ecological standardization of soil and soil quality control

ISSN 1064�2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2011, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 534–546. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.Original Russian Text © A.S. Yakovlev, M.V. Evdokimova, 2011, published in Pochvovedenie, 2011, No. 5, pp. 582–596.

534

INTRODUCTION

The specificity of soil as a complex natural and nat�ural–anthropogenic object on lands with differentfunctional purposes is not reflected sufficiently in theexisting scientific, regulatory, methodological, andtechnical materials focused on the assessment of theallowable ecological status of soils and the regulationof the allowable anthropogenic impact on them.

A unified scientific conception of standardizationin the field of environmental control and that of soil,in particular, has not been developed in our country upto the present. There are only separate scientific�methodological approaches to the regulation of theecological quality of soil presented in the works ofRussian [3, 4, 14, 19, 21, 22, 29, 32, 33, 36, 41, 44, 47]and foreign [51–57] researchers. The definition ofecological standardization presented generally in theFederal Law of the Russian Federation on Environ�mental Protection was not expounded in the corre�sponding state regulatory documents.

The relationship is not defined exactly between thetwo interdependent branches of ecological standard�ization: the determination of the allowable ecologicalstatus of soils and the allowable anthropogenic impacton them.

This situation is partly explained by some heteroge�neity in the conceptual and applied knowledge ofthese components of standardization. For example, ifthe information about the status and standardizationof the soil is presented somehow in different depart�mental standards (ecology, medicine, agriculture,etc.), the system of controlling the levels of anthropo�genic impacts on the soil is presented very poorly. Thisis especially obvious against the background of ratheradvanced practice concerning the system of control of

the anthropogenic effects on the atmospheric air andwater systems (the determination of the maximumallowable emissions and discharges). Some aspects ofthe assessment and control of unauthorized impactson soils are not taken into account. The problem of theprinciples of the separation and controlling of the lev�els of deposited (accumulated) and actual (recent)loads on the soil should be solved.

Hence, the list of problems connected with theassessment and standardization of the system ofimpact on the soil (unlike the problem of the charac�teristics of the soil’s status) is presented more sche�matically in the belief that this aspect will be developedas a system of ecological standardization as a whole.

This work is aimed at the development of the scien�tific methodological principles of ecological soil stan�dardization comprising the scientific substantiation ofthe levels of the allowable ecological status (quality) ofthe soil and the allowable anthropogenic impact on it.

The tasks of this work were as follows: the develop�ment of criteria for the determination of the levels ofthe allowable ecological status of the soil and theallowable anthropogenic impact on it taking intoaccount the natural and climatic features of the terri�tory and the land use types; the characteristics of theanthropogenic effects on the soil; the formation of aunified system of the indices of the soil quality and theanthropogenic impact on it; the development of scien�tific and practical approaches to the control of theecological quality of the soil.

Ecological Standardization of Soil and Soil Quality ControlA. S. Yakovlev and M. V. Evdokimova

Faculty of Soil Science, Moscow State University, Vorob’evy gory, Moscow, 119991 RussiaReceived August 30, 2010

Abstract—Theoretical bases are offered for the ecological soil standardization presuming the scientific sub�stantiating of the allowable ecological state (quality) of the soil and the allowable anthropogenic impact on it.The modern experience of these bases’ application in regulatory–methodological, nature�control, and man�agerial practices is presented. The criteria are found for determining the levels of the allowable ecologicalquality of soil and the anthropogenic impact on it. The sources of the anthropogenic impact on the soil arecharacterized. A unified system of indices of soil quality and anthropogenic impacts and a mechanism fordetermining the range of the allowable values of these parameters have been developed taking into accountthe natural conditions and types of land use. Scientific�methodological approaches are proposed that supporta certain balance between the allowable ecological status of the soil and the effects on it in connection withthe mechanisms of the soil quality control in particular land plots.

DOI: 10.1134/S1064229311050152

DEGRADATION, REHABILITATION, AND CONSERVATION OF SOILS

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 44 No. 5 2011

ECOLOGICAL STANDARDIZATION OF SOIL AND SOIL QUALITY CONTROL 535

CRITERIA FOR THE DETERMINATIONOF THE LEVELS OF THE ALLOWABLE ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE SOIL

AND THE ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT ON IT

In nature�protection practice, the field of ecologi�cal standardization of soil is often unsuccessful,because interpreting the results of scientific researchin the current regulatory and methodological docu�ments is not easy. In this relation, we face the problemto maximally generalize and bring the scientificapproaches to the criteria and methods of soil stan�dardization more in line with the current ideology inthe sphere of environmental control and official regu�latory and methodical documents. The results of long�term observations of well�known scientists and expertsin the field of physical, chemical, and biologicalassessment and control of soil quality were used inorder to solve the problems of establishing the stan�dards of soil quality [3, 4, 12, 19, 20, 29, 33, 36, 41,58]. The scientific stage of establishing the ecologicalstandards supposes mostly searching for and deter�mining the main regularities in the relationshipsbetween the environment’s status (E) and the anthro�pogenic effect on it (the “state–effect” system).Therefore, the criteria and vales of the standards of theE quality and effects on it are developed on the basis ofthe determined regularities with establishing theranges of their allowable values.

The “state–effect” system. The study of this rela�tionship is aimed first of all at searching for the pointof irreversible changes in the E quality and in the soilquality, particularly “the point of no return” of an eco�system to the initial state, the determining of which isthe key criterion in determining the allowable changesof its ecological quality and the allowable anthropo�genic effect.

Based on significant analytical materials and obser�vations, most scientists who work in the field of theenvironmental effects of anthropogenic factors assess�ment agree that the “state–effect” relationship is non�linear and is described by the so called “catastrophetheory” [3]. It is generally accepted that a catastropheis the discontinuous change that occurs in the form ofa sudden response of the system to the gradual changesof external conditions [3]. Soil, as an integral naturalsystem, being subjected to contamination or physicaldegradation, is capable of “resisting” any particulareffect; i.e., it is capable of self�regenerating. If the limitof the soil’s resistance is surmounted, the soil quicklyand irreversibly loses its environmental functions. Theworks concerning the following problems can sserve asexamples: the assessment of soil contamination withpetroleum products [21, 36, 42, 43] and/or heavy met�als [22, 49], the study of steppe vegetation digressionresulting in desertification [2], humus losses due to ananthropogenic load [20], etc. In all the cases consid�ered, the loss of more than 30% of the soil’s bioorganicpotential usually induces irreversible changes [41, 50].

The beginning of an “avalanche�like” flux of contam�inants and the soil masses into the adjacent media(water, atmospheric air, soil of neighboring land plots)can be considered as a general regularity often con�nected with the loss of the above�named bioorganicpotential when the threshold values of the soil qualityare overcome [8, 23].

Resistance of different soil types to anthropogeniceffects and their ecological standardization. Soils of dif�ferent types differing mostly in their particle�size com�position, organic matter content, and acidity level dis�play different resistances to the anthropogenic load. Asdistinguished from the relatively homogeneous naturalcomponents (the atmospheric air and water environ�ment), which are characterized by approximately sim�ilar levels of allowable contamination in different nat�ural zones, the levels of allowable contamination forthe soils of these zones can differ by ten and moretimes by the respective parameters [8, 18, 22].

Crude�oil production, transportation, and refin�ing; waste treatment; and the environmental contam�ination with heavy metals and other toxicants haveoccurred practically in all regions and natural zones ofRussia, and this has made it necessary to account forthe soils’ capability for different resilience and begin�ning the scientific study and development of the corre�sponding regulatory and methodical documentationon the assessment of the allowable soil state and theallowable effect on it. A similar situation is observedwhen standardizing the quality of urban soils, whichcan significantly differ in humus content, acidity, theparticle�size composition, and other parametersresponsible for the soil’s resistance to anthropogenicimpacts [25, 33].

Setting of ecological standards for soils differing inland use. The current practice of land use in our coun�try is not equipped properly with a unified standardand methodological base focused on the determina�tion of the ecological standard of the soil quality forlands of different categories and types of economicuse. The ecological standardization of soils under dif�ferent land use, unlike that for natural (typical) lands,is complicated by a minimum of two obstacles. First,every type of land use changes the natural properties ofthe soil; second, every type of land use has its statutoryrules of land resource use, and this is reflected in theeconomic, social, ecological, and medical standardsof the allowable soil degradation and contamination,which often have a technocratic emphasis. Hence, inthe process of setting standards for soils of differentland categories, the authors deal with solving a diffi�cult multidimensional problem, which is often solvedwithout proper scientific substantiation in dynami�cally developed managerial practice for natural lands.Consequently, the uncertainty formed does not allowexactly calculating the level of the soil state’s deviationfrom the state taken as the ecological standard for aparticular type of soil and land use, correctly assessingthe expediency of its economic use, making an unam�

536


YAKOVLEV, EVDOKIMOVA

biguous decision about the necessity of performingreclamation works, etc. This problem can be solvedonly if a scientifically substantiated understanding ofthe ecological soil quality standard for the lands of dif�ferent economic use is formed in the nature�protec�tion and nature�resource governmental structures. Itwould be expedient to begin with establishing the gen�eral limits of the indices for the allowable “state–effect” for soils of all known categories of land.

The analysis of the recent scientific informationand the Russian and foreign legislation demonstratesthat such a consolidated determination of general lim�its is very probable. For example, the main natural�resource laws of our country confirm the scientificallybased priority of providing a favorable environmentand the priority of the preservation of the soil as themost important environmental component under alltypes of economic activity [10 (Clauses 1, 12), 38(Clause 3), 39 (Clause 21)].

Thus, such priority envisages the existence of uni�fied (for all types of land use) standards of ecologicalsoil quality taking into account the particular naturalconditions and the character of the land use. Hence,all types of land use can be performed on lands withsoils that keep their natural properties, i.e., with “eco�logically healthy soils.” In this case, the low limit ofthe allowable state (quality) of these soils and the levelof the allowable anthropogenic impact on these soilswould be determined. The difference in the soil qualityand the effects on it for all the land use types can beevaluated only when moving from a set lower limit ofthe quality and the effect of the improvement of thenatural soil state, i.e., towards the background values.

Soil’s capability for preserving resistance toanthropogenic impacts caused by any type of land use,i.e., the capability for restoring the main natural�resource properties, can serve as the main criterion fordetermining the lower limit of the soil quality and theimpact on it. This principle is declared in Clause 3 ofthe Law of the Russian Federation on EnvironmentalProtection [38], where the formation of conditionsfavoring the reproduction of natural resources and the

environmental functions of natural systems is broughtto the level of the main directions of the nature�pro�tective activity.

The maximum allowable limit of the disturbance ofthe soil and land quality is determined by the capabil�ity for reproducing (reversibility). This parameterserves as the unified allowable limit providing the soil’sresilience in the process of an anthropogenic loadunder all the types of land use. As was noted above, thisparameter was determined by the way of the long�termscientific observations and supposes that the thresholdof the soil systems stability for all types of land use(including industrial zones) does not allow the loss ofmore than 30% of the bioorganic soil potential andnegative effects on the adjacent environment.

Hence, we determined in a general outline the uni�fied limits of the parameters for the soils of all the landcategories. Now, the individual limits of the ecological“state–effect’’ norm can be determined within thegeneral limits for soils of every land use category takinginto account their specifics. We named them the“basic ecological norms for soils of different land cat�egories” (Table 1) [48]. The presented values of theecological norms can be considered as initial or basicrequiring further updating in the process of the com�prehensive study of the land use types within a partic�ular land category.

The values close to the background ones serve asbasic values for the soils of reserved territories. Theallowable levels of contamination for agricultural andurban lands would not step over the boundaries ofmedical standards for the maximum allowable con�centrations (MAC), because this is connected with thequality of food and direct contact of humans with con�taminated soils in residential blocks. The prevention ofcontaminants transition into the adjacent environ�ments is in turn the key limiting factor for soils of waterand forestry funds and of industrial lands. The qualityand impact are characterized for every category differ�ing in the land use type by a particular range of allow�able values based on the corresponding basic ecologi�cal norm (Fig. 1). For example, when determining the

Table 1. Allowable values of the ecological state of soils for the lands of different economic use (“basic ecological norms forsoils of different land categories”)

State

Soils

natural objects natural–anthropogenic objects

land categories

reserves agricultural urban forestry fund industry, transport, etc. water fund state reserve

Chemical Background MAC Transition of contaminants into adjacent environmental me�dia is not allowed

Physical Background Capability of the soil ecosystem for self�regeneration (loss of no more than 30% of the bioorganic soil potential*)Biological Background

* The bioorganic soil potential is the sum of the living organisms biomass and the humus in the soil.



maximum allowable level of soil contamination withoil products [30], the values of the oil concentrationwould not exceed 300 mg/kg for the territories of nat�ural�recreational, residential, and communal func�tional use and 1000 mg/kg for the territories of indus�trial and transport use, and these values correspond tothe maximum safety concentration of oil products,when special sanitation measures are not necessary.Hence, both concentrations correspond to healthysoil and are within the unified limits for all types ofeconomic use of lands in the allowable “state–effect”ecological range but are at the same type within indi�vidual limits of the allowable values for soils of thelands of particular economic use.

UNIFIED SYSTEM OF PARAMETRS OF THE ASSESSMENT AND ECOLOGICAL STANDARDIZATION OF THE SOIL’S STATE

AND THE ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT ON IT

The interrelated series of indices in the “state–effect” system can be conventionally subdivided intothe groups of the parameters of the soil’s state (or qual�ity) and the parameters of the impact on the soil. Theidea of unified indices that characterize, on the onehand, the state (quality) of the soil and, on the otherhand, the anthropogenic impact on the soil serves asthe connecting link between these groups. Let us callthis unified parameter the “state–effect.”

This parameter provides an understanding of therecent soil state as well as of the impact on the soilmemorized in the values of its state deviations from thebackground one and composed of accumulated(deposited) and actual (permanent) impacts. Therecent soil state fits the formed effect (deposited andactual) adequately and can be presented in the form ofunified “state–effect” indices in the unified estima�tion scale of ranking (Fig. 1).

Ranking and ecological standardization of the indi�ces of the soil state and the soil impact. The parametersof the state and impact can be presented in both abso�lute and relative schedules. The relative and absolutevalues in turn are arrayed in the form of ranked linesaccording to the loss of the environmental quality andthe increase of the anthropogenic impact. Two scalesof ranking of the state and impact parameters, thethree�level [13] and five�level [5], are the most popularand approved as standards in nature�protection prac�tice. It seems to be reasonable to combine them in aunified five�level scale and to use this scale further asthe most known and suitable under the real conditionsof land use. It is shown in Table 2 that this scale has twopoles “+” and “–.” Let us proceed from the assump�tion that soil can be injured by an excessive increase aswell as a decrease of any parameter of its specific prop�erties. According to the five�level scale of ranking, thefirst and second levels can be dated to the period of thegradual poorly expressed accumulation of adversecharacter. This corresponds to a relatively stable envi�

ronmental state. The third level corresponds to anunstable state of the natural system (the loss of about30% of the environmental quality); the fourth and fifthlevels correspond to catastrophic and distressed levels(the impetuous and irreversible loss of the environ�mental quality).

Hence, the interval from the first to the initial val�ues of the third level in the system of ranking can betaken as the environmental state with the level ofimpact on it close to the allowable level (ecologicalnorm).

Concepts of for definition: the ecological quality andstate of the soil; the anthropogenic impact and load onthe soil; an elementary soil�ecological area. Accordingto Clause 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation no. 7[38], the notions “quality” and “state” of the naturalenvironment and its components are considered assynonyms. “Environmental quality is the state of thenatural environment, which is characterized by thephysical chemical, biological, and other parametersand (or) their aggregate.” The same can be said aboutthe quality and state of soil as one of the environment’scomponents: “the ecological quality of soil is the eco�logical state of the soil characterized by the physical,chemical, biological, and other parameters and(or)their aggregate.”

Range of the not authorized anthropogenic impacts on the soil

Range of theauthorized (allowable)

anthropogenic impacts on the soil

minimum background maximum

–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5

А B C D

Range of the random changes of theecological soil state

Range of the allowable ecological state

of the soil

Unified scale ofassessment

of the ecological soil state and the

anthropogenic impact

(“state–effect”scale,

Table 2)

Scheme of ranked indices of basic

ecological norms for soils of different land

categories withina single allowable

range of the “state–effect” values

АBC

Fig. 1. Principal scheme of the unified assessment of theecological state of the soil and the anthropogenic impactswith setting the range of the allowable “state–effect” val�ues under the conditions of authorized and not authorizedanthropogenic impacts: A, lands of industry; B, lands ofthe forestry fund; C, agricultural lands and lands of settle�ments; D, lands of natural reserves.

538



The interpretation of the terms anthropogenic“impact” and “load” is especially important for soilscientists and ecologists to find their position about thepossible using of these terms in nature�protectionpractice, because it refers to connecting the impactand the load to a particular territory subdivided intoland plots. On this basis and relying on the text of theLaw of the Russian Federation no. 7, we consider thatthe notions “impact” and “load” can be interpreted inthe following way. The term “impact” assumes the reg�istration of the fact of the influence of a particularsource within its impact zone in the surrounding envi�ronment and soil cover. The zone of environmentalimpact of the source can be considered in turn as theterritory, where the environmental changes induced bythis source are recorded. The scope of the zone of theenvironmental impact of the source depends on itscapacity and can be smaller than the size of one plot orcan exceed the size of several land plots.

It is important also to define the difference betweenthe regulated effect established by the calculation, forexample, of the maximum allowable emissions (MAE)and discharges (MAD) [38 (Clause 23)], and an effectnot regulated in the case of an unauthorized dischargeon the soil’s surface or an atmospheric emission, wastedisposal, etc. By definition, the providing of a favor�able environment in the process of the functioning ofthe source of the anthropogenic impact is controlled

and regulated in the first case administratively, while,in the second case, the source works without control,and the environment’s state in its impact zone canchange also without control (Fig. 1).

The term “load” assumes the registration of thefact of single or aggregated effects of the sources on theenvironment or its components within particular ter�ritories, and the configuration of this territory can bedetermined by the reference to practical need and canbe presented particularly by the boundaries of the landplot.

An elementary soil�ecological area (ESEA) is thearea determined in the process of assessing the envi�ronmental (soil) quality and the anthropogenic loadand represents a plot within the zone of the anthropo�genic environmental impact of one or several sourcesthat has similar parameters of ecological qualityaccording its natural conditions and a similar responseto the anthropogenic load within the boundaries ofthis area and a uniform anthropogenic load all over itsarea. The unified relative digital symbol (the “state–effect” index) can designate the quality of the soil inthe ESEA and the impact on it.

Indices of the ecological state of the soil, the anthro�pogenic load, and their combined consideration as uni�fied “state–effect” indices. The indices of the ecologicalstate (quality) of the soil as an environment componentcome under a specific type of soil indices of the physi�

Table 2. Assessment and ranking of the values of the ecological state of the soil, the natural environment, and of the anthropogenicimpact*

Unified qualitative schedule of ranking the environmental state and the anthropogenic impact

±1 ±2 ±3 ±4 ±5 Source of information

Absence of signs:—suppression of natural and an�thropogenic bio�cenoses;—troubles with health because of environmental ef�fects;—disturbances of natural media and their functional equilibrium

—pronounced sup�pression of natural biocenoses, use of lands for producing food without limita�tion;—the natural envi�ronment as a whole is suitable for hu�mans;—signs of the dis�turbance of separate natural media of re�versible character

—the natural biocenos�es are strongly sup�pressed, the food pro�duction is not efficient because of the low qual�ity and decreased fertili�ty of the soil;—population health is noticeably deteriorated because of the unfavor�able environmental conditions;—the natural environ�ment does not withstand the anthropogenic load

—impossibility of the growth of artificial stands, disagreement concerning land use for food produc�tion;—significant degradation of the population’s health;—irreversible disturbanc�es of natural media ex�cluding the self�restora�tion of the natural envi�ronment as a whole

—the bioproductiv�ity of the lands is ze�ro;—direct contact be�tween humans and the environment is dangerous for the health of humans;—natural media are disturbed irrevers�ibly and cannot per�form their functions in the environment

[5]

Satisfactory ecological situation Ecological emergency Ecological disaster [13]

* Is ranked according the five�level schedule [5] and is determined on the basis of the “Metodicheskie recomendatsii po vyyavleniyu degradiro�vannykh i zagryaznennykh zemel’” (Methodical Recommendations Concerning Revealing Degraded and Contaminated Lands) [15].



cal, chemical, and biological state (the levels of themicroelement contents, the density, the populationdensity and species composition of the aboriginalmicroflora, etc.) and not specific parameters of theproperties not typical for the particular soil (the pres�ence of pesticides and microflora not normal for thissoil, inclusions of waste, etc.). The background levelfor the specific indices is characterized by particularvalues, which vary among the soil types, and is taken tobe equal zero in all the cases for the not specific indi�ces.

An example of the copper content in a soil illus�trates the case with specific indices. The copper con�centration in a soil represents a quality index as well asan impact index. When the background levels areexceeded, copper is considered as a heavy metal con�taminating the soil; when the copper concentrationsare lower than background levels, copper becomes adeficient microelement in the soil. Respectively, theallowable maximum and minimum soil concentra�tions of copper can be established in both cases. Forexample, we can determine (on the basis of the exist�ing standards and literature data) that the backgroundconcentration of copper in a loamy soddy�podzolicsoil is 30 mg/kg, the maximum allowable concentra�tion is 132 mg/kg, and the minimum allowable con�centration is 8 mg/kg.

The specific index of the physical soil state and theimpact on it can be represented by analogy. For exam�ple, if the background level of the density is taken as1.0–1.2 g/cm3, the value 0.9 g/cm3 is taken as the min�imum level, because the plant roots hardly develop ina loose soil. The values of 1.4–1.5 g/cm3 correspond tothe maximum level under which the processes of over�compaction begin and an unfavorable air–waterregime is formed for the plants. Similar gradation lev�els can be established for the biological indices as well.

Exceeding the zero levels for the nonspecificparameters also provides information about the soilquality and the impact on it. The allowable soil con�centrations of pesticides, oil, and other substances nottypical for the soil are regulated by the ecological andmedical standards of the soil quality.

Indices of the anthropogenic impact on the soil. It isreasonable to use a wide range of recently known indi�ces in order to characterize the anthropogenic impacton the soil and to determine its allowable levels. The indi�ces of the “load” on a land plot and the indices of the“impact” of a particular anthropogenic source can beconsidered as the most informative from the viewpoint oftheir use for impact assessment and regulation.

If the information about the soil types propertiesand their functional use (regardless of the fact withinwhich land plot they are situated) is sufficient to char�acterize the allowable load, the position of the impactsource relative to a particular land plot will be takeninto account to characterize the allowable impact of aparticular enterprise. Respectively, the allowable effectof the source (emission, discharge, etc.) should be cal�

culated for every land plot separately. Hence, theanthropogenic effect on the soil can be characterizedby two interrelated groups of indices of the “soil load”and the “impact sources.” The first group of parame�ters concerning the “soil load” provides a rough ideaof the soil’s response to an anthropogenic impactwithin the boundaries of a particular territory (forexample, a land plot); i.e., it represents some imprintof accumulated (deposited) and actual (recent) effectson the soil within the boundaries of this territory rep�resented by the values of the parameters of the soil’sstate different from zero or the background values.

These indices can be considered as the indices of the“state–effect” on the soil. Respectively, they containinformation about the soil’s state and information aboutthe anthropogenic load on it in a selected land plot.

Information of the second group directly charac�terizes the “impact sources,” the activity of whichresults in the formation of a certain level of the load onthe soil by the way of transfer of the anthropogeniceffect of the source through the media adjacent to thestudied land plot (atmospheric air, water medium,etc.) or directly to the soil.

Formation of the database of the expert–analyticalestimates of the range of the allowable values of the eco�logical state of the soil and the anthropogenic impact onit. As it was noted above, the unified relative indicesand the values of their estimates are set on the basis ofthe criteria for determining the allowable levels of theecological state of the soil and the anthropogenicimpact on it. The procedure of determining the allow�able values of these parameters is based first of all onscientific observations and on information from thestandard and methodological documents with theassistance of the author’s expert estimates of practicalspecialists. For example, the system of indices for theassessment of the ecological state of the soil and theanthropogenic impact on it with the designation of therange of the allowable values for urban soils of differentfunctional zones is based on these principles (Tables 3, 4).More detailed and scientifically substantiated infor�mation about the specified range of allowable valuescan be obtained as a result of analytical study based onthe above discussed criteria for the determination theecological norm of the soil state. An example is pre�sented in Fig. 2 of transferring the absolute values ofthe indices of the ecological state and the anthropo�genic impact to the relative ones within the five�levelscale of ranking.

The work order for the determination of the allowableecological state of the soil, the total anthropogenic

impact, and the anthropogenic load1 on the soils of a

particular land plot. The order of the interrelatedmovements included the determination of the values

1 We discussed above the discrimination between the notions of“impact” and ‘load’ with the latter being a single or cumulativeanthropogenic impact on the soil of a particular territory (a landplot).

540


YAKOVLEV, EVDOKIMOVA Ta

ble

3.S

yste

m o

f par

amet

ers

used

for

the

dete

rmin

atio

n o

f th

e ra

nge

of a

llow

able

val

ues

of th

e ec

olog

ical

sta

te o

f urb

an s

oils

an

d th

e an

thro

poge

nic

impa

ct o

n th

emfo

r te

rrit

orie

s w

ith

dif

fere

nt

fun

ctio

nal

use

s

Par

amet

erA

llow

able

leve

ls

of s

oil q

uali

ty a

nd

load

s on

th

e so

il

Typ

es o

f spe

cial

ized

use

of f

unct

ion

al z

ones

***

nat

ural

resi

den

tial

com

mun

alin

dust

rial

/ter

rito

ries

of

tra

nsp

ort

infr

astr

uctu

re

Par

ticl

e�si

ze c

ompo

siti

on1

Opt

imal

**L

igh

t, m

ediu

m lo

amS

andy

loam

, li

ght

loam

Th

ickn

ess

of t

he

hum

us la

yer,

cm

1M

inim

al10

1010

10

Bac

kgro

und

1015

–20

15–

2010

–20

Max

imal

Not

lim

ited

Con

cen

trat

ion

of C

org

in t

he

laye

r of

0–

20 c

m,

%1

Min

imal

11

11

Bac

kgro

und

33

32

Max

imal

Not

lim

ited

3030

30

Sto

nin

ess,

%1

Min

imal

––

––

Bac

kgro

und

525

2525

Max

imal

5050

5050

Den

sity

in t

he

laye

r of

0–

20 c

m,

g/cm

31

Min

imal

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

Bac

kgro

und

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

Max

imal

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Den

sity

in t

he

laye

r of

20–

50 c

m,

g/cm

31

Min

imal

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

Bac

kgro

und

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Max

imal

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.5

Den

sity

in t

he

laye

r of

50–

100

cm,

g/cm

31

Min

imal

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

Bac

kgro

und

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.4

Max

imal

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.5

pH1

Min

imal

4.0

5.0

5.0

4.5

Bac

kgro

und

5.5

77

7.5

Max

imal

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.5

Con

cent

rati

on o

f min

eral

nit

roge

n in

the

laye

r of 0

–20

cm

, mg/

kg1

Min

imal

55

55

Bac

kgro

und

1010

105

Max

imal

6060

6060

Con

cen

trat

ion

of m

obil

e ph

osph

orus

in t

he

laye

r of

0–

20 c

m,

mg/

kg1 (

MA

C 2

00 m

g/kg

of s

oil)

Min

imal

2040

40

40

Bac

kgro

und

4090

9090

Max

imal

400

400

400

400



Tabl

e 3.

(Con

td.)

Par

amet

erA

llow

able

leve

ls

of s

oil q

uali

ty a

nd

load

s on

th

e so

il

Typ

es o

f spe

cial

ized

use

of f

unct

ion

al z

ones

***

nat

ural

resi

den

�ti

alco

mm

unal

indu

stri

al/t

erri

tori

es

of t

ran

spor

t in

fras

truc

ture

Con

cen

trat

ion

of s

olub

le p

otas

sium

in t

he

laye

r of

0–

20 c

m,

mg/

kg1

Min

imal

1060

6040

Bac

kgro

und

2010

010

060

Max

imal

350

350

350

350

Sum

of e

asil

y so

lubl

e sa

lts,

%1

Min

imal

––

––

Bac

kgro

und

<0.

040.

040.

040.

08M

axim

al0.

080.

080.

080.

15E

lect

rica

l con

duct

ivit

y of

th

e po

re s

olut

ion

, dS

/m1

Min

imal

––

––

Bac

kgro

und

<1.

52

22

Max

imal

44

44

Soi

l res

pira

tion

(bi

olog

ical

act

ivit

y),

mg

of C

�CO

2/kg

*h2

Min

imal

1.7

1.7

1.7

0.4�

0.8

Bac

kgro

und

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Max

imal

3.5

3.5

3.5

1.7–

3.5

Sum

mar

y in

dex

of c

onta

min

atio

n Z

s*O

ptim

al**

–<

16<

1616

Con

cen

trat

ion

of 3

,4�b

enz(

a)py

ren

e, m

g/kg

*O

ptim

al**

<0.

02<

0.04

* C

once

ntr

atio

n o

f oil

pro

duct

s, m

g/kg

*O

ptim

al**

<30

0*<

1000

C

once

ntr

atio

n o

f opp

ortu

nis

tic

mic

roor

gan

ism

s, in

dex*

Opt

imal

**<

10C

once

ntr

atio

n o

f pat

hog

enic

mic

roor

gan

ism

s, v

iabl

e h

elm

inth

eg

gs a

nd

larv

ae*

Opt

imal

**A

bsen

t

Exp

osur

e ra

te (

ER

), H

g, m

Sv/

h**

**O

ptim

al**

<0.

3<

0.6

Act

ivit

y of

nat

ural

rad

ion

ucli

des

(NR

N),

Aef

, B

q/kg

****

Opt

imal

**<

250

<74

0* (

con

stru

ctio

n m

ater

ial i

n

sett

lem

ents

)In

clud

ing:

radi

um�1

26 (

AR

a)th

oriu

m�2

32 (

AT

h)

pota

ssiu

m�4

0 (A

K)

Bac

kgro

und3

3–43

5–50

20–

850

3–43

5–50

20–

850

3–43

5–50

20–

850

3–43

5–50

20–

850

Act

ivit

y of

ces

ium

�137

, A

Cs*

***

Opt

imal

**<

150

Not

es:

*

Th

e m

axim

um (

prov

isio

nal

ly)

allo

wab

le c

once

ntr

atio

ns

of th

e su

bsta

nce

s w

ere

set b

y th

e h

ygie

nic

sta

nda

rds

[6, 7

]; th

e pa

ram

eter

s of

the

soil

qua

lity

wer

e se

t acc

ordi

ng

the

regu

lato

ry d

ocum

ents

[17

, 31,

34]

.

**

Th

e op

tim

al a

llow

able

leve

l of a

ch

emic

al,

the

phys

ical

, or

th

e bi

olog

ical

sta

te o

f th

e so

il u

nde

r w

hic

h t

he

soil

is c

apab

le o

f ful

fill

ing

all i

ts e

nvi

ron

men

tal f

unct

ion

s an

d is

not

a s

econ

dary

sou

rce

of n

egat

ive

effe

cts

on n

atur

e an

d h

uman

s.

*

**S

et a

ccor

din

g to

[9,

24,

40]

.

**

**S

et a

ccor

din

g to

[37

].1 E

xper

t es

tim

ate

acco

unti

ng

[1,

25,

27,

28,

35].

2 Eur

opea

n a

nd

inte

rnat

ion

al e

colo

gica

l sta

nda

rds

[59–

62].

3 Exp

ert

esti

mat

e ac

coun

tin

g [1

6].

542



Table 4. System of parameters used for the determination of the range of allowable values of the ecological state of urban soils andthe anthropogenic impact on them for territories with different functional uses

Element Soil group

Allowable levels of the soil quality and the load on the soil

Minimal Background

Maximal

Types of specialized use of functional zones

natural residential communal industrial/territories of transport infrastructure

Total content of heavy metals, mg/kg*

Copper A 8 30 132 132 132 264

B 4 15 66 66 66 132

C 2 8 33 33 33 66

Zink A 30 50 220 220 220 440

B 20 30 110 110 110 220

C 10 20 55 55 55 110

Cobalt A 8 10 40 40 40 80

B 5 8 30 30 30 60

C 3 5 20 20 20 40

Nickel A 12 40 80 80 80 160

B 10 30 40 40 40 80

C 5 15 20 20 20 40

Lead A 8 26 130 130 130 260

B 5 20 65 65 65 130

C 2 12 32 32 32 64

Arsenic A 3.5 4.5 10 10 10 20

B 1.2 2.5 5 5 5 10

C 0.5 1.5 2 2 2 4

Cadmium A – 0.3** 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0

B – Not determined 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

C – Not determined 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0

Manganese All groups 250 1260** 1000 1000 1000 1000

Mercury '' – 0.1** 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

Concentrations of the mobile forms of heavy metals, mg/kg*

Cobalt All groups 0.3 2.0 <5 <5 <5 <10

Manganese '' 25 80 <700 <700 <700 <1400

Copper '' 0.5 4.0 <3 <3 <3 <6

Nickel '' Not determined 1.5 <4 <4 <4 <8

Lead '' '' 1.2 <6 <6 <6 <12

Fluorine '' '' 2.0 <2.8 <2.8 <2.8 <5.6

Chrome (III) '' '' 5.0 <6 <6 <6 <12

Zink '' 5.0 8.0 <23 <23 <23 <46

Note: A, loamy soils, pH . 5.5; B, loamy soils pH < 5.5; C, sandy and sandy loamy soils. *The total content of heavy metals was set bythe hygienic standards [7], and the concentrations of the mobile forms by [6]. **According to [11], the following values of thestudied chemical elements are set as background one for the determination the levels of the soil and ground contamination inMoscow with inorganic toxicants: Pb, 26 mg/kg; Cd, 0.3 mg/kg; Zn, 52 mg/kg; Hg, 0.1 mg/kg; As, 6.6 mg/kg; Ni, 20 mg/kg; Cu,27 mg/kg; Cr, 46 mg/kg; Co, 7.2 mg/kg; Mn, 1260 mg/kg.



of the allowable ecological state (quality) of the soil,the allowable total impact on the oil, and the allowableproportion of every anthropogenic source by all theknown factors of impact within the limits of the loadon a particular land plot.

The total anthropogenic impact on the soil com�bines the deposited (accumulated) and actual (recent)effects. We can say the same about the allowable totalanthropogenic impact, which has two constituents:the allowable deposited and allowable actual. Bothconstituents can be subjected to some regulation: thefirst through soil reclamation and the bringing of itsstate to allowable ecological characteristics, and thesecond, through the control of the activity of theimpact sources and the regulation of the volumes ofthe emissions, discharges, levels of land compaction,etc.

The work on the determination of the allowableecological state of the soil and the anthropogenic loadon the soil of a particular soil plot includes the follow�ing stages:

A. Making a list of the characteristics of the mainsources of the anthropogenic impact on the soil anddetermining the areas of their effects.

The list of types and sources of probable impact ismade to characterize the anthropogenic impact on thestudied territories. The approximate areas and levels ofthe influence are determined for different sources. Theanthropogenic sources are differentiated according tothe levels of their impact within the studied land plot.

B. The investigation and classification of the soilsin the studied land plot. The determination of therange of the allowable “state–effect” levels for thetypes of soil and lands of different land use. The assess�ment of the real ecological state of the soils in a landplot and the total (summary) anthropogenic load. Thecomparison of the real ecological state of a soil and theload on it in the studied land plot with the indices ofthe unified estimation using the “state–effect” scale(Tables 3, 4). The following variants of comparing theresults of the soil investigation with the allowable val�ues of the ecological state of the soil and the anthropo�genic impact on it on the basis of the presented princi�pal scheme are given in Fig. 1, an example in Fig. 2,and Tables 3 and 4.

The first variant suggests a simplified scheme of theassessment of the ecological state and the anthropo�genic impact on the soil based on dividing the wholefield of the ranked estimation of the state–effect inotwo ranges (Fig. 2), namely: the range of allowablestate–effect values from the minimum to maximumlevels and the range of the state–effect values, which donot correspond to the allowable level. This variant issuitable for reconnoitering the stages of the investiga�tion, but, in some cases, it can be quite sufficient forthe main, final investigation of the territory of the landplot.

The second variant proposes a more detailed deter�mination of the levels of the ecological state–effectbased on the assessment of the soil quality in every gra�dation of the five�level schedule (Fig. 2) [5]. This vari�ant is aimed at a more comprehensive study of the eco�logical situation and can be used for updating the levelsof the soil contamination and degradation in the stud�ied land plots.

The metodicheskie recomendatsii po vyyavleniyudegradirovannykh i zagryaznennykh zemel’ [15] andthe method of determination of the level of the loss ofthe soil ecological quality (LEQ) presented in Vremen�naya metodika opredeleniya predotvrashchennogo eko�logicheskogo ushcherba [5] can be sources of informa�tion for the accomplishment of both variants of theestimation the ecological state of the soil.

Every elementary soil�ecological area within thestudied land plot can receive a “state–effect” scoreaccording to the above described five�level scheduleon the basis of the performed investigation. The spec�ified ESEA are grouped according the allowability,deficiency, or surpassing of the “state–effect” values,and recommendations are clearly defined for theplot’s use and the necessity to perform measures forthe improvement of the ecological soil quality and reg�ulation of the impact from the sources of influencefound.

C. The determination of the contribution of theanthropogenic sources in the allowable total anthro�pogenic load on the soil of a land plot.

D. Setting of the allowable impact on the soil of aparticular land plot for every source of impact.

Range notcorresponding

to the allowable “state–effect”

level (deficiency)

Range of allowable “state–effect” values

Range not corresponding to the allowable“state–effect” level (excess)

Minimum Background Maximum

8 mg/kg* 27 mg/kg** 132 mg/kg***

–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 2. Transfer of the absolute values of the indices of the eco�logical soil state and the anthropogenic impact on it to the rel�ative values within the frame of the five�level schedule of rank�ing with setting the ranges corresponding and not corre�sponding to the allowable “state–effect” values using theexample of the copper content in the soil. *8 mg/kg, the cop�per content reflecting the minimum level of the plantdemands for microelement nutrition; **27 mg/kg, back�ground copper content in the territory of Moscow;***132 mg/kg, PAC for loamy soils with pH > 5.5.

544



THE PROBLEMS OF THE REGULATIONOF THE ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACT

ON THE SOIL

The problem of the efficient control of the ecolog�ical soil state is connected first of all with solving theproblems of monitoring, control, and development ofappropriate methods for the regulation of the levels ofthe anthropogenic impact on the soil. The investiga�tion and monitoring of the soil in land plots results asa rule in a generalized pattern of the soil quality,whereas only the sources of the authorized impacts onthe soil are controlled in the process of the investiga�tion and monitoring of the sources of the anthropo�genic impact with the analysis and accounting for theunauthorized impact factors. Such an approach doesnot provide support of the balance in the “state–effect” system stated in the nature�protection regula�tion [38 (Clause 5)], and it seems impossible to prop�erly regulate the soil quality with the existing proce�dures of the regulation of the impact on the soil.

Soil as a natural object does not “differ” if there isthe regulation of the impact on it or not; it unambigu�ously responds to any impact with a change of its qual�ity. However, it is known from the material of the stateecological control that up to 70% of the law violationsin the field of land and nature�protection are con�nected with not accounted for and not limited facts ofatmospheric emissions, water discharges, waste dis�posal, etc. An urgent need arises to decrease the num�ber of nonaccounted for cases of soil impact. This canbe achieved through minimizing the cases of therevealed unauthorized impact or through extendingthe list of regulated types of soil impact, for example,the assessment and regulation of unauthorized emis�sions and discharges resulting in the diffuse transfer ofcontaminants into adjacent media [45].

There is one more problem in the harmonization ofthe ecological regulation in the “state–effect” systemin addition to the nonaccounted for (unauthorized)facts of impact. For example, the character requiresscientific and regulatory�methodical determination ofthe soil contamination and the degradation throughthe adjacent media (atmospheric air, water, etc.). Thecase is that the standards of the maximum allowableemissions and the maximum allowable discharges arefocused first of all on the regulation of the quality ofthe atmospheric air and water but not of the soil prop�erly; respectively, a special system is required to calcu�late the effects on the soil through the atmospheric air,water, etc.

CONCLUSIONS

Principles are developed of ecological soil stan�dardization comprising the substantiation of the crite�ria and levels of the allowable ecological state (quality)of soil and the anthropogenic impact on it. The fol�lowing criteria can be considered as the main ones rep�

resenting the levels of the allowable values of the soilquality: the loss of the bioorganic soil potential, whichdoes not exceed a certain level (according to the dataof expert estimates, the loss of the bioorganic soilpotential would not exceed 30% of its background val�ues); the threshold values of the soil contaminationand degradation under which a large�scale transfer ofcontaminants and the soil mass into adjacent naturalmedia is not possible; the resistance of the soil to theanthropogenic impact depending on its natural prop�erties (humus content, acidity, particle�size composi�tion, etc.); and the land use diversity.

The system of consolidated “state–effect” indicesis developed for soils, and it is expressed as unified rel�ative numerical values on the basis of the above�listedcriteria and the five�level scale of ranking the ecologi�cal state of the natural environment and the impact onthe natural environment, which are used in nature�protection practice. The suggested system serves as thebasis for setting the ranges of the allowable values ofthe ecological state of the soil and the anthropogenicimpact on it taking into account the natural soil prop�erties and the land use types. The principles are sub�stantiated for determining the basic indices of the eco�logical soil state by the main categories of land and thelimits of their general ranges of allowable levels.

The following notions are defined more exactly:the ecological state and quality of the soil; the anthro�pogenic impact and load on the soil. The definition isgiven of an “elementary soil�ecological area.”

A standard base is formed of the data of expert�analytical estimates for the range of allowable values ofthe ecological soil state using the example of urbansoils.

A sequence of works to perform the determinationof the allowable ecological state of the soil and theanthropogenic load on the soil of a land plot is sug�gested.

The ways are discussed to maintain the allowableecological state of the soil by means of the regulationof the deposited (accumulated) and actual anthropo�genic impact on the soil.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are thankful to T.V. Prokof’eva for reviewing ourwork and valuable comments and notes.

REFERENCES

1. Agroecological Evaluation of Lands and the Design ofLandscape�Adaptive Farming Systems and Technologies:Methodological Guidelines (Rosinformagrotekh, Mos�cow, 2005) [in Russian].

2. B. V. Vinogradov, “Remote Indicators of Soil Desertifi�cation and Degradation,” Pochvovedenie, No. 2, 98–103 (1993).

3. B. V. Vinogradov, V. P. Orlov, and V. V. Snakin, “BioticCriteria for the Identification of Ecological Disaster



Zones in Russia,” Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., No. 5,77–89 (1993).

4. E. L. Vorobeichik, O. F. Sadykov, and M. G. Farafontov,Ecological Standardization of Technogenic Contamina�tion (Nauka, Yekaterinburg, 1994) [in Russian].

5. Provisional Procedure for the Determination of AvertedEnvironmental Damage (Goskomekologiys Rossii,Moscow, 1999) [in Russian].

6. Hygienic Norms GN 2.1.7.2041�06 Maximum Permissi�ble Concentrations (MPCs) of Chemical Elements in theSoil.

7. Hygienic Norms GN 2.1.7.2511�09 Provisional Permis�sible Concentrations (PPCs) of Chemical Elements in theSoil.

8. M. V. Guchok and A. S. Yakovlev, “Problems of Inte�grated Assessment and Standardization in the Field ofNature Conservation,” in Proceedings of the V All�Rus�sian Congress of the Dokuchaev Soil Science Society(Rostizdat, Rostov�on�Don, 2008) [in Russian].

9. Law of the City of Moscow of June 25, 2008, no. 28 on theTown�Planning Code of Moscow.

10. Land Code of Russian Federation of October 25, 2001,no. 136�FZ.

11. Instruction on Geological�Engineering and GeoecologicalSurvey in the City of Moscow of March 11, 2004, no. 5.

12. P. A. Kozhevin and M. V. Gorlenko, MultisubstrateTesting of Natural Microbial Communities: Text Book(MAKS Press, Moscow, 2005) [in Russian].

13. Criteria for Assessing the Ecological Situation in the Areasfor Revealing Environmental Emergency Zones and Eco�logical Disaster Zones (Minprirody Rossii, Moscow,1992) [in Russian].

14. Yu. M. Matveev, I. V. Popova, and O. V. Chernova,“Problems in the Standardization of the Content ofChemical Compounds in Soils,” Agrokhimiya, No. 12,54–60 (2001).

15. “Methodological Recommendations for RevealingDegraded and Polluted Lands,” in Environmental Pro�tection: Soils (VNII Prirody, Moscow, 2001) [in Rus�sian].

16. P. S. Miklyaev, A. V. Tomashev, S. E. Okhrimenko,et al., “Natural Radionuclides in the Sediments ofMoscow,” ANRI (2000).

17. NRB�99. Norms of Radioactive Safety.18. A. I. Obukhov, “Methodological Principles of the

Development of MPCs for Heavy Metals and Soil Clas�sification by Contamination,” in System of Methods forStudying the Soil Cover and Its Degradation under theEffect of Heavy Metals: Proceedings of the DokuchaevSoil Science Institute (Moscow, 1992), pp. 13–20 [inRussian].

19. A. I. Obukhov and O. M. Lepneva, “Biogeochemistryof Heavy Metals in the Urban Environment,” Poch�vovedenie, No. 5, 65–73 (1996).

20. M. F. Ovchinnikova, Doctoral Dissertation in Biology(Moscow, 2007).

21. Yu. I. Pikovskii, A. N. Gennadiev, S. S. Chernyanskii,and G. N. Sakharov, “The Problem of Diagnostics andStandardization of the Levels of Soil Pollution by Oiland Oil Products,” Pochvovedenie, No. 9, 1132–1140(2003) [Eur. Soil Sci. 36 (9), 1010–1017 (2003)].

22. I. O. Plekhanova, Doctoral Dissertation in Biology(Moscow, 2008).

23. Resolution of the KhMAO–Yugry Government no. 466�pof December 10, 2004, On Approval of the RegionalNorms “Permissible Residual Concentration of Oil andOil Products in Soils after Remediation and Other Resto�ration Works in the KhMAO–Yugry Area.”

24. Resolution of the Moscow Government of October 26,2004, no. 741�PP On the Correction of the Town�Plan�ning Zones of Administrative Districts and the MasterPlan of Moscow.

25. Soil, City, and Ecology, Ed. by Dobrovol’skii (Moscow,1997) [in Russian].

26. Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology ofRussian Federatino no. 574 of September 12, 2002, OnApproval of Provisional Recommendations on the Devel�opment and Validation of Norms for Permissible Contentof Residual Oil and Its Transformation Products in Soilsafter Remediation and Other Restoration Works.”

27. Appendix 1 to the Resolution of the Government of Mos�cow of November 27, 2007, no. 1018�PP on the Amend�ments of Appendix 1 to the Resolution of the Governmentof Moscow of June 27, 2004, no. 514�PP “On IncreasingSoil Quality in Moscow.”

28. Appendix to the Resolution of the Government of Moscow ofDecember 13, 2005, no. 1029�PP On the Amendment andSupplement of Appendix 1 to the Resolution of the Govern�ment of Moscow of September 10, 2001, no. 743�PP “OnApproval of Rules for the Creation, Maintenance, andProtection of Green Plantations in Moscow”.

29. T. V. Prokof’eva, Candidate’s Dissertation in Biology(Moscow, 1998).

30. Decree of the Mayor of July 27, 1999, no. 801�RM.31. SanPiN 2.1.7.2197�07. Sanitary�Epidemiologic Require�

ments to Soil Quality.32. A. P. Sizov, Monitoring and Protection of Urban Lands

(Moscow, 2000) [in Russian].33. A. V. Smagin, N. A. Azovtseva, M. V. Smagina, et al.,

“Criteria and Methods to Assess the Ecological Statusof Soils in Relation to the Landscaping of Urban Terri�tories,” Pochvovedenie, No. 5, 603–615 (2006) [Eur.Soil Sci. 39 (5), 539–551 (2006)].

34. SP 2.6.1.799�99 (OSPORB�99). The Main SanitaryRules of Radiation Safety.

35. Theory and Practice of the Chemical Analysis of Soils,Ed. by L. A. Vorob’eva (GEOS, Moscow, 2006) [inRussian].

36. S. Ya. Trofimov, Ya. M. Ammosova, and D. S. Orlov,“Effect of Oil on the Soil Cover and the Developmentof the Normative Base on the Effect of Oil Contamina�tion on Soils,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 17: Pochvoved.,no. 2, 30–34 (2000).

37. TSN RB�2003 Requirements on the Ensuring of Radia�tion Safety during the Construction Operations in MoscowOblast [in Russian].

38. Federal Law of January 10, 2001 no. 7 On Environmen�tal Protection.

39. Federal Law of June 16, 1998 no. 101�FZ On the StateRegulation of Agricultural Land Fertility.

40. Federal Law of December 29, 2004, no. 190 On theTown�Planning Code of Russian Federation.

546



41. Ecological Functions of Urban Soils, Ed. by A. S. Kurba�tova and V. N. Bashkin (Madzhenta, Smolensk, 2004)[in Russian].

42. A. S. Yakovlev and Yu. G. Nikulina, “Determination ofStandard for Permissible Residual Oil Content in theSoil According to Ecological Standardization Princi�ples,” in Proceedings of the V All�Russian Congress of theDokuchaev Soil Science Society (Rostizdat, Rostov�on�Don, 2008) [in Russian].

43. A. S. Yakovlev, “Problems of Ecological Standardiza�tion and Ecological Audit in Oil�Producing Industry,”in Use and Protection of Natural Resources in Russia,No. 6, 56–60 (2005).

44. A. S. Yakovlev, V. M. Gendugov, G. P. Glazunov, et al.,“Methodology for the Environmental Assessment ofthe Soil State and Regulation of the Soil Quality,”Pochvovedenie, No. 8, 984–995 (2009) [Eur. Soil Sci.42 (8), 916–925 (2009)].

45. A. S. Yakovlev and M. V. Guchok, “Problems of Inte�grated Assessment and Standardization in the Field ofNature Conservation,” in Normative and Methodologi�cal Support of Environmental Monitoring and Controlwithin the Zone of Anthropogenic Impact of EconomicEntities on the Environment (Mosk. Gos. Univ., Mos�cow, 2007), pp. 10–18 [in Russian].

46. A. S. Yakovlev, P. F. Loiko, V. N. Sazonov, et al., “LegalAspects of Soil Conservation and Land CadasterWorks,” Pochvovedenie, No. 7, 773–780 (2006) [Eur.Soil Sci. 39 (7), 693–698 (2006)].

47. A. S. Yakovlev and O. A. Makarov, “Ecological Assess�ment, Ecological Standardization, and Remediation ofLands: the Main Terms and Definitions,” in Use andConservation of Natural Resources (NIA�PRIRODA,Moscow, 2006), No. 3 (87), pp. 64–70 [in Russian].

48. A. S. Yakovlev, Yu. G. Nikulina, and M. V. Evdokimova,“Principles of the Ecological Standardization of Soilsunder Different Use,” in Basic Achievements in Soil Sci�ence, Ecology, and Agriculture on the Way to Innovations:the First All�Russian Scientific and Practical Conferencewith International Participation (MAKS Press, Moscow,2008), pp. 291–292 [in Russian].

49. A. S. Yakovlev, I. O. Plekhanova, S. V. Kudryashov, andR. A. Aimaletdinov, “Assessment and Regulation of theEcological State of Soils in the Impact Zone of Miningand Metallurgical Enterprises of Norilsk Nickel Com�pany” Pochvovedenie, No. 6, 737–750 (2008) [Eur.Soil Sci. 41 (6), 468–459 (2008)].

50. J. P. E. Anderson, Soil Respiration, Ed. by A. L. Page,R. H. Millar, and D. H. Keeney, in Methods of SoilAnalysis: Part 2. Agronomy (Am. Soc. Agron. Madison,Wisc. 1982), pp. 831–871.

51. E. Angulo, “The Tomlinson Pollution Load IndexApplied to Heavy Metal “Mussel–Watah” Data: a Use�ful Index to Assess Coastal Pollution,” Sci. Total Envi�ron. 187, 19–56 (1996).

52. T. Crommentuijn, M. D. Polder, and E. J. van dePlassche, Maximum Permissible Concentration and Neg�ligible Concentration for Metals, Taking BackgroundConcentrations into Account, RIVM Report 601 501 001(RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1997).

53. J. Dumanski and C. Pieri, “Application of the Pressure�State�Response Framework for the Land Quality Indi�cators (LQI) Program,” in Land Quality Indicators andTheir Use in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Develop�ment (1998), pp. 35–57.

54. D. Heemsbergen, M. Warne, M. McLaughlin, andR. Kookana, “The Australian Methodology to DeriveEcological Investigation Levels in ContaminatedSoils,” CSIRO Land and Water Science Report, 43/09(2009).

55. M. Schomaker, “Development of Environmental Indi�cators in UNEP,” in Land Quality Indicators and TheirUse in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development(1998), pp. 25–35.

56. L. O. Temmerman, M. Hoenig, and P. O. Scokart,“Determination of ‘Normal’ Levels and Upper LimitValues of Trace Elements in Soils,” Z. Pflanzenernaehr.Bodenk. 147 (6), 687–694 (1984).

57. L. G. Wesselink, J. Notenboom, and A. Tiktak, TheConsequences of the European Soil Framework Directivefor Dutch Policy, MNP Report, 31 (2006).

58. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance Document //EPA/630/R�00/001 (External Review Draft) (2000).

59. Soil Microbial Community Toxicity Test. EPA 40 CFRPart 797.3700: Toxic Substances Control Act Test Guide�lines, Proposed Rule (EPA,1987).

60. Effects on the Activity of the Soil Microflora: BBA Guide�lines for the Official Testing of Plant Protection Products,VI. 1�1 (2nd Ed, 1990).

61. ISO 11266�1. Soil Quality – Guidance on LaboratoryTests for Biodegradation in Soil: Part 1. Aerobic Condi�tions (1993).

62. ISO 14239. Soil Quality – Laboratory Incubation Sys�tems for Measuring the Mineralization of Organic Chem�icals in Soil under Aerobic Conditions (1997).

ecological standardization of soil and soil quality control

Documents