Effects of Selected Annual and Perennial Energy Crops on Lumbricidae Community Assemblages

• Autorzy: Mazur-Pączka Anna , Butt Kevin R. , Garczyńska Mariola , Kostecka Joanna , Pączka Grzegorz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12911/22998993/171787

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

An increase in demand for energy from renewable sources has increased the hectareage of crops grown for energy purposes. The impact of large-scale energy crop monocultures on soil biodiversity is poorly understood and requires long-term monitoring. Due to their specific lifestyle, Lumbricidae, known as “ecosystem engineers”, have found application in biomonitoring of the soil environment. This study aimed to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative structure of Lumbricidae in annual rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and perennial willow (Salix viminalis L.) crops for energy purposes, with a permanent grassland as a control site. The research was conducted on the territory of the Podkarpackie Agricultural Advisory Center in Boguchwała (southeastern Poland). Earthworms were obtained by hand sorting soil blocks of 25×25×25 cm and a 0.4% formalin solution was used to extract individuals from deeper soil layers. There were no differences in the species composition of Lumbricidae between the analyzed crops. Five species of earthworms, Dendrodrilus rubidus tenius, Lumbricus rubelllus, Aporrectodea caliginosa, A. rosea, and L. terrestris, were found at each study site. Rapeseed had the lowest density (17.26 ± 9.16 ind•m^-2) and biomass (5.93 ± 2.42 g•m^-2) of Lumbricidae (p < 0.05). On sites with willow and permanent grassland, density and biomass of Lumbricidae were similar (69.15 ± 28.99 ind•m^-2; 26.55 ± 9.67 g•m^-2 and 54.04 ± 22.93 ind•m^-2; 20.03 ± 7.99 g•m^-2, respectively (p > 0.05). The study demonstrated the beneficial effect of perennial willow cultivation on the quantitative structure of earthworm communities. Only long-term biomonitoring will make it possible to determine the real impact of energy crops on invertebrate assemblages and their appropriate management to promote biodiversity.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

earthworm; biodiversity; monocultural cultivation; annual plant; perennial plant; Brassica napus L.; Salix viminalis L.

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Inżynierii Ekologicznej ; Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Journal of Ecological Engineering
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 24, nr 11
• Strony: 287--293
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 44 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mazur-Pączka Anna

• Department of the Basis of Agriculture and Waste Management, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Land Management and Environmental Protection, College of Natural Sciences, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinska 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9694-5452

autor

Butt Kevin R.

• School of Natural Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Natural Sciences, Preston PR 1 2HE, UK

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-7795

autor

Garczyńska Mariola

• Department of the Basis of Agriculture and Waste Management, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Land Management and Environmental Protection, College of Natural Sciences, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinska 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1648-353X

autor

Kostecka Joanna

• Department of the Basis of Agriculture and Waste Management, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Land Management and Environmental Protection, College of Natural Sciences, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinska 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4247-3685

autor

Pączka Grzegorz

• Department of the Basis of Agriculture and Waste Management, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Land Management and Environmental Protection, College of Natural Sciences, University of Rzeszow, Cwiklinska 1a, 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0113-3150

Bibliografia

• 1. Barchański B. 2010. And yet coal is the present and future of the energy sector. Energy Policy, 13, 11–28 (in Polish).
• 2. Blouin M., Hodson M.E., Delgado E.A., Baker G., Brussaard E., Butt K.R., Dai J., Dendooven L., Peres G., Tondoh J.E., Cluzeau D., Brun J.J. 2013. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Science, 64, 161–182.
• 3. Bourke D., Stanley D., O’Rourke E., Thompson R.; Carnus T., Dauber J., Emmerson M., Whelan P., Heco F., Flynn E., Dolan L., Stout J. 2014. Response of farmland biodiversity to the introduction of bioenergy crops: Effects oflocal factors and surrounding landscape context. GCB Bioenergy, 6, 275–289.
• 4. Chimento C., Almagro M., Amaducci S. 2016. Carbon sequestration potential in perennial bioenergy crops: The importance of organic matter inputs and its physical protection. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 8, 111–121.
• 5. Don A., Osborne B., Hastings A., Skiba U., Carter M.S., Drewer J., Zenone, T. 2012. Land-use change to bioenergy production in Europe: Implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 4, 372–39.
• 6. Emmerling Ch. 2014. Impact of land-use change towards perennial energy crops on earthworm population. Applied Soil Ecology, 84, 12–15.
• 7. Emmerling Ch., Ruf T., Audu V., Werner W., Udelhoven T. 2021. Earthworm communities are supported by perennial bioenergy cropping systems. European Journal of Soil Biology, 105, 103331.
• 8. Feledyn-Szewczyk B., Matyka M., Staniak M. 2019a. Comparison of the effect of perennial energy crops and agricultural crops on weed flora diversity. Agronomy, 9, 695.
• 9. Feledyn-Szewczyk B., Radzikowski P., Stalenga J., Matyka M. 2019b. Comparison Comparison of the Effect of Perennial Energy Crops and Arable Crops on Earthworm Populations. Agronomy, 9, 675.
• 10. Felten D., Emmerling Ch. 2011. Effects of bioenergy crop cultivation on earthworm communities–A comparative study of perennial (Miscanthus) and annual crops with consideration of graded land-use intensity. Applied Soil Ecology, 49, 167–177.
• 11. Fry D.A., Slater F.M., Reboud X. 2008. The effect on plant communities and associated taxa of planting short rotation willow coppice in Wales. Aspects of Applied Biology, 90, 287–293.
• 12. Górny M., Grüm L. 1981. Methods used in soil zoology (in Polish). PWN, Warsaw.
• 13. Hargreaves S.K., Hofmockel K.S. 2014. Physiological shifts in the microbial community drive changes in enzyme activity in a pe-rennial agroecosystem. Biogeochemistry, 117, 67–79.
• 14. International Standards Organization (ISO), 1995. ISO 11261:1995. Soil quality – determination of total nitrogen – modified Kjeldahl method. Geneva, Switzerland.
• 15. International Standards Organization (ISO), 1993. ISO 11465:1993. Soil quality – Determination of dry matter and water content on a mass basis – Gravimetric method. Geneva, Switzerland.
• 16. International Standards Organization (ISO), 2006. ISO 23611–1:2006 Soil quality – sampling of soil invertebrates – Part 1: Hand-Sorting and Formalin Extraction of Earthworms. Geneva, Switzerland.
• 17. Ivask M., Kuu A., Sizov E. 2007. Abudance of earth-worm species in Estonia arable soils. Soil Biology, 43, 39–42.
• 18. Kanianska R., Jaduduová 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.
• 19. Kasprzak K. 1986. Terrestrial Oligochaeta III. The Family of Earthworms (Lumbricidae), the Keys to Indicate the Invertebrates of Poland (in Polish). PWN, Warsaw.
• 20. Lavelle P., Bignell D., Lepage M., Wolters V., Roger P., Ineson P., Heal O.W., Dhillion S. 1997. Soil function in a changing world: the role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers. European Journal of Soil Biology, 33, 159–193.
• 21. Makulec G. 2004. Lumbricidae communities inseveral years old midfield shelterbelt (Turew Re-gion, Western Poland). Polish Journal of Ecology, 52(2), 173–179.
• 22. Mazur-Pączka A., Pączka G., Garczyńska M., Jaromin M., Hajduk E., Kostecka J., Butt K.R. 2023. Effects of Energy Crop Monocultures and Sewage SludgeFertiliser on Soils and Earthworm Community Attributes. Agriculture, 13, 323.
• 23. Mehlich A. 1984. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15, 1409–1416.
• 24. Mola-Yudego B., Díaz-Yáñez O., Dimitriou I. 2015. How much yield should we expect from fast-growing plantations for Energy? Divergences between experiments and commercial willow plantations. Bioenergy research, 8, 1769–1777.
• 25. 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.
• 26. Nikitin V., Fishman V. 1969. On the improvement of methods for determination of soil carbon. Agricultural Chemistry, 3, 76–77.
• 27. Pedroli B., Elbersen B., Frederiksen P., Grandin U., Heikkila R., Krogh P.H., Izakovicova Z., Johansen A., Meiresonne L., Spijker J. 2013. Is energy cropping in Europe compatible with biodiversity? Opportunities and threats to biodiversity from land-based production of biomass for bioenergy purposes. Biomass Bioenergy, 55, 73–86.
• 28. Pfiffner L. 2022. Earthworms – architects of fertile soils Their significance and recommendations for their promotion in agriculture. Technical guide, 1629, 1–12.
• 29. Pfiffner L., Mӓder P. 1997. Effects of Biodynamic, Organic and Conventional Production Systems on Earthworm Populations. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 15, 2–10.
• 30. Rola J., Sekutowski T., Rola H., Badowski M. 2009. Weed problems on the new Miscanthus gigantheus plantations. Puławski diary, 150, 233–246.
• 31. Ruf T., Emmerling Ch. 2020. Soil organic carbon allocation and dynamics under perennial energy crops and their feedbacks with soil microbial biomass and activity. Soil Use and Management, 36, 646–657.
• 32. Ruf T., Emmerling Ch. 2022. Biomass partitioning and nutrient fluxes in Silphium perfoliatum and silage maize cropping systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 124, 389–405.
• 33. Ruf T.H., Makselon J., Udelhoven T., Emmerling C.H. 2018. Soil quality indicators response to landuse change from annual to perennial bioenergy cropping systems in Germany. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 10, 444–459.
• 34. Sage R.B. 1998. Short rotation coppice for energy: Towards ecological guidelines. Biomass Bioenergy, 15, 39–47.
• 35. Schmidt A., Lemaigre S., Delfosse P., von Francken-Welz H., Emmerling C. 2018. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of six perennial energy crops cultivated at three different locations in Germany. Biomass Convers Biorefinery, 8, 873–888.
• 36. Schorpp Q., Schrader S. 2016. Functional groups respond to the perennial energy cropping system of the cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.). Biomass and Bioenergy, 87, 61–68.
• 37. Semere T., Slater F.M. 2007. Ground flora, small mammal and bird species diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthus×giganteus) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields. Biomass Bioenergy, 31, 20–29.
• 38. Smith R.G., McSwiney C.P., Grandy A.S., Su-Wanwaree P., Snider R.M., Robertson G.P. 2008. Diversity and abundance of earthworms across an agricultural land-use intensity gradient. Soil and Tillage Research, 100, 83–88.
• 39. Southwood, T.R.E. Ecological Methods, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall; London, UK, 1978.
• 40. Stankiewicz D. 2010. Possibility of using agricultural raw materials for energy production in Poland. BAS studies, 1(21), 237–266 (in Polish).
• 41. Act of April 10, 1997 Energy Law [Journal of Laws 2022.1385] (in Polish).
• 42. Van Groenigen J.W., Lubbers I.M., Vos H.M., Brown G.G., de Deyn G.B., van Groenigen K.J. 2014. Earthworms increase plant production: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 4, 6365.
• 43. Verdade L.M., Piña C.I., Rosalino L.M. 2015. Biofuels and biodiversity: Challenges and opportunities. Environmental Development, 15, 64–78.
• 44. Wyszomierski R., Bórawski P., Jankowski K., Zalewski K. 2017. Spatial diversification of biomass production in Poland. Scientific Annals of the Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists 19(2), 282–288.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).