Six months of L. terrestris L. activity in root-formed biopores increases nutrient availability, microbial biomass and enzyme activity

Athmann, Miriam; Kautz, Timo; Banfield, Callum C.; Bauke, Sara L.; Hoang, Duyen Thi Thu; Lüsebrink, Marcel; Pausch, Johanna; Amelung, Wulf; Kuzyakov, Yakov; Köpke, Ulrich

doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.08.015

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, in the present study, the five enzymatic activities measured were enhanced in the presence of epi-anecic earthworms. Several studies have also observed higher enzymatic activities in L. terrestris burrows or middens compared to the surrounding soil, including β-D-glucosidase (Don et al, 2008;Lipiec et al, 2016;Hoang et al, 2016;Athmann et al, 2017), leucine aminopeptidase (Athmann et al, 2017), acid and alkaline phosphatase (Jégou et al, 2001;Schrader and Seibel, 2001;Lipiec et al, 2016;Hoang et al, 2016) and cellobiohydrolase (Don et al, 2008;Hoang et al, 2016). However, for the first time, we report here that both L. rubellus and L. centralis also enhanced enzymatic activities in their burrows and middens.…”

Section: Mono-specific Assemblagessupporting

confidence: 53%

Epi-anecic rather than strict-anecic earthworms enhance soil enzymatic activities

Hoeffner

Santonja

Cluzeau

et al. 2019

Soil Biology and Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthworms in interaction with soil microorganisms play a key role in litter decomposition. Moreover, as soil engineers, earthworms modify microbial communities and their enzymatic activities. Most studies focusing on earthworms and soil enzymatic compare distinct ecological categories of earthworms whereas their contributions and interactions within a given ecological category remain largely unknown. In this context, the aims of the present study were to determine and compare the contribution of (1) three strict-anecic earthworm species, (2) three epi-anecic earthworm species and (3) the pairwise interactions between these different species on Lolium perenne leaf litter decomposition and soil microbial activity. After 30 days of incubation, the surface litter mass loss and five soil enzymatic activities (FDAse, β-D-glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase, leucine amino-peptidase and acid phosphatase) were measured in both earthworm burrows and middens. In mono-specific assemblages, leaf litter mass loss and enzymatic activities were significantly higher in the presence of epi-anecic compared to strictanecic species, whatever the species identity. These differences were higher for the β-Dglucosidase, leucine amino-peptidase and FDAse (+78%, +57% and +34%, respectively). Earthworm species interactions at both intra-and inter-ecological sub-categories did not enhance leaf litter mass loss and enzymatic activities. Interestingly, FDAse activity was higher in earthworm burrows whereas acid phosphatase activity was higher in earthworm middens. These results indicate that the two anecic ecological sub-categories have different impacts on soil functioning and each of them regroups earthworm species with similar behaviour. This functional distinction highlights the key role of epi-anecic earthworms in fresh surface litter burial and decomposition, featuring their importance on nutrient cycling in soil and for microbial activities stimulation through resource availability.

show abstract

Section: Mono-specific Assemblagessupporting

confidence: 53%

Epi-anecic rather than strict-anecic earthworms enhance soil enzymatic activities

Hoeffner

Santonja

Cluzeau

et al. 2019

Soil Biology and Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was further confirmed by Athmann et al (2017) who evidenced a positive effect of root and earthworm (L. terrestris) biopores, compared with the bulk soil, on the activity of several enzymes involved in the C and N cycle, resulting in an increase in nutrient mobilisation. These findings point out a positive interaction effect on nutrient mineralisation at the drilosphere and rhizosphere level, two hotspots of microbial activity in the soil.…”

Section: Earthworms Increase Nutrient Mineralisation In the Soilmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…A possible explanation which has been proposed by several authors is that N mineralised by earthworms and their associated microorganisms might be used more readily by plants, thereby masking an increase in soil available N concentrations (Pashanasi et al, 1996;González and Zou, 1999;Wu et al, 2017). Similarly, the amount of readily available phosphorus (P) has been shown to be affected by earthworms, levels of available P being higher in casts (Jiménez et al, 2003;Kuczak et al, 2006;Vos et al, 2014;Ros et al, 2017) or in biopores formed by L. terrestris (Athmann et al, 2017) than in the bulk soil. FIGURE 6 | Frequency of studies reporting: (A) overall changes in soil nutrients when processed by earthworms of different functional groups, (B) increments in carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil or substrates when processed by earthworms of different functional groups, (C) overall changes in the soil microbial community when the soil was processed by earthworms of different functional groups and (D) concurrence of data revealing changes in the soil microbial community and in the soil nutrients.…”

Section: Earthworms Increase Nutrient Mineralisation In the Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthworms Building Up Soil Microbiota, a Review

Medina-Sauza

Álvarez-Jiménez

Delhal

et al. 2019

Front. Environ. Sci.

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, taprooted alfalfa (Medicaga sativa L.) has been shown to increase nitrogen and carbon input (Fischer et al, 2013, Hafner andKuzyakov, 2016) and soil aeration, especially in deeper soil layers (Uteau et al, 2013), compared with taprooted chicory, thus creating favorable conditions for microbial growth (Hafner and Kuzyakov, 2016). Root channels are hotspots for the acquisition of nutrients from subsoil, with high levels of oxygen, microbial activity, and plant-available nutrients, especially if colonized by anecic earthworms (Athmann et al, 2017).…”

Section: Vegetative Growth Canopy Structure and Susceptibility To Fumentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The effects of integrated, organic and biodynamic management on soil quality and the growth and morphological development of Riesling grapevines were assessed during the first 4 years of a long-term field trial in Geisenheim, Germany. The overall aim was to understand the effects of these different viticultural practices on soil quality and plant morphology as the basis for product quality.Methods and results: As indicators of soil quality, earthworm abundance and the activity of selected enzymes were assessed. The vegetative and reproductive development of the grapevines, as well as their susceptibility to fungal diseases in the field, wood and grape composition, and grape yield, were investigated. Individual variables were subjected to analysis of variance. Additionally, all variables were subjected to multivariate principal component analysis. Compared with plots under integrated management, plots under the two biological treatments were characterized by higher soil quality and lower vegetative growth and grape yield, and therefore higher exposure of grapes and lower grape cluster compactness, and, probably as a result of these morphological differences, lower incidence of acetic acid rot. Principal component analysis clearly differentiated the three treatments, and showed that biodynamic management had more pronounced effects than organic management in terms of enhanced soil fertility and reduction of vegetative growth.Conclusions: In the present study, organic and especially biodynamic management resulted in a morphology favouring production of high-quality grapes. The treatments differed in terms of fertilization and plant protection methods as well as choice of cover crops. Therefore, further research is necessary with respect to root growth and the nitrogen and water uptake dynamics of vines and cover crops. The differences between grapes produced under organic and biodynamic management emphasize the need for more research on the mode of action of biodynamic preparations.Significance and impact of the study: In recent years, both winegrowers and consumers have expressed steadily growing interest in organic and especially biodynamic wine production. The present study contributes to a better understanding of the effects on grapevine growth and morphological development of shifting to these methods as a way to increase product quality.

show abstract

Six months of L. terrestris L. activity in root-formed biopores increases nutrient availability, microbial biomass and enzyme activity

Cited by 49 publications

References 76 publications

Epi-anecic rather than strict-anecic earthworms enhance soil enzymatic activities

Epi-anecic rather than strict-anecic earthworms enhance soil enzymatic activities

Earthworms Building Up Soil Microbiota, a Review

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About