Community Structure of Lumbricidae in Permanent Grassland and Arable Land

• Autorzy: Mazur-Pączka Anna , Pączka Grzegorz , Kostecka Joanna , Garczyńska Mariola , Podolak Agnieszka , Szura Renata

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12911/22998993/102965

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Lumbricidae play a key role in the soil environment as “the ecosystem engineers”. They participate in all the categories of services provided by ecosystems. In agricultural areas, the conventional intensive farming practices have led to a significant decline in the biological diversity of soils including earthworms. In this study, we attempted to characterize the community structure of earthworms in permanent grassland and arable land of the Didactic & Experimental Station of Rzeszów University in Krasne near Rzeszów. Similar densities of earthworms were observed in the grassland and in the arable land (101.01 ± 18.03 ind. ∙ m^-2 and 82.12 ± 18.26 ind. ∙ m^-2, respectively) (p > 0.05) as well as a similar biomass of Lumbricidae (77.72 ± 15.30 g ∙ m^-2 and 54.34 ± 11.72 g ∙ m^-2) (p > 0.05). In the research, 7 species of earthworms were found in the permanent grassland and 6 representatives of Lumbricidae were identified in the arable land. The identified earthworms represented all three main morpho-ecological groups. The density and biomass of epi-endogeic earthworm L. rubellus and the anecic species of L. terrestris were shown to be higher (p < 0.05) in the grassland as compared to the arable land. In order to protect Lumbricidae and to sustain the beneficial role of earthworms in an ecosystem, it is necessary to monitor the negative changes in populations of earthworm species attributed to various farming practices.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

earthworms; biodiversity; agricultural areas; dominance; frequency; Shannon-Wiener diversity index; dominance values of Berger-Parker

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Inżynierii Ekologicznej ; Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Journal of Ecological Engineering
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 20, nr 5
• Strony: 1--6
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 41 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mazur-Pączka Anna

• Department of Natural Theories of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Faculty of Biology and Agriculture, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

autor

Pączka Grzegorz

• Department of Natural Theories of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Faculty of Biology and Agriculture, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

autor

Kostecka Joanna

• Department of Natural Theories of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Faculty of Biology and Agriculture, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

autor

Garczyńska Mariola

• Department of Natural Theories of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Faculty of Biology and Agriculture, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

autor

Podolak Agnieszka

• Department of Natural Theories of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Faculty of Biology and Agriculture, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

autor

Szura Renata

• Department of Natural Theories of Agriculture and Environmental Education, Faculty of Biology and Agriculture, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinskiej 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Amosse J., Turberg P., Kohler-Milleret R., Gobat J., Le Bayon R. 2015. Effects of endogeic earthworms on the soil organic matter dynamics and the soil structure in urban and alluvial soil materials. Geoderma, 243–244, 50–57.
• 2. Barrios E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics, 64, 269–285.
• 3. Bengtsson J., Ahnström J., Weibull C. 2005. The effect of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 261–269.
• 4. Bertrand M., Blouin M., Barot S., Charlier A., Marhcnad D., Roger-Estrade J. 2015. Biocontrol of eyespot disease on two winter wheat cultivars by an anecic earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris). Applied Soil Ecology, 96, 33–41.
• 5. Briones M.J.I., Schmidt O. 2017.Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 23(10), 4396–4419.
• 6. Capowiez Y., Cadoux S., Bouchant P., Ruy S., Estrade J.R., Richard G., Boizard H. 2009. The effect of tillage type and cropping system on earthworm communities, macroporosity and water infiltration. Soil and Tillage Research, 105, 209–216.
• 7. Coleman D.C., Crossley D.A., Hendrix P.F. 2004. Fundamentals of soil ecology. Elsevier Academic Press, Brulington.
• 8. Curry J.P. 2004. Factors affecting the abundance of earthworms in soils. [In:] Earthworm Ecology. [eds.] C. Edwards, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
• 9. Datta S., Singh J., Singh S., Singh J. 2016. Earthworms, pesticides and sustainable agriculture: a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(9), 8227–8243.
• 10. EN ISO 23611–1:2006. Soil quality. Sampling of soil invertebrates. Part 1. Hand-sorting and formalin extraction of earthworms. Geneva. Switzerland.
• 11. Feijoo A., Carvajal A.F., Zúñiga M.C., Quintero H., Fragoso C. 2011. Diversity and abundance of earthworms in land use systems in central-western Colombia. Pedobiologia, 54, 69–75.
• 12. Felten D., Emmerling C. 2011. Effects of bioenergy crop cultivation on earthworm communitiesm – A comparative study of perennial (Miscanthus) and annual crops with consideration of graded land-use intensity. Applied Soil Ecology, 49, 167–177.
• 13. Fonte S.J., Barrios E., Six J. 2010. Earthworm impacts on soil organic matter and fertilizer dynamics in tropical hillside agroecosystems of Honduras. Pedobiologia, 53(5), 327–335.
• 14. Fonte S.J., Winsome T., Six J. 2009. Earthworm populations in relation to soil organic matter dynamics and management in California tomato cropping systems. Applied Soil Ecology, 41, 206–214.
• 15. Haynes R.J., Dominy C.S., Graha M.H. 2002. Effect of agricultural land use on soil organic matter status and the composition of earthworm communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 95, 453–464.
• 16. Ivask M., Kuu A., Sizov E. 2007. Abudance of earthworm species in Estonia arable soils. Soil Biology, 43, 39–42.
• 17. Jouquet P., Dauber J., Lagerlof J., Lavelle P., Lepage, M. 2006. Soil invertebrates as ecosystem engineers: Intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Applied Soil Ecology, 32, 153–164.
• 18. Kasprzak K. 1986. Soil Oligochaeta III – The family of Earthworms (Lumbricidae). The keys to indicate the invertebrates of Poland. PWN, Warsaw (in Polish).
• 19. Kanianska R., Jad’ud’uová J., Makovníková J., Kizeková M. 2016.Assessment of Relationships between Earthworms and Soil Abiotic and Biotic Factors as a Tool in Sustainable Agricultural. Sustainability, 8(9), 906.
• 20. Kostecka J. 1992. Earthworms (Lumbricidae, Oligochaeta) identified in some points of the Western Bieszczady. Scientific Agricultural and Forestry. Natural Basics of Agricultural Production, 1, 110–118.
• 21. Kostecka J. 1993. Numbers, biomass, and species composition of earthworms (Lumbricidae) of arable land under drought conditions. Leading Problems of Agricultural Development in the South-East Poland. Some Studies on Agriculture in South-Eastern Poland, 5, 199–206 (in Polish).
• 22. Lapied E., Nahmani J., Rousseau G.X. 2009. Influence of texture and amendments on soil properties and earthworm communities. Applied Soil Ecology, 43, 241–249.
• 23. Lüscher G., Jeanneret P., Schneider M.K., Turnbull L.A., Arndorfer M., Balázs K., Báldi A., Bailey D., Bernhardt K.G., Choisis J.P., Elek Z., Frank T., Friedel J.K., Kainz M., Kovács-Hostyánszki A., Oschatz M.L., Paoletti M.G., Papaja-Hülsbergen S., Sarthou J.P., Siebrecht N., Wolfrum S., Herzog F. 2014. Responses of plants, earthworms, spiders and bees to geographic location, agricultural management and surrounding landscape in European arable fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 186, 124–134.
• 24. Makulec G. 2004. Lumbricidae communities in several years old midfield shelterbelt (Turew Region, Western Poland). Polish Journal of Ecology, 52(2), 173–179.
• 25. Manono B. 2016.Agro-ecological role of earthworms (Oligochaetes) in sustainable agriculture and nutrient use efficiency: A Review. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, 8(1), 1–18.
• 26. Mehlich A. 1984. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15, 1409–1416.
• 27. Monroy F., Aira M., Dominguez J., Velando A. 2006. Seasonal population dynamics of Eisenia fetida (Savigny, 1826) (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) in the field. Population Biology, 329, 912–915.
• 28. Nikitin V., Fishman V. 1969. On the improvement of methods for determination of soil carbon. Chemistry in Agriculture, 3, 76–77.
• 29. Pelosi C., Barot S., Capowiez I., Hedde M., Vandenbulck F. 2013. Pesticides and earthworms. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(1), 199–228.
• 30. PN-ISO 11465:1999. Soil quality – Determination of soil dry matter and water content in soil in terms of dry soil mass – weight metod (in Polish).
• 31. Rożen A., Mysłajek R.W., Sobczyk Ł. 2013. Altitude versus vegetation as the factors Influencing the diversity and abundance of earthworms and other soil macrofauna in montane habitat (Silesian Beskid Mts, Western Carpathians). Polish Journal of Ecology, 61(1), 145–156.
• 32. Ryl B. 1984. Comparison of communities of earthworms (Lumbricidae) occurring in diffrent ecosystem of agricultural landscape. Polish Ecology, 2(1), 155–165 (in Polish).
• 33. Schon N.L., Mackay A. D., Gray R.A., Van Koten C., Dodd M.B. 2017. Influence of earthworm abundance and diversity on soil structure and the implications for soil services throughout the season. Pedobiologia, 62. 41–47.
• 34. Smith R.G., McSwiney C.P., Grandy A.S., Suwanwaree P., Snider R.M., Robertson G.P. 2008. Diversity and abundance of earthworms across anagricultural land-use intensity gradient. Soil and Tillage Research, 100, 83–88.
• 35. Van Capelle, C., Schrader, S., Brunotte, J. 2012. Tillage-inducedchanges in the functional diversity of soil biota: a review with a focus on German data. European Journal of Soil Biology, 50, 165–181.
• 36. Van Groenigen J.W., Lubbers I.M., Vos H.J.M., Brown G.G., De Deyn G.B., Groenigen K.J. 2014. Earthworms increase plant production: a metaanalysis. Scientific Reports, 4, 63–65.
• 37. Whalen J.K. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of earthworm patches in corn field and forest systems of southwestern Quebec, Canada. Applied Soil Ecology, 27, 143–151.
• 38. Witkowski T. 1983. Numbers and biomass of earthworms (Lumbricidae) under different crop rotation conditions. Annals of Soil Science, 34, 83–102 (in Polish).
• 39. Zajonc J. 1970. Grouping of earthworms (Lumbricidae) of the Carpathian region of Czechoslovakia. Biological Work, 120 (in Czech).
• 40. Zangerlé A., Pando A., Lavelle P. 2011. Do earthworms and roots cooperate to build soil macroaggregates? A microcosm experiment. Geoderma, 167–168, 303–309.
• 41. Zisci A. 1962. Determination of number and size of sampling unit for estimating lumbricid populations of arable soils. [In:]: Progress in soil zoology. [eds.] P.W. Murphy. Butterworths, London, 68–71.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).