Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 7–12 | Cite as

Avoidance test withEisenia fetida as indicator for the habitat function of soils: Results of a laboratory comparison test

  • Kerstin Hund-Rinke
  • Rudolf Achazi
  • Jörg Römbke
  • Dietmar Warnecke
Research Article

Abstract

Intention, Goal, Scope, Background. The habitat function of soils is often assessed using the reproduction test withEisenia fetida. As this test is rather labour-intensive, an alternative is needed which is less cost-intensive in terms of duration and workload, but gives reasonable results. The avoidance test withE. fetida is a suitable screening test meeting these criteria. However, before a novel test system can be generally recommended it has to be ensured that comparable results are acquired from different laboratories on the basis of the respective test guideline.

Objective

The avoidance test withE. fetida was performed as laboratory comparison test. The results were compared with those of the earthworm acute and reproduction tests carried out with the same soils.

Methods

The three tests were performed by three laboratories using eight contaminated soils and three control soils. The contaminated soils were mixed with the control soils to obtain different concentrations of the contamination.

Results and Discussion

The results of the avoidance test show that despite the partially considerable standard deviations a 72% agreement in the assessment of soils was reached with a toxicity criterion of >80% avoidance response. The sensitivity is at least that for the reproduction test and considerably surmounts the sensitivity of the acute test.

Recommendation and Outlook

The avoidance test is considered to be a suitable screening test for assessing the habitat function of soils. The whole test design could be improved by reducing the standard deviations among parallel test batches. With regard to standardization it is recommended to use control soils which have the same properties as the soils described in respective guidelines (e.g. ISO 11269-2, OECD 216, 217).

Keywords

Avoidance behaviour kwearthworm Eisenia fetida soil fauna, soil quality terrestrial ecotoxicity test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dott W et al. (1995): Bioassays for Soils. DECHEMA. ISBN 3-926-59-52-5Google Scholar
  2. Dott W, Achazi R. Eisenträiger A, Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Neumann-Hensel H, Pfeifer F, R6mbke J, Wiesner J, Wilke BM (2001): Biologische Testverfahren fiir B6den [Biological test procedures for soils]. DECHEMA. ISBN 3-89746-02642Google Scholar
  3. Hund-Rinke K, Wiechering H (2000): Earthworm avoidance test for soil assessment: An alternative for acute and reproduction tests. JSS - J Soils & Sediments1, 15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Hennecke D, Wilke B-M, Winkel B, Achazi R, Warnecke D, Heiden St (2002): Bioassays for the ecotoxicological and genotoxicological assessment of contaminated soils- Results of a round robin test. Part II: Assessment of the habitat function of soils - Tests with soil microflora and fauna. JSS -J Soils & Sediments2, 83–90CrossRefGoogle 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 (1998): Soil quality - Effects of pollutants on earthworms(Eisenia fetida) - Part 2: Determination of effects on reproductionGoogle Scholar
  7. Kula C (1998): Endpoints in laboratory testing with earthworms. Experience with regard to regulatory decisions for plant protection products. In Sheppard St, Bembridge J, Holmsturp M, Posthuma L (Eds.): Advances in earthworm ecotoxicology. SETAC Press, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  8. Paine MD (2002): Statistical significance in environmental effects monitoring (eem) programs. Setac Globe 3, No 1, 23–24Google Scholar
  9. Schaefer M (2001): Earthworms in crude oil-contaminated soils: toxicity tests and effects on crude oil degradation. Contaminated Soil, Sediment & Water, 6. August 2001, 35–37Google Scholar
  10. Slimak KM (1997): Avoidance response as a sublethal effect of pesticides onLumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta). Soil Biol Bio-chem29, 719–715Google Scholar
  11. 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 S, Bembridge J, Holmstrup M, Posthuma L. (Eds.) Advances in Earthworm Ecotoxicology., Setac Press, Pensacola, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  12. Warnecke D, Chroszcz G, Schiller R, Achazi R (2002): Bodenfauna-Tests. In: Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Heiden St, Erb R, (Eds): Okotoxikotogische Testbatterien - Ergebnisse eines DBU-ge-förderten Ringtests [Ecotoxicological test batteries - Results of a round robin test, financially supported by DBU]. Erich Schmidt Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Hund-Rinke
    • 1
  • Rudolf Achazi
    • 3
  • Jörg Römbke
    • 2
  • Dietmar Warnecke
    • 3
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied EcologySchmallenbergGermany
  2. 2.ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbHFl6rsheimGermany
  3. 3.Free University of BerlinInstitute for BiologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations