IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i11p1185-d672237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Soil-like Materials for Ecosystem Services Provided by Constructed Technosols

Author

Listed:
  • Kristina Ivashchenko

    (Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, 142290 Pushchino, Russia
    Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Emanuela Lepore

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia
    Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems DIBAF, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Viacheslav Vasenev

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia
    Soil Geography and Landscape Group, Wageningen University, 6700 Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Nadezhda Ananyeva

    (Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, 142290 Pushchino, Russia)

  • Sofiya Demina

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Fluza Khabibullina

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Inna Vaseneva

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

  • Alexandra Selezneva

    (Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, 142290 Pushchino, Russia)

  • Andrey Dolgikh

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia
    Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119017 Moscow, Russia)

  • Sofia Sushko

    (Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, 142290 Pushchino, Russia
    Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia
    Agrophysical Research Institute, 195220 Saint-Petersburg, Russia)

  • Sara Marinari

    (Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems DIBAF, University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Elvira Dovletyarova

    (Department of Landscape Design and Sustainable Ecosystems, Agrarian-Technological Institute, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 117198 Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

Urbanization results to a wide spread of Technosols. Various materials are used for Technosols’ construction with a limited attention to their ecosystem services or disservices. The research focuses on the integral assessment of soil-like materials used for Technosols’ construction in Moscow megalopolis from the ecosystem services’ perspective. Four groups of materials (valley peats, sediments, cultural layers, and commercial manufactured soil mixtures) were assessed based on the indicators, which are integral, informative, and cost-effective. Microbial respiration, C-availability, specific respiration, community level physiological profile, and Shannon’ diversity index in the materials were compared to the natural reference to assess and rank the ecosystem services and disservices. The assessment showed that sediments and low-peat mixtures (≤30% of peat in total volume) had a considerably higher capacity to provide C-sequestration, climate regulation and functional diversity services compared to peats and high-peat mixtures. Urban cultural layers provided ecosystem disservices due to pollution by potentially toxic elements and health risks from the pathogenic fungi. Mixtures comprising from the sediments with minor (≤30%) peat addition would have a high potential to increase C-sequestration and to enrich microbial functional diversity. Their implementation in urban landscaping will reduce management costs and increase sustainability of urban soils and ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristina Ivashchenko & Emanuela Lepore & Viacheslav Vasenev & Nadezhda Ananyeva & Sofiya Demina & Fluza Khabibullina & Inna Vaseneva & Alexandra Selezneva & Andrey Dolgikh & Sofia Sushko & Sara Marina, 2021. "Assessing Soil-like Materials for Ecosystem Services Provided by Constructed Technosols," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:11:p:1185-:d:672237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/11/1185/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/11/1185/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nurgul Kitir & Ertan Yildirim & Ustun Sahin & Metin Turan & Melek Ekinci & Selda Ors & Raziye Kul & Halime Unlu & Husnu Unlu, 2018. "Peat Use in Horticulture," Chapters, in: Bulent Topcuoglu & Metin Turan (ed.), Peat, IntechOpen.
    2. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    2. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    3. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    6. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Sirakaya, Aysegül & Cliquet, An & Harris, Jim, 2018. "Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 205-212.
    9. Zengzeng Fan & Yuanyang Wang & Yanchao Feng, 2021. "Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    11. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    12. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    13. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Shunqian Gao & Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Changes in and Patterns of the Tradeoffs and Synergies of Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longli County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Jorge H. Amorim & Magnuz Engardt & Christer Johansson & Isabel Ribeiro & Magnus Sannebro, 2021. "Regulating and Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Nordic Countries: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-19, January.
    17. Park, Mi Sun & Shin, Seongmin & Lee, Haeun, 2021. "Media frames on urban greening in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    18. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    19. Christoph Schneider & Bianca Achilles & Hendrik Merbitz, 2014. "Urbanity and Urbanization: An Interdisciplinary Review Combining Cultural and Physical Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, January.
    20. Berglihn, Elisabeth Cornelia & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Ecosystem services from urban forests: The case of Oslomarka, Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:11:p:1185-:d:672237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.