Emission of Methane from the Soils of Rostov Oblast

7 Pages·0.164 MB·English

by  Gar’kusha D.N., Fedorova Yu.A., and Tambieva N.S.

ISSN 2079(cid:2)0961, Arid Ecosystems, 2011, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 223–229. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.
Original Russian Text © D.N. Gar’kusha, Yu.A. Fedorov, N.S. Tambieva, 2011, published in Aridnye Ekosistemy, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 4(49), pp. 36–44.
SYSTEMATIC STUDY
OF ARID TERRITORIES
Emission of Methane from the Soils of Rostov Oblast
D. N. Gar’kushaa, b, Yu. A. Fedorova, and N. S. Tambievab
a Geology(cid:2)Geographical Faculty, Southern Federal University, ul. R. Zorge 40, Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)Don, Russia
e(cid:2)mail: [email protected]
b Hydrochemical Institute, pr. Stachki 198, Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)Don, Russia
Received February 15, 2010
Abstract—The results of field experiments on the determination of methane emission and its concentration
in the principal types of steppe zone soils of Rostov oblast are presented. The concentration of methane in
the soils varied from less than 0.01 up to 15.1 µg/g of wet weight, and its vertical distribution was characterized
by a decreasing concentration from the surface to the lower soil layers. The maximum quantities of the gas
were detected in the alluvial meadow chernozem soils, while the minimum values were found in the dark(cid:2)
chestnut and chestnut soils, as well as in the saline soils. The rate of methane emission varied from less than
0.1 up to 1.5 mg/m2 per diem, and it correlated with the methane concentration in the superficial soil layer.
The total methane emission from the soils of Rostov oblast is 16 tons per diem, with most of this quantity
(66.8%) provided by the chernozem soils.
Keywords: Steppe zone, soils, methane, concentration, distribution, emission.
DOI: 10.1134/S2079096111040056
INTRODUCTION ied, and experimental measurements of methane
emission into the atmosphere were carried out.
The explanation and prognosis of climatic changes
connected with the increase in concentration of green(cid:2)
house gases in the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide MATERIALS AND METHODS
and methane, are considered among the most challeng(cid:2)
The level of methane and its distribution over the
ing tasks of contemporary science. At present, the mech(cid:2)
soil profile were studied in the following soils most
anisms of formation and distribution of the methane(cid:2)
typical of Rostov oblast: common and southern cher(cid:2)
generating zones are not fully understood. In particular,
nozems, meadow chernozem, dark(cid:2)chestnut and
the quantity of methane formation and emission by soils
chestnut soils on the watersheds, alluvial meadow
is not well studied. There are a lot of data concerning the
chernozem soils in the high(cid:2)water beds, and saline
methane flow from wetland soils and swamps of the tun(cid:2)
soils.
dra and taiga, which on average comprise about
Experimental measurements of methane emission
100mg/m2 per diem (up to 1000 mg/m2 per diem) (Slo(cid:2)
into the atmosphere were carried out in summer and
bodkin et al., 1992; Panikov, 1995; Desyatkov et al.,
fall of 2008 from the surface of common chernozems
1998; Gal’chenko et al., 2001; Novikov et al., 2004;
on the tilled and matted areas, meadow chernozem
Berestovskaya et al., 2005; Sergeeva, Zadorozhnaya,
soils on the watersheds, and alluvial meadow cher(cid:2)
2006; Glagolev et al., 2008; Bartlett et al., 1992; Fan
nozem soils in the high(cid:2)water bed of the Mertvy
etal., 1992; Roulet et al., 1992), as well as the flow from
Donets (the delta of the Don) in September, October,
dry regions of tundra and taiga that, on an average,
and November at air temperatures of 26, 12, and 5°C,
makes up about 7.0 mg/m2 per diem (up to 14.4 mg/m2
respectively. In addition to methane concentration
per diem) (Bartlett et al., 1992; Fan et al., 1992). How(cid:2)
and emission, the humidity and density of the upper
ever, despite the experimentally proven fact of the pro(cid:2)
humus accumulative soil horizon were estimated.
cess of methanogenesis in the steppe zone soils
Experiments and collection of the soil samples
(Minko, 1991), natural measurements of methane
were performed in accordance with the previously
flows in such soils have hardly been performed, which
described method (Fedorov et al., 2007). To estimate
does not allow adequate assessment of the superficial
the concentration of methane, pits were dug in the soil
soil contribution to global methane emission.
profile; from their walls, 3 ml of soil were collected
Based on the aforesaid, our study dealt with natural from different horizons with a measuring apparatus
observations aimed at assessing the methane concen(cid:2) and transferred into a standard 42 ml flask filled to the
tration in the principal soil types of Rostov oblast. mark with distilled water containing a preservative
Methane distribution within the soil profile was stud(cid:2) (fixed water volume was 5 ml). The flasks were adapted
223
224 GAR’KUSHA et al.
100
15.1
10
oil
s
et 1 0.72
w
of
/g 0.12
µg 0.1 0.07
, 4 0.04 0.08 0.03
H 0.02
0.02 0.02
C
0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.001
Common Southern Meadow Alluvial Dark(cid:2) Chestnut Saline
chernozem chernozemchernozem meadow chestnut soils soils
soils on the chernozem soils
watershed soils in the
high(cid:2)water
beds
Fig. 1. The limits of the variation and median of methane content in the upper 0–2 cm soil horizon of Rostov oblast (aggregated
data for all periods of observation).
for vapor(cid:2)phase analysis and equipped with screw(cid:2)on the rate of methane concentration change in the
plastic lids with holes for needle introduction, as well chamber:
as rubber and fluorine plastic inserts for hermetic seal(cid:2) F = M × 10000/ST,
ing. After hermetization, the sample was vigorously
where F is the flow intensity, mg/m2 per h; M is the
shaken to make it homogenous, in order to avoid
mass of methane in the air volume in the trap, mg; S is
methane formation and oxidation. Simultaneously,
the area of the trap mouth, cm2; T is the time of trap
the same volume of soil was collected in order to esti(cid:2)
exposure, h; and 10000 is the coefficient to recalculate
mate its wet weight and recalculate the content of
methane in µg/g soil. data in m2.
A sublimate solution (HgCl ) was used as a preser(cid:2)
Methane emission from the soil surface was esti(cid:2) 2
vative. Storage and transportation of the sample(cid:2)con(cid:2)
mated by direct measurement of its flow by the cham(cid:2)
taining flasks were performed according to the previ(cid:2)
ber method, using accumulating chamber traps
ously described methodology (Fedorov et al., 2007).
(Fedorov et al., 2008). Chambers were made of cylin(cid:2)
Gas chromatographic analysis of methane content was
drical plastic flasks with an inner diameter of 160 mm.
carried out in the laboratory of the Hydrochemical
The mouth was covered by a plastic lid with a hole for
Institute by the method of phase(cid:2)equilibrium degasa(cid:2)
sampling, with a tight elastic rubber pad preliminarily
tion using a Tsvet(cid:2)100 chromatograph with a flame(cid:2)
inserted into the lid for hermetic sealing. The side sur(cid:2)
ionizing detector and a vapor(cid:2)phase analysis device
face of flasks was labeled with a mark corresponding to
with pneumatic dosing. The lower limit for methane
300 cm3. detection in soil is 0.01 µg/g of wet soil. Total error is
Before the measurement, the chamber was settled 5–10%. Humidity, density, and weight of the soil were
on the soil surface so that it sank into the soil (with the determined with an MA 30 (Sartorius) humidity ana(cid:2)
help of a knife) to the necessary mark; the lid was left lyzer equipped with a weighing system with a division
open for 20–30 min in order to release the methane value of 1 mg and measurement error of 0.05%.
that was pushed out of the soil during the immersion of
the chamber. After that the mouth of the chamber was
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
closed with the lid, through which 2 ml of air were
withdrawn with a syringe in 24 h. The collected gas The content of methane in the soils varied from
samples were introduced into standard(cid:2)type glass <0.01 to 15.1 µg CH /g (Tables 1, 2). The maximal
4
flasks filled with water containing a preservative for concentration of methane was revealed in alluvial
vapor(cid:2)phase analysis. Methane flow was calculated by meadow chernozem soils (Fig. 1), which are charac(cid:2)
ARID ECOSYSTEMS Vol. 1 No. 4 2011
EMISSION OF METHANE FROM THE SOILS OF ROSTOV OBLAST 225
Table 1. The distribution of methane content within the soil profile (2008)
Collection CH content
No. Location of the station and soil Horizon of the sample 4
date mg/g
1 July Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)Don, botanic garden. Common chernozem, car(cid:2) 0–12 0.02
bonate chernozem, strong chernozem, loam soil on hard
12–40 0.01
loess(cid:2)type loam soil
40–65 <0.01
65–85 <0.01
85–105 <0.01
105–132 <0.01
132–150 <0.01
2 Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)Don, botanic garden. Meadow chernozem, car(cid:2) 0–12 0.72
bonate(cid:2)loam soil on hard loess(cid:2)type loam soil.
12–30 0.05
30–60 0.02
From 60 to groundwaters <0.01
3 Chumbur(cid:2)Kosa. Carbonate saline soil on alluvial–deluvial 0–3 <0.01
deposits
3–25 <0.01
25–40 <0.01
<0.01–0.04
4 Semikarakorsk. Southern chernozem. Hard loam soil 0–2 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
0.02(4)
<0.01–0.03
5 August Proletarsk, plowed field. Dark(cid:2)chestnut hard loam soil 0–2 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
0.01(4)
<0.01–0.02
6 Zimovniki, plowed field. Chestnut hard loam soil. 0–2 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
0.01(4)
7 Rogozhkino. Alluvial meadow chernozem soils 0–2 10.5
3–15 10.3
<0.01–0.02
8 September Elkin. Carbonate saline soils 0–2 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)
0.01(4)
9 Manychskaya. Alluvial meadow chernozem soils 0–2 0.07
2–5 0.04
5–10 0.01
10 Bagaevskaya. Alluvial meadow chernozem soils 0–2 0.12
2–5 <0.01
Note: Hereafter, a hyphen means that measurements were not performed; numerator corresponds to the limits of changes; denominator corre(cid:2)
sponds to the median value; number of measurements is given in brackets.
terized by high humidity. Minimal concentrations of Values of methane emission from soil to atmo(cid:2)
methane were found in the dark(cid:2)chestnut and chest(cid:2) sphere were shown to vary from <0.1 to 1.5 mg
nut soils, as well as in saline soils. Higher concentra(cid:2) CH /m2 per diem (Table 2), which is significantly
4
tions of methane were observed in matted soils than in lower than the intensity of its emission by bogged soils
tilled ones. The distribution of methane within the soil and comparable to the minimal methane flows of dry
profile was typically characterized by a decrease in its tundra soils (Slobodkin et al., 1992; Desyatkov et al.,
concentration from the surface to the bottom horizons 1998; Gal’chenko et al., 2001; Berestovskaya et al.,
down to values lower than the detection limit, which is 2005; Sergeeva, Zadorozhnaya, 2006; Glagolev et al.,
mainly due to a decrease in lability of the soil organic 2008; Fedorov et al., 2008; Bartlett et al., 1992; Fan
matter. etal., 1992; Roulet et al., 1992). The maximal emis(cid:2)
ARID ECOSYSTEMS Vol. 1 No. 4 2011
226 GAR’KUSHA et al.
Table 2. Humidity and density of the upper humus/humus(cid:2)accumulative soil horizon, and the content of methane and its emis(cid:2)
sion into the atmosphere
Horizon CH content CH emission,
Soils Collection date Humidity, % Density, g/cm3 4 4
of the sample mg/g mg/m2 per diem
Plowed field. September 6 0–2 21.11 2.7 0.02 0.9
Common chernozem,
5–10 21.01 2.2 0.02
hard loam soil
10–15 21.42 2.6 0.01
October 6 0–2 23.92 2.4 <0.01 <0.1
November 9 0–2 24.41 2.3 <0.01 <0.1
Matted plowed field. September 6 0–2 14.68 2.0 0.07 1.5
Common chernozem,
5–10 19.67 2.4 0.04
hard loam soil
10–15 19.47 2.4 0.03
October 6 0–2 20.15 2.0 0.02 <0.1
November 9 0–2 22.39 2.1 <0.01 <0.1
Tree(cid:2)planting. September 6 0–2 23.92 2.2 0.14 0.7
Meadow chernozem
5–10 19.69 2.3 0.02
soils on the watershed
10–15 17.11 2.4 0.02
October 6 0–2 24.56 2.1 0.02 0.2
November 9 0–2 24.60 2.1 0.02 0.2
Mertvy Donets high(cid:2) September 6 0–2 25.12 2.0 15.1 0.8
water bed. Alluvial
5–10 22.03 2.1 0.06
meadow chernozem
soils 10–15 20.36 2.2 0.02
October 6 0–2 25.34 2.0 0.09 0.4
November 9 0–2 25.17 2.0 0.07 0.2
December 18 0–2 – – 0.01 –
5–10 – – 0.01
10–15 – – 0.01
Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)Don, September 6 0–2 17.90 2.3 0.02 1.0
botanic garden.
5–10 16.77 2.5 0.03
Common chernozem,
hard loam soil 10–15 16.18 2.4 0.02
October 6 0–2 17.89 2.2 0.07 0.5
November 9 0–2 20.83 2.1 0.01 <0.1
sion rate (1.5 mg/m2 per diem) was revealed in matted tom deposits and its flow from them (Fedotov et al.,
chernozems, with minimal values observed in tilled 2007). The data obtained by the authors closely
chernozems. approach the approximating curve if they are plotted
on the graph presented by Fedorov et al. (2007), which
An obvious downward trend in methane emission
represents the dependence of methane flow on its con(cid:2)
from soil to atmosphere was observed, along with an
centration in bottom deposits (Fig. 2). Moreover, the
air temperature decrease, which is also typical for the
data obtained in studies of peat deposits of the Ilass
dynamics of its concentration in soils. On the whole, a
strong correlation was observed between the level of swamps of Arkhangelsk oblast (Fedorov et al., 2008)
methane in the 0–2 cm soil horizon and its flow into closely approach this curve, as well. This is considered
the atmosphere (r = 0.69, P < 0.01). A series of natural evidence that the equation presented by Fedorov et al.
experiments previously conducted on the ponds of (2007) is quite general and can be used for prognosis of
Rostov oblast allowed the creation of an equation methane emission into the atmosphere on the basis of
approximating the dependence between methane its content not only in bottom deposits and peat
concentration in the surface (0–5 cm) horizon of bot(cid:2) deposits of swamps, but also in soils of other regions.
ARID ECOSYSTEMS Vol. 1 No. 4 2011
EMISSION OF METHANE FROM THE SOILS OF ROSTOV OBLAST 227
After these data were plotted (Fig. 2), the coefficient of 7
correlation r between the concentration of methane
and its flow increased from 0.86 to 0.90 (P < 0.01) and 6
h
the approximating equation appeared as r
pe 5
2
m
logF = 1.36logC –0.84, g/ 4
CH4 CH4 µ
, 3
4
H
C
where logF is the logarithm of methane flow into F 2
CH4 g
the atmosphere, µg/m2 per h, and logC is the loga(cid:2) lo
CH 1
4
rithm of methane content in bottom deposits (soils
and peat), ng/g of wet matter.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Let us now extrapolate the data of our measure(cid:2)
log C , ng/g
ments over all of Rostov oblast. For this, we suggest CH4
that the obtained data that characterize the methane
emission rate from the surface of studied soil types may Fig. 2. The dependence of the emission of methane into
be extended to unexplored areas of corresponding soil the atmosphere on its content in the 0–2 cm soil layer
(dark rhombuses); the 0–5 cm layer of peat (squares); and
types (Val’kov et al., 2002). Table 3 demonstrates the
the 0–5 cm layer of bottom sediments of the Don River,
results of calculation of methane emission from the
the Temernik River, and the Gulf of Taganrog (triangles).
surface of the principal soil types of Rostov oblast by
the median values of methane flow. It also shows the
summarized value of methane emission for soils of the
nozem soils (66.8%), whereas meadow and alluvial
whole region. Methane flows from the surface of
soils, chestnut soils, and solonetz and saline soils con(cid:2)
chestnut, solonetz, and saline soils were calculated by
equation (2), i.e., by the median values of methane tribute 16.8, 11.7, and 4.7%, respectively. It appears
content in the 0–2 cm horizon, because experimental that the contribution of soils unexplored by the
measurements of methane emission from these soils to authors (sandy soils, gully soils, outcroppings of dense
the atmosphere were not performed. and loose rocks), which occupy about 6.6% of the
Total methane emission of the studied soils of Ros(cid:2) region area, is insignificant. If one assumes the period
tov oblast was about 16 tons per diem. The main con(cid:2) of active emission of methane to be 210 days a year,
tribution to the total methane flow is provided by cher(cid:2) i.e., 7 months from April to November without snow
Table 3. Emission of methane into the atmosphere by soils of Rostov oblast
Area (by Val’kov et al., 2002)
CH content within the CH emission, CH emission,
Soils 4 4 4
0–2 cm soil layer mg/g mg/m2 per diem kg/m2 per diem
thousand km2 %
<0.01–0.07 <0.1–1.5
Types of chernozem soils 53.466 57.8 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 10693
0.02 0.2
<0.01–0.02
Types of solonetz and saline soils 7.493 8.1 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.1* 749
0.01
<0.01–0.03
Types of chestnut soils 18.719 20.2 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 0.1* 1872
0.01
0.01–15.1 0.2–0.8
Types of meadow and alluvial soils 6.748 7.3 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 2699
0.12 0.4
Other soils 6.105 6.6 – – –
<0.01–15.1 <0.1–1.5
TOTAL 92.531 100 (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2) 16013
0.02 0.2
Note: * See text for explanations.
ARID ECOSYSTEMS Vol. 1 No. 4 2011
228 GAR’KUSHA et al.
covering, then the annual methane emission will be chernozem soils (66.8%), whereas meadow and allu(cid:2)
3360 tons (4.8 million m3). vial soils, chestnut soils, and solonetz and saline soils
This value is only 0.65% of the methane emission provide 16.8, 11.7, and 4.7%, respectively.
from the swamps of Arkhangelsk oblast (about
521thousand tons per year) (Fedorov et al., 2008),
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
which occupy an area (82 600 km2) comparable to that
of Rostov oblast (92500 km2). This is also about 1% of This work was supported by the grant of the Presi(cid:2)
dent of the Russian Federation, “Leading Scientific
total methane emission (458 million m3/year) pro(cid:2)
Schools,” project no. NSH(cid:2)8030.2010.5; by the Rus(cid:2)
vided by natural and anthropogenic sources of Rostov
sian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 09(cid:2)
oblast (Fedorov et al., 2005), whose contribution to
the total methane flow is 0.8% on average, as pre(cid:2) 05(cid:2)00337; and by State Contract no. 02.740.11.0334.
sented by Bazhina (2000) in her work covering the
whole territory of the former Soviet Union.
REFERENCES
However, it should be mentioned once again that
Bartlett, K.B., Crill, P.M., Sass, R.L., Harriss, R.C., and
this is merely an approximate value, and a far greater
Dise, N.B., Methane Emissions from Tundra Environ(cid:2)
number of observation points and seasonal measure(cid:2)
ments in the Yukon(cid:2)Kuskokwim Delta Alaska, J. Geo(cid:2)
ments are required for a more accurate assessment of
phys. Res. D., 1992, vol. 97, no. 15, pp. 16645–16660.
the daily and annual methane emission by soils of Ros(cid:2)
Bazhin, N.M., Methane in Atmosphere, Sorosovskii Obra(cid:2)
tov oblast.
zovatel’nyi Zhurnal, 2000, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 52–57.
Berestovskaya, Yu.Yu., Rusanov, I.I., Vasil’eva, L.V., and
CONCLUSIONS Pimenov, N.V., Processes of Formation and Oxidation
of Methane in Soils of Trans(cid:2)Polar Tundra of Russia,
1. The concentration of methane in the studied
soils of Rostov oblast varied from <0.01 to 15.1 µg/g of Mikrobiologiya, 2005, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 261–270.
wet soil (median value was 0.02 µg/g). Maximal levels Desyatkov, B.M., Borodulin, A.I., Makhov, G.A., Kotl(cid:2)
yarova, S.S., and Sarmanaev, S.R., Evaluation of Emis(cid:2)
of methane were found in alluvial meadow chernozem
sion of Marsh Methane Based on Its Concentration in
soils, whereas minimal values were revealed in dark(cid:2)
Ground Layer of Atmosphere, Meteorologiya i
chestnut soils, chestnut soils, and saline soils. A higher
Gidrologiya, 1998, no. 8, pp. 67–73.
concentration of gas was revealed in matted soils than
Fan, S.M., Wofsy, S.C., Bakwin, P.S., Jacob, D.J.,
in tilled soils.
Anderson,S.M., Kebabain, P.L., McManus, J.B., and
2. The distribution of methane concentration Kolb,C.E., Micrometeorological Measurements of
within the soil profile was characterized by a down(cid:2) CH and CO Exchange Between the Atmosphere and
4 2
ward trend from the surface to the bottom horizons, to Subartic Tundra, J. Geophys. Res. D., 1992, vol. 97,
a level beneath the minimum needed for detection, no.15, pp. 16627–16643.
along with an increase in the soil density. Fedorov, Yu.A., Gar’kusha, D.N., and Trofimov, M.E.,
3. Experimentally found rates of methane flow Methane of Urban Agglomerations and Its Input into
the Common Emission (by Example of Rostov Oblast),
from the soil surface to the atmosphere varied from
Trudy 3(cid:2)i Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii “Ekologicheskie i
<0.1 to 1.5 mg/m2 per diem (median value was
gidrometeorologicheskie problemy bol’shikh gorodov i
0.2mg/m2 per diem) and closely correlated with the
promyshlennykh zon” (Transactions of Third Interna(cid:2)
level of gas (r = 0.69) in the upper horizon (0–2 cm). tional Conference “Ecological and Hydrometeorologi(cid:2)
On average, the highest values were observed in allu(cid:2) cal Problems of the Cities and Industrial Zones”),
vial meadow chernozem soils, whereas the minimal St.Petersburg: Izd. RGGMU, 2005, pp. 51–52.
level was found in tilled chernozem (0.2 mg/m2 per Fedorov, Yu.A., Tambieva, N.S., Gar’kusha, D.N., and
diem). An obvious downward trend of methane con(cid:2) Khoroshevskaya, V.O., Metan v vodnykh ekosistemakh
centration and emission from the soil with decreasing (Methane in Aquatic Ecosystems), Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)Don,
air temperature was observed. Moscow: Rostizdat, 2007, 330 p.
4. It was shown that a previously obtained regres(cid:2) Fedorov, Yu.A., Gar’kusha, D.N., and Khromov, M.I.,
Methane Emission in Peat Beds of Ilas Marsh Massive
sion equation describes the concentration of methane
in Arkhangelsk Oblast, Izv. RGO, 2008, vol. 140, issue 5,
in soils and its flow to the atmosphere quite accurately
pp. 25–32.
and can be used for prognosis of methane emission not
Gal’chenko, V.F., Dulov, L.E., Kramer, B., Konova, N.I.,
only from bottom deposits and peat deposits of
and Barysheva, S.V., Biogeochemical Processes of
swamps, but also from automorphic soils.
Methane Cycle in Soils, Marshes and Lakes of Western
5. Approximate calculations were carried out,
Siberia, Mikrobiologiya, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 215–225.
revealing that the total methane emission from the
Glagolev, M.V., Chistotin, M.V., Shnyrev, N.A., and
surface of soils to the atmosphere in Rostov oblast is 16
Sirin,A.A., Summer(cid:2)Autumn Emission of Carbon
tons per diem and 3360 tons per year. The greatest Dioxide of Methane by Dried Peatbogs Changed Due
contribution to total methane flow is provided by to Economic Use and Nature Marshes (By the Exam(cid:2)
ARID ECOSYSTEMS Vol. 1 No. 4 2011
EMISSION OF METHANE FROM THE SOILS OF ROSTOV OBLAST 229
ple of a Site in Tomsk Oblast), Agrokhimiya, 2008, Sergeeva, M.A. and Zadorozhnaya, S.V., Formation and
no.5, pp. 46–58. Emission of Methane in Turf Fields of Oligotrophic
Marsh, in Bolota i biosfera, Sbornik materialov Pyatoi
Min’ko, O.I., Generation of Hydrocarbon Gas by Soils of
nauchnoi shkoly (11–14 sentyabrya 2006) (Marshes and
the Earth, Geokhimiya, 1991, no. 1, pp. 3–14.
Biosphere, Proceedings of Fifth Scientific School, Sep(cid:2)
Novikov, N.N., Stepanov, A.L., Pozdnyakov, A.I., and Leb(cid:2) tember 11–14, 2006), Tomsk: Izd. TsNTI, 2006,
edeva, E.V., Seasonal Dynamics of CH , CH , N O, pp.238–244.
2 4 2
and NO Emission from Peat Soils of the Yakhroma River Slobodkin, A.I., Panikov, N.S., and Zavarzin, G.A., For(cid:2)
Floodplain, Pochvovedenie, 2004, no. 7, pp. 867–874. mation and Consumption of Methane by Microorgan(cid:2)
isms in Marshes of Tundra and Central Taiga, Mikrobi(cid:2)
Panikov, N.S., Taiga Marshes is Global Source of Atmo(cid:2)
ologiya, 1992, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 683–695.
spheric Methane, Priroda, 1995, no. 6, pp. 14–25.
Val’kov, V.F., Kolesnikov, S.I., and Kazeev, K.Sh., Pochvy
Roulet, N.T., Ash, R., Moor, T.R., Low Boreal Wetlands as Yuga Rossii: klassifikatsiya i diagnostika (Soils of South
a Source of Atmospheric Methane, J. Geophys. Res. D., Russia: Classification and Diagnostics), Rostov(cid:2)on(cid:2)
1992, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 3739–3749. Don: Izd. SKNTs VSh, 2002, 160 p.
ARID ECOSYSTEMS Vol. 1 No. 4 2011