Mapping earthworm communities in Europe

Rutgers, Michiel; Orgiazzi, Alberto; Gardi, Ciro; Römbke, Jörg; Jänsch, Stephan; Keith, Aidan M.; Neilson, Roy; Boag, B.; Schmidt, Olaf; Murchie, A. K.; Blackshaw, R. P.; Pérès, Guénola; Cluzeau, Daniel; Guernion, Muriel; Briones, M. J. I.; Rodeiro, Javier; Piñeiro, Raúl; Cosín, Darío J. Díaz; Sousa, José Paulo; Suhadolc, M.; Kos, Ivan; Krogh, Paul Henning; Faber, J.H.; Mulder, Christian; Bogte, J.J.; Wijnen, H.J. van; Schouten, A.J.; Zwart, Dick de

doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.08.015

Cited by 110 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gaps in knowledge or deficiencies in assessment for EU soil monitoring were reported as lack of data on earthworm communities and their roles [45], this despite another compilation by Rutgers et al (2016 : Table 3) [46]. This latter report noted that earthworms were surprisingly under-represented or neglected taxa considering their key ecological importance whilst provided means, here recalculated, as 106.6 worms m −2 and just 4.1 species per site (maximum 10 ± 0.95 =~11 species per site) for eight countries.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Earthworm Monitoring Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As well as scarcity, these studies only provide baseline data rather than allowing specific comparative analysis: For example, the German earthworm sampling [46] deliberately excludes "records from sites with anthropogenic impact other than physical soil cultivation measures (e.g., heavy metals, pollution, pesticide application, excessive nitrogen deposition)", or as found under intensive agriculture that now occupies the majority of habitable land! Thus much of this information is incomplete or irrelevant to the current study and differs from the author's experience whereby contaminated sites may have zero, whilst survey of more natural or organically managed soils give much higher abundance and biodiversity of earthworms.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Earthworm Monitoring Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical Decline of Earthworms from Organic Origins under Intensive, Humic SOM-Depleting Agriculture

Blakemore

2018

Soil Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In view of recent reports of critical declines of microbes, plants, insects and other invertebrates, birds and other vertebrates, the situation pertaining to neglected earthworms was investigated. Entomological reports found the probable cause of general loss was lack of recruitment from surrounding fields (except for pest species). Earthworm decline under agricultural intensification compared to organic fertilizing is herein charted from several long-term agronomic trials, some operational >170 years. Relative biomass losses of -50-100% (with a mean of -83.3 %) match or exceed those reported for other faunal groups, thus earthworms are conclusively shown to be similarly depleted from their optima in agrichemical fields. Concomitant mean loss of SOC/SOM humus is -56.8% and soil moisture is reduced by -22.3%. Organic farming lessens humic degradation and topsoil erosion, conserves essential soil moisture and biota, and produces equivalent or higher crop and pasture yields (on average +17.8% in this study) at lower cost. Loss of earthworms adds weight for rational re-evaluation of viable means for food production compatible with environmental conservation (agroecology), hence various interlinked benefits of organic husbandry in terms of yields, soil restoration, biodiversity and economics are briefly discussed. Persistence with failing chemical agriculture makes neither ecological nor economic sense.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Earthworm Monitoring Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison With Other Earthworm Monitoring Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Decline of Earthworms from Organic Origins under Intensive, Humic SOM-Depleting Agriculture

Blakemore

2018

Soil Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The applicability of the two Et ‐factors was verified. Earthworm diversity data, covering 11 European countries, were derived from Rutgers et al () to calculate Et A(R) values. Subsequently, a correction to the standard K ‐factor, developed by Panagos, Meusburger, Ballabio, Borrelli, and Alewell () with reference to the same countries, was incorporated as follows (Figure ):

K_{Et} = K \times {Et}_{A (R)}

…”

Section: Incorporating Soil Ecology Into Soil Erosion Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil biodiversity and soil erosion: It is time to get married

Orgiazzi

Panagos

2018

Global Ecol Biogeogr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The relationship between erosion and biodiversity is reciprocal. Soil organisms can both reduce soil loss, by improving porosity, and increase it, by diminishing soil stability as a result of their mixing activities. Simultaneously, soil runoff has ecological impacts on belowground communities. Despite clear research into interactions, soil erosion models do not consider biodiversity in their estimates and soil ecology has poorly investigated the effects of erosion. In order to start filling in these research gaps, we present a novel biological factor and introduce it into a well‐known soil erosion model (the revised universal soil loss equation). Furthermore, we propose insights to advance soil erosion ecology. Location Pan‐European. Time period Simulation of present‐day conditions. Major taxa studied Earthworms. Methods We present three pathways to fill in current knowledge gaps in soil biodiversity and erosion studies: (a) introducing a biological factor into soil erosion models; (b) developing plot‐scale experiments to clarify and quantify the positive/negative effects of soil organisms on erosion; (c) promoting ecological studies to assess both short‐ and long‐term effects of soil erosion on soil biota. Results We develop a biological factor to be included in soil erosion modelling. Thanks to available data on earthworm diversity (richness and abundance), we generate an “earthworm factor”, incorporate it into a model of soil erosion and produce the first pan‐European maps of it. Main conclusions New estimates of soil loss can be generated by including biological factors in soil erosion models. At the same time, the effects of soil loss on belowground diversity require further investigation. Available data and technologies make both processes possible. We think that it is time to commit to fostering the fundamental, although complex, relationship between soil biodiversity and erosion.

show abstract

“…Generally, earthworm communities are thought to become more complex and diverse towards the equator (Lavelle, ). Climatic factors (temperature and precipitation) are considered fundamental drivers of these latitudinal trends in earthworm communities (Brussaard et al, ; Rutgers et al, ), but such inferences are based on limited data (Brussaard et al, ; Decaëns, ; Fierer, Strickland, Liptzin, Bradford, & Cleveland, ). Other environmental variables have also been reported to structure earthworm communities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land management modulates the environmental controls on global earthworm communities

Johnston

2019

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Soils and their biological communities face increasing pressure from multiple global drivers, including land management and climate change. In soils, earthworms play key roles in ecosystem functioning, but the environmental controls on their global communities are not fully understood. Here, an earthworm dataset was compiled to investigate the effects of environmental variables and land management on global earthworm communities. Location 40° S–65° N. Time period 1962 to 2016. Major taxa studied Earthworms. Methods A dataset of 899 earthworm community observations, together with environmental variables, was compiled across 169 globally distributed sites. Sites included natural forest and grassland or managed arable, pasture and plantation ecosystems. Total, anecic, endogeic and epigeic abundances and total species richness were compared in natural and managed ecosystems to quantify the effects of land management across climates. A hierarchical model was used to test the importance of environmental controls in predicting the relationship between total earthworm species richness and abundance at a global scale. Results Land management prompted little change in total earthworm abundance at the global scale, but reduced species richness and shifted community composition. Endogeic earthworms were more abundant in managed ecosystems, while anecic and epigeic earthworms showed variable responses across ecosystem types. Global relationships between total earthworm species richness and abundance were explained by climate, soil pH and land management. Main conclusions Land management modulates the effects of environmental controls on global earthworm communities, through direct disturbance and indirect changes in edaphic conditions.

show abstract

Mapping earthworm communities in Europe

Cited by 110 publications

References 50 publications

Critical Decline of Earthworms from Organic Origins under Intensive, Humic SOM-Depleting Agriculture

Critical Decline of Earthworms from Organic Origins under Intensive, Humic SOM-Depleting Agriculture

Soil biodiversity and soil erosion: It is time to get married

Land management modulates the environmental controls on global earthworm communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About