| 基于环境DNA的复合污染土壤生物评价和胁迫诊断 |
| 摘要点击 1333 全文点击 427 投稿时间：2022-06-28 修订日期：2022-09-11 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 土壤污染 群落组成 风险阈值 物种敏感性分布 生物评价 |
| 英文关键词 soil pollution community composition ecological risk threshold species sensitivity distribution biological assessment |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | 黄湘云 | 南京大学环境学院, 污染控制与资源化国家重点实验室, 南京 210023 | xiangyun_huang@smail.nju.edu.cn | | 钟文军 | 南京大学环境学院, 污染控制与资源化国家重点实验室, 南京 210023 | | | 刘训杰 | 南京大学环境学院, 污染控制与资源化国家重点实验室, 南京 210023 | | | 毕婉娟 | 南京大学环境学院, 污染控制与资源化国家重点实验室, 南京 210023 | | | 钱林皓 | 南京大学环境学院, 污染控制与资源化国家重点实验室, 南京 210023 | | | 张效伟 | 南京大学环境学院, 污染控制与资源化国家重点实验室, 南京 210023
江苏省生态环境保护化学品安全与健康风险研究重点实验室, 南京 210023 | zhangxw@nju.edu.cn |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 健康的生物群落组成及多样性是土壤生态系统提供良好功能与服务的基础，当前土壤污染治理技术的瓶颈问题是缺乏系统全面的生物多样性指标.因此，对工业园区复合污染土壤进行调研，并采用环境DNA技术监测分析污染土壤中生物群落组成，构建环境DNA-物种敏感性分布法（eDNA-SSD），诊断出受污染土壤的关键胁迫因子及其生态阈值.结果表明：①复合污染对园区土壤生物α多样性不造成显著影响，但导致生物群落组成及高相对丰度种发生变化.污染土壤中的优势类群为变形菌门（25.54%）、子囊菌门（15.65%）、放线菌门（8.75%）和绿弯菌门（7.64%）等.②环境因子对土壤生物分布差异的解释率为51.27%，苯胺、硫酸盐、石油烃和铅是土壤生物群落的关键胁迫因子.其中，苯胺对细菌（P=0.030），硫酸盐对真菌（P=0.025）和后生动物（P=0.032）的群落分布产生最显著影响.③以95%物种为保护目标计算污染物生态风险阈值（hazardous concentration for 5% of species，HC5），结果显示呈硫酸盐（470.00 mg ·kg-1）、石油烃（17.00 mg ·kg-1）、铅（13.00 mg ·kg-1）、砷（6.20 mg ·kg-1）、4-氯苯胺（0.16 mg ·kg-1）和苯胺（0.11 mg ·kg-1）的梯度递减趋势.综合污染指数显示园区土壤污染为大部分轻度污染伴随个别点位重度污染的状况.基于eDNA-SSD的生物评价方法可以在缺乏污染物基准值的情况下实现复合污染综合评价，同时更好区分不同污染程度下土壤生物群落结构及组成差异（P=0.053）.研究开发的环境DNA土壤生物监测与评估方法对土壤生态系统恢复评估具有指导意义和应用价值. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Healthy biological community composition and diversity are the basis for soil ecosystems to provide complete ecological functions and services. The current technical bottleneck in soil pollution control is the lack of systematic and comprehensive biodiversity indicators. In this study, the compound-polluted soil in an industrial park was taken as the object, and environmental DNA (eDNA)technology was used to monitor and analyze the composition of the biological community in the polluted soil. The environmental DNA-species sensitivity distribution (eDNA-SSD) method was constructed to diagnose the key stress factors and their ecological threshold. The results showed that:① compound pollution did not have a significant impact on the α-diversity of soil organisms in the park but led to changes in the composition of biological communities and dominant species with high relative abundance. The dominant groups in the polluted soil were Proteobacteria (25.54%), Ascomycota (15.65%), Actinobacteria (8.75%), and Chloroflexi (7.64%). ② Environmental factors accounted for 51.27% of the differences in soil biodistribution, and aniline, sulfate, petroleum hydrocarbon, and lead were the key stress factors for soil biomes. Among them, aniline had the most significant effect on the community distribution of bacteria (P=0.030), sulfate on fungi (P=0.025), and metazoans (P=0.032). ③ The ecological risk threshold (hazardous concentration for 5% of species, HC5) of pollutants with 95% species as the protection target showed a gradient decreasing trend of sulfate (470.00 mg·kg-1), petroleum hydrocarbon (17.00 mg·kg-1), lead (13.00 mg·kg-1), arsenic (6.20 mg·kg-1), 4-chloroaniline (0.16 mg·kg-1), and aniline (0.11 mg·kg-1). Nevertheless, the existing soil risk control value was significantly higher than the ecological risk value, indicating that the existing control standards targeting human health were not suitable for protecting soil health. The comprehensive pollution index showed that the soil pollution in the park was mostly mild pollution accompanied by heavy pollution at individual points. The biological evaluation method based on eDNA-SSD could achieve the comprehensive evaluation of composite pollution in the absence of the benchmark value of pollutants and at the same time better distinguish the differences in soil biological community structure and composition under different pollution levels (P=0.053). In conclusion, the environmental DNA soil biomonitoring and assessment method developed in this study has guiding significance and application value for soil ecosystem restoration assessment. |
|
|
|
