Restoring ecological properties of acidic soils contaminated with elemental sulfur

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.110Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Anthropogenic deposition of elemental sulfur causes extreme soil acidity.

  • Polluted soils were amended in pots and in the field with lime and organic matter.

  • We monitored soil chemistry, plant growth, and bacterial communities.

  • CaCO3 alone partially restored soil chemistry and ecological properties.

  • Multiple applications of CaCO3 may be required to prevent future acidification.

Abstract

Elemental sulfur (S0) accumulates in the environment from anthropogenic sources as a byproduct from oil and gas refining and from trap and skeet shooting targets. Bacteria can oxidize S0 to H2SO4, which acidifies soil. We explored whether combinations of soil amendments can be used to remediate acidic soils contaminated with S0 by restoring soil chemistry, plant growth, and bacterial communities in a greenhouse. Results were compared to a contamination gradient in a field that had been limed with CaMg(CO3)2 two years prior. Amendments in the greenhouse included CaCO3 by itself, and in combination with fertilizer, compost, biochar, and chitin. Amended soils were incubated for one week and half of all containers were planted with Poa nevadensis. We sequenced bacterial DNA from a subset of amended soils and along the field gradient. CaCO3 additions in the greenhouse initially raised the pH of contaminated soil to values found in uncontaminated soils. However, pH decreased over time, which was likely caused by the oxidation of S0 to H2SO4. This was also apparent in the field, where CaCO3 additions raised pH to 4 but not to the desired value of 5 or higher. Plants in the greenhouse failed to grow in the unamended contaminated soil, but CaCO3 alone reduced concentrations of toxic cations and resulted in more plant growth than in the uncontaminated soil. CaCO3 also partially restored the bacterial communities in the greenhouse and in the field by increasing richness and diversity to near values found in uncontaminated soil, suggesting that bacteria can be resilient to prolonged acidic conditions. Organic amendments did not provide a significant benefit to restoration. This study demonstrates that acid neutralization alone can restore abiotic and biotic components and productivity of soils contaminated with S0, but multiple CaCO3 applications may be required to avoid future acidification.

Introduction

Acid deposition and generation occurs worldwide predominately from acid rain (Driscoll et al., 2001) and acid mine drainage (Johnson and Hallberg, 2005). The most extreme cases of acidification often occur where reduced sulfur is oxidized (Johnson and Hallberg, 2005, McTee et al., 2016). Approximately 5–10 Mt of reduced sulfur is stockpiled annually as a byproduct of oil and gas refining, much of which is composed of elemental sulfur (S0) that is stored in blocks (Rappold and Lackner, 2010). Chemolithotrophic and mixotrophic bacteria can oxidize S0 to H2SO4 when H2O and O2 are available (Fliermans and Brock, 1972, Lawrence and Germida, 1988, Suzuki et al., 1999). Consequently, effluent water from blocks of S0 can have pH as low as 0.4, which can contaminate soil and water (Birkham et al., 2010). These blocks likely account for the largest volume of S0 introduced to the environment, but other vectors exist. Skeuse and Spencer (1999) patented a trap and skeet target composed of approximately 53% CaCO3, 6% modifiers, and 41% S0. S0 accumulates where trap and skeet targets fall, which can be at public or private shooting ranges (McTee et al., 2016). Oxidation of S0 in sulfur-based targets resulted in soil pH below 3 in a previous study (McTee et al., 2016). These cases of extreme acidity from the oxidation of S0 represent a recent problem and management strategies need to be developed to restore affected areas.

S0 can be managed by controlling the conditions that allow its oxidation. This would involve manipulating oxygen and water availability, temperature, and the bacterial communities that inhabit particle surfaces (Birkham et al., 2010, Nevell and Wainwright, 1987). The only study to effectively lower oxidation rates used surface additions of NaCl, but NaCl washes away with precipitation (Crescenzi et al., 2006). Management approaches to prevent the conditions that allow S0 to oxidize in situ are not well studied and would be laborious and costly. Rappold and Lackner (2010) even suggested that H2S and S0 could be oxidized to H2SO4, neutralized, and disposed of in the ocean. The shortcomings and challenging logistics of these strategies demonstrate the need for alternatives to restore both soil chemistry and biological communities.

Acidic soils strongly affect both plants and bacterial communities (Fierer and Jackson, 2006, Robson, 1989). For example, acidic soils often have high concentrations of Al3+ and Fe3+ that kill plants (Bowman et al., 2008, De la Fuente et al., 1997), leaving soils bare, and susceptible to erosion (Wong, 2003). The absence of plants and low pH also affect the bacterial communities that are integral in the cycling of nutrients (Lauber et al., 2009, Rousk et al., 2009, Rousk et al., 2010). Bacteria may die or enter dormancy in response to a disturbance (Jones and Lennon, 2010), such as acidification, but their ability to emerge from dormancy in response to restoration of acidic soils needs to be examined.

CaCO3 can rapidly neutralize acidic soils (Robson, 1989, Rappold and Lackner, 2010). But the addition of CaCO3 will not restore nutrients lost from acidification (Bowman et al., 2008, Driscoll et al., 2001, Robson, 1989), so additional soil amendments may be needed. Fertilizer replenishes nutrients and boosts plant yields, which could increase soil organic matter (OM) (Haynes and Naidu, 1998). Organic matter buffers pH in part by increasing concentrations of base cations (Yuan and Xu, 2011), reduces Al3+ toxicity to plants (Haynes and Mokolobate, 2001, Seco et al., 2014), and can increase the functional diversity of microbes (Bending et al., 2002). Effective types of OM for restoration include compost, biochar, and chitin. Compost increases plant growth at shooting ranges, partly by reducing the bioavailability of Pb2+ and Zn2+ (Siebielec and Chaney, 2012). Biochar helps plants establish in contaminated soils because it absorbs and retains toxic substances (Beesley et al., 2011). Chitin, which comprises the exoskeleton of arthropods, has been used to immobilize contaminants and increase pH in acid mine water (Daubert and Brennan, 2007, Robinson-Lora and Brennan, 2010).

It is unknown how to manage acidic soils that receive continual inputs of acid from the oxidation of S0. It is also unknown how these management strategies might influence soil quality and the plant and bacterial communities that help maintain a healthy ecosystem. Our objective was to determine to what degree various soil amendments could restore soil chemistry, plant growth, and bacterial communities. Soils were amended with CaCO3 by itself, and in combination with fertilizer, compost, biochar, and chitin, which were then incubated in a greenhouse. After one week, we analyzed soil chemistry and planted Poa nevadensis in half of the containers. After ten weeks, we analyzed soil chemistry again, measured plant biomass, and characterized the bacterial communities. Results were compared to a contamination gradient in the field that had been limed with CaMg(CO3)2 two years prior. Three questions were addressed: 1) how do soil amendments change soil chemistry over time, 2) which soil amendments facilitate the greatest plant growth, and 3) do bacterial communities recover when acidic soils are amended? We hypothesized that CaCO3 alone would restore soil chemistry, plant growth, and bacterial diversity because pH is often the most important driver of these properties. We also hypothesized that organic amendments would enhance plant growth by decreasing concentrations of Al3+ and stabilizing soil pH over time.

Section snippets

Soil collection

We collected soil at a former sporting clay range (Bitterroot Sporting Clays) in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana (46° 41′N, 114° 02′W; elevation 970 m). From 1999 to 2006, the range used trap and skeet targets that contained S0 which caused soil pH to fall below 3 in places (see McTee et al., 2016 for a description of the site). We collected soil (0–15 cm) with a trowel in several areas within five contaminated (termed Contaminated) and five uncontaminated sites (termed Reference hereafter).

Greenhouse: effect of amendments on soil chemistry

Amended treatments clustered separately from Unamended and Reference treatments at one week (Fig. 1a), whereas all amended treatments except CaCO3 clustered with the Unamended treatment at ten weeks (Fig. 1b). Importantly, no treatments clustered near the Reference soil despite a recovery in pH.

At one week, the pH of all soils that received a CaCO3 amendment increased to values equal to the pH in the Reference treatment, but by ten weeks, the pH decreased in all amended soils (Fig. 2).

Multiple applications of CaCO3 may be necessary to remediate S0 contamination

Amending contaminated soils with CaCO3 alone and in combination with fertilizer, biochar, and compost did not generate soil chemical profiles resembling uncontaminated (Reference) soils (Fig. 1). This may be explained, at least partly, by much greater inherent concentrations of Ca2+ and SO42– in contaminated soils compared to uncontaminated soils, and CaCO3 additions increased Ca2+ concentrations further. It is uncertain if elevated concentrations of these ions would actually impair restoration

Conclusions

Using greenhouse experiments and a field survey, we showed that CaCO3 can neutralize acidic soils contaminated with S0, reduce concentrations of Al3+, Mn2+, and Fe, enable plant growth, and increase bacterial richness and diversity to near that of uncontaminated soil. This occurred even though soil amendments did not restore the chemical profile of uncontaminated soils (Fig. 1). Organic and fertilizer amendments increased soil fertility but may provide too little benefit at too high a cost to

Acknowledgements

Sequencing was performed by the IBEST Genomics Resources Core at the University of Idaho and was partly supported by NIH COBRE grant P30GM103324. All other research efforts were funded by MPG Ranch. We thank Chris Harris for assisting with the setup of the experiment, Dave Patterson for lending statistical advice, and Sean Gibbons for discussing techniques to analyze bacterial communities. We are grateful to Ward Laboratories for being helpful with our questions regarding analyses and three

References (65)

  • N. Seco et al.

    Spreading of mixtures including wastes from the mussel shell treatment industry on an acid soil: effects on the dissolved aluminum species and on pasture production

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2014)
  • G. Siebielec et al.

    Testing amendments for remediation of military range contaminated soil

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2012)
  • Y. Wang et al.

    mvabund - an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data

    Methods Ecol. Evol.

    (2012)
  • M. Wong

    Ecological restoration of mine degraded soils, with emphasis on metal contaminated soils

    Chemosphere

    (2003)
  • E. Aronesty

    Comparison of sequencing utility programs

    Open Bioinforma. J.

    (2013)
  • T.K. Birkham et al.

    Controls and rates of acid production in commercial-scale sulfur blocks

    J. Environ. Qual.

    (2010)
  • N.A. Bokulich et al.

    Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing

    Nat. Methods

    (2012)
  • W.D. Bowman et al.

    Negative impact of nitrogen deposition on soil buffering capacity

    Nat. Geosci.

    (2008)
  • N. Brady et al.

    The Nature and Properties of Soils

    (2002)
  • J.G. Caporaso et al.

    QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data

    Nat. Methods

    (2010)
  • J.G. Caporaso et al.

    Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2011)
  • J. Cavender-Bares et al.

    The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2009)
  • S.M. Combs et al.

    Soil organic matter

  • F. Crescenzi et al.

    Control of acidity development on solid sulfur due to bacterial action

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2006)
  • L.N. Daubert et al.

    Passive remediation of acid mine drainage using crab shell chitin

    Environ. Eng. Sci.

    (2007)
  • J.M. De la Fuente et al.

    Aluminum tolerance in transgenic plants by alteration of citrate synthesis

    Science

    (1997)
  • C.T. Driscoll et al.

    Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies

    Bioscience

    (2001)
  • R.C. Edgar

    Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST

    Bioinformatics

    (2010)
  • D.W. Fadrosh et al.

    An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform

    Microbiome

    (2014)
  • N. Fierer et al.

    The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2006)
  • C.B. Fliermans et al.

    Ecology of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria in hot acid soils

    J. Bacteriol.

    (1972)
  • K. Frank et al.

    Phosphorous

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text