The Quantitative Analysis for the Relationship Between Earthworm Density and Major Parameters of Soil Physical Fertility

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0606

Abstract

Abstract:

This study was aimed to analyze the relationship between earthworm density and the main parameters of soil physical fertility, and quantitatively evaluate the impact of earthworms on soil physical properties through field samples and data collection from literatures. Relevant data was extracted by inputting keywords such as earthworm, soil bulk density, soil water content, soil texture, soil porosity, and soil water-stable aggregates in the China Knowledge Infrastructure and Web of Science. The data extracted from the literature was combined with the data we obtained to perform Pearson correlation analysis. It was found that earthworm density was significantly, negatively and exponentially related with sand percentage (P<0.001), and significantly, positively and exponentially related with silt percentage (P<0.05) while significantly related with clay percentage in power function (P<0.001). There was a weak negative correlation with soil bulk density (P<0.20), and a significant positive correlation with soil porosity (P<0.05). There was a weak positive correlation with water stable aggregate content (P<0.5), but a very significant positive correlation with water content (P<0.001). The quantitative relationship between earthworm density and the main parameters of soil physical fertility can be divided into five classes according to the relationships between earthworm density and the relative content of sand, silt and clay, soil bulk density, porosity, water stability aggregate and water content, which may be valuable for estimating the impacts of earthworm on soil physical fertility.

Key words: earthworm density, clay, silt, sand, bulk density, porosity, water-stable aggregates, soil moisture

MA Qian, DIAO Feifei, DU Xin, CHEN Riyuan, LIN Qimei, ZHAO Xiaorong, LI Guitong. The Quantitative Analysis for the Relationship Between Earthworm Density and Major Parameters of Soil Physical Fertility[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(22): 81-87.

Figures/Tables 6

References 50

[1]	BERTRAND M, BAROT S, BLOUIN M. Earthworm services for cropping systems: A review[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2015, 35(2):553-567.
[2]	KAVDIR Y, IILAY R. Earthworms and soil structure[A].// In: KARACA A. Biology of earthworms[M]. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011:39-50.
[3]	BHADAURIA T, SAXENA K G. Role of earthworms in soil fertility maintenance through the production of biogenic structures[J]. Applied and environmental soil science, 2010(2):49-55.
[4]	BOTTINELLI N, HENRY-DES-TUREAUX T, HALLAIRE V, et al. Earthworms accelerate soil porosity turnover under watering conditions[J]. Geoderma, 2010, 156(1-2):43-47.
[5]	BLOUIN M, HODSON M E, Delgado E A, et al. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services[J]. European journal of soil science, 2013, 64:161-182.
[6]	李辉信, 胡锋, 沈其荣, 等. 接种蚯蚓对秸秆还田土壤碳、氮动态和作物产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002, 13(12):1637-1641.
[7]	MA L, SHAO M A, FAN J, et al. Effects of earthworm (Metaphire guillelmi) density on soil macropore and soil water content in typical anthrosol soil[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 2021, 311:107338.
[8]	董水丽. 麦秸还田后接种蚯蚓对土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 延安职业技术学院学报, 2011, 25(6):135-136.
[9]	SCHON N L, MACKAY A D, GRAY R A, et al. Influence of earthworm abundance and diversity on soil structure and the implications for soil services throughout the season[J]. Pedobiologia, 2017, 62:41-47.
[10]	GARCÍA-PÉREZ J A, ALARCÓN-GUTIÉRREZ E, PERRONI Y, et al. Earthworm communities and soil properties in shaded coffee plantations with and without application of glyphosate[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2014, 83:230-237.
[11]	KOURTEL G N, KRIBAA M, OKKI M. Interaction between soil physicochemical parameters and earthworm communities in irrigated areas with natural water and wastewaters[J]. Applied and environmental soil science, 2017(5):1-16.
[12]	MASIN C, RODRÍGUEZ A R, ZALAZAR C, et al. Approach to assess agroecosystem anthropic disturbance: statistical monitoring based on earthworm populations and edaphic properties[J]. Ecological indicators, 2020, 111(2):105984.
[13]	NWEKE I A. Effect of compost and earthworm production on soil properties, growth and dry matter yield of maize in crude oil degraded soil[J]. Journal of soil science & environmental management, 2017, 8(1):1-10.
[14]	RADAEI M and IZADI M. Response of earthworm’s biomass and soil properties in different afforested type areas in the North Iran[J]. Eurasian journal of soil science, 2016, 5(1):47.
[15]	SCHORPP Q, SCHRADER S. Earthworm functional groups respond to the perennial energy cropping system of the cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.)[J]. Biomass & bioenergy, 2016, 87:61-66.
[16]	WALSH C L, JOHNSON-MAYNARD J L. Earthworm distribution and density across a climatic gradient within the Inland Pacific Northwest cereal production region[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2016, 104:104-110.
[17]	D’HOSE T, COUGNON M, VLIEGHER A D, et al. The positive relationship between soil quality and crop production: A case study on the effect of farm compost application[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2014, 75:189-198.
[18]	GIANNITSOPOULOS M L, BURGESS P J, RICKSON J. Effects of conservation tillage drills on soil quality indicators in a wheat-oilseed rape rotation: Organic carbon, earthworms and water-stableaggregates[J]. Soil use and management, 2020, 36(1):139-152.
[19]	GUO L Y, WU G L, LI Y, et al. Effects of cattle manure compost combined with chemical fertilizer on topsoil organic matter, bulk density and earthworm activity in a wheat-maize rotation system in Eastern China[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2016, 156:140-147.
[20]	LÓPEZ-HERNÁNDEZ D, HERNÁNDEZ L, OJEDA A, et al. Impact of land protection in soil quality properties and in earthworm biomass in Venezuelan savannas[J]. Journal of soil science & plant nutrition, 2014, 14(4):927-941.
[21]	TONDOH J E, DIMOBE K, GUEI A M, et al. Soil health changes over a 25-year chronosequence from forest to plantations in rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) landscapes in southern tote d’Ivoire: Do earthworms play a role?[J]. Frontiers in environmental science, 2019, 7:23.
[22]	LI J, ZHANG Z, WANG H, et al. Urban land-use impacts on composition and spatiotemporal variations in abundance and biomass of earthworm community[J]. Journal of forestry research, 2020, 31:325-331.
[23]	RIVEST M, WHALEN J K, RIVEST D. Variation of soil microbial and earthworm communities along an agricultural transect with tree windbreak[J]. Agroforestry systems, 2020, 94:1639-1649.
[24]	SANKAR A S, PATNAIK A. Impact of soil physico-chemical properties on distribution of earthworm populations across different land use patterns in southern India[J]. The journal of basic and applied zoology, 2018, 79(1):50.
[25]	SCHAIK L V, PALM J, KLAUS J, et al. Potential effects of tillage and field borders on within-field spatial distribution patterns of earthworms[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2016, 228:82-90.
[26]	WU Y P, ZHANG Y, BI Y M, et al. Biodiversity in saline and non-saline soils along the Bohai sea coast, China[J]. Pedoshpere, 2015, 25(2):307-315.
[27]	DEKEMATI I, SIMON B, VINOGRADOV S, et al. The effects of various tillage treatments on soil physical properties, earthworm abundance and crop yield in Hungary[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2019, 194:104334.
[28]	RAJKHOWA D J, BHATTACHARYYA P N, SARMA A K, et al. Diversity and distribution of earthworms in different soil habitats of assam, North-East India, an Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, India section B: Biological sciences, 2015, 85(2):389-396.
[29]	VARGA J, KANIANSKA R, SPISIAK J. Impact of land use and geological conditions on selected physical soil properties in relation to the earthworm abundance and biomass along an altitudinal gradient in Slovakia[J]. Soil science annual, 2018, 69(3):160-168.
[30]	VAN CAPELLE C, SCHRADER S, BRUNOTTE J. Tillage-induced changes in the functional diversity of soil biota e a review with a focus on German data[J]. European journal of soil biology, 2012, 50:165-181.
[31]	HALLAM J, BERDENI D, GRAYSON R, et al. Effect of earthworms on soil physico-hydraulic and chemical properties, herbage production, and wheat growth on arable land converted to ley[J]. Science of total environment, 2020, 713:136491.1-136491.14.
[32]	TAJBAKHSH J, MOHAMMADI GOLTAPEH E, VARMA A. Vermicompost as a biological soil amendment[A].// In: KARACA A. Biology of earthworms[M]. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011:215-228.
[33]	BARTZ M L C, PASINI A, BROWN G G. Earthworms as soil quality indicators in Brazilian no-tillage systems[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2013, 69:39-48.
[34]	刘杰, 许石林, 周玮. 从机械、土壤、作物体系看农田机械化发展途径[J]. 华北农学报, 1987(3):119-124. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.1987.03.021
[35]	唐政, 李继光, 李慧, 等. 设施菜田水肥管理模式下蚯蚓和土壤肥力状况的变化[J]. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(8):2210-2214.
[36]	PELOSI C, GRANDEAU G, CAPOWIEZ Y. Temporal dynamics of earthworm-related macroporosity in tilled and non-tilled cropping systems[J]. Geoderma, 2017, 289:169-177.
[37]	LIPIEC J, TURSKI M, HAJNO M, et al. Pore structure, stability and water repellency of earthworm casts and natural aggregates in loess soil[J]. Geoderma, 2015, 243-244: 124-129.
[38]	SIX J, PAUSTIAN K. Aggregate-associated soil organic matter as an ecosystem property and a measurement tool[J]. Soil biology and biochemstry, 2014, 68:A4-A9.
[39]	GIANNITSOPOULOS M L, BURGESS P J, RICKSON R J. Effects of conservation tillage drills on soil quality indicators in a wheat-oilseed rape rotation: organic carbon, earthworms and water-stable aggregates[J]. Soil use and management, 2020, 36:139-152.
[40]	PAUL B K, VANLAUWE B, HOOGMOED M, et al. Exclusion of soil macro-fauna did not affect soil quality but increased crop yields in a sub-humid tropical maize-based system[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems and environment, 2015, 208:75-85.
[41]	CHOUDHURY S G, SRIVASTAVA S, SINGH R, et al. Tillage and residue management effects on soil aggregation, organic carbon dynamics and yield attribute in rice-wheat cropping system under reclaimed sodic soil[J]. Soil and tillage research, 2014, 136:76-83.
[42]	于建光, 胡锋, 李辉信, 等. 接种蚯蚓对土壤团聚体分布、稳定性及有机碳赋存的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2010, 24(3):175-179
[43]	LI J H, ZHANG Z, WANG H, et al. Urban land-use impacts on composition and spatiotemporal variations in abundance and biomass of earthworm community[J]. Journal of forestry research, 2020, 31(1):325-331.
[44]	王红, 王邵军, 李霁航. 不同森林群落类型土壤蚯蚓数量和生物量的时空分布特征[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 41(3):37-42. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201605023
[45]	GILOT-VILLENAVE C, LAVELLE P, GANRY F. Effects of a tropical geophagous earthworm, Millsonia anomala, on some soil characteristics, on maize- residue decomposition and on maize production in Ivory Coast[J]. Applied soil ecology, 1996, 4(3):201-211.
[46]	熊丽军, 马莉, 刘美泽, 等. 免耕条件下蚯蚓对农田水分及土壤物理性质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(16):77-81. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0429
[47]	SMAGIN A V, PRUSAK A V. The effect of earthworm coprolites on the soil water retention curve[J]. Eurasian soil science, 2008, 41:618-622.
[48]	HALLAM J, HODSON M E. Impact of different earthworm ecotypes on water stable aggregates and soil water holding capacity[J]. Biology and fertility of soils, 2020, 56:607-617.
[49]	VAN GROENIGEN J W, LUBBERS I M, VOS H M J, et al. Earthworms increase plant production: A meta-analysis[J]. Scientific reports, 2014, 4:6365. doi: 10.1038/srep06365 pmid: 25219785
[50]	张卫信, 李健雄, 郭明昉, 等. 广东鹤山人工林蚯蚓群落结构季节变化及其与环境的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2005, 25(6):1362-1370.

级别	砂粒/%	粉粒/%	黏粒/%	容重/(g/cm³)	水稳性团聚体/%	孔隙度/%	含水量/%	蚯蚓密度/(条/m²)
1	[0,25)	[50,100]	[25,100]	[0,1.2)	[40,100]	[65,100]	[30,100]	[100, +∞)
2	[25, 35)	[44,50)	[20,25)	[1.2,1.35)	[30,40)	[55,65)	[20,30)	[70,100)
3	[35,50)	[37,44)	[15,20)	[1.35,1.45)	[20,30)	[48,55)	[12,20)	[40,70)
4	[50,60)	[31,37)	[11,15)	[1.45,1.59)	[10,20)	[40,48)	[5,12)	[10,40)
5	[60,100]	[0,31)	[0,11)	[1.59,+∞)	[0,10)	[0,40)	[0,5)	[0,10)

级别	砂粒/%	粉粒/%	黏粒/%	容重/(g/cm³)	水稳性团聚体/%	孔隙度/%	含水量/%	蚯蚓密度/(条/m²)
1	[0,25)	[50,100]	[25,100]	[0,1.2)	[40,100]	[65,100]	[30,100]	[100, +∞)
2	[25, 35)	[44,50)	[20,25)	[1.2,1.35)	[30,40)	[55,65)	[20,30)	[70,100)
3	[35,50)	[37,44)	[15,20)	[1.35,1.45)	[20,30)	[48,55)	[12,20)	[40,70)
4	[50,60)	[31,37)	[11,15)	[1.45,1.59)	[10,20)	[40,48)	[5,12)	[10,40)
5	[60,100]	[0,31)	[0,11)	[1.59,+∞)	[0,10)	[0,40)	[0,5)	[0,10)