SOIL FORMATION IN TECHNOGENIC LANDSCAPES: TRENDS, RESULTS, AND REPRESENTATION IN THE CURRENT CLASSIFICATIONS (REVIEW) Текст научной статьи по специальности «Науки о Земле и смежные экологические науки»

Вестник Томского государственного университета. Биология. 2021. № 56. С. 6-32

АГРОХИМИЯ И ПОЧВОВЕДЕНИЕ

UDC 631.618

doi: 10.17223/19988591/56/1

Denis A. Sokolov1, Vladimir A. Androkhanov1, Evgeny V. Abakumov2

'Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation 2St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

Soil formation in technogenic landscapes: trends, results, and representation in the current classifications (Review)

For hundreds of years, humans have been a soil formation factor. With the recent industrial development ofvast territories, the formation of soils in technogenic and post-anthropogenic conditions requires more attention. This study reviews the literature on the soils of human-transformed or human-made landscapes (technogenic landscapes), in which soil formation starts on a new technogenic substrate. Such soils may occur in different bioclimatic conditions. We focused on processes that govern soil morphology and the subsequent transformation of these soils. Often, the soils of technogenic landscapes are characterized by high bulk density values and by the presence of dense contact. Their properties are affected mainly by organic matter accumulation (humus, litter, and peat). The paper also covers approaches to the reclamation of technogenic landscapes, the main stages, and partly the reclamation options. It is noted that the efficiency of reclamation activities depends on the available resources and timely decision-making. We assessed the efficiency of soil reclamation methods and suggested technogenic landscape survey techniques. The major approaches to soil classification in technogenic landscapes in national and international soil classification systems are briefly discussed, and an approximate correlation of soil names used in different systems is suggested. All considered classifications provide the opportunity to assess the soil properties and specifics of soil formation in technogenic landscapes. However, in most studies, the soil diagnostics are limited to top-order taxa only. The paper contains 3 Figures, 2 Tables, and '40 References. Keywords: Soil formation; technogenic landscapes; reclamation; soil classification; coal mine; dump rock; Technosol

Funding's: This work is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research as part of Project No. 20-14-50193 (literature review) and the Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry Government Project (Recommendations for surveying and reclamation of technogenic landscapes.)

The Authors declare no conflict of interest.

For citation: Sokolov DA, Androkhanov VA, Abakumov EV. Soil formation in technogenic landscapes: trends, results, and representation in the current classifications (Review). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2021;56:6-32. doi: 10.17223/19988591/56/1

Introduction

The development of the post-industrial economy does not reduce industrial output or the rate of mineral extraction. On the contrary, the manufacturing productivity increase is accompanied by the transformation of large natural landscapes into technogenic barrens (technogenic landscapes). The formation and structure of technogenic landscapes are governed by human engineering activities to extract and process minerals [1]. Engineering soil transformation has the most significant impact on soils compared to agricultural and urban cases [2] because it leads to a drastic transformation not only of soils themselves but also of all soil formation factors. Soil formation in technogenic landscapes is accompanied by biocenotic succession [3], as well as changes in microclimate, initial substrate properties, and terrain features [4]. As opposed to human-transformed (disturbed) soils, where the natural processes are just corrected, soil-forming processes in technogenic landscapes utilize the "new" substrate [5].

Although some countries faced disturbed area problems as early as the 19th century, technogenic landscapes have become an object of soil research relatively recently. It was facilitated, firstly, by a significant increase in environmental footprint in the second half of the 20th century, and secondly by gaining experience in soil reclamation [6]. Until recently, the research on industrially disturbed territories has covered, mainly, the countries of Europe, the former USSR, and North America. By the beginning of the 1970s, technogenic landscapes were studied in the USA [7, 8], the DDR [9], Great Britain [10], Germany [11], Czechoslovakia [12], and Poland [13]. In Russia, as reported by the Public Committee for Safe Industrial and Mining Practices, by 1965, the reclaimed area exceeded 60.000 hectares [14]. In recent decades, a sharp increase in mineral deposit extraction has occurred in developing countries, so the geography of research has expanded significantly to cover China [15-17], India [18-20], South America [21-23], and Africa [24, 25].

The ever-increasing interest in technogenic landscapes is also related to their significant impact on adjacent areas. Thus, the risk of extreme flooding is higher in areas of intense mining [26-28]. Technogenic landscapes are also subjected to erosion and solifluction processes [21, 29]. Drain water ingress into migration flows affects ground and surface waters [30-32]. Artifacts containing carbonaceous material are prone to spontaneous combustion [33], which reduces the air quality [34].

Technogenic landscapes have not only negative but also some positive effects. In some cases, the fertility of mining waste is higher than that of natural soils [35]. There are cases when soils suitable for plant growth are produced from mining waste. Such waste is prepared by grinding stony fractions, adding active organic matter, and, sometimes, pH neutralization [36]. In the soils of technogenic landscapes, a particular field of study is their carbon sequestration capacity [37-39].

Regardless of the type of activity that produced technogenic landscapes and soils, there are always geochemically (and sometimes geomorphologically)

unstable formations. The forces driving the balancing of their surface properties with environmental factors are not only the soil formation drivers but may be caused by pedogenesis. For this reason, the studies of the soils of technogenic landscapes are of great interest.

This review analyzes the existing global approaches to soil formation in technogenic landscapes, their reclamation, and their placement in the soil classification system. We consider the soils created through self-remediation or by reclamation of mining waste dumps, mineral processing waste, construction waste, and marine sediments deposited onshore during dredging operations. We paid particular attention to coal mine dump soils, as coal mining is the leading industry that expands technogenic landscapes. In addition, coal is mined on all continents except for Antarctica and in every climatic zone.

Characteristic features of soil formation in technogenic landscapes

Physical properties of parent materials. Compaction and decompaction. As technogenic landscapes are formed, significant volumes of various substrates are extracted or moved by heavy machinery. As a result, soil formation usually occurs on over-compacted substrates. Even when the process does not include surface leveling or the use of heavy equipment (for example, in water development projects), the soil density of technogenic landscapes is still higher than the density of natural soils in the adjacent areas [40]. While the density of the technogenic landscape soils composed of sandy, loamy and clayey substrates (loose rocks) is in the range of 1.1-1.8 g/cm3, it can reach 2.5 g/cm3 for stony surfaces. In both cases, as soils are formed, the density does not remain constant and changes through two alternating and opposite compaction and decompaction processes [41].

Technogenic soils compaction often continues even after a human activity is completed. For instance, stony soils continue to be compacted regardless of the climatic conditions through packing (shrinkage) of the soil-forming substrate (Table 1). Extra soil compaction occurs when the soils are used for agriculture [42], and, subsequently, as polyculture is replaced by monoculture [43]. The high density of loose soils in technogenic landscapes leads to low water permeability. Therefore, the soil formation on the surface of drill cuttings in a humid climate is hydromorphic [44], which is also detected in moderately humid areas covered by a fertile soil layer [45]. Reducing processes identified by increased methane emission [46] or formation of ferromanganese nodules [47] are detected in the soils formed on stony substrates.

Decompaction occurs as a result of root system development initiating the soil structure formation [15]. Because loamy soils contain more material suitable for structure formation than stony soils, their deconsolidation is faster.

Spatial and vertical heterogeneity. Heterogeneity is typical of the soils of technogenic landscapes. Spatial heterogeneity (Fig. 1) is found at sites where the surface is composed of various substrates [17, 48]. A pronounced profile

heterogeneity is formed during reclamation, as rocks are laid layer-by-layer. It is also produced as young soil mature. In a humid climate, the textural differentiation of the profile of the technogenic landscape soils is caused by eluvial and illuvial processes [49]. In technogenic formations composed of stony rocks, the soil profile differentiation is due to physical, biophysical, chemical, and biochemical disintegration [50]. It is noted that the intensity of disintegration of coarse rock fragments is higher in arid areas, while for gravel and sand, it is higher in areas with optimal moisture content [51].

Fig. 1. Scheme of the formation of technogenic landscape spatial heterogeneity in surface mining

Organic matter accumulation. Soil profile differentiation by organic matter content is a distinctive feature of most technogenic landscapes. Organic matter can be both inherited from soil-forming rocks (lithogenic), e.g., in the soils of coal mine dump, or generated by soil and biological processes. As many authors note (Table 1), the soils of technogenic landscapes, regardless of the rock composition and climatic conditions, feature intense organic matter accumulation rates exceeding those in natural soils. In the areas where organic matter accumulation occurs in zonal soils, organic carbon in technogenic landscapes is fixed by humus accumulation.

High organic matter accumulation rates are also found in the soils with soil-forming rocks enriched with lithogenic organic matter [61]. The accumulation of humus increases from stony to sandy [58] and further to loamy rocks [82]. In areas where the formation of thick humus horizons is not a feature of the zonal soil formation, the intensity and peculiarities of organic matter stabilization processes in the soils of technogenic landscapes are determined by the lithological properties of the substrates [83]. In the soils enriched with fine fractions (< 0.01 mm), high organic matter accumulation rates can also be found in subtropical and tropical climates [19, 64]. In such areas, they are also found on stony substrates capable of producing fine particles upon weathering [20, 23].

It should be noted that humus accumulation is not the only process of organic carbon accumulation in the soils.

Table 1

Key factors and processes contributing to technogenic soil properties

Key properties Major processes Manifestation Soil-forming rocks Climate Authors

Density Compaction Rolling Total Everywhere Shikula, Drugov, 1974 [52]; Jacinthe etal., 2006 [46]; Evans etal., 2013 [53]; Ahirwal, Maiti, 2016 T201

Shrinkage Mostly stony Everywhere Sokolov et. al., 2015 [54]; Ahirwal, Maiti, 2016 [20]; Ruiz, 2020 [23]

Loamy rocks Humid

Decompaction Structure formation All non-phytotoxic, mostly loose Everywhere Shikula, Drugov, 1974 [52]; Zhao et al., 2013 [15]; Frouz et al., 2017 [551; Ruiz et al., 2020 [561

Heterogeneity Textural differentiation Disintegration Mostly stony Everywhere Kusov, 2007 [50]; Sokolov et al., 2012 [511; Sokolov, 2019 [411

Lessivage Humid Daniels et al., 2004 [49]; Daniell, van Deventer, 2018 T241; Wang et al., 2017 T571

Podzolization Strongly continental humid Sokolov etal., 2015 [541

Organic matter accumulation Humus accumulation Non-phytotoxic, from stony to clay Moderate and strongly continental Burykin, Zasorina, 1989 [58]; Shugaley, 1997 [59]; Abakumov, Frouz, 2009 [60]; Vinduskova et al., 2014 [61]; Uzarowicz et al., 2017 [62]; Cizkova, 2018; Frouz, Vinduskova 2018 [631

Sedimentary stony, silty, ash, and bottom sediments Dry subtropical and tropical Masciandaro, 2014 [64]; Maiti, Maiti 2015 [191; Ahirwal, Maiti, 2016 T201

Humid subtropical and tropical Ruiz et al., 2020 [23]; Hu et al., 2021 [65]

Litter accumulation Non-phytotoxic, from stony to clay Moderate and strongly continental Filcheva et al., 2000 [66]; Kurachev, Androkhanov, 2002 [67]; Abakumov, Gagarina, 2006 [681; Pereverzev etal., 2007 [691

Coalification Pyrite-bearing loamv rocks Moderate continental Solntseva, Rubilina, 1987 T701

Mummification Sedimentary stonv Arid strongly continental Sokolov etal., 2014 T471

Organic matter oxidation Dehumification Humified substrates Everywhere Androkhanov et al., 2000 [40]; Shrestha, Lai, 2011 [711; Festin et. al., 2019 T251

Decoalification Coal-containing loose and dense sedimentary rocks Moderate continental humid Rumpel, Kogel-Knabner, 2002 [72]; Rumpel, 2004 [731; Chabbi et al., 2006 T741

Burning Humid Querol et al., 2011 [33]; Bragina et al., 2014 [751; Sokolov, 2019 T411

Table 1 (end)

Key properties Major processes Manifestation Soil-forming rocks Climate Authors

Acidity acidification acid drainage sulfide-containing humid Kuka et al., 2013 [76]; Rocha-Nicoleite et al., 2017 [21]; Ramasamy, Power, 2019 [77]; Weiler et al., 2020 [781; Acharya, Kharel, 2020 [791

decarbonatization and gypsification sulfide-bearing loose sedimentary rocks moderate continental Solntseva et al., 1992 [29]; Bragina, 2016 [801; Konstantinov et al., 2018 [811

For example, in soils on calcareous rocks within technogenic landscapes, the abundance of soil microorganisms contributes to a higher rate of particular organic matter accumulation compared to mineral-bonded organic matter. This effect increases with the soil heat [65]. When the activity of plant organic matter destructors is suppressed for various reasons, plant litter is accumulated on the surface of technogenic landscapes [66, 69]. During the formation of herbaceous ecosystems, the predominance of litter accumulation over humus accumulation is observed in the first stages of vegetation development [67]. In forest ecosystems of boreal and sub-boreal climates, litter accumulation often replaces humus accumulation [68]. Specific organic matter stabilization processes in the soils within technogenic landscapes include carbonizing plant residues in highly acidic rocks [70] and their mummification during the soil formation in arid areas [47, 54].

Organic matter oxidation. In technogenic landscapes where humus substrates form the surface, organic matter dehumification occurs. The upper layers of natural soils stored for subsequent use in reclamation are subjected to mineralization to a greater extent [25, 40]. The reason for this is that the bulk humus layer in the soil profile being formed is slowly involved in metabolic processes. In 30-year-old soils from Siberian coal mine dumps, the biologically active layer thickness does not exceed 10 cm. The microbial biomass and basal respiration values only come close to the background value in the topmost 5-cm thick layer [84].

Another manifestation of organic matter mineralization in the soils of coal mine dumps is combustion occurring as spontaneous combustion of the dumps. Combustion is not a soil process. Nevertheless, it affects both the soil-forming rock composition [75] and the properties of the soils at the adjacent sites [41]. A less intensive process of lithogenic organic matter oxidation is called decoalification [85]. Along with mineralization [74], decoalification involves coal carbon in the formation of humus systems and soil microbial communities [72, 73]. It is noted that the carbon balance in the soils of technogenic landscapes remains positive after the decomposition of lignite. 60% of the CO2 released from such soils is provided by the degradation of carbonates [86].

Acidification and gypsification. The acidity of the technogenic landscape soils is also associated with oxidation processes (Table 1) Minimal pH values are characteristic of soils formed on sulfide-containing wastes of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy and coal mining. Oxidation of sulfides at such sites leads to the termination of plant communities [87]. In humid areas, this process initiates acid drainage, which increases heavy metal mobility [88]. When the soils are formed on carbonate rocks, exposure to acid solutions leads to leaching or decarbonatization [81]. The latter is often accompanied by gypsum formation: gypsification of the entire soil profile or the upper part [29, 80].

Soil properties and environmental conditions. The soil formation in technogenic landscapes does not always follow the trend of pedogenesis typical of zonal soils in natural conditions. The primary reason for this is the soil-forming substrate properties. The trends of local natural and technogenic pedogenesis

coincide only where the properties of technogenic substrates are close to those of soil-forming rocks in undisturbed soils. This is most evident in a moderate continental climate, where humus accumulation is the leading process of soil formation on both dumps of loamy rocks and natural loamy soils. Besides, this is a primary process for the soils in hotter and more humid regions but only on rocks with a high lithogenic humus accumulation potential. Such rocks contain or can produce a sufficient amount of fine mineral material [89, 90].

The evolution of eluvial and illuvial processes leading to texture-differentiated soils is typical of humid climate areas. Illuvial processes are primarily found in stony substrates, especially consisting of rocks less resistant to weathering. However, the high density of technogenic substrates and their shrinkage can minimize the manifestation of any soil processes.

Another important feature is that the surfaces of most technogenic landscapes are differentiated in their relief, density, composition, and some other soil-forming rock properties. Under such conditions, the evolution of soils and topsoil is diversified [41], while the divergence of soil geochemical processes in time and space contributes to further isolation of evolutionary trends [91].

Reclamation of technogenic landscapes

On the practical side, the soil formation in technogenic landscapes is a transformation of the substrate properties to make them "useful" and facilitate further use of the technogenic landscapes. "Useful" functions are selected and adjusted while reclamation is in progress. Conventionally, reclamation is understood as restoring soil fertility to a degree suitable for agriculture and forestry [11]. Recently, the concept of reclamation has been somewhat changed, mainly due to expanding its goals and objectives. Today's reclamation is the formation of a sustainable neo-landscape that meets the soil-ecological state specifications and has the soil functions defined at the design stage [92]. Such a definition suggests that the result of reclamation is creating sustainable soil cover, contributing to the reproduction of the key ecosystem components with a certain level of fertility [41]. In practical terms, results of the soil formation in technogenic landscapes should be considered through the soil-ecological efficiency of reclamation [4]. Let us explain that by soil-ecological efficiency of reclamation, we mean the ability of the soils of technogenic landscapes to perform the functions inherent for natural undisturbed (zonal) soils in the same area.

Modern approaches to reclamation involve four main stages (Fig. 2). At the first planning stage, we define reclamation goals and objectives and assess the required and available resources for implementing methods and options of reclamation [17, 57, 93].

At the engineering stage, the relief and surface layers of a technogenic landscape are formed, including horizontal surface arrangement and slope reduction. Boulder rocks resistant to supergene transformation are often used to

stabilize the slopes mechanically and ensure geomorphological stability. When building flat and slightly sloping areas, it is better to cover the surface with potentially fertile substrates (PFS) suitable for soil formation. One example case is the disturbed areas of Mangyshlak and the foothills of the Tien Shan within Kazakhstan. It shows that substrates already transformed by soil formation are more susceptible to soil processes [94]. In a moderate climate, humus material of fertile soil layers (FSL), pre-stored before mineral deposit development, is used for surface backfill [38, 43, 48, 95]. Where FSL resources are in low supply, the fertile layer can be mixed with other rocks (usually loamy). It was established that the acceptable mix ratio is 50%. With 75% loam content, the ability of the soil to self-repair is sharply reduced. Adding more rocks to FSL decreases the resistance of the reclaimed soil to stress [96]. Some reclamation guidelines suggest backfill with FSL not immediately after the dump formation, but 4-5 years after; the soil will settle down and be inhabited by plant communities [97].

L'L^LUUL^ efciytf

Fig. 2. Reclamation activities flowchart

When the neo-landscape body is composed of phytotoxic substrates, chemical reclamation is used at the engineering stage [56]. Chemical ameliorants make the root zone suitable for plant growing [64, 87, 98, 99]. They also reduce the mobility of pollutants [77]. Chemical reclamation is also used for soil improvement. The use of mineral fertilizers [46], ash [76], some organic [19, 100], and municipal solid waste [78] are widespread. Recently, particular attention has been paid to the use of coal produced by incomplete combustion of wood [18, 25], animal bones [101], or fossil coal [102] in reclamation. It was found that in climatic conditions unfavorable for humus accumulation, pyrocarbons promote the fixation of carbon and other nutrients in soils [103]. The presence of lignite particles in the soil facilitates herbaceous vegetation growth and mortmass accumulation [104].

The key objective of the biological stage is forming a layer of soil and vegetation over the surface of a technogenic landscape. The layer properties should meet the goals of reclamation. Note that some goals do not require the biological stage at all. For example, there is reclamation for construction when structures and industrial sites are built within a technogenic landscape. Reclamation for fishery provides the lowest soil-ecological efficiency. It is often limited to slope flattening and creating shallow ponds for subsequent fish farming [16]. Overgrowing of technogenic landscapes can be considered as a particular case of reclamation. This option also excludes the biological stage. Surrounding ecosystems, which usually have a substantial biological capacity, promote vegetation growth on the soil-forming substrate [59]. For coal mine dumps, the soil-ecological efficiency of overgrowth is often higher than conventional forestry and agricultural reclamation technologies [22, 105].

The post-engineering stage. With the proximity to large settlements, a wide variety of rock compositions, and landforms (some of them are unsuitable for any further use), in some cases, technogenic landscapes are promising for recreational (tourist) reclamation. For example, dumps are "technogenic mountains", so they are attractive for residents of plain territories. The reason for technogenic landscape attractiveness is their specific macro- and mesorelief and the presence of various rocks and vegetation areas that may form a wide range of forest, meadow, and rupicolous ecosystems. The soil-ecological efficiency of this option depends on the properties of stored substrates and the intensity of the subsequent use of an area [93].

Reclamation of a technogenic landscape for water protection aims to maintain the sustainable functioning of water bodies, both natural and created through industrial activities. This option rarely covers the entire technogenic landscape. Usually, it applies to the areas adjacent to water bodies. It was established that under a humid climate, the storm runoff coefficient at unreclaimed sites is 2-3 times higher than at reclaimed ones [26]. Such results are possible when multilayered perennial plantings on suitable soils are created on the surface of a technogenic landscape.

Forestry reclamation is widespread in humid and subhumid areas. The high efficiency of this option largely depends on the eluvial processes in soils. However, because of the high substrate density, the survival rate of seedlings is low [53]. Moreover, some cereal plants may hamper the growth of woody plants [21]. Dissected topography minimizes these factors and increases the soil-ecological efficiency of forestry reclamation [55, 106]. It is also noted that areas covered with deciduous forests show faster litter transformation than coniferous forests [63]. In this way, the microbiocenosis similar to that in natural soils is formed [66]. The use of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) in reclamation contributes to nitrogen accumulation in the soils [107]. In some cases, the rates of soil nitrogen accumulation in sea-buckthorn plantations exceed those in areas with leguminous grasses [15].

Agricultural reclamation has the highest soil and ecological efficiency. The primary reason is that this reclamation option aims to form highly fertile soils. It is achieved through surface leveling, application of fertile substrates [38, 109], fertilizing [42], sowing crops [21], and maintaining the required fertility in the root layer [43, 71]. For this reason, agricultural reclamation is only appropriate for large areas [57]. Nevertheless, many references have described the use of crops in reclamation without radical soil improvement [20, 56, 78].

The review of research on reclamation has enabled us to identify some measures to increase the soil cover remediation efficiency (Fig. 3). First of all, we should assess the climatic conditions of the technogenic landscape location: the amount of precipitation, biologically active temperatures, evaporation rate, and other metrics. Then, the natural soils of adjacent areas should be studied to assess the zonal soil formation trends and identify the accompanying soil processes. The next step is to evaluate the quantity and quality of available FSL and PFS and classify technogenic substrates by their degree of suitability for soil formation. The reclamation options can be selected both for the entire technogenic landscape or specifically for its sections. Further, the substrates to be deposited on the surface and relief formation methods should be selected. Having evaluated all the above-listed conditions, we should select plant species for biological reclamation. At this step, it is important to take into account the ecological flexibility of plant species.

Sequence Object assessment and development of recommendations

1 Climatic conditions assessmen t

2 Identification of zonal soil formation trends

3 Assessment of locally available fertile and potentially fertile substrates

4 Assessment of the man-made landscape rock properties

5 Selection of the reclamation option

6 Selection of the rocks to be deposited on the surface

7 Selection of the surface relief formation method

8 Selection of plant species for biological reclamation

Stages of reclamation Planning Engineering Biological

Fig. 3. The steps of technogenic landscape survey and recommendation development

The soil-ecological efficiency depends on the availability of resources and their use in due time. Obviously, all reclamation conditions and resources should be evaluated at the planning stage for maximum efficiency. A shortage of such resources as FSL and PFS at the engineering stage can significantly reduce the reclamation efficiency. At the biological stage, there are few chances to change the reclamation activities. Therefore, under a shortage of FSL and PFS, the artificial substrates should spatially and vertically alternate reasonably, and diverse relief formation methods should be used. It will contribute to a) the efficient use of the reclamation resources; b) the avoidance of "exotic" combinations of the

soil-forming rock properties, climatic conditions, and plant species used at the biological stage; c) the increased biological diversity of a technogenic landscape.

Classification of soils in technogenic landscapes

Soil classifications in technogenic landscapes are just over two decades old, so they are based on the modern concepts of soil genesis. Before that, there was a long period of assessing the technogenic substrate suitability for growing crops and trees, or, conversely, selecting plants for industrial site greenspace expansion [109]. The result of the long efforts is the categorization of technogenic substrates into several classes by their potential fertility and phytotoxicity [11, 98, 110, 111]. Other research that was conducted before the creation of soil classifications for technogenic landscapes was technogenic landform grouping. Such grouping and rock classification can be found in several regulatory documents [112, 113]. In this paper, we will not dwell on these approaches. We only note that they served as the foundation for the classifications of the technogenic landscape soils.

Along with categorization according to the characteristics of substrate and relief features, it has been proposed to categorize technogenic landscapes by the degree of soil features preservation [114] and the structure of the newly formed soil profile [115]. The need to assess the diversity of phytocenosis formation conditions in disturbed areas has facilitated the development of landscape feature classifications. Taranov et al. [116] showed that various combinations of soil formation conditions within a single technogenic landscape could produce forest, sod-steppe, meadow, or bog evolution of young soils. Such a differentiation of conditions has become a foundation for classifying the soils of technogenic landscapes proposed by Eterevskoy et al. [117]. Besides the above attributes, the advantage of the proposed classification compared to the rock classifications widespread at that time is the use of soil properties that reflect elementary soil processes and the thickness of genetic horizons.

Nevertheless, these approaches were not further developed since, at that time, the surface substrates in disturbed areas were not considered to be soil or soil-like. The key reason for this attitude is the considerable predominance of rock features in the soils of technogenic landscapes and the weak development of classical soil horizons. However, despite the initial heterogeneity of technogenic substrates, most of them perform soil functions to provide living organisms with nutrition and moisture. In addition, the soils formed on such substrates eventually acquire features of zonal soils [118]. We consider that the listing of the Technosol into the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) was the tipping point in recognizing the surface substrates of technogenic landscapes as soils. From this moment, the modern classification of the soils of technogenic landscapes began.

WRB classifies not only formations with "traditional" soil attributes but also any substrates located within two meters from the surface and in contact with the atmosphere (except for ice and water bodies deeper than 2 meters). The classification

principles are based on the measurable soil profile attributes. Their relations to soil-forming processes and the possible use of the soils are also taken into account. The key feature of Technosols is a significant amount (> 20%) of artifacts in the top layer 1 m thick and/or the presence of a low-permeability artificial geomembrane. The key qualifiers, specific to Technosols, include Ekranic, Urbic, Spolic, Garbic, stony and over-compacted soil qualifiers, Isolatic, Linic, Leptic, Hyperskeletic, and Subaquatic, Tidalic, Reductic, and Cryic only [119].

With its sufficiently broad interpretation of the soil concept and classification principles, allowing national classification systems to be fitted into, the WRB system has quickly gained popularity [100, 101, 120-123]. However, it should be noted that in most listed studies, the use of the WRB classification is limited to the use of the term Technosol without further subdivision into reference soil groups. Even fewer works assess technogenic landscape soils with additional qualifiers [39, 62, 120].

Another general substantive classification of the technogenic landscape soils is the Soil Taxonomy developed by the US Department of Agriculture [124]. In this classification, the soils of technogenic landscapes are not separated as an individual group. By their genetic properties, most of these soils are categorized as order Entisols: young soils without morphologically distinct horizons [49, 65, 125]. The suborders are divided by soil moistening and thermal conditions. By mineral component properties, stony soils of technogenic landscapes are categorized within the suborder of Orthents. In contrast, sandy soils belong to the suborder of Psamments. The suborders are divided into great groups based mainly on temperature and water regime characteristics. Thus, stony soils of technogenic landscapes in areas with precipitation equally distributed throughout the year (udic moisture regime) belong to the suborder of Udorthernts [43, 46, 113, 126]. In the areas with a temporarily dry climate (ustic moisture regime), these soils should be classified as Ustorthents. Special attention to the anthropogenic influence on soil formation is paid at the subgroup level. Among other subgroups, there are subgroups diagnosed by the presence of human-altered or human-transported materials in soil profiles. The soils of technogenic landscapes mainly belong to the subgroups of Anthrodensic soils (soils with a dense contact due to mechanical compaction, e.g., compacted mine spoil) and Anthroportic soils (soils having 50 cm or more of human-transported material in their profile). However, the Typic subgroup is more often used to describe such soils [43, 113]. The soils of technogenic landscapes with better-developed genetic horizons can be classified as the order of Inceptisols [49]. More detail is added at the level of soil families (within subgroups), where classes for human-altered and human-transported are specified: Methanogenic, Asphaltic, Concretic, Gypsifactic, Combustic, Pyrocarbonic, etc. Local soil characteristics can be reflected at the series level. Finally, landscape features (slope steepness, slope exposure, the presence of new material in surface cover, etc.) are taken into account at the lower level of taxonomy (soil phase), which is essential for the soil classification and practical use [124]. Although Soil Taxonomy is a very complex and practically oriented classification system, it is not used much when dealing with

the soils of technogenic landscapes in the United States. Often, other terms are used, e.g., minesoils [37, 43].

The groupings of human-transformed soils and some other national soil classifications [5, 126-129] are also based on substantive principles. The new Russian soil classification system (RSC) also belongs to substantive-genetic classification systems [130]. According to its principles, formations with "rudiments" (morphologically unexpressed genetic horizons) cannot be diagnosed as soils because they do not have sufficiently conservative features. It is proposed to call them "technogenic surface formations" (TSF) and, unlike soils, divide them not into classes, types, and subtypes, but groups and subgroups. Such groups are distinguished by formation conditions and potential suitability for further use. For instance, Quasizems are TSFs, in which the surface is composed of humified substrates. Naturfabricants are TSFs devoid of a humus layer and formed of mineral, organic, or organomineral materials. Artifabricants include TSFs composed of filled artificial material of various origins (household, industrial, and agricultural waste). An advantage of the RSC is separating a specific group of Toxifabricants TSFs composed of toxic substrates. Unfortunately, more detailed diagnostics taking into account the nature and degree of toxicity is not developed yet. The criteria for distinguishing TSF subgroups are material composition and occurrence.

Technogenic formations with poorly developed genetic horizons (W: weakly developed humus layer and/or O: litter and peat layer) are categorized as the initial soil formation trunk, poorly developed soil order [131]. Depending on the soil-forming rock composition, poorly developed soils are divided into petrozems, psammozems, and pelozems with further specification into humic, calcareous, and gypsiferous soils (e.g., types petrozems, humus (protohumus) petrozems, carbopetrozems, and gypsum petrozems). The fundamental division into TSF and poorly developed soils, and the unique features of their functioning in technogenic landscapes, make the diagnostics and soil/non-soil identification quite challenging [80]. Still, the RSC is often widely used in the Russian academic literature on disturbed areas [75, 84, 132, 133].

The classification of the technogenic landscape soils developed by the Institute for Soil Science and Agrochemistry (ISSA), Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Science [34, 104, 134-136] offers a more detailed differentiation of surface formations at the rock-soil interface. This classification is generally applied in Russian academic literature. According to the principles of this classification, just like in the WRB, any surface substrate in contact with the atmosphere is categorized as soil [137]. In the ISSA classification, the technogenic landscape soils are categorized not as TSF and not as initial soils (like in the RSC) but as the post-lithogenic soil formation trunk. Instead of orders, this system has classes (branches) distinguished by the lithoreflectivity of soil-forming rocks. Embryozem soils are categorized as biogenically undeveloped soils. Embryozems are formed on clay, loamy and sandy substrates and easily weathered stony sedimentary rocks. The lithogenically undeveloped soils class includes Eluviozems. They are

developed on coarse-clastic massively crystalline and strongly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. The Technozem class includes the soils with artificially formed horizons. According to the number of artificial horizons, Technozems are divided into differentiated and nondifferentiated types.

Embryozems and Eluviozems are divided into types by the soil features governed by the plant community development. Initial, organic-accumulative, sod, humus-accumulative, and dry peat types are distinguished, and their gleyic analogs for the Embryozem class are identified. In the first versions of the classification [67, 137], the Embryozem subtypes were distinguished by the processes accompanying the primary type-diagnostic processes (e.g., typical, leached, podzolic). However, with the broader geographic coverage of the technogenic landscape studies and factual basis, the approaches to subtype differentiation have changed. Therefore, in the latest ISSA classification editions [138], the properties of the type-diagnostic horizons reflecting the conditions of soil formation are used as the subtype criteria. Along with typical subtypes, the cryptopedogenic subtype is distinguished in initial embryozems. Felty, litter, and peat subtypes are distinguished in organic-accumulative soils. Xerophytic and hygrophytic are distinguished in sod soils, and the coarse humus-accumulative subtype is distinguished in humus-accumulative soils.

With such approaches to the soils grouping, the ISSA soil classification is more functional-genetic than substantive. Therefore, this classification significantly simplifies the mapping of technogenic landscapes and facilitates the quantitative assessment of their soil-ecological state [4, 105, 139], particularly using remote sensing methods [140].

Despite the different approaches to soil diagnostics in the above classifications, we tried to correlate the major taxa by the features representing soil conditions and young soil formation trends (Table 2). Table 2 shows that the features based on the soil-forming rock properties are sufficiently represented in all classifications. The same applies to the constructed soils with artificially created horizons. The exception is technogenic landscapes composed of toxic rocks. In some classifications (RSC and the Soil Taxonomy), such substrates are not considered soils because they do not fulfill one of the main functions: enabling growth and development of plant communities. However, the rock toxicity to specific plant species may be different. Therefore, in our opinion, they should be classified as soils. In the WRB, the soil toxicity is accounted for by the Toxic additional qualifier. In the ISSA classification, the soils formed on toxic rocks and the soils not featuring organogenic horizons yet are identified as initial Embryozems and Eluviozems.

The effects of elementary soil processes, despite their weak performance in technogenic landscapes, can be assessed using natural soil features. For the soils of technogenic landscapes, the most suitable features for such assessment are the accumulation of organic matter: humus, litter, and peat accumulation. In addition, the organogenic horizon features in the sites with climax vegetation communities enable us to identify the soil formation trends [138].

Evaluating the suitability of the considered classification approach for the technogenic landscape soils, we can conclude that all of them are applicable for adequate assessment of these soils. However, the literature review indicates low demand for such classifications. In the studies where modern classifications are referred, soil diagnostics are limited to top-order taxa only. We suppose that the main reason is the relatively short period of special studies of these soils. Secondly, most classifications rely mainly on inherited rock features, making it difficult to consider the spatial heterogeneity of technogenic landscapes.

Table 2

Key technogenic landscape soil taxa used in most common classification systems

Features/ processes Classification

RSC (2004, 2008) WRB (2015) Soil Taxonomy (2014) ISSA Soil Classification (2010, 2020)

Soil-forming rocks

Dense Naturfabricats and Toxifabricants: (toxi-) abralites, (toxi-) lithostrates (carbo-, gypsum-) petrozems and (carbo-, gypsum-) humus petrozems Technosol: Ekranic, Urbic, Spolic, Linic, Leptic, Hyperskeletic Entisols: Orth-ents, Udorthents, and Ustorthents All Inceptisols All Eluviozems and Embryozems

Loose All Naturfabricants, Artifabricants, and Toxifabricants Pelozems and Psammozems, humus Pelozems and Psammozems Technosol: Urbic, Spolic, Garbic, Reductic, Cryic Entisols: Psam-ments, Fluvents All Inceptisols All Embryozems

Toxic All Toxifabricants Technosol with toxic horizons N/A* Initial Eluviozems and Embryozems

Constructed soils Quasizems: Replantozems and Urbiquasizems Technosol: Isolatic, Linic, with Trans-portic features Entisols: Fluvents Differentiated and undifferentiated Technozems

Organic accumulation features

Litter accumulation Pelozems, Psammozems, (carbo-, gypsum-) Petrozems All Technosol with Folic and Proto-folic horizons Inceptisols: Gelepts, Cryepts, Udepts, Ustepts Organic-accumulative and sod Embryozems and Eluviozems

Humus accumulation Humus Pelozems and Psammozems (carbo-, gypsum-) Petrozems All Technosol with Humic, Molic, Umbric horizons Inceptisols: Cyepts, Udepts, Ustepts, Xerepts Sod and humus-accumulative embryozems

Peat accumulation Pelozems, Psammozems, (carbo-, gypsum-) Petrozems Technosol with Histic horizons Inceptisols: Aquepts, Gelepts, Cryepts, Udepts Organic-accumulative peat Embryozems and dry peat Eluviozems

Note. N/A: no data available.

Conclusion

The literature review indicates that, at present, the soils of technogenic landscapes are of scientific interest globally. An essential part of the studies is local and aimed at analyzing the soil features of individual technogenic sites. However, the geographic coverage of soil studies in technogenic landscapes has expanded in recent years. With their short lifespan and specific formation factors, the soils of technogenic landscapes are not in equilibrium with the environment. Therefore, their key feature is dynamic transformation. Trends of soil-forming processes in technogenic landscapes do not always follow the zonal features. The formation trends of zonal and technogenic soil coincide if artificial substrates have properties close to soil-forming rocks in undisturbed soils. Along with soil-forming rock properties, young soils are often formed by organic matter accumulation processes. In various conditions, it could be humus, litter, and peat accumulation. High humus accumulation rates in the soils of technogenic landscapes are detected not only in moderate climate areas but also in a hotter and more humid climate. This is possible on rocks enriched with fine particles or capable of releasing them through weathering. The high density of technogenic substrates and their shrinkage negatively affect soil formation. The surface of most technogenic landscapes is highly differentiated by relief, density, composition, and some other soil-forming rock properties. In such conditions, the development of soils and topsoil is diversified, while the divergence of soil geochemical processes in time and space contributes to the further isolation of evolutionary trends, which are often opposite.

The soil formation efficiency in technogenic landscapes is primarily determined by the efficiency of reclamation activities, which depends on the availability of resources and their use in due time. The maximum efficiency is achieved if all the conditions and resources for reclamation are evaluated at the planning stage. At the engineering and, even more so, at the subsequent biological stage, there are few opportunities to improve the reclamation efficiency. Therefore, under a shortage of FSL and PFS, the artificial substrates should spatially and vertically alternate reasonably, and diverse relief formation methods should be used. It is necessary to: a) efficiently use reclamation resources; b) avoid "exotic" combinations of soil-forming rock properties, climatic conditions, and plant species used at the biological stage; c) increase the biological diversity of technogenic landscape.

Modern soil classifications are sufficient for evaluating the properties and features of the soil formation in technogenic landscapes. At the same time, the literature review indicates low demand for such classifications. In the works where modern classifications are referred, soil diagnostics are limited to top-order taxa only. This fact, as well as individual features of each technogenic landscape and the lack of appropriate generalization, negatively affect the development of the functioning and reclamation concepts of technogenic landscapes. The development of the methods and approaches to assessing their soil-ecological state also gets complicated, as well as the design and improvement of reclamation technolo-

gies. We believe that our analysis of the soil properties, classifications, and approaches to reclamation will contribute to a better understanding of technogenic landscape functioning and their efficient use, and will promote further research on the concepts of the soil formation in technogenic landscapes.

References

1. Reymers NF. Prirodopol'zovanie: Slovar'-spravochnik [Nature management: A reference dictionary]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ.; 1990. 637 p. In Russian

2. Gerasimova MI, Stroganova MN, Mozharova NV, Prokof'eva TV. Antropogennye pochvy: Genezis, geografiya, rekul'tivatsiya [Anthropogenic soils: Genesis, geography, reclamation]. Smolensk: Oykumena Publ.; 2003. 268 p. In Russian

3. Sokolov DA, Kulizhskiy SP. Singenesys of vegetation cover and redox systems forming in soils of burrows of coal-pits. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = TomskState University JournalofBiology. 2013;1(21):22-29. doi: 10.17223/19988591/21/2 In Russian, English Summary

4. Androkhanov VA, Kurachev VM. Pochvenno-ekologicheskoe sostoyanie tekhnogennykh landshaftov: dinamika i otsenka [Soil-ecological state of technogenic landscapes: dynamics and evaluation]. Novosibirsk: Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publishing House; 2010. 224 p. In Russian

5. Baize D, Girard MC. Référentiel pédologique [Soil repository]. Versailles: Versailles Cedex Publ.; 2008. 432 p. In French

6. Motorina LV, Ovchinnikov VA. Promyshlennost' i rekul'tivatsiya zemel' [Industry and land reclamation]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ.; 1975. 240 p. In Russian

7. Given JA. The future in open pit mining and stripping in the United States. Soil Conservation Society of America. Proc. 17th Annual Meeting. Washington. 1962:93-97.

8. Deasy GF, Griess PR. Coal strip-mine reclamation in the United States. Geographical Review. 1965;55(1):107-108.

9. Werner K. Organization und stand der rekultivierung in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. In: Sbornik I International symposium on issues relating to the recultivation of dumps and heaps. Leipzig. 1962. pp. 54-59. In German

10. Beaver SH, Land reclamation. Journal Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. 1960;92(12):25-40.

11. Knabe W. Methods and Results of Strip-Mine Reclamation in Germany. The Ohio Journal of Science. 1964;64(2):75-105.

12. Parizek J. Organizacja i stan recultiwacia [Organization and state of reclamation]. Czechoslowakiej Republice socjalistycznej Biuletyn = Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Biuletyn. 1962;1:33-37. In Czech

13. Skawina T. Organization und stand der rekultivierung in der Volksrepublic Polen. Sbornik I Internationales Symposium. 1962:32-38.

14. Motorina LV, Zabelina NM. Rekul'tivatsiya zemel', narushennykh gornodobyvayushchey promyshlennost'yu [Reclamation of land disturbed by the mining industry]. Moscow: MSKh SSSR Publ.; 1968. 90 p. In Russian

15. Zhao Z, Shahrour I, Bai Z, Fan W, Feng L, Li H. Soils development in opencast coal mine spoils reclaimed for 1-13 years in the West-Northern Loess Plateau of China. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2013;55:40-46. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2012.08.006

16. Domínguez-Haydar H, Li-xun K. Mine land reclamation and eco-reconstruction in Shanxi Province I: Mine land reclamation model. The Scientific World Journal. 2014;2014:483862. doi: 10.1155/2014/483862

17. Feng Y, Wang J, Bai Z, Reading L. Effects of surface coal mining and land reclamation on soil properties: A review. Earth-Science Reviews. 2019;191:12-25. doi: 10.1016/j. earscirev.2019.02.015

18. Kumar BM. Mining waste contaminated lands: an uphill battle for improving crop productivity. Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Management. 2013;1(1):43-50. doi: 10.15243/jdmlm.2013.011.043

19. Maiti SK, Maiti D. Ecological restoration of waste dumps by topsoil blanketing, coir-matting and seeding with grass-legume mixture. Ecological Engineering. 2015;77:74-84. doi: Z/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.01.003

20. Ahirwal J, Maiti SK. Assessment of soil properties of different land uses generated due to surface coal mining activities in tropical Sal (Shorea robusta) forest, India. Catena. 2016;140:155-163. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.01.028

21. Rocha-Nicoleite E, Overbeck GE, Müller SC. Degradation by coal mining should be priority in restoration planning. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation. 2017;15(3):202-205. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2017.05.006

22. Domínguez-Haydar Y. Evaluation of reclamation success in an open-pit coal mine using integrated soil physical, chemical and biological quality indicators. Ecological Indicators. 2019;103:182-193. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.015

23. Ruiz F, Resmini Sartor L, de Souza Júnior VS, Cheyson Barros dos Santos J, Osório Ferreira T. Fast pedogenesis of tropical Technosols developed from dolomitic limestone mine spoils (SE-Brazil). Geoderma. 2020;374:114439. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114439

24. Daniell A, van Deventer PW. An overview of pedogenesis in Technosols in South Africa. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. 2018;35(4):281-291. doi: 10.1080/02571862.2018.1470265

25. Festin ES, Tigabu M, Chileshe MN, Syampungani S, Oden PC. Progresses in restoration of post-mining landscape in Africa. Journal of Forestry Research. 2019;30:381-396. doi: 10.1007/s11676-018-0621-x

26. Negley TL, Eshleman KN. Comparison of stormflow responses of surface-mined and forested watersheds in the Appalachian Mountains, USA. Hydrological Process. 2006;20(16):3467-3483. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6148

27. Eisenbies MH, Aust WM, Burger JA, Adams MB. Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians - A review. Forest Ecology and Management. 2007;242:77-98. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.051

28. Townsend PA, Helmers DP, Kingdon CC, McNeil BE, de Beurs KM, Eshleman KN. Changes in the extent of surface mining and reclamation in the Central Appalachians detected using a 1976-2006 Landsat time series. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2009;113(1):62-72. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.08.012

29. Solntseva NP, Rubilina NE, Gerasimova MI, Alistratov SV. Izmenenie morfologii vyshchelochennykh chernozemov v rayonakh dobychi uglya [Morphological transformations of leached chernozems in coal mining areas (the example of Moscow brown coal basin)]. Pochvovedenie = Eurasian Soil Science. 1992;1:17-29. In Russian

30. Vodyanitskii YN. Status and behavior of natural and technogenic forms of as, sb, se, and te in ore tailings and contaminated soils: A review. Eurasian Soil Science. 2010;43(1):30-38. doi: 10.1134/S1064229310010059

31. Wei X, Wei H, Viadero Jr. RC. Post-reclamation water quality trend in a Mid-Appalachian watershed of abandoned mine lands. Science of the Total Environment. 2011;409(5):941-948. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.11.030

32. Mishra SK, Hitzhusen FJ, Sohngen BL, Guldmann J-M. Costs of abandoned coal mine reclamation and associated recreation benefits in Ohio. Journal of Environmental Management. 2012;100:52-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.021

33. Querol X, Zhuang X, Font O. Izquierdo M, Alastuey A, Castro I, van Drooge BL, Moreno T, Grimalt JO, Elvira J, Cabanas M, Bartroli R, Hower JC, Ayora C, Plana F, Lopez-Soler A. Influence of soil cover on reducing the environmental impact of spontaneous coal combustion in coal waste gobs: A review and new experimental data. International Journal of Coal Geology. 2011;85(1):2-22. doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2010.09.002

34. Claxton LD. The history, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of carbon-based fuels and their emissions. Part 2: Solid fuels. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 2014;762:108-122. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2014.07.002

35. Maryati S. Land capability evaluation of reclamation Areain Indonesia coal mining using LCLP software. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science. 2013;6:465-473. doi: 10.1016/j. proeps.2013.01.061

36. Firpo BA, Amaral Filho JR, Schneider IAH. A brief procedure to fabricate soils from coal mine wastes based on mineral processing, agricultural, and environmental concepts. Minerals Engineering. 2015;76:81-86. doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2014.11.005

37. Ussiri DAN, Jacinthe P-A, Lal R. Methods for determination of coal carbon in reclaimed minesoils: A review. Geoderma. 2014;214-215:155-167. doi: 10.1016/j. geoderma.2013.09.015

38. Cizkova B, Wos B, Pietrzykowski M, Frouz J. Development of soil chemical and microbial properties in reclaimed and unreclaimed grasslands in heaps after opencast lignite mining. Ecological Engineering. 2018;123:103-111. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.004

39. Rees F, Dagois R, Derrien D, Fiorelli J-L, Watteau F, Morel JL, Schwartz C, Simonnot M-O, Sere G. Storage of carbon in constructed technosols: in situ monitoring over a decade. Geoderma. 2019;337:641-648. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.009

40. Androkhanov VA, Ovsyannikova SV, Kurachev VM. Tekhnozemy: svoystva, rezhimy, funktsionirovanie [Tekhnozems: Properties, modes, functioning]. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Siberian Branch Publ.; 2000. 200 p. In Russian

41. Sokolov DA. Diversifikatsiya pochvoobrazovaniya na otvalakh ugol ''nykh mestorozhdeniy Sibiri [Diversification of soil formation on the dumps of coal deposits in Siberia. Dr. Sci. Dissertation, Soil Science]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry SB RAS; 2019. 329 p. In Russian

42. Ussiri DAN, Guzman JG, Lal R, Somireddy U. Bioenergy crop production on reclaimed mine land in the North Appalachian region, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2019;125:188-195. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.04.024

43. Guzman JG, Ussiri DAN, Lal R. Soil physical properties following conversion of a reclaimed minesoil to bioenergy crop production. Catena. 2019;176:289-295. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.01.020

44. Smagin AV, Kol'tsov IN, Pepelov IL, Kirichenko AV, Sadovnikova NB, Kinzhaev RR. The physical state of finely dispersed soil-like systems with drilling sludge as an example. Eurasian Soil Science. 2011;44(2):163-172. doi: 10.1134/S1064229311020128

45. Shein EV, Umarova AB, Sokolova IV, Milanovskii EY, Shcheglov DI. Structural status of technogenic soils and the development of preferential water flows. Eurasian Soil Science. 2009;42(6):636-644. doi: 10.1134/S1064229309060088

46. Jacinthe P-A, Lal R. Spatial variability of soil properties and trace gas fluxes in reclaimed mine land of southeastern Ohio. Geoderma. 2006;136(3-4):598-608. doi: 10.1016/j. geoderma.2006.04.020

47. Sokolov DA, Kulizhskiy SP, Loiko SV, Domozhakova EA. Using electronic scanning microscopy for diagnostics of soil-forming processes on the surface of coal-mine dumps in Siberia. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2014;3(27):36-52. In Russian, English Summary

48. Chenot J, Jaunatre R, Buisson E, Bureau F, Dutoit T. Impact of quarry exploitation and disuse on pedogenesis. Catena. 2018;160:354-365. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2017.09.012

49. Daniels WL, Haering KC, Galbraith JM. Mine soil morphology and properties in pre- and post-smcra coal mined landscapes in Southwest Virgina. Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation. 2004;1:421-449. doi: 10.21000/JASMR04010421

50. Kusov AV. Granulometricheskaya diagnostika vnutripochvennogo vyvetrivaniya oblomochnogo materiala v tekhnogennykh landshaftakh [Granulometric diagnostics of intersoil erosion of detritus in man-caused landscapes]. Sibirskiy Ekologicheskiy Zhurnal = Contemporary Problems of Ecology. 2007;5:837-842. In Russian

51. Sokolov DA, Kulizskiy SP, Domozhakova EA, Gossen IN. Soil forming features under different environmental conditions in man-caused landscapes of South Siberia. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Tomsk State University Journal. 2012;364:225-229. In Russian

52. Shikula NK, Drugov AN. Agrofizicheskie svoystva rekul'tiviruemykh pochvogruntov Chasov-Yarskogo mestorozhdeniya [Agrophysical phoperties of recultivatied soils of Chasov-Yar deposits of refractory clays]. Pochvovedenie = Soviet Soil Science. 1974;9:63-70. In Russian

53. Evans DM, Zipper CE, Burger JA, Strahm BD, Villamagna AM. Reforestation practice for enhancement of ecosystem services on a compacted surface mine: Path toward ecosystem recovery. Ecological Engineering. 2013;51:16-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.065

54. Sokolov DA, Androkhanov VA, Kulizhskiy SP, Domozhakova EA, Loiko SV. Morphogenetic diagnostics of soil formation on tailing dumps of coal quarries in Siberia. Eurasian Soil Science. 2015;1(48):95-105. doi: 10.1134/S1064229315010159

55. Frouz J, Mudrák O, Reitschmiedová E, Walmsley A, Vachová P, Simácková H, Albrechtová J, Moradi J, Kucera J. Rough wave-like heaped overburden promotes establishment of woody vegetation while leveling promotes grasses during unassisted post mining site development. Journal of Environmental Management. 2018;205:50-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.065

56. Ruiz F, Perlatti F, Oliveira DP, Ferreira TO. Revealing tropical technosols as an alternative for mine reclamation and waste management. Minerals. 2020;10(2):110. doi: 10.3390/ min10020110

57. Wang J, Zhao F, Yang J, Li X. Mining site reclamation planning based on land suitability analysis and ecosystem services evaluation: A case study in Liaoning Province, China. Sustainability. 2017;9(6):890. doi: 10.3390/su9060890

58. Burykin AM, Zasorina EV. Protsessy mineralizatsii i gumifikatsii rastitel'nykh ostatkov v molodykh pochvakh tekhnogennykh ekosistem [Mineralization and humification of plant remains in young soils of technogenic ecosystems]. Pochvovedenie = Soviet Soil Science. 1989;2:61-69. In Russian

59. Shugaley LS. Pervichnoe pochvoobrazovanie na otvalakh vskryshnykh porod pod kul'turoy sosny [Initial soil formation on the tailings of strip mines under pine cultures]. Pochvovedenie = Eurasian Soil Science. 1997;2:247-254. In Russian

60. Abakumov EV, Frouz J. Evolution of the soil humus status on the calcareous neogene clay dumps of the Sokolov quarry complex in the Czech Republic. Eurasian Soil Science. 2009;42(7):718-724. doi: 10.1134/S1064229309070023

61. Vindusková O, Dvorácek V, Prohasková A, Frouz J. Distinguishing recent and fossil organic matter - A critical step in evaluation of post-mining soil development - using near infrared spectroscopy. Ecological Engineering. 2014;73:643-648. doi: 10.1016/j. ecoleng.2014.09.086

62. Uzarowicz L, Zagórski Z, Mendak E, Bartmiñski P, Szara E, Kondras M, Oktaba L, Turek A, Rogoziñski R. Technogenic soils (Technosols) developed from fly ash and bottom ash from thermal power stations combusting bituminous coal and lignite. Part I. Properties, classification, and indicators of early pedogenesis. Catena. 2017;157:75-89. doi: 10.1016/j. catena.2017.05.010

63. Frouz J, Vindusková O. Soil organic matter accumulation in postmining sites: Potential drivers and mechanisms. Soil Management and Climate Change. 2018;8:103-120. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812128-3.00008-2

64. Masciandaro G. Phytoremediation of dredged marine sediment: Monitoring of chemical and biochemical processes contributing to sediment reclamation. Journal of Environmental Management. 2014;134:166-174. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.028

65. Hu P, Zhang W, Chen H, Li D, Zhao Y, Zhao J, Xiao J, Wu F, He X, Luo Y, Wang K. Soil carbon accumulation with increasing temperature under both managed and natural vegetation restoration in calcareous soils. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;767(1):145298. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145298

66. Filcheva E, Noustorova M, Gentcheva-Kostadinova S, Haigh MJ. Organic accumulation and microbial action in surface coal-mine spoils, Pernik, Bulgaria. Ecological Engineering. 2000;15(1-2):1-15. doi: 10.1016/S0925-8574(99)00008-7

67. Kurachev VM, Androkhanov VA. Klassifikatsiya pochv tekhnogennykh landshaftov [Classification of soils of techogenic landscapes]. Sibirskiy Ekologicheskiy Zhurnal = Contemporary Problems of Ecology. 2002;3:255-261. In Russian

68. Abakumov EV, Gagarina EI. Pochvoobrazovanie v posttekhnogennykh ekosistemakh kar'erov na Severo-Zapade Russkoy ravniny [Soil formation in post-mining ecosystems on the North-West of the Russian plain]. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of Saint Petersburg University; 2006. 208 p. In Russian

69. Pereverzev VN, Ivliev AI, Gorbunov AV, Lyapunov SM. Primary pedogenesis in the tailings of apatite-nepheline ores on the Kola Peninsula. Eurasian Soil Science. 2007;8:900-906. doi: 10.1134/S1064229307080133

70. Solntseva NP, Rubilina NE. Morfologiya pochv, transformirovannykh pri ugledobyche [On the morphology of soils transformed in the course of coal mining]. Pochvovedenie. 1987;2:105-118. In Russian

71. Shrestha RK, Lal R. Changes in physical and chemical properties of soil after surface mining and reclamation. Geoderma. 2011;161(3-4):168-176. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.015

72. Rumpel C, Kögel-Knabner I. The role of lignite in the carbon cycle of lignite-containing mine soils: evidence from carbon mineralisation and humic acid extractions. Organic Geochemistry. 2002;33(3):393-399. doi: 10.1016/S0146-6380(01)00169-3

73. Rumpel C. Microbial use of lignite compared to recent plant litter as substrates in reclaimed coal mine soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2004;36(1):67-75. doi: 10.1016/j. soilbio.2003.08.020

74. Chabbi A, Rumpel C, Grootes PM, Gonzalez-Perez JA, Delaune RD, Gonzalez-Vila F, Nixdorf B. Lignite degradation and mineralization in lignite-containing mine sediment as revealed by 14C activity measurements and molecular analysis. Organic Geochemistry. 2006;37:957-976. doi: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2006.02.002

75. Bragina PS, Tsibart AS, Zavadskaya MP, Sharapova AV. Soils on overburden dumps in the forest-steppe and mountain taiga zones of the Kuzbass. Eurasian Soil Science. 2014;47(7):723-733. doi: 10.1134/S1064229314050032

76. Kuka K, Franko U, Hanke K, Finkenbein P. Investigation of different amendments for dump reclamation in Northern Vietnam. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 2013;132:41-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.05.001

77. Ramasamy M, Power C. Evolution of acid mine drainage from a coal waste rock pile reclaimed with a simple soil cover. Hydrology. 2019;6(4):83. doi: 10.3390/hydrology6040083

78. Weiler J, Firpo BA, Schneider IAH. Technosol as an integrated management tool for turning urban and coal mining waste into a resource. Minerals Engineering. 2020;147:1061798. doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2019.106179

79. Acharya BS, Kharel G. Acid mine drainage from coal mining in the United States - An overview. Journal of Hydrology. 2020;588:125061. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125061

80. Bragina PS. Pochvoobrazovanie na otkhodakh gornodobyvayushchikh predpriyatiy Kemerovskoy oblasti [Soil formation on the waste of mining enterprises in Kemerovo region. Cand. Sci. Dissertation, Geography]. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University; 2016. 156 p. In Russian

81. Konstantinov AO, Novoselov AA, Loiko SV. Special features of soil development within overgrowing fly ash deposit sites of the solid fuel power plant. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2018;43(27): 6-24. doi: 10.17223/19988591/43/1 In Russian, English Summary

82. Naumov AV, Naumova YN. Razlozhenie rastitel'noy massy v «molodykh» pochvakh KATEKa [Biodegradation of plant mass in "young" soils of KAHECa]. Pochvovedenie = Eurasian Soil Science. 1993;5:47-55. In Russian

83. Abakumov EV, Gagarina EI. Pochvoobrazovanie v posttekhnogennykh ekosistemakh kar'erov na Severo-Zapade Russkoy ravniny [Soil formation in post-mining ecosystems on the North-West of the Russian plain]. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of Saint Petersburg University; 2006. 208 p. In Russian

84. Trefilova OV, Grodnitskaya ID, Efimov DY. Dinamika ekologo-funktsional'nykh parametrov replantozemov na otvalakh ugol'nykh razrezov Tsentral'noy Sibiri [Dynamics of ecological and functional parameters of replantozems on dumps of coal mines in Central Siberia]. Pochvovedenie = Eurasian Soil Science. 2014;1:109-119. doi: 10.7868/ S0032180X14010134 In Russian

85. Sokolov DA, Morozov SV, Abakumov EV, Androkhanov VA. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils of heaps of antracite mines of Siberia. Eurasian Soil Science. 2021;6:701-714. doi: 10.31857/S0032180X21060125

86. Trefilova OV, Oskorbin PA. Biological activity of waste dump substrates in the eastern part of the Kansk-Achinsk coal field. Eurasian Soil Science. 2014;47(2):96-101. doi: 10.7868/ S0032180X14020129

87. Santos ES, Abreu MM, Macias F. Rehabilitation of mining areas through integrated biotechnological approach: Technosols derived from organic/inorganic wastes and autochthonous plant development. Chemosphere. 2019;224:765-775. doi: 10.1016/j. chemosphere.2019.02.172

88. Dang Z, Liu C, Haigh MJ. Mobility of heavy metals associated with the natural weathering of coal mine spoils. Environmental Pollution. 2002;118(3):419-426. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00285-8

89. Sokolov DA, Merzlyakov OE, Domozhakova EA. Estimation of lythogene potential of humus accumulating in soils of coal-mine dumps of Siberia. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Tomsk State University Journal. 2015;399:247-253. doi: 10.17223/15617793/399/40 In Russian, English Summary

90. Sokolov DA, Kulizhskiy SP, Lim AG, Gurkova EA, Nechaeva TV, Merzlyakov OE. Comparative evaluation of methods for determination of pedogenic organic carbon in coalbearing soils. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2017;39:29-43. doi: 10.17223/19988591/39/2 In Russian, English Summary

91. Solntseva NP. Evolyutsionnye trendy pochv v zone tekhnogeneza [Trends in soil evolution under technogenic impacts]. Pochvovedenie = Eurasian Soil Science. 2002;1:9-20. In Russian

92. Gadzhiev IM, Kurachev VM, Androkhanov VA. Strategiya i perspektivy resheniya problem rekul'tivatsii narushennykh zemel' [Strategy and prospects for solving the problems of recultivation of disturbed land]. Novosibirsk: TsERIS Publ.; 2001. 37 p. In Russian

93. Mborah C, Bansah KJ, Boateng MK. Evaluating alternate post-mining land-uses: A review. Environment and Pollution. 2016;5(1):9. doi: 10.5539/ep.v5n1p14

94. Dzhamalbekov YU. O pochvoobrazovanii pri rekul'tivatsii zemel' v Kazakhstane [On the pedogenesis rate in the course of recultivation in Southern Kazakhstan]. Pochvovedenie. 1989;11:75-82. In Russian

95. Barnhise RI, Hower JM. Coal surface mine reclamation in the eastern united states: The revegetation of disturbed lands to hayland/pasture or cropland. Advances in Agronomy. 1997;61:233-275. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60665-3

96. Idrisova ZN, Garifullin FS, Ishemiarov AS. Dopustimyy uroven' razbavleniya gumusovogo sloya vyshchelochennogo chernozema vskryshnoy porodoy pri stroitel'stve magistral'nykh truboprovodov [Permissible level of the leached chernozem humus layer "dissolution" by underlying rock in the course of pipeline construction]. Pochvovedenie. 1987;6:82-88. In Russian

97. Burykin AM, Rol' podstilayushchego substrata v plodorodii rekul'tiviruemykh zemel' (na primere KMA) [The importance of the underlying substratum for the recultivated lands fertility (at the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly example)]. Pochvovedenie. 1991;9:159-164. In Russian

98. Kirilov I, Banov M. Reclamation of lands disturbed by mining activities in Bulgaria. Agricultural Science and Technology. 2016;8(4):339-345. doi: 10.15547/ast.2016.04.066

99. Bilibio C, Retz S, Schellert C, Hensel O. Drainage properties of technosols made of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash and coal combustion residues on potash-tailings piles: A lysimeter study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;279:123442. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123442

100. Macía P, Fernández-Costas C, Rodríguez E, Sieiro P, Pazos M, Sanromán MA. Technosols as a novel valorization strategy for an ecological management of dredged marine sediments. Ecological Engineering. 2014;67:182-189. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.020

101. González-Méndez B, Chávez-García E. Re-thinking the Technosol design for greenery systems: Challenges for the provision of ecosystem services in semiarid and arid cities. Journal of Arid Environments. 2020;179:104191. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104191

102. Nechaeva TV, Sokolov DA, Sokolova NA. Estimation of absorption capacity of coals metamorphosed to a different extent using the example of potassium fixation. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2018;44:6-23. doi: 10.17223/19988591/44/1 In Russian, English Summary

103. Glaser B, Birk JJ. State of the scientific knowledge on properties and genesis of Anthropogenic Dark Earths in Central Amazonia (terra preta de Índio). Geochimica et CosmochimicaActa. 2012;82:39-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2010.11.029

104. Kostenkov NM, Komachkova IV, Purtova LN. Soils of technogenic landscapes in the far east: The Luchegorsk and Pavlovsk coal strip mines. Eurasian Soil Science. 2013;46(11):1049-1058. doi: 10.1134/S1064229313110057

105. Gossen IN. Pochvenno-ekologicheskaya effektivnost' tekhnologiy rekul'tivatsii narushennykh zemel' v Kuzbasse [Soil and ecological efficiency of technologies for recultivation of disturbed lands in Kuzbass. Cand. Sci. Dissertation, Soil Science]. Novosibirsk: Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry SB RAS. 2013. 170 p. In Russian

106. Lavrinenko AT, Ostapova NA. He study of limiting factors of biological reclamation on dumps ridge form filling coal mines Khakassia. Ugol' = Russian Coal Journal. 2018;12:98-100. doi: 10.18796/0041-5790-2018-12-98-101 In Russian

107. Barannik LP. Ekologo-biologicheskie osnovy lesnoy rekul'tivatsii tekhnogennykh zemel' Kuzbassa [Ecological and biological bases of forest recultivation of technogenic lands of Kuzbass. Dr. Sci. Dissertation, Ecology, Botany]. Novosibirsk: Central Siberian Botanical Garden SB RAS; 1992. 282 p. In Russian

108. Bing-yuan H, Li-xun K. Mine land reclamation and eco-reconstruction in shanxi province i: mine land reclamation model. The Scientific World Journal. 2014:483862. doi: 10.1155/2014/483862

109. Motorina LV. Opyt rekul'tivatsii narushennykh promyshlennost'yu landshaftov v SSSR i zarubezhnykh stranakh. [Experience of recultivation of landscapes disturbed by industry in the USSR and foreign countries]. Obzornaya informatsiya = Overview information. Moscow: VINTISKh Publ.; 1975. 18-46 p. In Russian

110. Kolesnikov BP, Pikalova GM. K voprosu o klassifikatsii promyshlennykh otvalov kak komponentov tekhnogennykh landshaftov [On the classification of industrial dumps as components of technogenic landscapes]. In: Rasteniya ipromyshlennaya sreda [Plants and industry]. Sverdlovsk: Uralsky State University Publ., 1974. pp. 3-28. In Russian

111. GOST 17.5.1.03-86. Nature protection. Lands. Classification of overburden and enclosing rocks forbiological recultivation of lands. Moscow: Standardinform Publ.; 1986. 6 p. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200005963 (access 10.03.2021)

112. GOST 17.5.1.02-85. Soils. Nature protection. Lands. Classification of disturbed lands to be recultivated. Moscow: Standardinform Publ.; 1985. 15 p. Available at: http://docs.cntd. ru/document/1200003375 (accessed: 10.03.2021).

113. Daniels WL, Haering K, Galbraith J, Thomas J. Mine soil classification and mapping issues on pre- and post-smcra Appalachian coal mined lands. Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation. 2004;1:450-479. doi: 10.21000/JASMR04010450

114. Keleberda TN, Drugov AN. O sistematike i klassifikatsii pochv, obrazovannykh v protsesse tekhnogeneza [On the taxonomy and classification of soils formed in the process of technogenesis]. Pochvovedenie. 1983;11:17-21. In Russian

115. Gennadiev AN, Solntseva NP, Gerasimova MI. O printsipakh gruppirovki i nomenklatury tekhnogenno-izmenennykh pochv [On principles of grouring and nomenclature of technogenic-transformed soils]. Pochvovedenie = Eurasian Soil Science. 1992;2:49-60. In Russian

116. Taranov SA, Kandrashin ER, Fatkulin FA, Shushueva MG, Rodynyuk IS. Partsellyarnaya struktura fitotsenoza i neodnorodnost' molodykh pochv tekhnogennykh landshaftov [Parcellar structure of phytocenosis and heterogeneity of young soils of technogenic landscapes]. In: Pochvoobrazovanie v tekhnogennykh landshaftakh [Soil formation in technogenic landscapes]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ.; 1979. pp. 19-57. In Russian

117. Eterevskaya LV, Donchenko MT, Lekhtsier LV. Sistematika i klassifikatsiya tekhnogennykh pochv [Systematics and classification of technogenic soils]. In: Rasteniya i promyshlennaya sreda [Plants and industry]. Sverdlovsk: Uralsky State University Publ., 1984. pp. 14-21. In Russian

118. Trofimov SS, Taranov SA. Osobennosti pochvoobrazovaniya v tekhnogennykh ekosistemakh [Features of soil formation in technogenic ecosystems]. Pochvovedenie. 1987;11:95-99. In Russian

119. IUSS Working Group WRB. 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports. No. 106. Rome: FAO Publ.; 2015. 192 p. [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3794e.pdf (accessed: 12.03.2018)

120. Colombini G. Techno-moder:_ A proposal for a new morpho-functional humus form developing on Technosols revealed by micromorphology. Geoderma. 2020;375:114526. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114526

121. Huot H, Simonnot M-O, Morel JL. Pedogenetic Trends in Soils Formed in Technogenic Parent Materials: Soil Science. 2015;180(4/5):182-192. doi: 10.1097/SS.0000000000000135

122. Charzyñski P, Bednarek R, Greinert A, Hulisz P, Uzarowicz L. Classification of technogenic soils according to WRB system in the light of Polish experiences. Soil Science Annual. 2013;64(4):145-150. doi: 10.2478/ssa-2013-0023

123. Legué doi:s S, Séré G, Auclerc A, Cortet J, Huot H, Ouvrard S, Watteau F, Schwartz C, Morel JL. Modelling pedogenesis of Technosols. Geoderma. 2016;262:199-212. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.008

124. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th edition. Washington: USDA-Natural resources conservation service; 2014. 372 p.

125. Grossman RB. Chapter 2 Entisols. In: Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy. Wilding LP, Smeck NE and Hall GF, editors. Elsevier; 1983. pp. 55-90. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2481(08)70613-5

126. Sonn Y-K, Cho H-J, Hyun B-K, Shin K-S. Classification of Anthropogenic Soil "Ingwan" Series. Hangugtoyangbilyohaghoeji = Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer. 2015;48(5):535-541. doi: 10.7745/KJSSF.2015.48.5.535 In Korean

127. Zhang WL, Xu AG, Zhang RL, Ji HJ. Review of soil classification and revision of China soil classification system. Zhongguo nongye kexue = Scientia Agricultura Sinica. 2014;47(16):3214-3230. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.16.009 In Chinese, English Summary

128. McBratney AB, Huang J, Minasny B, Micheli E, Hempel J. Comparisons between USDA Soil Taxonomy and the Australian Soil Classification System I: Data harmonization, calculation of taxonomic distance and inter-taxa variation. Geoderma. 2017;307:198-209. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.009

129. Kabala C, Charzynski P, Chodorowski J, Drewnik M, Glina B, Greinert A, Hulisz P, Jankowski M, Jonczak J, Labaz B, Lachacz A, Marzec M, Mendyk L, Musial P, Musielok L, Smreczak B, Sowinski P, Switoniak M, Uzarowicz L, Waroszewski J. Polish Soil Classification, 6th edition - principles, classification scheme and correlations. Soil Science Annual. 2019;70(2):71-97. doi: 10.2478/ssa-2019-0009

130. Shishov LL, Tonkonogov VD, Lebedeva II, Gerasimova MI. Klassifikatsiya i diagnostika pochv Rossii [Classification and diagnostics of soils in Russia]. Smolensk: Oykumena Publ.; 2004. 342 p. In Russian

131. Polevoy opredelitel' pochv Rossii [Russian soil field guide]. Ostrikova KT, editor. Moscow: Soil institute in name of VV Dokuchaev; 2008. 182 p. In Russian

132. Bragina PS, Gerasimova MI. Pedogenic processes on mining dumps (a case study of southern Kemerovo oblast). Geography and Natural Resources. 2014;35(1):35-40. doi: 10.1134/S1875372814010053

133. Prokof'eva TV, Gerasimova MI, Bezuglova OS, Gorbov SN, Bakhmatova KA, Matinyan NN, Gol'eva AA, Zharikova EA, Nakvasina EN, Sivtseva NE. Inclusion of soils and soillike bodies of urban territories into the Russian soil classification system. Eurasian Soil Science. 2014;47(10):959-967. doi: 10.1134/S1064229314100093

134. Androkhanov VA, Sokolov DA. Fractional composition of redox systems in the soils of coal mine dump. Eurasian Soil Science. 2012;45(4):399-403. doi: 10.1134/S1064229312020032

135. Kulizhskiy SP, Koronatova NG, Artymuk SY, Sokolov DA, Novokreshchennykh TA. Comparison of the sedimentation method and the laser-diffraction analysis during determination of soil texture of natural and technogenic landscapes. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2010;12(4):21-31. In Russian

136. Seredina VP, Dvurechenskiy VG, Pronina IA, Akinina AN. Material composition of embriozems developing on dumps of iron ore deposits in the south of Western Siberia. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2017;40:25-43. doi: 10.17223/19988591/40/2 In Russian, English Summary

137. Gadzhiev IM, Kurachev VM. Ekologiya i rekul'tivatsiya tekhnogennykh landshaftov [Ecology and reclamation of technogenic landscapes]. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Siberian Branch Publishing House; 1992. 305 p. In Russian

138. Androkhanov VA, Sokolov DA. Soil evolution and reclamation of technogenic landscapes in Siberia. In: Advances in Raw Material Industries for Sustainable Development Goals. Litvinenko V, editor. CRC Press; 2020. pp. 268-273. doi: 10.1201/9781003164395-33

139. Gossen IN, Kulizhskiy SP, Danilova EB, Sokolov DA. Boniting approach to assessment of soil-ecological state of man-general landscapes of Siberia (the example of anthracite, stone and brown coal deposits). Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta = Bulletin of NSAU (Novosibirsk State Agrarian University). 2016;2:71-82. In Russian

140. Sokolova NA, Gossen IN, Sokolov DA. Assessment of the suitability of vegetation indices to identify soil and ecological condition of the surface of anthracite deposits dumps. Ekologiya i promyshlennost'Rossii = Ecology and Industry of Russia. 2020;24(1):62-68. doi: 10.18412/1816-0395-2020-1-62-68 In Russian

Received 20 April, 2021; Revised 19 October, 2021; Accepted 17 December, 2021; Published 29 December, 2021.

Author info:

Sokolov Denis A, Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Leading Researcher, Laboratory of Soil Reclamation, Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 8/2 Academician Lavrentiev Av., Novosibirsk 630090, Russian Federation. ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7859-7244 E-mail: sokolovdenis@issa-siberia.ru

Androkhanov Vladimir A, Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Director of the Institute of Soil Science and Agro-chemistry, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 8/2 Academician Lavrentiev Av., Novosibirsk 630090, Russian Federation. ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2123-2367 E-mail: androhanov@issa-siberia.ru

Abakumov Evgeny V, Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Professor, Department of Applied Ecology, Saint Petersburg State University,13B Universitetskaya Emb., St. Petersburg 199034, Russian Federation. ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-9018 E-mail: e_abakumov@mail.ru

For citation: Sokolov DA, Androkhanov VA, Abakumov EV. Soil formation in technogenic landscapes: trends, results, and representation in the current classifications (Review). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Biologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Biology. 2021;56:6-32. doi: 10.17223/19988591/56/1

Для цитирования: Sokolov D.A., Androkhanov V.A., Abakumov E.V. Soil formation in tech-nogenic landscapes: trends, results, and representation in the current classifications (Review) // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Биология. 2021. №. 56. С. 6-32. doi: 10.17223/19988591/56/1