Search

The study was conducted to find out how the structure and diversity of microbiomes in buried soils differ from those in surface soils, and can analysis of microbial DNA from buried soils be used as a tool for paleoecological reconstructions. Samples were taken from buried soils under earthworks (burial mounds or earth fortifications) of different age, and from surface soils of the same area. Total DNA was extracted, and bacterial, archaeal and fungal abundance (by ribosomal genes qPCR) and prokaryotic biome structure (by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing) were investigated. It has shown, that microorganisms abundance and species richness are decreasing in buried soils. Taxonomic structure of prokaryotes in buried soils differs significantly from that in surface soils. Very low relative abundance of Verrucomicrobia is the main difference of the buried soils microbiome structure. Obtained results show that microbiome structure is altered strongly by soil burial and hardly can be marker of ecological conditions in soil before earthworks. Nevertheless, some features of vertical distribution of microbiomes in soil profile (e.g. decrease of abundance from A to B horizon) remains unchanged in buried soils and can carry some information about native soil microbiome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the ways to study the evolution of natural environment, in particular, the soil cover is a comprehensive study of soils buried under archaeological sites. Comparative analysis of the properties of paleosols buried in different historical epochs allows us to examine in detail the spatial and temporal dynamics of the natural environment and its components in time. The use of such comparative analysis is possible because the burial of soil under embankments of defensive ramparts, burial mounds and cultural layers of ancient settlements isolates the soil from the influence of external environment, providing it with a kind of "conservation." Besides, the soils are capable of preserving a whole range of non-pedogenic traits that can be used for a more detailed reconstruction of the features of the natural environment at the time of the soil burial. So, in the soil profile, spores, and pollen of plants, phytoliths, faunal residues, etc. remain. The use of soil methods in the study of archaeological sites in Russia began more than a century ago, but the development of the scientific foundations of a new direction in soil science, called archaeological soil science, began in the 1970s and 1980s. To study the buried soils under archaeological sites, it is necessary to use a set of methods, since often a method alone has its limitations for obtaining reliable results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Archaeological objects, such as fortification ramparts and burial mounds are widely spread on the Russian Plain and commonly buried soils have well preserved beneath. For Late Holocene, especially after 2500 BP, the climatic trends for the Russian Plain are still uncertain. Chronosequences of surface soils and soils buried under defensive ramparts of ancient settlements Mukhino, Ksizovo and Degtevoe in the Central Forest- Steppe zone, Lipetsk region was studied. Five defensive earthworks differ in age from 2500 to 1500 years BP providing a detailed record of Late Holocene landscape shifts. For paleoenvironmental reconstruction spore-pollen, phytoliths, and DNA analysis, for the comprehensive study of soil properties - micro- and mesomorphological methods were used. In Early Iron Age environment was similar with modern one, which is confirmed by the similarity between surface soils and soils buried under three ramparts of 2500 years BP (Greyzemic Luvic Phaeozems). The peak of aridization 1500 years ago, resulted in the formation of Luvic Chernozems with higher carbonate table and carbonate films above clay cutans. By the obtained data, we proposed to divide the Second half of Holocene into five paleoclimatic periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]