Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 15–20 | Cite as

Earthworm avoidance test for soil assessments

An alternative for acute and reproduction tests
Research Articles

Abstract

For ecotoxicological assessments of contaminated or remediated soils pointing to the habitat function of soils for biocenoses, standardized tests with earthworms (acute test, reproduction test) are available among others. Tests used for routine applications should be sensitive and indicate impacts on test organisms after short test periods. The usually applied earthworm tests do not satisfactorily fulfil these criteria. Therefore, in the present work, a behavioural test with earthworms (test criterion: avoidance) was investigated in detail using uncontaminated, artificially contaminated and originally contaminated soils. It was demonstrated that the avoidance behaviour is primarily determined by pollutants, and not by chemical-physical soil properties. The sensitivity of the presented test reaches the sensitivity of established tests. For waste sites, a considerably higher sensitivity was determined. An avoidance behaviour of at least 80% of the worms leaving the soil to be assessed is proposed as a criterion for toxicity.

Keywords

Avoidance behaviour earthworm Eisenia fetida soil quality terrestrial ecotoxicity test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldenberg T, Slob W (1993): Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety25, 48–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachmann G, Bannick CG, Giese E, Glante F, Keine A, Konietzka R, Rück F, Schmidt S, Terytze K, von Borries D (1997): Fachliche Eckpunkte zur Ableitung von Bodenwerten im Rahmen des Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetzes, BoS 24. Lfg IX/97. In: Rosenkranz D, Einsele G, Harreß HM, Eds, ‘Bodenschutz’, Ergänzbares Handbuch der Maßnahmen und Empfehlungen für Schutz, Pflege und Sanierung von Böden, Landschaft und Grundwasser. Kennzahl 3500Google Scholar
  3. Greene JC, Bartles CJ, Warren-Hicks WJ, Parhurst BR, Linder GL, Peterson SA, Miller WE (1989): Protocol for short term toxicity screening of hazardous waste sites. EPA/3-88-029Google Scholar
  4. Heimbach F (1984): Correlations between three methods for determining the toxicity of chemicals to earthworms. Pesticide Science15, 605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ISO 11268-1 (1993): Soil-quality-Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) - Part 1: Determination of acute toxicity using artificial soil substrateGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO 11268-2 (1998Soil quality - Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) - Part 2: Method for the determination of effects on reproductionGoogle Scholar
  7. ISO/DIS 15799 (1999): Soil Quality - Guidance on the ecotoxicological characterization of soils and soil materialsGoogle Scholar
  8. Keddy CJ, Greene JC, Bonnell MA (1995): Review of whole-organism bioassays: soil freshwater sediment, and freshwater assessment in Canada. Ecotox Environ Safety30, 221–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kreysa G, Wiesner J (1995): Bioassays for soils, 4th report of the interdisciplinary DECHEMA-committee ‘Environmental Biotechnology -Soil’, Ad hoc committee ‘Methods for soil toxicological/ecotoxicological assessment of soils’ DECHEMA e.V., ISBN 3-926959-52-5Google Scholar
  10. Moriarty F (1983): Ecotoxicology; the study of pollutants in Ecosystems. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Slimak KM (1997): Avoidance response as a sublethal effect of pesticides onLumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta). Soil Biol Biochem29, 713–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. In: Sheppard CS et al., Eds, Advances in earthworm ecotoxicology. SETAC PRESS, Pensacola, USA, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  13. Van Straalen NM, Denneman CAJ (1989): Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil quality criteria. Ecotox Environ Saf18, 241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wagner C, Lokke H (1991): Estimation of ecotoxicological protection levels from NOEC toxicity data. Water Research25 (10) 1237–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wilke BM, Winkel B, Fleischmann S, Gong P (1998): Higher plant growth and microbial toxicity tests for the evaluation of the ecotoxic potential of soils. Conference proceedings ConSoil ’98 Sixth International FZK/TNO Conference, May 17-21 EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  16. Yeardley RB, Lazorchak JM, Gast LC (1996): The potential of an earthworm avoidance test for evaluation of hazardous waste sites. Environ Toxicol Chem15, 1532–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer-Institut für Umweltchemie und ÖkotoxikologieSchmallenberg

Personalised recommendations