Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Earthworm Preference Bioassays to Evaluate Land Management Practices

  • Published:
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Earthworm preference tests, especially in soil-dosed exposures, can be an informative tool for assessing land management practices. Agricultural management intended to increase crop yield and improve soil sustainability includes physical manipulation of topsoil through conventional tillage, reduced or no-tillage, and/or winter cover crops. Soil amendments include the addition of inorganic nitrogen or organic nitrogen derived from soil amendments including biosolids from sewage treatment plants, poultry litter, or locally available industrial effluent. This study used 48-h Eisenia fetida preference tests to assess impacts of agricultural management practices on soil macrofauna. Although in laboratory-dosed exposures, E. fetida preferred biosolid-dosed soils (80 %–95 % recovery) over control soils, the same results were not found with field soils receiving biosolid amendments (33 % recovery). Poultry litter-amended soils (68 % recovery) were preferred over control soils. No differences were measured between tilled fields and controls, and earthworms preferred control soils over those from fields with no-tillage and cover crops. Soil assessments through laboratory exposures such as these allows science-based agricultural management decisions to maintain or improve soil health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Artuso N, Kennedy TF, Connery J, Grant J, Schmidt O (2010) Effects of biosolids at varying rates on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) and springtails (Folsomia candida). Appl Environ Soil Sci. doi:10.1155/2011/519485

    Google Scholar 

  • Artuso N, Kennedy TF, Connery J, Grant J, Schmidt O (2011) Assessment of biosolids in earthworm choice tests with different species and soils. Glob Nest J 13(3):255–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouldin JL, Warby RAF, Yu P, Teague TG (2011) Sustainable cotton production: the effects of best management practices on water, sediment and soil quality. In: Derrick M. Oosterhuis (ed) Summaries of Arkansas cotton research 2010, Arkansas agricultural experiment station research series 589, pp 100–105. http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/1356.htm

  • Carpenter-Boggs L, Kennedy AC, Reganold JP (2000) Organic and biodynamic management: effects on soil biology. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:1651–1659

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clapperton JM, Miller JJ, Larney FJ (1997) Earthworm populations as affected by longterm tillage practices in southern Alberta, Canada. Soil Biol Biochem 29(3, 4):631–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Congreves KA, Hayes A, Verhallen EA, Van Eerd L (2015) Long-term impact of tillage and crop rotation on soil health at four temperate agroecosystems. Soil and Tillage Res 152:17–28. doi:10.1016/j.still.2015.03.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada (2004) Biological test method: tests for toxicity of contaminated soil to earthworms (Eisenia andrei, Eisenia fetida, or Lumbricus terrestris). Method development and applications section. Environmental Technology Centre. Ottawa, Ontario. Report EPS 1/RM/43

  • Espinoza L (2008) Grain Sorghum production handbook. University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. Fertilizer recommendations – medium testing clay loam soil

  • Garg P, Gupta A, Satya S (2006) Vermicomposting of different types of waste using Eisenia foetida: a comparative study. Bioresour Technol 97:391–395

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huguier P, Manier N, Chabot L, Buada P, Pandard P (2015) Ecotoxicological assessment of organic wastes spread on land: towards a proposal of a suitable test battery. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 113:103–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jongmans AG, Pulleman MM, Balabane M, van Oort F, Marinissen JCY (2003) Soil structure and characteristics of organic matter in two orchards differing in earthworm activity. Appl Soil Ecol 24(3):219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima ACR, Hoogmoed W, Brussaard L (2008) Soil quality assessment in rice production systems: establishing a minimum data set. J Environ Qual 37:623–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukkari T, Haimi J (2005) Avoidance of Cu- and Zn-contaminated soil by three ecologically different earthworm species. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 62(1):35–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marques C, Pereira R, Goncalves F (2009) Using earthworm avoidance behaviour to assess the toxicity of formulated herbicides and their active ingredients on natural soils. J Soils Sediments 9(2):137–147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Motalib AM, Rida A, Bouché MB (1997) Earthworm toxicology: from acute to chronic tests. Soil Biol Biochem 29(3/4):699–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Natal-da-Luz T, Tidona S, Jesus B, Morais PV, Sousa JP (2009) The use of sewage sludge as soil amendment. The need for an ecotoxicological evaluation. J Soils Sediments 9(3):246–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paoletti MP (1999) The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:137–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer M (2004) Assessing 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)-contaminated soil using three different earthworm test methods. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57(1):74–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shepppard SC, Bembridge JD, Holmstrup M, Posthuma L (1998) Advances in earthworm ecotoxicology. In: Proceedings from the second international workshop on earthworm ecotoxicology. 2–5 April 1997. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Pensacola FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, p 9

  • Slimak KM (1997) Avoidance response as a sublethal effect of pesticides on Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta). Soil Biol Biochem 29(3/4):713–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spurgeon DJ, Svendsen C, Rimmer VR, Hopkin SP, Weeks JM (2000) Relative sensitivity of lifecycle and biomarker responses in four earthworm species exposed to zinc. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1800–1808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson GL, Kaushik A, Kaushik NK, Solomon KR, Steele T, Scroggins RP (1998) Use of an avoidance-response test to assess the toxicity of contaminated soils to earthworms. Advances in earthworm ecotoxicology. Soc Environ Toxicol Chem Press, Pensacola, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Syers JK, Springett JA (1984) Earthworms and soil fertility. Plant Soil 76:93–104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Web Soil Survey (2016) http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/

  • Yeardley RB Jr, Lazorchak JM, Gast LC (1996) The potential of an earthworm avoidance test for evaluation of hazardous waste sites. Environ Toxicol Chem 15(9):1532–1537

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zibilske LM, Bradford JM (2007) Soil aggregation, aggregate carbon and nitrogen, and moisture retention induced by conservation tillage. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:793–802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Midsouth/Southeast Bioenergy Consortium award #DE-FG36-08GO88036 and Cotton Incorporated. We acknowledge Lisa Ellington at Paragould Wastewater Treatment Plant and Mannco Fertilizer, Inc. for contributing the biosolids for these exposures. Special thanks to Dr. Tina Teague, Judd Hill and Ecotoxicology Research Facility personnel, especially Alex Barnett for his assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecotoxicology Research Facility, Arkansas State University, PO Box 847, State University, AR, 72467, USA

    Jennifer L. Bouldin & John W. P. Klasky

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, PO Box 599, State University, AR, 72467, USA

    Jennifer L. Bouldin & John W. P. Klasky

  3. Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, PO Box 2340, State University, AR, 72467, USA

    Jennifer L. Bouldin & V. Steven Green

  4. College of Agriculture and Technology, Arkansas State University, PO Box 1080, State University, AR, 72467, USA

    V. Steven Green

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Bouldin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John W. P. Klasky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Steven Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Bouldin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bouldin, J.L., Klasky, J.W.P. & Green, V.S. Earthworm Preference Bioassays to Evaluate Land Management Practices. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 96, 767–772 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1744-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-016-1744-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation