The impact of agricultural activity on soil phytotoxicity: The choice of bioindicators

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background. The study is devoted to the assessment of phytotoxicity of soils affected by agricultural activities by the method of bioindication. The main objective is to select the most sensitive bioindicator for the determination of phytotoxicity in agricultural soils. It was found that cruciferous crops, Brassica napus (rapeseed), Lepidium sativum (watercress), are the most sensitive to contamination, demonstrating a decrease in germination to 24% and phytomass to 0.13-0.62 g, while barley showed a germination resistance of 70-100%. Cases of latent phytotoxicity have been identified with preserved germination, but inhibition of root growth. The results confirm the effectiveness of the method and the need for an integrated approach using several bioindicators.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to select the most sensitive bioindicator for determining the phytotoxicity of agricultural soils.

Materials and methods. To assess the phytotoxicity of soils, samples were taken from the DSTU training ground. The main series included 4 arable samples (n=4), selected by the envelope method from a depth of 0-20 cm according to GOST 17.4.4.02-2017. The control sample was taken from the adjacent forest belt (n=1). Each combined sample weighing 1 kg was formed from 5-point samples. Four test crops were used: radish (Raphanus sativus L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and watercress (Lepidium sativum L.). 3 analytical replications in Petri dishes were prepared for each sample and culture. Incubation was carried out for 10 days. The following parameters were evaluated: germination (%), germination energy (%), length of shoots and roots (mm), crude phytomass (g). Statistical data processing was performed with the calculation of average values and standard deviation for each sample and test culture.

Results. The results have shown a significant inhibition of the test plant growth in contaminated samples, which resulted in a decrease in key indicators by 24-92% compared with the control. Cruciferous crops (rapeseed and watercress) showed the greatest sensitivity, with a sharp decrease in germination to 24%, germination energy to 1.0, and phytomass to 0.13-0.62 g. At the same time, barley has demonstrated relative stability, maintaining germination at the level of 70-100%, which confirms the need to use several bioindicators for a comprehensive assessment.

Conclusion. During the study, it was found that agricultural activity in the field under study led to the formation of phytotoxicity of the soil, manifested in the suppression of sensitive cruciferous crops (rapeseed, watercress) and the radish root system. Rapeseed and watercress are highly sensitive bioindicators for monitoring. The revealed heterogeneity of phytotoxicity requires a differentiated approach to assessing soil conditions. The conducted studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the phytoindication method for assessing the phytotoxicity of soils exposed to agrogenic effects.

About the authors

Polina A. Dubnitskaya

Don State Technical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: polinadubnitskaya@yandex.ru

student

 

Russian Federation, 1, Gagarin Sq., 1, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation

Victoria S. Ligacheva

Don State Technical University

Email: Ligacheva_V01@mail.ru

student

 

Russian Federation, 1, Gagarin Sq., 1, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation

Elizaveta A. Mun

Don State Technical University

Email: munelizavetaa@mail.ru

student

 

Russian Federation, 1, Gagarin Sq., 1, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation

Andrey G. Polyakov

Don State Technical University

Email: ag.polyakov@mail.ru

student

 

Russian Federation, 1, Gagarin Sq., 1, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation

Mary Yu. Odabashyan

Don State Technical University

Email: modabashyan@donstu.ru

PhD, Deputy Dean of the Faculty of “Agroindustrial”, Associate Professor of the Department of “Technologies and Equipment for processing products of the Agroindustrial complex”

 

Russian Federation, 1, Gagarin Sq., 1, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation

References

  1. Pakharkova, N. V., & Shashkova, T. L. (2020). Biological monitoring of the environment: Methodological guidelines for seminars and independent student work [Educational and methodological manual]. Siberian Federal University, 62 p.
  2. Terekhova, V. A. (2011). Soil biotesting: Approaches and problems. Eurasian Soil Science, 2, 190–198. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/NDJDRT
  3. Mamontov, V. G., Panov, N. P., & Ignatiev, N. N. (2015). General soil science [Textbook]. KNORUS, 538 p.
  4. Maksimova, N. B., Morkovkin, G. G., & Lavrentieva, A. (2003). Assessment of soil toxicity and pollution using phytotoxicity methods. Bulletin of Altai State Agricultural University, 2.
  5. Kovalenko, L. V. (1993). Ecological assessment of the use of chemical plant protection products in crop cultivation within crop rotation on soddy-podzolic heavy loamy soil [PhD thesis abstract in agricultural sciences: 03.00.16], 42 p.
  6. Privalova, N. M., Protsay, A. A., Litvinenko, Yu. F., Marchenko, L. A., & Pankov, V. A. Determination of phytotoxicity using the seedling method. Kuban State Technological University.
  7. Svistova, I. D. Methodological approaches to determining phytotoxic activity of soil and soil microorganisms [Doctoral dissertation].
  8. Tepper, E. Z., Shilnikova, V. K., & Pereverzeva, G. I. (2004). Practicum on microbiology. Drofa, 246 p.
  9. Bardina, T. V., & Bardina, V. I. Ecological monitoring of soil in quarry areas within the Neva River catchment using phytotesting methods.
  10. Lisovitskaya, O. V., & Terekhova, V. A. (2010). Phytotesting: Key approaches, laboratory method challenges, and modern solutions. Reports on Ecological Soil Science, 13(1), 1–18.
  11. Ananyeva, Yu. S., & Davydov, A. S. (2009). Ecological assessment of wastewater sludge impact on soil via phytotesting. Bulletin of Altai State Agricultural University, 8(58), 38–40.
  12. Evstifeeva, T. A., & Fabarisova, L. G. (2012). Biological monitoring [Textbook]. Orenburg State University, 119 p.
  13. Vasilchenko, A. V. (2017). Soil ecological monitoring [Textbook]. Orenburg State University, 281 p. ISBN 978-5-7410-1815-6
  14. Baglaeva, E., Rakhmatova, A., & Kramarenko, A. (2016). Bioindication of Shartashsky Forest Park urban soil in Yekaterinburg using Raphanus sativus. Principles of Ecology, 18, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.15393/j1.art.2016.4762
  15. Bhaduri, D., Sihi, D., Bhowmik, A., Verma, B. C., Munda, S., & Dari, B. (2022). A review on effective soil health bio-indicators for ecosystem restoration and sustainability. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.938481
  16. Li, L., Fan, Z., Gan, Q., Xiao, G., Luan, M., Zhu, R., & Zhang, Z. (2024). Conservative mechanism through various rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) varieties respond to heavy metal (cadmium, lead, arsenic) stress. Frontiers in Plant Science, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1521075
  17. Gupta, A., Sharma, T., Singh, S. P., Bhardwaj, A., Srivastava, D., & Kumar, R. (2023). Prospects of microgreens as budding living functional food: Breeding and biofortification through OMICS and other approaches for nutritional security. Frontiers in Genetics, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1053810

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).