the Moscow State University Botanical Garden: the branch on Prospekt Mira,” Eur. Soil Sci. 39(7), 771–778 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Sobocka, “Necrosol as a new anthropogenic soil type,” Soil Anthropization VII Conf. Proc. (Bratislava, 2004), pp. 107–112.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Sobocka, “Sucasny stav poznania a hodnotenia antropogennych pod na Slovensku,” Rostlina Vyroba, No. 45(5), 237–244 (1999).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Sobocka, “Urban soils vs. anthropogenic soils, their characteristics and functions,” Phytopedon, No. 2, 76–80 (2003).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soil Survey Staff. Soil Taxonomy, 2nd ed. Agriculture Handbook 436 (USDA, Washington DC, 1999).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Stroganova, A. Myagkova, T. Prokofieva, and I. Skvortsova, Soils of Moscow and Urban Environments (Moscow, 1998) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. N. Stroganova and A. V. Rappoport, “Specific features of anthropogenic soils in botanical gardens of metropolises in southern taiga subzone,” Eur. Soil Sci. 38(9), 966–978 (2005).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Stroganova and T. Prokofieva, “Urban soils-concept, definitions, classification,” Proc. First Intern. Conf. on Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (Germany), Vol. 1, 235–239 (2000).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Polish Soil Classification, Roczniki Gleboznawcz 40(3/4) (1989).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polish Soil Classification, Roczniki Gleboznawcze 62(3) (2011).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Żychowski, “The impact of cemeteries in Krakow on the natural environment—selected aspects,” Geographia Polonica, No. 84, 5–23 (2011).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Earth SciencesUniversity of SilesiaSosnowiecPoland
  2. 2.Institute of GeographyNicholas Copernicus UniversityTorunPoland

Personalised recommendations