[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Agricultural Digitization on Land Productivity: An Empirical Test Based on Micro Panel Data
Previous Article in Journal
Analyzing Urban Parks for Older Adults’ Accessibility in Summer Using Gradient Boosting Decision Trees: A Case Study from Tianjin, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Soil Organic Matter and Its Microbial Role in Selected Locations in the South Bohemia Region (Czech Republic)
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/land14010186
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Edaphic Diversity, Polychemical Soil Status of the Prinevskaya Lowland and Prospects for Soils Use

by
Ekaterina Yu. Chebykina
1,*,
Timur I. Nizamutdinov
1,
Evgeny V. Abakumov
1 and
Natalia V. Dinkelaker
2
1
Department of Applied Ecology, St. Petersburg State University, 199034 Saint-Petersburg, Russia
2
Faculty of Ecotechnologies, ITMO University, 197101 Saint-Petersburg, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(1), 186; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010186
Submission received: 11 November 2024 / Revised: 9 January 2025 / Accepted: 15 January 2025 / Published: 17 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Ecological Risk Assessment Based on LULC)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Prinevskaya lowland (marked with green shading).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Map of studied plots and soil pits within the Prinevskaya lowland.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Sampling sites and soil profiles. Number of studying plots is given according to <a href="#land-14-00186-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Electrical resistivity (ER, Ωm) of studied soils. Numbers indicate number of soil plots described in <a href="#land-14-00186-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a> and <a href="#land-14-00186-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Variation of trace metals concentrations in studied soils s: (<b>a</b>)—forest soils; (<b>b</b>)—industrial soils; (<b>c</b>)—agricultural and fallow soils.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Single pollution index (PI) in studied soils according to LULC: blue color—forest soils; red color—agricultural and fallow soils; green color—industrial soils.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Heavy metal content relative to MPC in studied soils according to LULC: blue color—forest soils; red color—agricultural and fallow soils; green color—industrial soils.</p> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There will be a significant increase in anthropogenic load on the soils of the Prinevskaya lowland in the nearest decade due to the fact that a significant territory is occupied by St. Petersburg. The main objective is a study of the sanitary-hygienic state and soil diversity of the Prinevskaya lowland in case of a high degree of agricultural soil development there and the significant role of the lithological factor. Soils were studied at the following land use and land cover: agricultural and fallow soils of agrolandscapes; forest soils; and soils of industrial areas. Studies were carried out using morphological descriptions and analyses of chemical, physical, and biological properties. The most vulnerable land use are forest and agricultural and fallow zones, where active accumulation of priority toxicants of anthropogenic origin can occur. Geochemical peculiarities of studied soils are deficit of Mn, Cu, Mo, and Zn in soil-forming rock materials and accumulation of strontium and lead in arable horizons. The soils examined show minimal contamination with trace elements, as verified by a range of individual and combined ecotoxicological indicators. Urban development planning, particularly in St. Petersburg, should prioritize the preservation of biodiversity and soil resources.

1. Introduction

Urban soils play a crucial role in the urban ecosystem, serving as an essential component of the habitat for humans, plants, and animals, while also underpinning various economic activities [1,2,3,4]. The condition of these soils is vital for evaluating the ecological health of a specific area, as they are significant in multiple ways: they act as the primary link in the food chain, serve as a source of secondary pollution for air and water, and provide a consolidated measure of the overall ecological status of the environment [5]. As cities often expand into surrounding agricultural lands, they encounter various agronatural soils and agrozems with distinct agrogenic horizons [6,7,8].
A significant portion of St. Petersburg is situated on the Prinevskaya lowland plain, a terraced lacustrine–glacial landscape formed from the glaciolimnium of the Baltic glacial lake (Figure 1) [9,10,11].
This flat region lies between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, with its formation history linked to the abrasion and accumulation processes of late- and post-glacial basins, which have contributed to the variety of soil-forming materials present [12,13,14]. Notably, a large part of the Prinevskaya lowland is occupied by St. Petersburg and its associated industrial and agricultural enterprises, highlighting the significant impact of human activity on the development of lowland soils over the past three centuries.
The peculiarities of the soils of this territory were covered in the works [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24] and a number of others. The works mentioned above were written in the last century and require updating. Additionally, the diversity of soils and their chemical properties are not well studied. There are challenges in assessing the sanitary and hygienic conditions of soils, as well as gaps in our understanding of soil development dynamics in agricultural landscapes. Furthermore, information regarding the sources of polychemical soil pollution is lacking. The current level of knowledge on the geochemistry of natural and anthropogenic landscapes in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region is insufficient to address all issues related to the ecological and geochemical conditions of soils in the Prinevskaya lowland. Moreover, large cities such as St. Petersburg are important driving factors of environmental trends due to the increasing proportion of the global population living in urban areas and the high intensity of urban residents’ activities. However, as the world urbanizes, people lose touch with the soil and the services it provides to sustain life. As developing cities and countries industrialize, soil pollution continues to increase and reaches a level that requires immediate action. Therefore, conducting a global assessment of the state of urban soils, starting from the local levels, such as the soils of the Prinevskaya lowland, to identify patterns, processes, and unique anthropogenic impacts is quite a relevant objective.
The lowland has a long history of agricultural development. The Prinevskaya lowland is characterized by the prevalence of humus–podzolic–gley soils with a thick peat horizon and drained sphagnum peat bogs [15]. In 1922, a soil survey conducted in the Shusharskaya farm area, situated in the heart of the Prinevskaya lowland, revealed that it can be challenging to reestablish the boundaries of natural soil types after years of cultivation and the application of urban waste and peat [16]. Today, the Prinevskaya lowland serves as the primary region for suburban agriculture, supplying Saint Petersburg with potatoes and vegetables, as well as functioning as a base for livestock feed. The fields were drained, treated with lime, and received large amounts of both organic and mineral fertilizers. Agricultural activities utilize 71–98% of all lowland areas, with over half of this land designated for arable farming (40–65%). A minor portion (ranging from 2 to 18%) is covered by secondary small-leaved forests [25,26].
Data from the third round of soil agrochemical surveys, conducted in the early 1980s during a period of intensive fertilizer application, indicated a significant increase in the average humus content of Leningrad region soils, reaching 3.5%. Additionally, there was a reduction in soil acidity and an enhancement in the levels of essential plant nutrients (the average content of mobile phosphorus and potassium in the region’s soils attained average to above-average availability) [27,28]. Moreover, the Prinevskaya lowland stands out as one of the most intensively farmed regions in the Leningrad region. Consequently, areas with low pH, poor humification, and deficiencies in mineral nutrients occupy only a small fraction of their landscape. The practice of intensive agriculture has resulted in the emergence of a new soil component in the Prinevskaya lowland—agrosoils. These soils develop on various parent materials and are characterized by a thick (over 40 cm) organic layer that is well-structured and rich in plant nutrients [6].
Unfortunately, the economic decline in the Russian Federation during the 1990s and early 2000s was marked by inconsistencies in land use, resulting in a decrease in arable land. As a consequence of the changing economic landscape, a substantial portion of arable land in St. Petersburg has been left uncultivated [29,30,31].
The northwest region of the Russian Federation serves as a distinctive showcase of the diversity found in fallow lands. The quality of these lands, along with their biological characteristics and fertility levels, plays a crucial role in determining the quality of agricultural products, including seeds and grains [32,33].
In addition to the intentional effects of agriculture on the soils of the Prinevskaya lowland, there is also the unavoidable influence of the nearby city of Saint Petersburg, along with its industrial and transportation activities. Heavy metals and other toxic substances are released into the environment through the atmosphere, while sewage and urban waste serve as another major source of pollution. As a result of atmospheric transport, as well as surface and groundwater flow, a substantial suburban area is subjected to contamination. Therefore, the objectives of the study were: (a) to investigate the soil diversity of Prinevskaya lowland and describe the main types of urban, natural, and agrosoils at different land use and land cover (LULC), to determine their morphological features, and taxonomic position; (b) to evaluate the main chemical, physical and biological properties of soils of the different functional zones; (c) to assess heavy metal content and its geochemical distribution, and characterize the soil pollution status. The edaphic diversity and polychemical status of soils in the Prinevskaya lowland were studied on the example of the following objects (LULC):
  • Agricultural and fallow soils of agrolandscapes;
  • Forest soils;
  • Soils of industrial areas.

2. Materials and Methods

The territory of the Prinevskaya lowland is located in the northwest of the East European Plain in the southern part of the Karelia Isthmus. It is limited by the fluvio-glacial hills of the Koltushy upland in the north and by the Izhora upland in the south.
The climate of the Prinevskaya lowland is characterized as moderately cold and humid, influenced by the Atlantic Ocean, the Baltic Sea, and Lake Ladoga. In summer, the thermal regime is primarily affected by solar radiation, while in winter, it is largely determined by heat transfer from the Atlantic. Average temperatures in July range from 16.5 to 17.0 °C, while January sees averages of −8.0 to −8.5 °C, resulting in an average annual air temperature of 2.4 to 2.6 °C [34]. Precipitation patterns are mainly influenced by the topography; for instance, the lowland shores of the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga receive the least rainfall. The average annual precipitation in the area is between 550 and 600 mm, with evapotranspiration rates of 400 to 500 mm, leading to a precipitation ratio of 1.8, indicating excessive moisture [35,36].
In terms of geomorphological zoning, the region falls within the Prinevsky–Estonian district of the Baltic–Valdai region and is part of the North Russian province of the Russian Plain. The Prinevskaya lowland is bordered to the north by the Central (Kotovskaya) Upland of the Karelia Isthmus and to the south by the Baltic–Ladoga escarpment. It features a terraced marshy plain with elevations ranging from 10–15 to 55–60 m [37]. The current landscape is primarily shaped by lake–glacial, glacial, lacustrine, and marine processes that occurred during the late Neopleistocene to Holocene periods. Common landforms include multi-aged lake and lake–glacial plains with coastal ramparts, sand spits, and abrasion scarps, all associated with Late Glacial–Holocene palaeobasins; rock outcrops and remnant uplands are more prevalent in the northern part of the study area. The border of the Prinevskaya lowland in the north is partly the abrasion ledges of the Rantolovsky plateau of the Toksovskaya kame upland.
The Prinevskaya lowland was formed in pre-glacial times. The contemporary landscape began to take shape as the last Valdai glaciation receded. The Prinevsky landscape emerged on sandy hills and loamy moraine deposits that constitute the Prinevskaya lowland, featuring granite boulders and banded clays. Most of the small boulders were removed from the soil during the process of territory development, while large boulders were blasted, crushed, and used in construction (for example, one of the boulders (Grom Stone) was used for the pedestal of the Bronze Horseman).
Moraine covers the bottom of the lowland and the surrounding areas, forming a flat surface (peneplain) and confirming that the lowland was formed before glaciation and is of tectonic origin. The geological column of Quaternary sediments is completed by marine, marsh, and eluvial sediments of the Holocene age.
The study area is characterized by middle-taiga forests, high and lowland swamps, and overgrown lakes. The primary element of the cropping system in the study area has been and continues to be perennial grasses, while annual grasses, vegetables, potatoes, and cereals cover significantly smaller areas.
Ten soil pits within Prinevskaya lowland were made in order to analyze soils of studied LULC (Figure 2).
Morphological soil diversity of the Prinevskaya lowland was studied in August–November 2023. These investigations were conducted utilizing standard soil characterization methods, including soil pits, morphological descriptions, and laboratory analyses focused on examining the chemical, physical, and biological properties of the soils.
Soil samples were collected from various depths of the soil horizons at each sampling location. Soil identification was performed in accordance with the “Classification and Diagnostics of Russian Soils” [38] and the World Reference Database of Soil Resources (FAO, 2015) [39].
All samples were air-dried at room temperature in the Department of Applied Ecology at St. Petersburg State University and subsequently passed through a 2 mm sieve. The analysis of soil properties was conducted on the fine earth fraction. The comprehensive analytical soil characteristics involved assessing chemical, physical, and physicochemical soil indicators through widely recognized methods [40,41].
The particle size distribution was assessed using the Kachinsky pipette method, which involved the peptization of microaggregates with pyrophosphate. The analysis of mobile potassium compounds was performed following the Kirsanov method, as modified by the Central Scientific Research Institute of Agrochemical Service of Agriculture (CSRIASA) in accordance with Russian National Standard GOST R 54650-2011 [42]. The measurement of basal respiration (BR) was conducted according to the specified method [43]. Basal respiration is based on recording the CO2 response in native soil. The pH values were determined in water and salt suspensions (soil-to-solution ratio 1:2.5). Substrate-induced soil respiration determined by the SID technique was also evaluated [44]. Carbon content was determined by the Tyurin method [40].
Soil samples in the solid phase were analyzed by X-ray fluorescence method using a portable X-ray spectrometer “Spectroscan” (M-049-P/16, 2016, Ekaterinburg, Russia) for the content of the following metals: Sr, Pb, As, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe2O3, MnO, Cr, V and TiO2. Spectrometer “SPECTROSKAN” is designed for determination of elemental composition in the range from 11Na to uranium (92U), equipped with a vacuum-assisted scanning crystal-diffraction channel. The range of determinable contents from 0.0001% to 100% without concentrating depends on sample type, analyzed element, and matrix, and from 10−6 to 10−7% to several proportions of percent with concentrating. The basic instrumental error does not exceed 0.5%. Calculation from oxide contents to element concentrations was carried out according to standard conversion coefficients [45].
Geochemical soil pollution by heavy metals was assessed by calculating the total soil pollution index Zc, calculating exceeding the regional background values (single pollution index—PI) and maximum permissible concentrations specified in standard SanPiN 1.2.3685-21 [46]. The PI values are determined by taking the ratio of heavy metal concentrations ( C n ) to their corresponding background regional values ( B n ). The overall soil pollution index is computed using the following formula:
Z c = ∑ i = 1 n P I − ( n − 1 )
Zc is classified into four classes (Table 1).
The geoaccumulation index ( I g e o ) (proposed by Muller G. [47]), pollution load index (PLI) and potential environmental risk index (RI) were used to fully assess the pollution status of potentially toxic metals in soils of the Prinevskaya lowland.
The geoaccumulation index I g e o is used to determine the degree of contamination by trace metals relative to natural regional background values [47,48] and is calculated by the following formula:
I g e o = l o g 2 C n 1.5   B n ,
where C n represents the measured concentration of the element in the soil, B n denotes the geochemical regional background value. Background values were determined according to Matinyan et al. 2007 [49]. A coefficient of 1.5 is used to minimize possible variations due to lithogenic variations [50]. I g e o is classified into seven classes (Table 1).
The Pollution Load Index (PLI) is determined as the geometric mean of the Pollution Index (PI) values [51,52,53,54]. This intricate index is calculated using the following formula:
P L I = P I 1 × P I 2 × P I 3 × … P I n n
PLI is divided into six categories (see Table 1).
The Potential Ecological Risk (RI) Index assesses the level of ecological risk associated with the harmful effects of trace metals [53,55,56]. This index is computed using the following formula:
R I = ∑ i = 1 n E r i = ∑ i = 1 n T r i × P
where n represents the number of heavy metals, E r i indicates a single ecological risk factor index, and T r i refers to the toxicity response coefficient for each metal (As-10; Ni, Pb, Co-5; V, Cr-2; Zn-1) [55]. PI is calculated values for the Single Pollution Index. RI is categorized into five classes (Table 1).
All the indices utilized have their own evaluation scales, which are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1. Classification of pollution status indexes.
Table 1. Classification of pollution status indexes.
The Total Soil Pollution Index (Zc) [46]
1<16Permissible pollution
216–32Moderately dangerous pollution
332–128Dangerous pollution
4>128Extremely dangerous pollution
Geoaccumulation index (Igeo) [57]
0 I g e o   ≤ 0Absence of pollution
1 0  <  I g e o ≤ 1From unpolluted to moderately polluted
2 1  <  I g e o ≤ 2Moderately polluted
3 2  <  I g e o ≤ 3From moderately to highly polluted
4 3  <  I g e o ≤ 4Highly polluted
5 4  <  I g e o ≤ 5From highly to extremely high polluted
6 I g e o > 5Extremely high polluted
Pollution load index (PLI) [53,58]
0PLI < 1Absence of pollution
1PLI = 1Baseline levels of pollution
21 < PLI ≤ 2Low pollution
32 < PLI ≤ 3Moderate pollution
43 < PLI ≤ 5High pollution
5PLI > 5Strong pollution
Potential ecological risk (RI) [55,56]
1RI < 90Low potential ecological risk
290 ≤ RI < 180Moderate potential ecological risk
3180 ≤ RI < 360High potential ecological risk
4360 ≤ RI < 720Strong potential ecological risk
5RI ≥ 720Very strong potential ecological risk
The vertical electrical resistivity sounding (VERS) method, which enables the vertical division of soil layers into genetic layers with distinct properties and characteristics [59,60], was conducted using the portable LandMapper device (ERM-03, Landviser, LLC, League City, TX, USA). Measurements of apparent electrical resistance in the soil and strata were taken with electrode spacings of MN 10 and AB/2 at distances of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, and 500 cm. This approach allowed for the determination of apparent soil electrical resistance values at the corresponding depths.
The statistical data processing and analysis were performed using methods with the software packages MS Excel 2016, Past (version 3.20), and Statistica 64 (version 10).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Edaphic Soil Diversity of Prinevskaya Lowland

The soil cover of the Prinevskaya lowland was formed within the conditions of flat, poorly drained relief, with insignificant height variations. The cool, humid climate, along with this factor, leads to surface water stagnation and the occurrence of waterlogging processes in the region. The variety of soil-forming rocks in the lowland is a result of glacier and post-glacial water basins, which facilitated the erosion and redeposition of glacial sediments.
In the examined area of the Prinevskaya lowland, the following soil-forming materials were identified: (a) moraine loams and (b) fluvioglacial sands and sandy loams.
Additionally, the region contains banded clays and loams, limnoglacial sands and sandy loams, as well as sands and sandy loams of various origins, all underlain by loams and clays of lacustrine–glacial and moraine types.
The homogeneity of the relief in the Prinevskaya lowland means that soil diversity is largely influenced by lithological factors, which relate not only to the chemical composition and physical properties of the soil but also to their water availability. Additionally, human activities have significantly impacted the development of the soil cover in the study area over the past 200–300 years, leading to the formation of various agronatural soils and agrozems with distinct agrogenic horizons. Initially, this influence could be seen as beneficial—such as through land development and fertilizer application—but as anthropogenic impacts have intensified, their harmful effects have also become evident.
The diversity of soil-forming materials within the Prinevskaya lowland had a significant influence on the nature of soil-forming processes that determine the main soil types (Figure 3). Podzol formation associated with the impact of humus acids on the mineral soil part and further profile migration of decomposition products is most characteristic for soils formed on moraine loams. Gley soils develop on clay materials under conditions of impeded internal drainage and excessive moistening by surface waters. The formation of a lightened horizon in these soils is the result of reduction processes and the removal of elements of variable valence from upper horizons in a horizontal rather than vertical direction. Podzols and podburs (Entic Podzol) with illuvial–iron, and illuvial–humus horizons are formed on sandy rocks under the influence of podzolization and alfehumus processes. The alfehumus process consists of the removal by humus acids of aluminous-iron films from mineral grains and the formation of illuvial horizons with the content of semi-ferrous oxides and incrustive humus [23].
The soil cover is mainly represented by patches of soddy podzolic soils (Podzol), podburs (Entic Podzol), and agrozems (Anthrosols). Relative microrelief rises, located in spots among the main massif, are occupied by automorphous soddy podzolic soils on moraine loams. Soddy podburs podzolized were found on sands with the thickness of the upper sediments exceeding 60 cm. The weak expression of the podzol process in soils at these plots can be explained by their anthropogenic transformation. Intensive farming leads to the formation of a peculiar component in the soil cover—agrozems. They develop on various types of rock materials and are distinguished by a thick organic layer (over 40 cm) that is well-structured and rich in humus and essential plant nutrients. It is important to mention that despite the long history of development in this region, soils with excessive moisture still cover a substantial area. This indicates the difficulty of soil drainage on clay rock materials in terms of low surface water runoff.
Currently, large areas of the Prinevskaya lowland are drained by an open and closed drainage network (e.g., agrozem ameliorative deep-turbid redoximorphic sandy loam on fluvioglacial sediments at the agricultural field of the Prikoltushsky part of the Prinevskaya lowland; number of study plot–9). In this case, a significant part of the soil cover belongs to soils without or with weak signs of gleization (72%). The water-air soil regime changes due to drainage: the moisture content of the arable horizon decreases by 1.5–2 times, aeration increases, and a zone of active aeration drops below the drainage boundary [61,62,63,64]. Amelioration causes the rise of redox potential and, therefore, promotes the oxidation processes in the soil profile: the content of ferrous oxide and mobile manganese decreases, and the content of ferric iron increases [65,66,67]. The processes of oxidogenesis (landscape geochemical processes of accumulation and transformation of iron oxides and hydroxides in soils and rock materials) are morphologically shown in the pronounced accumulation of ferruginous-manganese nodules in the upper horizons and heterogeneous color of aggregates [68,69,70].
Forest soils are characterized by the presence of litter horizon (AO), insignificant thickness, and fluffy structure of humus horizon, which consists mainly of coarse humus and unclear rudiments of podzol horizon—it is dense, whitish, and contains many ferruginous nodules.
Lands of industrial areas are characterized by the widespread distribution of technogenic surface formations—lithostratas.
During field studies measurements of electrophysical soil properties were performed. The measurements were extended to a depth of up to 3 m (Figure 4).
The primary trend observed was an increase in the value of Ωm with depth, although there were some fluctuations noted at depths of 20–40 cm (Figure 4). This range was recognized as the transition zone between the arable horizon and the underlying layer. The first such fluctuations occur at a depth of 100 cm in non-agricultural soils. These disturbances are probably caused by changes in the structure and composition of the parent rock material. The method of VERS allowed the identification of five to seven heterogeneous layers in studied areas.
Studied soils were characterized by maximum values of temperature in the upper horizons, which smoothly decreased with depth.

3.2. The Physical and Chemical Soil Properties of Prinevskaya Lowland

The data on basic soil properties of studied soils are given in Table 2.
Soils of forest areas are characterized by acid pH throughout the soil profile, except for the upper humus horizon, which is close to neutral. The most acidic is the lower part of the soil profile. Postagrogenic and agricultural soils are characterized by higher pH values and have a slightly acidic pH in the lower part of the soil profile, while in the upper part, due to liming, it is close to neutral (pHH2O 6.2).
Humus content in forest soils ranged from 1.9– to 10.61%. The high content of organic carbon in the accumulative part of the soil profile is explained by the time gap of litter decomposition from the intake of plant litter, leading to a significant accumulation of humified substances. At the same time, the qualitative composition of humus in these soils is characterized by a wide C/N ratio, a predominance of fulvic acids, and their mobile fractions [71,72,73]. The soil profile is divided into two or three parts by humus content. The upper part, the humus accumulative horizon, is characterized by the highest organic carbon content. The underlying horizon contains much less humus than the humus accumulative horizon. The organic matter content in it may either gradually decrease towards the rock material or have more or less close values in the whole profile. In the case of illuvial–humus process development, one more zone of soil profile (illuvial–humus horizon) is distinguished in sandy or sandy loam soils. There, the content of organic carbon is higher than in the neighboring mineral horizons. The humus profile of podburs (Entic Podzol) is characterized by a sharply decreasing distribution of humus. A separation of soil profile into humus-accumulative and mineral parts is very sharply expressed.
Soils of agricultural and fallow areas are characterized by the following features. The humus content in the upper soil profile is lower (4.4% on average), but the total humus stock is higher due to the higher density of the upper horizon and penetration of more significant humus amounts into the depth of the soil profile, i.e., its smoother distribution. Humus is more firmly connected with the mineral part, which is reflected in the crumby structure of the arable horizon (in the formation of which it participates along with calcium) and therefore in the higher content of the corresponding fraction of humic and fulvic acids. The vertical distribution of humus in agrozems is the smoothest. Humus content of 3–5% is maintained in the whole arable stratum, up to a depth of 40 cm.
The potassium distribution in the soil profile is influenced by the mineralogical composition, mainly of the silty fraction. Potassium is represented in clay soils mainly by forms that are difficult to access for plants and microorganisms. Mobile potassium compounds are less than 1% [74,75]. As a result of potassium fertilizer application, potassium accumulation in hard-to-access forms occurs in agrozems. Potassium fixation is also observed below the arable horizon, which is connected with potassium transport by soil colloids and the distribution of mica minerals. Forest soils are characterized by low potassium content (except for one soil at study plot number 8, which was located in a forest, and this forest, according to morphological description, was previously an agricultural field). The distribution of mobile potassium along the soil profile has the following peculiarities. The highest content is observed in the humus-accumulative horizon; the lowest is in the middle horizons. The content of mobile potassium in the rock material in forest soil is 1.1–1.5, and in agricultural soil, it is 3–4 times lower than in the upper soil horizon. It is explained by biogenic accumulation in forest soils, while in arable soils, among other things, it is the result of fertilizer application.
The rate of carbon dioxide release from soils and basal respiration is primarily influenced by two factors: the availability of nutrients and the quantity and physiological condition of the microbial community. The maximum values of basal respiration are characterized for upper humus horizons, where the greatest number of microorganisms and plant roots inhabit, for both forest soils (1.6–2.5 µgC-CO2/g per hour) and agricultural soils (0.45–2.89 µgC-CO2/g per hour).
Soils of industrial functional zones showed heterogeneity and the absence of any trend in the distribution of the main physical and chemical properties along the soil profile.
Particle size distribution is determined by rock material features. Studied soils represent all classes of particle size distribution, from sands to clay (Table 2). It could be noted a silt removal from the upper part of the soil profile in loamy soils and, on the contrary, an accumulation of fine particles in the arable layer in sandy soils. Silt is more distributed eluvial–illuvial with a maximum in the middle part of the middle horizon. An absolute predominance of fine sand fraction is observed in sandy soils throughout the soil profile. The arable layer in the agrozems is sandy loam or light loamy.

3.3. The Content of Trace Elements in Soils of Prinevskaya Lowland

Soils of St. Petersburg suburbs widespread at the Prinevskaya lowland have a significant anthropogenic impact. Trace metals are an essential part of the lithosphere [76]. As a result of anthropogenic and technogenic activities of industry and agriculture, the geochemical background of heavy metal content in soils can be changed. Due to the constant input of pollutants into the ecosystem, there is a destabilization of soil functioning, disturbance and change in its basic physical and chemical processes, and, as a consequence, further transformation with the formation of areas with high contents of heavy metals.
The heavy metals content in studied soils is given in Table 3, Figure 5. The average concentrations of trace elements varied, with Cu measuring less than 0.10 mg/kg and MnO reaching up to 591.76 mg/kg. Among all the metals analyzed, Cu exhibited the lowest concentration, often falling below the detection limit in most instances. The mean concentrations of heavy metals were distributed as follows: Sr > Cr > V > Zn > Pb > Ni > Co > As > Cu. Considering significant coefficients of variation in trace element concentrations, which ranged from 23.1% for As to 65.9–66.2% for Ni and Mn, further analysis of trace element concentrations was carried out in the soils of three different sampling sites. The industrial soils are characterized by the maximum heterogeneity, which is confirmed by the high coefficients of variation: from 17.08% for Sr to 67.34% for Co. The forest soils, on the contrary, are characterized by the lowest coefficients of variation.
The highest indicators for Sr, As, Co, and Cr are observed among the studied soils. Manganese content is not included in Figure 5 due to high concentrations that did not fit on the graph with maximum coefficients of variation in the range. The MnO levels in forest soils range from 363 to 1839 mg/kg, with one sample exceeding the MPC. In industrial soils, the content varies from 151 to 1319 mg/kg, while agricultural soils show levels between 115 and 1236 mg/kg.
The distribution of heavy metal content is irregular across soil profiles. In industrial soils, there is generally a trend of decreasing content with depth or a fluctuation between high and low concentrations. Conversely, in forest soils, the concentration of trace metals tends to increase with soil depth, likely due to the sorption capacity of clay particles [77] (the increase in clay particles with depth was noted earlier).
The primary factor influencing the concentration of trace elements in soils is their presence in the soil-forming rock materials. The literature indicates that banded clays have the highest concentration of trace elements among all soil-forming materials, with a total of 937 mg/kg for ten elements. In contrast, fluvioglacial and lake–glacial sands exhibit the lowest concentrations, measuring 626.7 mg/kg and 691.7 mg/kg, respectively. Sands have an increased concentration of strontium in contrast to the low content of other elements. The banded clays have higher concentrations of Cr, Pb, Mn, Zn, Ni, and Co compared to the other rock materials examined.
When comparing the rock materials from the study area to those of the northwest region overall [78], it is evident that clay rocks in this area contain more Ni, while sands have higher levels of Cr. Conversely, the rock materials in the Prinevskaya lowland exhibit lower concentrations of Mn, Zn, and Cu than those found across the northwest region as a whole.
The heavy metals content data were compared with the current standards for the content of trace elements in soil [46], as well as with geochemical background concentrations typical for the northwest of Russia, in particular, the Leningrad region (Figure 6 and Figure 7).
The ecological soil state was assessed by calculating the concentration coefficients of trace elements, or PI (Figure 6). This indicator reflects the accumulation degree of heavy metals relative to their background content in the environment. Excess concentrations over the background content were recorded almost for studied elements, especially for Ni, Co, and Cr. The maximum accumulation was revealed for Ni; its content in all samples exceeds the background content on average from 2 to 7 times.
In general, the contents of trace elements in the analyzed samples were characterized as moderately dangerous (Figure 7) (up to 2 MPC) (for Sr, and separately for Pb, Zn, and Ni) and dangerous (from 2 to 5 MPC) (for As and Co (in case of industrial soils)) levels of soil contamination. An extremely dangerous level of soil contamination with Cr (over 5 MPC) was detected in all investigated soils with an excess of more than 1000 times.
The most polluted soils are found at the base of the quarry complex. This is primarily because the bottom of the quarry serves as a collection point for pollutants carried by rainwater. Elevated levels of these substances may also be linked to the operation of mining equipment, as transport activities were observed in the quarry complex during the material sampling.
The content of trace elements in arable soil horizon depends on a complex of factors: their content in the rock material, processes occurring in the soil, as well as on anthropogenic impacts. The accumulation of a trace element in the humus horizon relative to its content in the rock material can be explained by both biogenic accumulation and anthropogenic pollution from the surface. At the same time, there are data that biogenic accumulation cannot increase the trace element content more than 1.3–1.5 times in comparison with the rock material [79,80].
Sources of soil contamination by trace metals are as follows. Firstly, heavy metals can penetrate into soils from the atmosphere with emissions from industrial enterprises, transport, and thermal power plants. Secondly, it can be a by-effect of farming intensification. Heavy metals could be in the form of admixtures to chemical fertilizers, ameliorants, and as part of pesticides. Finally, heavy metals can enter the studied soils from solid and liquid urban wastes and through transfer from landfills [accidental or systematic (rubbish as fertilizer)].
Moreover, soil contamination with heavy metals (Pb, Co, Cd, Sr, and Hg) during fertilizer application has been noted by many researchers [81,82,83]. High doses of manure also contribute to the positive balance of Zn, Pb, Cd, Cu, and Fe [84].
To qualitatively assess the level of contamination of the studied soils with trace metals, the values of several individual and complex indexes were calculated. Its values are presented in Table 4.
In order to assess the sanitary and ecological situation, the total soil pollution index Zc was calculated. Its values are presented in Table 4. All investigated samples, except for soil samples from industrial areas (moderately hazardous), are characterized by the permissible category of total soil pollution by trace elements.
The contamination degree was also determined using a geoaccumulation index I g e o . The I g e o pollution degree for soils in industrial areas is characterized by rate No. 2 (moderately polluted); for some agricultural soils-rate No. 1 (from unpolluted to moderately polluted). At the same time, the I g e o pollution degree for forests and some agricultural soils was characterized by the rate No. 0 (absence of pollution).
Pollution load index PLI index was used to assess the degree of multiple contamination by toxic elements in studied soils (Table 4). PLI values in soils of three studied LULC ranged from 0.84 (absence of pollution) to 2.85 (moderate pollution).
The RI index provides an estimate of the potential ecological risk of pollution in the studied soils. The RI values ranged from 36.44 to 75.59, indicating a low potential ecological risk overall, except for one soil sample in the industrial zone, which had an RI index of 90.51, reflecting a moderate potential ecological risk.
Calculations of the PLI index reveal that nearly half of the investigated soils are experiencing a decline in soil quality. Despite this deterioration, the RI index remains low for all examined soils, with the exception of the one sample from the industrial area, which is classified as having a moderate environmental risk.
It can be anticipated that over the next decade, there will be a significant increase in anthropogenic pressures on the soils of the Prinevskaya lowland, largely due to the extensive urban area occupied by St. Petersburg. The forest and agricultural zones are the most susceptible LULC types, as they can actively accumulate priority toxicants of human origin. Currently, agricultural lands in St. Petersburg are utilized for crop cultivation and residential purposes, which may have potential implications for the health of the local population. These soils are likely to gather priority toxicants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and petroleum products, which can persist in the environment for extended periods due to their low biological activity [85].

4. Conclusions

The Prinevskaya lowland features a complex and varied composition of soil cover components that have developed under various lithological, hydrological, and anthropogenic conditions. The prevailing soil combinations are variations of soddy podzols of different degrees of podzolization and a series of soddy podbur and agrozems. Automorphic soils have limited distribution, and their development is connected with human activity. The variety of soil-forming rock materials in several lowland regions with flat terrain results in complex combinations and mosaics of soddy podzols, exhibiting varying degrees of podzolization and the manifestation of alfehumus processes.
The primary factors driving the diversity of soil cover across different lowland areas differ. In regions dominated by clay, the variation in soil cover is influenced by the redistribution of water in microrelief features, while in areas with fluvio-glacial sandy deposits, it is determined by the level of soil moisture. Additionally, the lithological factor significantly impacts soil structure in regions characterized by a mosaic of soil-forming rock materials.
In comparison to other similar territories in the North-West, the geochemical characteristics of the Prinevskaya lowland are marked by a deficiency of Mn, Cu, and Zn in soil-forming rock materials, alongside an accumulation of Sr and Pb in arable horizons.
The geochemical soil characteristics of agricultural areas are primarily influenced by the underlying rock material from which they originate rather than by the extent of cultivation.
The analyzed soils show minimal contamination with trace elements, as confirmed by various individual and complex soil ecotoxicological indicators. Overall, the potential ecological risk across all areas is considered low, suggesting that the soils are in a good toxicological soil state and are currently suitable for agricultural use. An assessment of pollution status indexes (PI, PLI, RI) indicated that the quarry complex poses the highest level of threat. As anthropogenic impacts on the urban environment grow, industrial and agricultural zones are likely to become the most vulnerable areas of the city, primarily due to the low resilience of these soils to external influences.
According to our view, urban development planning in St. Petersburg should prioritize the principles of maximizing biodiversity conservation and protecting soil resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.Y.C. and T.I.N.; methodology, E.Y.C., T.I.N. and N.V.D.; laboratory analysis, E.Y.C., T.I.N. and N.V.D.; field investigation, E.Y.C., T.I.N. and E.V.A.; data curation, E.Y.C., T.I.N. and E.V.A.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Y.C.; writing—review and editing, E.V.A.; visualization, E.Y.C.; supervision, E.V.A.; project administration, E.V.A.; funding acquisition, E.V.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation, in accordance with the agreement from 20 April 2023 No. 23-16-20003, and the Saint Petersburg Scientific Foundation, in accordance with the agreement from 5 May 2023 No. 23-16-20003.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This work is dedicated to the 300th anniversary of Saint Petersburg State University. Our acknowledgments are extended to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive reviews of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yang, J.-L.; Zhang, G.-L. Formation, characteristics and eco-environmental implications of urban soils—A review. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 61, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pouyat, R.V. Urban Soils. In Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States Under Changing Conditions; Pouyat, R., Page-Dumroese, D., Patel-Weynand, T., Geiser, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pavao-Zuckerman, M. The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities. Restor. Ecol. 2008, 16, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schröder, A.; Schloter, M.; Roccotiello, E.; Weisser, W.W.; Schulz, S. Improving ecosystem services of urban soils—How to manage the microbiome of Technosols? Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1460099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Davies, F.T.; Garrett, B. Technology for sustainable urban food ecosystems in the developing world: Strengthening the nexus of food–water–energy–nutrition. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gerasimova, M.I.; Ananko, T.V.; Konyushkov, D.E. Agrogenic soils on the updated version of the soil map of Russia, 1:2.5 M scale: Classification diversity and position in the soil cover. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2023, 56, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Polyakov, V.; Abakumov, E.; Shamilishvily, G.; Chebykina, E.; Lavrishchev, A. Agrosoils in the city of St. Petersburg: Anthropogenic evolution and current state. In Advances in Understanding Soil Degradation. Innovations in Landscape Research; Saljnikov, E., Mueller, L., Lavrishchev, A., Eulenstein, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alekseev, I.; Abakumov, E.; Maksimova, E. Agrochemical state and vertical organization of alluviated soils of Saint Petersburg’s 300th anniversary park, Russia. In Green Technologies and Infrastructure to Enhance Urban Ecosystem Services; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dashko, R.E.; Aleksandrova, O.Y.; Kotyukov, P.V.; Shidlovskaya, A.V. Peculiarities of engineering-geological conditions of St. Petersburg. Urban Dev. Geotech. Constr. Issue 2011, 1, 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  10. Paranin, R.V. Problems of water protection zones of the rivers of the Prineva lowland. Geopolit. Ecogeodynamics Reg. 2023, 9, 299–304. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sheetov, M.V.; Dudanova, V.I.; Ruchkin, M.V.; Shukhvostov, R.S. New data on the quarter of Neva river area: Preliminary results of field work in 2021. Relief Quat. Form. Arct. Subarct. North-West Russ. 2021, 8, 359–364. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bakhmatova, K.A. Agrogenetic Characterisation of Soils of Prinevskaya Lowland. Ph.D. Thesis, St. Petersburg University, St. Petersburg, Russia, 1997; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dolukhanov, P.M.; Subetto, D.A.; Arslanov, K.A.; Davydova, N.N.; Zaitseva, G.I.; Djinoridze, E.N.; Kuznetsov, D.D.; Ludikova, A.V.; Sapelko, T.V.; Savelieva, L.A. The Baltic Sea and Ladoga Lake transgressions and early human migrations in North-western Russia. Quat. Int. 2009, 203, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Subetto, D.A. History of the formation of Lake Ladoga and its connection with the Baltic Sea. Soc. Environ. Dev. (Terra Humana) 2007, 1, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rizpolozhensky, R.R. Description of Petrograd Province in Soil Respect; Printing House of the Imperial University: Kazan, Russia, 1922; p. 126. [Google Scholar]
  16. Prasolov, L.I. Natural Conditions of Agriculture in Petrogradskiy Sub-Stolichniy District. Soils of Shusharskaya Farm; State Publishing House: Petrograd, Russia, 1922; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
  17. Blagovidov, N.L. Soils of the Leningrad Region; Lenizdat: Leningrad, Russia, 1946. [Google Scholar]
  18. Vladimirova, M.N. Changes in the content and composition of humus in heavy loamy sod-podzolic soils at application of high doses of organic fertilisers. Notes Leningr. Agric. Inst. 1973, 206, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pestryakov, V.K. Soils of the Leningrad Region; Lenizdat: Leningrad, Russia, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  20. Orelskaya, N.G. Soddy-Weekly Podzolic Gley Soils of Prinevskaya Lowland and Diagnostics of Their Waterlogging Degree. Ph.D. Thesis, Leningrad State University, Leningrad, Russia, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kozlov, A.V. Moisture and Density Regime of Sod-Podzolic Gley Loamy Soils of Prinevskaya Lowland in the Annual Cycle. Ph.D. Thesis, Leningrad State University, Leningrad, Russia, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  22. Litvinovich, A.B. Changes in the Composition and Properties of Sod-Podzolic Gley Soils and Their Fine Fractions Under Drainage and Long-Term Agricultural Use. Ph.D. Thesis, Leningrad Agricultural Institute, Leningrad, Russia, 1985; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gagarina, E.I.; Matinyan, H.H.; Schastanaya, L.S.; Kasatkina, G.A. Soils and Soil Cover of the North-West of Russia; Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1995; p. 236. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gagarina, E.I.; Shelemina, A.N.; Abakumov, E.V. Ontogenesis of soils on earthen belligerent structures of the Leningrad region. Vestn. St. Petersburg Univ. 2011, 3, 100–107. [Google Scholar]
  25. Administration of the Leningrad Region Committee for Natural Resources of the Leningrad Region. Report on the Environmental Situation in the Leningrad Region in 2023; Publishing house of the Committee for Natural Resources of the Leningrad Region: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2024; p. 216. [Google Scholar]
  26. German, A.V.; Serebritsky, I.A. (Eds.) Report on the Ecological Situation in St. Petersburg in 2023; Publishing House of the Committee for Nature Management of St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2024; p. 221. [Google Scholar]
  27. Vedenin, O.L.; Ksenofontova, V.A. Changes in soil properties of the Leningrad region, under intensive farming. Scientific bases of soil protection of the Leningrad region. Bull. V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Inst. 1986, 38, 3–6. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kashchenko, A.S. Change of fertility indicators of arable soils of the Leningrad region. Bull. V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Inst. 1986, 38, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyuri, D.I.; Nekrich, A.S.; Karelin, D.V. Cropland dynamics in Russia in 1990–2015 and soil emission of carbon dioxide. Bull. Mosc. Univ. Ser. Geogr. 2018, 5, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nefedova, T.G. Main tendencies of changes in the rural space of Russia. Izv. Russ. Acad. Sci. Ser. Geogr. 2012, 3, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  31. Antropov, D.V.; Kirillov, R.A.; Chibirkina, E.A. Trends in the development of agricultural land use in Russia. Int. J. Agric. 2023, 66, 436–440. [Google Scholar]
  32. Franco, M.F.S.; Delgado, E.U.A. Relation of fertilization and the quality of agricultural products. Res. Soc. Dev. 2022, 11, e36311427562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Komarova, A.A.; Lobasenko, B.A.; Pavsky, V.A.; Ivanova, S. Difficulties in determining the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of agricultural land. Afr. J. Bio. Sci. 2024, 6, 9046–9055. [Google Scholar]
  34. Isachenko, A.G.; Dashkevich, Z.V.; Karnaukhova, E.V. Physico-Geographical Zoning of the North-West of the USSR; St. Petersburg University Publishing House: St. Petersburg, Russia, 1965; p. 248. [Google Scholar]
  35. Guryanov, D.A. Variability of Climatic Seasons of the Year and Extreme Characteristics of Air Temperature in St. Petersburg and on the Territory of the Leningrad Region Under the Conditions of Modern Climate Change. Ph.D. Thesis, Russian State Hydrometeorological University (RSHU), St. Petersburg, Russia, 2016; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sidorenko, A.V. (Ed.) Geology of the USSR. Leningrad, Pskov and Novgorod Regions. Part 1. Geological description; Nedra: Moscow, Russia, 1971; Volume 1, p. 504. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ananyev, G.S.; Andreeva, T.S.; Varushchenko, S.I.; Voskresensky, S.S.; Leontiev, O.K.; Lukyanova, S.A.; Spasskaya, I.I.; Spiridonov, A.I.; Ulyanova, N.S. Geomorphological Zoning of the USSR and Adjacent Seas; Vysshaya Shkola: Moscow, Russia, 1980; p. 343. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shishov, L.L.; Tonkonogov, V.D.; Lebedeva, I.I.; Gerasimova, M.I. Classification and Diagnostics of Soils in Russia; Ojkumena: Smolensk, Russia, 2004; p. 342. [Google Scholar]
  39. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Vorobyova, L.A. Theory and Practice of Soil Chemical Analysis; GEOS: Moscow, Russia, 2006; p. 400. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rastvorova, O.G.; Andreev, D.P.; Gagarina, E.I. Soil Chemical Analysis. Workbook; Publishing House of Saint-Petersburg State University: Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 1995; p. 263. [Google Scholar]
  42. GOST R 54650-2011; Soils. Determination of Mobile Compounds of Phosphorus and Potassium Using the Kirsanov Method as Modified by CINAO. The Federal Agency on Technical Regulating and Metrology (GOST R): Moscow, Russia, 2013.
  43. Ananyeva, N.D. Microbiological Aspects of Self-Purification and Soil Stability; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 2003; p. 222. [Google Scholar]
  44. Anderson, J.P.E.; Domsch, K.H. A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1978, 10, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Panova, E.G.; Akhmedov, A.M. Geochemical Indicators of Terrigenous Rocks Genesis: Textbook; St. Petersburg State University: St. Petersburg, Russia, 2011; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
  46. SanPiN 1.2.3685-21; Sanitary Regulations and Standards of Russian Federation. Hygienic Standards and Requirements for Ensuring the Safety and (or) Harmlessness of Habitat Factors to Humans. GOST R: Moscow, Russia, 2021.
  47. Muller, G. Schwermetalle in den Sedimenten des Rheins: Veranderungen seit 1971. Umschau 1979, 79, 778–783. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jiang, F.; Ren, B.; Hursthouse, A.; Deng, R.; Wang, Z. Distribution, source identification, and ecological-health risks of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in soil of thallium mine area (southwestern Guizhou, China). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 16556–16567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Matinyan, N.N.; Reimann, K.; Bakhmatova, K.A.; Rusakov, A.V. Background content of heavy metals and arsenic in arable soils of North-West Russia (based on the materials of the International Geochemical Atlas). Vestn. St.-Petersburg Univ. 2007, 3, 123–134. [Google Scholar]
  50. Taylor, S.R.; McLennan, S.M. The geochemical evolution of the continental crust. Rev. Geophys. 1995, 33, 241–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Neyestani, M.R.; Bastami, K.D.; Esmaeilzadeh, M.; Shemirani, F.; Khazaali, A.; Molamohyeddin, N.; Afkhami, M.; Nourbakhsh, S.; Dehghani, M.; Aghaei, S.; et al. Geochemical speciation, ecological risk assessment of selected metals in the surface sediments of the northern Persian Gulf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tomlinson, D.L.; Wilson, J.G.; Harris, C.R.; Jeffrey, D.W. Problems in the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries, the formation of a pollution index. Helgol. Meeresunters. 1980, 33, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kowalska, J.B.; Mazurek, R.; Gasiorek, M.; Zaleski, T. Pollution indices as useful tools for the comprehensive evaluation of the degree of soil contamination—A review. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018, 40, 2395–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Varol, M. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in sediments of the Tigris River (Turkey) using pollution indices and multivariate statistical techniques. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 195, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hakanson, L. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control—A sedimentological approach. Water Res. 1980, 14, 975–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhu, H.; Yuan, X.; Zeng, G.; Jiang, M.; Liang, J.; Zhang, C.; Yin, J.; Huang, H.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, H. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of Xiawan Port based on modified potential ecological risk index. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2012, 22, 1470–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Muller, G. Index of Geoaccumulation in Sediments of the Rhine River. GeoJournal 1969, 2, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jorfi, S.; Maleki, R.; Jaafarzadeh, N.; Ahmadi, M. Pollution load index for heavy metals in Mian-Ab plain soil, Khuzestan, Iran. Data Brief 2017, 15, 584–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Pozdnyakov, A.I.; Pozdnyakova, L.A.; Pozdnyakova, D.A. Constant Electric Fields in Soils; KMK Scientific Press: Moscow, Russia, 1996; p. 360. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pozdnyakov, A.I. Electrical parameters of soils and pedogenesis. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2008, 10, 1050–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Matinyan, N.N.; Rastvorova, O.G. Anthropogenic dynamics of soil processes on ribbon clays. In Proceedings of the Second Congress of the All-Russian Society of Soil Scientists, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 27–30 June 1996; Volume 2, p. 314. [Google Scholar]
  62. Antsiferova, O.A.; Safonova, D.N. Ecological and hydrological state and productivity of drained soils in the agricultural landscape of the Sambian plain. Agrophysics 2022, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  63. Prudnikova, E.Y.; Savin, I.Y.; Lebedeva, M.P. Transformation of the surface layer in the arable soil horizon under the impact of atmospheric precipitation. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2021, 54, 1770–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Amézquita, E.; Rao, I.; Hoyos, P.; Molina, D.; Chavez, L.; Bernal, J. Development of an arable layer: A key concept for better management of infertile tropical savanna soils. In Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities; Bationo, A., Waswa, B., Kihara, J., Kimetu, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Husson, O. Redox potential (Eh) and pH as drivers of soil/plant/microorganism systems: A transdisciplinary overview pointing to integrative opportunities for agronomy. Plant Soil 2013, 362, 389–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sharma, P.; Chouhan, R.; Bakshi, P.; Gandhi, S.G.; Kaur, R.; Sharma, A.; Bhardwaj, R. Amelioration of chromium-induced oxidative stress by combined treatment of selected plant-growth-promoting Rhizobacteria and earthworms via modulating the expression of genes related to reactive oxygen species metabolism in Brassica juncea. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 802512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abirami, R.; Jothimani, S.; Leninraja, D. Mechanism of redox reaction in soil chemistry. Biol. Forum—Int. J. 2023, 15, 1317–1321. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwertmann, U. Occurrence and formation of iron oxides in various pedoenvironments. In Iron in Soils and Clay Minerals; Stucki, J.W., Goodman, B.A., Schwertmann, U., Eds.; NATO ASI Series; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988; Volume 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Han, J.; Kim, M.; Ro, H.M. Factors modifying the structural configuration of oxyanions and organic acids adsorbed on iron (hydr)oxides in soils. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 631–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wen, Y.; Xiao, J.; Goodman, B.A.; He, X. Effects of organic amendments on the transformation of Fe (oxyhydr)oxides and soil organic carbon storage. Front. Earth Sci. 2019, 7, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Korotkov, A.A. Humus substances in sod-podzolic soils. Notes Leningr. Agric. Inst. 1970, 142, 198–213. [Google Scholar]
  72. Abakumov, E.V. Elemental composition and structural features of humic substances in young podzols developed on sand quarry dumps. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2009, 42, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Brocka, O.; Kalbitza, K.; Absalaha, S.; Jansena, B. Effects of development stage on organic matter transformation in Podzols. Geoderma 2020, 378, 114625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Leonicheva, E.V.; Stolyarov, M.E.; Roeva, T.A. The effect of soil nutrition and foliar fertilizers on the soil potassium regime and potassium status of apple trees in a rainfed Orchard. Moscow Univ. Soil Sci. Bull. 2024, 79, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Soumare, A.; Sarr, D.; Diédhiou, A.G. Potassium sources, microorganisms and plant nutrition: Challenges and future research directions. Pedosphere 2023, 33, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kabata-Pendias, A.; Mukherjee, A.B. Trace Elements from Soil to Human; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lavado, R.S.; Rodríguez, M.B.; Scheiner, J.D.; Taboada, M.A.; Rubio, G.; Alvarez, R.; Alconada, M.; Zubillaga, M.S. Heavy metals in soils of Argentina: Comparison between urban and agricultural soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 1913–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Matinyan, N.N.; Gagarina, E.I.; Schastnaya, L.S.; Saprykin, F.Y.; Kulachkova, A.F. Geochemical characterization of the soil cover of the North-West of the Non-Black Earth Zone of the RSFSR. Bull. Pushkin Leningr. State Univ. 1985, 10, 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  79. Dudás, F.Ö.; Zhang, H.; Shen, S.-Z.; Bowring, S.A. Major and trace element geochemistry of the permian-triassic boundary section at Meishan, South China. Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 9, 637102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dupla, X.; Möller, B.; Baveye, P.C.; Grand, S. Potential accumulation of toxic trace elements in soils during enhanced rock weathering. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2023, 74, e13343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Atafar, Z.; Mesdaghinia, A.; Nouri, J.; Homaee, M.; Yunesian, M.; Ahmadimoghaddam, M.; Mahvi, A.H. Effect of fertilizer application on soil heavy metal concentration. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Srivastava, V.; Sarkar, A.; Singh, S.; Singh, P.; de Araujo, A.S.F.; Singh, R.P. Agroecological responses of heavy metal pollution with special emphasis on soil health and plant performances. Front. Environ. Sci. 2017, 5, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pogrzeba, M.; Rusinowski, S.; Krzyżak, J. Macroelements and heavy metals content in energy crops cultivated on contaminated soil under different fertilization—Case studies on autumn harvest. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 12096–12106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Shahid, M.; Shukla, A.K.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Tripathi, R.; Mohanty, S.; Kumar, A.; Lal, B.; Gautam, P.; Raja, R.; Panda, B.B.; et al. Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) balance under long-term application of fertilizer and manure in a tropical rice-rice system. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 16, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Agapkina, G.I.; Chikov, P.A.; Shelepchikov, A.A.; Brodskii, E.S.; Feshin, D.B.; Bukhanko, N.G.; Balashova, S.P. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils of Moscow. Mosc. Univ. Soil Sci. Bull. 2007, 62, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 00186 g001
Figure 1. Prinevskaya lowland (marked with green shading).
Figure 1. Prinevskaya lowland (marked with green shading).
Land 14 00186 g001
Land 14 00186 g002
Figure 2. Map of studied plots and soil pits within the Prinevskaya lowland.
Figure 2. Map of studied plots and soil pits within the Prinevskaya lowland.
Land 14 00186 g002
Land 14 00186 g003
Figure 3. Sampling sites and soil profiles. Number of studying plots is given according to Figure 2.
Figure 3. Sampling sites and soil profiles. Number of studying plots is given according to Figure 2.
Land 14 00186 g003
Land 14 00186 g004
Figure 4. Electrical resistivity (ER, Ωm) of studied soils. Numbers indicate number of soil plots described in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Figure 4. Electrical resistivity (ER, Ωm) of studied soils. Numbers indicate number of soil plots described in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Land 14 00186 g004
Land 14 00186 g005
Figure 5. Variation of trace metals concentrations in studied soils s: (a)—forest soils; (b)—industrial soils; (c)—agricultural and fallow soils.
Figure 5. Variation of trace metals concentrations in studied soils s: (a)—forest soils; (b)—industrial soils; (c)—agricultural and fallow soils.
Land 14 00186 g005
Land 14 00186 g006
Figure 6. Single pollution index (PI) in studied soils according to LULC: blue color—forest soils; red color—agricultural and fallow soils; green color—industrial soils.
Figure 6. Single pollution index (PI) in studied soils according to LULC: blue color—forest soils; red color—agricultural and fallow soils; green color—industrial soils.
Land 14 00186 g006
Land 14 00186 g007
Figure 7. Heavy metal content relative to MPC in studied soils according to LULC: blue color—forest soils; red color—agricultural and fallow soils; green color—industrial soils.
Figure 7. Heavy metal content relative to MPC in studied soils according to LULC: blue color—forest soils; red color—agricultural and fallow soils; green color—industrial soils.
Land 14 00186 g007
Table 2. Characteristics of studied soils.
Table 2. Characteristics of studied soils.
LULCNumber of Study Plot *Horizon, Depth, cmSoil Moisture Content, %pHH2OpHKClCtotal, %Basal Respiration, µgC-CO2/g Per hourK2O, mg/kgParticle Size Distribution
Forest1AYe 0–101.606.33.91.741.6236.9Sandy loam
AYe 10–151.005.63.91.132.5539.1Sandy loam
BF 15–441.134.94.50.481.1429.0Sandy loam
C 44–801.106.35.80.19-12.6Medium-grained sand
Forest2AУ 0–186.625.43.51.902.3767.1Coarse sandy loam
BF 18–404.625.23.71.201.1225.2Coarse sandy loam
Cff 40–803.335.53.50.240.7322.6Coarse sandy loam
Agricultural and fallow3P1 0–2510.985.4-2.551.28111.8Light loam
P2 25–425.795.75.41.120.45206.8Medium coarse loam
Cff 42–753.036.25.30.050.04177.1Sandy loam
Industrial40–652.505.2-0.831.12450.1Medium silty clay
65–750.755.84.30.301.1828.5Light loam
75–800.225.84.40.070.4226.3Fine-grained sand
80–850.765.44.40.230.8750.1Sandy loam
85–1101.515.34.41.191.24117.8Fine clay
Rock material (cambrian clay)2.785.8-0.36-571.4Fine clay
Agricultural and fallow5PY1 0–254.786.25.62.491.37110.2Medium coarse loam
PУ 25–404.795.95.12.180.69119.4Medium coarse loam
BEL 40–654.056.15.30.671.5415.4Fine loam
C 65–8011.155.84.70.120.0446.8Medium coarse loam
C 80–1103.266.25.50.180.5433.1Light clay
Industrial60–53.466.0-0.441.36426.0Medium coarse loam
5–251.016.2-0.300.9479.9Sandy loam
25–451.046.1-0.381.15108.6Sandy loam
Agricultural and fallow7AEL 0–2013.546.04.94.941.4670.4Medium coarse loam
EL 20–351.795.53.80.570.8779.3Light clay
BEL 35–752.875.13.90.190.4166.2Medium silty clay
Agricultural and fallow8AYe,pa 0–2521.684.93.110.612.27112.0Medium coarse loam
C 25–601.126.44.20.120.869.1Medium-grained sand
D 60–10010.495.84.30.15-12.5Medium-grained sand
Agricultural and fallow9P 0–276.765.54.68.072.8958.4Light loam
C 27–502.886.24.90.130.128.9Sandy loam
D 50–1100.805.84.70.180.0420.6Sandy loam
Agricultural and fallow10AYpa 0–253.626.24.11.492.2194.6Medium-grained sand
BF 25–350.985.94.80.220.0821.9Sandy loam
BC 35–531.805.84.30.310.6727.4Light loam
C 53–901.256.14.60.240.4624.8Fine loam
Post hoc test Forest–Agricultural–Industrial0.20p << 0.050.14p << 0.05p << 0.05p << 0.05
Significance of differencesInsign.Sign.Insign.Sign.Sign.Sign.
* Numbers indicate No. of soil plots described in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Table 3. Trace elements content in soils of Prinevskaya lowland, mg/kg.
Table 3. Trace elements content in soils of Prinevskaya lowland, mg/kg.
Trace ElementMeanMaxMinCVSD
Sr180.0242.016.024.844.6
Pb22.557.01.041.89.4
As7.513.05.023.11.7
Zn47.3132.06.059.428.1
Cu<0.10<0.10<0.100.00.0
Ni21.172.04.065.413.8
Co10.031.00.059.96.0
Fe2O3, %3.06.90.948.81.4
MnO591.81839.0115.066.2392.0
Cr65.3176.032.046.830.6
V61.1133.06.052.932.3
TiO2, %0.61.00.238.40.2
Table 4. Qualitative assessment of contamination in studied soils. No. of study plots indicate number of soil plots described in Figure 2 and Figure 3 and correspond to Table 2.
Table 4. Qualitative assessment of contamination in studied soils. No. of study plots indicate number of soil plots described in Figure 2 and Figure 3 and correspond to Table 2.
LULCNo. of Study PlotZc I g e o PLIRI
ValuePollution StatusValuePollution StatusValuePollution StatusValuePotential Ecological Risk
Forest14.49Permissible0Absence0.99Absence 36.44Low
Forest28.41Permissible0–1Unpolluted to moderately polluted1.63Low45.64Low
Agricultural and fallow38.47Permissible0–1Unpolluted to moderately polluted1.78Low56.80Low
Industrial416.33Moderately dangerous1–2Moderately polluted2.00Moderate75.59Low
Agricultural and fallow512.40Permissible0–1Unpolluted to moderately polluted1.56Low63.21Low
Industrial620.74Moderately dangerous1–2Moderately polluted2.85Moderate90.51Moderate
Agricultural and fallow77.47Permissible0–1Unpolluted to moderately polluted1.56Low46.53Low
Agricultural and fallow83.77Permissible0Absence 0.84Absence 51.09Low
Agricultural and fallow94.93Permissible0Absence1.40Low39.11Low
Agricultural and fallow105.09Permissible0Absence1.43Low42.66Low
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chebykina, E.Y.; Nizamutdinov, T.I.; Abakumov, E.V.; Dinkelaker, N.V. Edaphic Diversity, Polychemical Soil Status of the Prinevskaya Lowland and Prospects for Soils Use. Land 2025, 14, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010186

AMA Style

Chebykina EY, Nizamutdinov TI, Abakumov EV, Dinkelaker NV. Edaphic Diversity, Polychemical Soil Status of the Prinevskaya Lowland and Prospects for Soils Use. Land. 2025; 14(1):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chebykina, Ekaterina Yu., Timur I. Nizamutdinov, Evgeny V. Abakumov, and Natalia V. Dinkelaker. 2025. "Edaphic Diversity, Polychemical Soil Status of the Prinevskaya Lowland and Prospects for Soils Use" Land 14, no. 1: 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010186

APA Style

Chebykina, E. Y., Nizamutdinov, T. I., Abakumov, E. V., & Dinkelaker, N. V. (2025). Edaphic Diversity, Polychemical Soil Status of the Prinevskaya Lowland and Prospects for Soils Use. Land, 14(1), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010186

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop