Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 585–592 | Cite as

Can earthworms be used as bio-indicators of land-use perturbations in semi-deciduous forest?

  • Jérôme Ebagnerin TondohEmail author
  • Lazare Monin Monin
  • Seydou Tiho
  • Csaba Csuzdi
Original Paper


The potential of tropical earthworms as bio-indicators of forest degradation by human-induced activities was assessed at a landscape level in the Ivory Coast. The study site covered 400 ha and was characterized by a set of land-use types along a gradient of perturbation from semi-deciduous forest, through reforestation, fallow systems to cultivated annual crops. Samples were taken on a grid at each sampling point and earthworms were hand-sorted from a 25 × 25 × 30-cm soil monolith. Results showed a potential increase in relative populations (number: +53.1%, biomass: +94.8%) of species in the earthworm communities following forest conversion. Furthermore, the impact of land-use change was higher in relation to land-use intensification in terms of earthworm populations and diversity in intermediate-disturbed systems (Multispecies plantations, old fallows). Earthworm diversity was the most sensitive response to land-use change. The species Dichogaster saliens Beddard 1893, Hyperiodrilus africanus Beddard 1891, Millsonia omodeoi Sims 1986, Dichogaster baeri Sciacchitano 1952, Dichogaster ehrhardti Michaelsen 1898, Agastrodrilus sp., Stuhlmannia palustris Omodeo and Vaillaud 1967 and, to some extent, Millsonia sp. appeared to be most sensitive to land-use change. More field and laboratory investigations are needed to find out the most efficient species to be used in bio-monitoring programmes aimed at preventing ecosystem degradation due to anthropogenic activities in the forest areas of Ivory Coast.


Tropical earthworms Land-use intensification Bio-indicators Landscape 



This study was funded by GEF-UNEP, as part of the project No. GF/2715-2 entitled ‘Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity’. The authors would like to thank the staff of the Executive Agency TSBF Institute of CIAT for their coordination. They are also grateful to the farmers from the village Goulikao and the National Forestry Agency (SODEFOR) for facilitating access to the field site. Dr. Pascal Angui and two anonymous referees are congratulated for their comments and suggestions on improving the text.


  1. Anderson JM, Ingam JSI (1993) Tropical soil biology and fertility: a handbook of methods, 2nd edn. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Chatelain C, Dao H, Gautier L, Spichiger R (2003) Forest cover changes in Côte d’Ivoire and Upper Guinea. In: Poorter L, Bongers F, Kouamé FN, Hawthorne WD (eds) Biodiversity of West Africa forests. An Ecological Atlas of Woody Plant Species. CABI, Wallingford, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  3. Colwell RK (2000) Statistical estimate of species richness and shared from samples. Version 6.0b1.
  4. Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 345:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decaëns T, Jiménez JJ (2002) Earthworm communities under an agricultural intensification gradient in Colombia. Plant Soil 240:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO-UNESCO (1989) Carte mondiale des sols. Légende reviséeGoogle Scholar
  7. Fragoso C, Brown GG, Patron JC, Blanchart E, Lavelle P, Pashanasi B, Senapati B, Kumar T (1997) Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function in the tropics: the role of earthworms. Appl Soil Ecol 6:17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fragoso C, Lavelle P, Banchart E, Senapati KB, Jiménez JJ, Martinez DLAM, Decaëns T, Tondoh J (1999) Earthworm communities of tropical agroecosystems: origin, structure and influence of management practices. In: Lavelle P, Brussaard L, Hendrix P (eds) Earthworm management in tropical agroecosystems. CABI, Wallingford, pp 27–55Google Scholar
  9. Gilot-Villenave C (1994) Determination of the origin of the different growing abilities of two populations of Millsonia anomala (Omodeo and Vaillaud), a tropical geophagous earthworm. Eur J Soil Biol 39:125–131Google Scholar
  10. Hagvar S (1998) The relevance of the Rio-Convention on biodiversity to conserving the biodiversity of soils. Appl Soil Ecol 9:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauser S (1993) Distribution and activity of earthworms and contribution to nutrient recycling in alley cropping. Biol Fertil Soil 15:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauser S, Asawalam DO, Vanlauwe B (1998) Spatial and temporal gradient of earthworm casting activity in alley cropping systems. Agrofor Syst 41:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hole GD, Perkins JA, Wilson DJ, Alexander HI, Grice VP, Evans DA (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol Conserv 122:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones GC, Lawton HJ, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystems engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kang BT, Ojo A (1996) Nutrient availability of earthworm casts collected from under selected woody agroforestry species. Plant Soil 178:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavelle P (1983) The structure of earthworm communities. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to vermiculture. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 449–466Google Scholar
  17. Lavelle P, Pashanasi B (1989) Soil macrofauna and land management in Peruvian Amazonia (Yurimaguas, Loreto). Pedobiologia 33:283–291Google Scholar
  18. Lavelle P, Lattaud C, Trigo D, Barois I (1995) Mutualism and biodiversity in soils. In: Collins HP, Roberston GP, Klug MJ (eds) The significance and regulation of soil biodiversity. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 24–33Google Scholar
  19. Lavelle P, Bignell D, Lepage M, Wolters V, Roger P, Heal O, Dhillion S (1997) Soil function in a changing world: the role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers. Eur J Soil Biol 33:159–193Google Scholar
  20. Ortiz-Ceballos IA, Fragoso C (2004) Earthworm populations under tropical maize cultivation: the effect of mulching with velvetbean. Biol Fertil Soils 39:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paoletti GM (1999) The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicator. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pielou EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol 13:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt O, Clements OR, Donaldson G (2003) Why do cereal-legume intercrops support large earthworm populations? Appl Soil Ecol 22:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sepp K, Ivask M, Kaasik A, Mikk M, Peepson A (2005) Soil biota indicators for monitoring the Estonian agri-environmental programme. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tondoh EJ (1992) Influence de la mise en culture sur les peuplements de la macrofaune du sol en moyenne Côte d’Ivoire. Mémoire de DEA. Université de Cocody, AbidjanGoogle Scholar
  26. Tondoh EJ, Lavelle P (2005) Population dynamics of Hyperiodrilus africanus (Oligochaeta, Eudrilidae). J Trop Ecol 21:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thioulouse J, Chessel D, Dolédec S, Olivier JM (1997) ADE-4: a multivariate analysis and graphical display software. Stat Compass 7:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme Ebagnerin Tondoh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lazare Monin Monin
    • 1
  • Seydou Tiho
    • 1
  • Csaba Csuzdi
    • 2
  1. 1.UFR des Sciences et de la NatureUniversité d’Abobo-AdjaméAbidjan 02Ivory Coast
  2. 2.Systematic Zoology Research Group of HAS and Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations