Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Secondary successions of biota in oil-polluted peat soil upon different biological remediation methods

  • Degradation, Rehabilitation, and Conservation of Soils
  • Published:
Eurasian Soil Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of different bioremediation methods on restoration of the oil-polluted peat soil (Histosol) in the northernmost taiga subzone of European Russia was studied. The population dynamics of microorganisms belonging to different trophic groups (hydrocarbon-oxidizing, ammonifying, nitrifying, and oligonitrophilic) were analyzed together with data on the soil enzyme (catalase and dehydrogenase) activities, population densities of soil microfauna groups, their structures, and states of phytocenoses during a sevenyear-long succession. The remediation with biopreparations Roder composed of oil-oxidizing microorganisms-Roder with Rhodococcus rubber and R. erythropolis and Universal with Rhodotorula glutinis and Rhodococcus sp.-was more efficient than the agrochemical and technical remediation. It was concluded that the biopreparations activate microbiological oil destruction, thereby accelerating restoration succession of phytocenosis and zoocenosis. The succession of dominant microfauna groups was observed: the dipteran larvae and Mesostigmata mites predominant at the early stages were replaced by collembolans at later stages. The pioneer oribatid mite species were Tectocepheus velatus, Oppiella nova, Liochthonius sellnicki, Oribatula tibialis, and Eupelops sp.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. V. S. Andrievskii and M. V. Yakutin, “A comparative analysis of successions of oribatid mites (Oribatei) and soil microflora in sand quarries of the northern taiga subzone of Western Siberia,” Evraz. Entomol. Zh. 11(1), 13–18 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. M. Anchugova, “Indication methods applied for the assessment of the state of oil-polluted soils upon rehabilitation works,” in Proceedings of the II All-Russia Youth Conference “Youth and Sciences in the Northern Regions” (Syktyvkar, 2013), pp. 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. I. Artem’eva, Complexes of Soil Animals and Problems of Rehabilitation of Technogenic Territories (Nauka, Moscow, 1989) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. I. Artem’eva, A. K. Zherebtsov, and T. M. Borisovich, “Influence of soil pollution with oil and waste waters on the complex of soil animals,” in Remediation of Petroleum-Polluted Soil Ecosystems (Nauka, Moscow, 1988), pp. 82–98.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atlas of the Komi Republic on Climate and Hydrology (Drofa, Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].

  6. Soil Atlas of the Komi Republic, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii, A. I. Taskaev, and I. V. Zaboeva (Komi Republic Press, Syktyvkar, 2010) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  7. B. A. Byzov, Zoomicrobial Interactions in Soil (GEOS, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. S. Ghilyarov, “Ecological significance of parthenogenesis,” Usp. Sovrem. Biol. 93(1), 10–22 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. G. Zvyagintsev, I. V. Aseeva, I. P. Bab’eva, and G. G. Mirchinik, Manual on Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry (Moscow State University, Moscow, 1980) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. R. Kabirov, L. M. Safiullina, N. A. Kireeva, T. R. Kabirov, I. Y. Dubovik, and A. B. Yakupova, “Evaluating the biological activity of oil-polluted soils using a complex index,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 45(2), 157–161 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. O. I. Koleshko, Ecology of Soil Microorganisms (Vysshaya Shkola, Minsk, 1981) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. V. Kurakov, M. A. Davydova, and B. A. Byzov, “Microarthropods as regulators of the communities of microscopic fungi and biological activity in the litter of a mixed forest,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 39(8), 838–847 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A. A. Lyashchev, Doctoral Dissertation in Biology (Tyumen, 2004).

  14. M. Yu. Markarova, Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology (Perm, 1999).

  15. M. Yu. Markarova and E. N. Melekhina, “Changes in diversity of soil biota during remediation of petroleumpolluted lands of the Extreme North as an indicator of status of soil ecosystems,” in International Forum on Conservation of Habitats in the Barents Sea Region (Syktyvkar, 2006), pp. 135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  16. E. N. Melekhina, “Influence of oil pollution on soil microfauna of tundra communities of the northernmost taiga,” Ekol. Cheloveka, No. 1, 16–23 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  17. E. N. Melekhina, “Recovery successions of microarthropods in soils polluted by oil,” in Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference with International Participation “Ecology, Biology, and Protection of the Animals” (Mordovian State University, Saransk, 2012), pp. 250–251.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Methods of Soil Zoological Analysis (Nauka, Moscow, 1975) [in Russian].

  19. Methods of Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry, Ed. by D. G. Zvyagintsev (Moscow State University, Moscow, 1991) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. V. Nazarov, L. N. Anan’ina, O. V. Yastrebova, and E. G. Plotnikova, “The effect of oil contamination on bacteria in a soddy-podzolic soil,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 43(12), 1382–1386 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. PND F (State Standard) 16.1.21-98: Measurements of Mass Fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples using Flyuorat-02 Fluid Analyzer (Moscow, 1998) [in Russian].

  22. PND F (State Standard) 16.1.38-02: Measurements of Mass Fraction of Petroleum Products in Soil Samples by Capillary Gas-Liquid Chromatography (Moscow, 2002) [in Russian].

  23. Nature-Conservation Measures on the Refinery Companies, Part 1: Rehabilitation of Petroleum Polluted Soils in Usinsk District, Komi Republic (Syktyvkar, 2006) [in Russian].

  24. Practicum on Microbiology, Ed. by A. I. Netrusov (Akademiya, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. A. Ryabinin, “Recovery succession of oribatid mites on loose dumps of stone quarries,” in Proceedings of the X All-Russia Conference “Problems of Soil Zoology,” (Novosibirsk, 1991) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  26. N. A. Ryabinin and A. N. Pan’kov, “Role of parthenogenesis in biology of oribatid mites,” Ekologiya, No. 4, 62–64 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  27. N. A. Ryabinin and A. N. Pan’kov, “Successions of oribatid mites (Acariformes: Oribatida) on disturbed areas,” Biol. Bull. 36(5), 510–515 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. B. R. Striganova, Nutrition of Soil Saprophages (Nauka, Moscow, 1980) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  29. A. I. Taskaev and M. Yu. Markarova, “Feasibility of biological parameters for assessing the state of petroleum-polluted and reclaimed soils,” in Proceedings of the II Scientific-Practical Conference “Ecological Works on Oil Fields in Timano-Pechorskaya Province: Status and Prospects” (Syktyvkar, 2002), pp. 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. F. Kh. Khaziev, Methods of Soil Enzymology (Nauka, Moscow, 1990) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  31. F. Kh. Khaziev, Methods of Soil Enzymology (Nauka, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  32. F. Kh. Khaziev and F. F. Fakhtiev, “Changes in the biochemical processes in soils affected by petroleum pollution and activation of oil decomposition,” Agrokhimiya, No. 10, 102–111. 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yu. P. Yudin, “Geobotanical zoning,” in Industrial Forces of the Komi ASSR (Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow, 1954), Vol. 3, Part 1, pp. 323–369.

    Google Scholar 

  34. S. J. Coulson, I. D. Hodkinson, and N. R. Webb, “Microscale distribution patterns in high Arctic soil microarthropod communities: the influence of plant species within the vegetation mosaic,” Ecography, No. 26, 801–809 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. Hågvar, “Primary succession of springtails (Collembola) in a Norwegian glacier foreland,” Arct., Arct. Alp. Res. 42(4), 422–429 (2010). doi: 10.1657/1938-4246-42.4.422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. S. Hågvar, T. Solhøy, and C. E. Mong, “Primary succession of soil mites (Acari) in a Norwegian Glacier Foreland, with emphasis on oribatid species,” Arct., Arct. Alp. Res. 41(2), 219–227 (2009). doi: 10.1657/1938-4246-41.2.219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O. Hammer, D. A. T. Harper, and P. D. Ryan, “PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis,” Palaeontol. Electron. 4(1), (2001).

  38. I. D. Hodkinson, N. R. Webb, and S. J. Coulson, “Primary community assembly on land — the missing stages: why are the heterotrophic organisms always there first?” Br. Ecol. Soc. J. Ecol. 90, 569–577 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Kaufmann, M. Fuchs, and N. Gosterxeier, “The soil fauna of an alpine glacier foreland colonization and succession,” Arct., Arct. Alp. Res. 34(3), 242–250 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. R. A. Norton and S. C. Palmer, “The distribution, mechanisms and evolutionary significance of parthenogenesis in oribatid mites,” in The Acari: Reproduction, Development, Life-History Strategies (Chapman and Hall, London, 1991), pp. 107–136.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. P. Skubała, Colonization and Development of Oribatid Mite Communities (Acari: Oribatida) on Post-Industrial Dumps (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego, Katowice, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  42. P. Skubała and M. Gulvik, “Pioneer oribatid mite communities (Acari, Oribatida) in newly exposed natural (glacier foreland) and anthropogenic (post-industrial dump) habitats,” Pol. J. Ecol. 53, 105–111 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  43. A. Seniczak, T. Solhoy, and S. Seniczak, “Oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) in the glacier foreland at Hardangerjøkulen (Norway),” Biol. Lett. 43(2), 231–235 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  44. A. S. Zaitsev, V. Wolters, R. Waldhardt, and J. Daube, “Long-term succession of oribatid mites after conversion of croplands to grasslands,” Appl. Soil Ecol., (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.01.005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biology, Komi Science Center, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Kommunisticheskaya 28, Syktyvkar, 167982, Russia

    E. N. Melekhina, M. Yu. Markarova, T. N. Shchemelinina, E. M. Anchugova & V. A. Kanev

Authors
  1. E. N. Melekhina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Yu. Markarova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. N. Shchemelinina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. M. Anchugova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. A. Kanev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. N. Melekhina.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © E.N. Melekhina, M.Yu. Markarova, T.N. Shchemelinina, E.M. Anchugova, V.A. Kanev, 2015, published in Pochvovedenie, 2015, No. 6, pp. 740–750.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melekhina, E.N., Markarova, M.Y., Shchemelinina, T.N. et al. Secondary successions of biota in oil-polluted peat soil upon different biological remediation methods. Eurasian Soil Sc. 48, 643–653 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229315060071

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229315060071

Keywords

Search

Navigation