Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 361–369 | Cite as

The effect of earthworms and liming on soil microbial communities

  • M. Pawlett
  • D. W. Hopkins
  • B. F. Moffett
  • J. A. Harris
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The effect of liming and earthworms on the composition and function of soil microbial communities was investigated in an upland soil from the UK in order to understand interactions between the biotic and abiotic components of soil systems. A factorial experiment was established using soils from the Sourhope Farm, near Kelso, with lime or no lime added, with or without earthworms added and a combined treatment of both lime and earthworm additions. The soils were incubated and destructively sampled after 180 days. Measurements of soil microbial biomass, dehydrogenase activity, phenotypic structure (by phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA) and responses to four carbon substrates (d-glucose, l-arginine, α-ketoglutaric acid, α-cyclodextrin) were determined. Statistically significant results were limited to the litter layers, with no significant observations in either the H or Ah horizons. There were significant decreases in the soil microbial biomass and microbial activity in the litter layers caused by the addition of earthworms; liming reduced microbial biomass only. The addition of earthworms caused a significant difference in the PLFA principle component analysis (PCA) profile, as did liming. For the PLFA PCA profile, earthworm plus lime treatment was indistinguishable from the liming result. Addition of earthworms significantly suppressed the response to glucose; this effect was removed by liming. This indicates that liming may significantly alter the ecological interactions between earthworms and the microbial community.

Keywords

Earthworms Microbial Liming Community dynamics Sourhope 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Natural Environment Research Council NERC funded this research, through the Soil Biodiversity Initiative, Project 2129. We thank Dr. H. Bishop for her assistance with earthworm identification.

References

  1. Baath E, Frostegaard A, Pennanen T, Fritze H (1995) Microbial community structure and pH response in relation to soil organic matter quality in wood-ash fertilized, clear-cut or burned coniferous forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 27:229–240 doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)00140-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barois IP, Lavelle P (1986) Changes in respiration rate and some physicochemical properties of a tropical soil during transit through Pontoscolex corethrurus (Glossoscolecidae, Oligochaeta). Soil Biol Biochem 18:539–541 doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(86)90012-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop HO, Grieve IC, Chudek JA, Hopkins DW (2008) Liming upland grassland: the effects on earthworm communities and the chemical characteristics of carbon in casts. Eur J Soil Sci 59:526–531 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2007.01009.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouche MB (1977) Strategies lombriciennes. In: Lohm U, Persson T (eds) Soil organisms as components of ecosystems. Ecology Bulletin, NFR, Stockholm, pp 122–132Google Scholar
  5. Brown GG (1995) How do earthworms affect microfloral and faunal community diversity. Plant Soil 170:209–231 doi: 10.1007/BF02183068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruneau PMC, Davidson DA, Grieve IC, Young IM, Nunan N (2005) The effects of soil horizons and faunal excrement on bacterial distribution in an upland grassland soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 52:139–144 doi: 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.10.010 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotter PD, Hill C (2003) Surviving the acid test: responses of gram-positive bacteria to low pH. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 67:429–453 doi: 10.1128/MMBR.67.3.429-453.2003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Degens BP, Harris JA (1997) Development of a physiological approach to measuring the catabolic diversity of soil microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1309–1320 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00076-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frostegård A, Tunlid A, Baath A (1993) Phospholipid fatty acid composition, biomass, and activity of microbial communities from two soil types experimentally exposed to different heavy metals. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:3605–3617PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gong P (1997) Dehydrogenase activity in soil: A comparison between the TTC and INT assay under their optimum conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 29:211–214 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(96)00290-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Griffiths BS, Hallett PD, Kuan HL, Gregory AS, Watts CW, Whitmore AP (2008) Functional resilience of the soil microbial communities depends on both soil structure and microbial community composition. Biol Fertil Soils 44:745–754 doi: 10.1007/s00374-007-0257-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guckert JB, Hood MA, White DC (1986) Phospholipid ester-linked fatty acid profile changes during nutrient deprivation of Vibrio cholerae: increases in the trans/cis ratio and proportions of cyclopropyl fatty acids. Appl Environ Microbiol 52:794–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutierrez JL, Jones CG (2006) Physical ecosystem engineers as agents of biogeochemical heterogeneity. Bioscience 56:227–236 doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0227:PEEAAO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haynes RJ, Fraser PM, Piercy JE, Tregurtha RJ (2003) Casts of Aporrectodea caliginosa (savigny) and Lumbricus rubellus (hoffmeister) differ in microbial activity, nutrient availability and aggregate stability. Pedobiologia (Jena) 47:882–887Google Scholar
  15. Inubushi K, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1989) Influence of paraquat on the extraction of adenosine triphosphate from soil by trichloracetic acid. Soil Biol Biochem 21:741–742 doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(89)90073-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Killham K (1985) A physiological determination of the impact of environmental stress on the activity of microbial biomass. Environ Poll A Ecol Biol 38:283–294Google Scholar
  17. Krsek M, Wellington EMH (2006) Studies of microbial community structure and function below ground in a managed upland grassland site at Sourhope Research Station. Appl Soil Ecol 33:127–136 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li X, Fisk MC, Fahey TJ, Bohlen PJ (2002) Influence of earthworm invasion on soil microbial biomass and activity in a northern hardwood forest. Soil Biol Biochem 34:1929–1937 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00210-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McLean MA, Parkinson D (2000) Field evidence of the effects of the epigeic earthworm Dendrobaena octaedra on the microfungal community in pine forest floor. Soil Biol Biochem 32:351–360 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00161-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nordgren A (1988) Apparatus for the continuous, long-term monitoring of soil respiration rate in large numbers of samples. Soil Biol Biochem 20:955–957 doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(88)90110-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pennanen T, Fritze H, Vanhala P, Kiikkila O, Neuvonen S, Baath E (1998) Structure of a microbial community in soil after prolonged addition of low levels of simulated acid rain. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:2173–2180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodwell J (ed) (1992) British plant communities, vol. 3. Grasslands and Montane Communities. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheu S, Schlitt N, Tiunov A, Newington JE, Jones TH (2002) Effects of the presence and community composition of earthworms on microbial community functioning. Oecologia 133:254–260 doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-1023-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sheehan C, Kirwan L, Connolly J, Bolger T (2008) The effects of earthworm functional diversity on microbial biomass and the microbial community level physiological profile of soils. Eur J Soil Biol 44:65–70 doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soil Survey of Scotland (1982) 1:250,000 Soil Survey of Scotland maps and handbooks 1–7. The Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  26. Stenstrom J, Svensson K, Johansson M (2001) Reversible transition between active and dormant microbial states in soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 36:93–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Svensson K, Friberg H (2007) Changes in active microbial biomass by earthworms and grass amendments in agricultural soil. Biol Fertil Soils 44:223–228 doi: 10.1007/s00374-007-0200-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tiunov AV, Bonkowski J, Alphei J, Scheu S (2001) Microflora, Protozoa, and Nematoda in Lumbricus terrestris burrow walls: a laboratory experiment. Pedobiologia (Jena) 45:46–60 doi: 10.1078/0031-4056-00067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tiunov AV, Dobrovolskaya G (2002) Fungal and bacterial communities in Lumbricus terrestris burrow walls: a laboratory experiment. Pedobiologia (Jena) 46:595–605 doi: 10.1078/0031-4056-00162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tiunov AV, Scheu S (1999) Microbial respiration, biomass, biovolume and nutrient status in burrow walls of Lumbricus terrestris L. (lumbricidae). Soil Biol Biochem 31:2039–2048 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00127-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Usher MB, Sier ARJ, Hornung M, Millard P (2006) Understanding biological diversity in soil: the UK’s soil biodiversity research programme. Appl Soil Ecol 33:101–113 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2006.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Visser S (1985) Soil invertebrates and microbial communities. In: Fitter AH, Atkinson D, Read DJ, Usher MB (eds) Ecological interactions: plants, microbes and animals. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 297–317Google Scholar
  33. Wang GM, Stribley DP, Tinker PB, Walker C (1993) Effects of pH on arbuscular mycorrhiza. I. Field observations on the long-term liming experiments at Rothamsted and Woburn. New Phytol 124:465–472 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb03837.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang B, Li G, Shen T, Wang J, Sun Z (2000) Changes in microbial biomass C, N, and P and enzyme activities in soil incubated with the earthworms Metaphire guillelmi or Eisenia fetida. Soil Biol Biochem 32:2055–2062 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00111-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Pawlett
    • 1
  • D. W. Hopkins
    • 2
    • 3
  • B. F. Moffett
    • 4
  • J. A. Harris
    • 1
  1. 1.Natural Resources Department, School of Applied SciencesCranfield UniversityCranfieldUK
  2. 2.School of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  3. 3.Scottish Crop Research InstituteInvergowrie, DundeeUK
  4. 4.University of East LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations