Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 319–328 | Cite as

Metal soil pollution differentially affects both the behaviour and exposure of A. caliginosa and L. terrestris: a mesocosm study

  • Stéphane Mombo
  • Christophe Laplanche
  • Philippe Besson
  • Stéphane Sammartino
  • Eva Schreck
  • Camille Dumat
  • Yvan Capowiez
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

The effects on two earthworm species of a gradient of metal contamination in soil collected close to a 50-year-old lead recycling factory were investigated in mesocosms filled with soil sampled at three distances from the factory (10, 30 and 60 m). After 5 weeks of exposure, earthworm litter consumption and weight change were measured. Burrow systems were analysed using X-ray tomography, and water infiltration was measured. No significant differences in earthworm weight or activity were observed between mesocosms filled with soil from 30 and 60 m. In contrast, both earthworm species significantly lost weight and burrowed less in the soil sampled at 10 m. In the cores filled with the soil collected at 10-m distance, Aporrectodea caliginosa avoided the highly contaminated first layer (0–5 cm) and burrowed deeper whereas Lumbricus terrestris burrowed relatively more in this layer. We assume that these different reactions are associated with their ecological types. Epi-anecic earthworms forage litter at the soil surface, whereas endogeic earthworms are geophagous and thus are able to forage deeper. This was further corroborated by the bioaccumulation factors measured for each species: for L. terrestris, BAF values for Pb and Cd only decreased slightly in the 10-m soil correlating with their overall reduced activity. However, BAF values for A. caliginosa were 20-fold lower compared to those observed in soil from 30 and 60 m. These modifications in burrowing behaviour in the 10-m mesocosms resulted in a significant and marked decrease in water infiltration rates but only for L. terrestris.

Keywords

Pb Cd Avoidance behaviour Burrow X-ray tomography Water infiltration 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the French INSU national program EC2CO (BIOEFFECT) for its financial help in the BIOTUBA program. Finally, we want to acknowledge the leaders of the Société de Traitements Chimiques des Métaux (STCM) in France for their technical help and financial support.

Supplementary material

374_2017_1261_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. Allaire-Leung SE, Gupta SC, Moncrief JF (2000) Water and solute movement in soil as influenced by macropore characteristics—1. Macropore continuity. J Contam Hydrol 41(3-4):283–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(99)00079-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaire-Leung SE, Wu L, Mitchell JP, Sanden BL (2001) Nitrate leaching and soil nitrate content as affected by irrigation uniformity in a carrot field. Agric Water Manage 48:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold RE, Hodson ME, Langdon CJ (2008) A Cu tolerant population of the earthworm Dendrodrilus rubidus (Savigny, 1862) at Coniston copper mines, Cumbria, UK. Environ Pollut 152(3):713–722.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.048 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouché MB (1972) Lombriciens de France. INRA Edition, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Braud I, De Condappa D, Soria JM, Haverkamp R, Angulo-Jaramillo R, Galle S, Vauclin M (2005) Use of scaled forms of the infiltration equation for the estimation of unsaturated soil hydraulic properties (the Beerkan method). Eur J Soil Sci 56(3):361–374.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00660.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capowiez Y, Pierret A, Daniel O, Monestiez P, Kretzschmar A (1998) 3D skeleteton reconstructions of natural earthworm burrow system using CAT scan images of soil cores. Biol Fertil Soils 27(1):51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capowiez Y, Rault M, Costagliola G, Mazzia C (2005) Lethal and sublethal effects of imidacloprid on two earthworm species (Aporrectodea nocturna and Aporrectodea icterica). Biol Fertil Soils 41(3):135–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-004-0829-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capowiez Y, Bastardie F, Costagliola G (2006) Sublethal effects of imidacloprid on the burrowing behaviour of two earthworm species: modifications of the 3D burrow systems in artificial cores and consequences on gas diffusion in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 38(2):285–293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capowiez Y, Sammartino S, Michel E (2011) Using X-ray tomography to quantify earthworm bioturbation non-destructively in repacked soil cores. Geoderma 162(1-2):124–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capowiez Y, Samartino S, Cadoux S, Bouchant P, Richard G, Boizard H (2012) Role of earthworms in regenerating soil structure after compaction in reduced tillage systems. Soil Biol Biochem 55:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capowiez Y, Sammartino S, Michel E (2014) Burrow systems of endogeic earthworms: effects of earthworm abundance and consequences for soil water infiltration. Pedobiologia 57(4-6):303–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2014.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capowiez Y, Bottinelli N, Sammartino S, Michel E, Jouquet P (2015) Morphological and functional characterisation of the burrow systems of six earthworm species (Lumbricidae). Biol Fertil Soils 51(7):869–877.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-015-1036-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cui L, Li L, Zhang A, Pan G, Bao D, Chang A (2011) Biochar amendment greatly reduces rice Cd uptake in a contaminated paddy soil: a two-year field experiment. Bioresources 6:2605–2618Google Scholar
  14. Dittbrenner N, Moser I, Triebskorn R, Capowiez Y (2011a) Assessment of short and long-term effects of imidacloprid on the burrowing behaviour of two earthworm species (Aporrectodea caliginosa and Lumbricus terrestris) by using 2D and 3D post-exposure techniques. Chemosphere 84(10):1349–1355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.05.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dittbrenner N, Schmitt H, Capowiez Y, Triebskorn R (2011b) Sensitivity of Eisenia fetida in comparison to Aporrectodea caliginosa and Lumbricus terrestris after imidacloprid exposure. Body mass change and histopathology. J Soils Sediment 11(6):1000–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0397-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernandez C, Labanowski J, Jongmans T, Bermond A, Cambier P, Lamy I, van Oort F (2010) Fate of airborne metal pollution in soils as related to agricultural management: 2. Assessing the role of biological activity in micro-scale Zn and Pb distributions in A, B and C horizons. Eur J Soil Sci 61(4):514–524.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01256.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goix S, Mombo S, Schreck E, Pierart A, Lévêque T, Deola F, Dumat C (2015) Field isotopic study of lead fate and compartmentalization in earthworm–soil–metal particle systems for highly polluted soil near Pb recycling factory. Chemosphere 138:10–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO (1995) Soil quality, extraction of trace elements soluble in aqua regia, ISO 11466, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. Jouquet P, Dauber J, Lagerlöf J, Lavelle P, Lepage M (2006) Soil invertebrates as ecosystem engineers: intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Appl Soil Ecol 32(2):153–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennette D, Hendershot W, Tomlin A, Sauvé S (2002) Uptake of trace metals by the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. in urban contaminated soils. Appl Soil Ecol 19(2):191–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(01)00181-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lavelle P (1988) Earthworm activities and the soil system. Biol Fertil Soils 6:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Le Bayon RC, Moreau S, Gascuel-Odoux C, Binet F (2002) Annual variations in earthworm surface-casting activity and soil transport by water runoff under a temperate maize agroecosystem. Geoderma 106(1-2):121–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00121-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee KE (1985) Earthworms, their ecology and relationships with soils and land use. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee KE, Foster RC (1991) Soil fauna and soil structure. Aust J Soil Sci 29:745–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lévêque T, Capowiez Y, Schreck E, Mombo S, Mazzia C, Foucault Y, Dumat C (2015) Effects of historic metal(loid) pollution on earthworm communities. Sci Total Environ 511:738–746.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.101 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma Y, Dickinson NM, Wong MH (2002) Toxicity of Pb/Zn mine tailings to the earthworm Pheretima and the effects of burrowing on metal availability. Biol Fertil Soils 36:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maleri R, Reinecke AJ, Reinecke SA (2008) Metal uptake of two ecophysiologically different earthworms (Eisenia fetida and Aporrectodea caliginosa) exposed to ultramafic soils. Appl Soil Ecol 38(1):42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mombo S, Foucault Y, Deola F, Gaillard I, Goix S, Shahid M, Schreck E, Pierart A, Dumat C (2015) Management of human health risk in the context of kitchen gardens polluted by lead and cadmium near a lead recycling company. J Soils Sediments 16:1214–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nam T-H, Jeon H-J, Mo H-H, Cho K, Ok Y-S, Lee S-E (2015) Determination of biomarkers for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) toxicity to earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Environ Geochem Health 37(6):943–951.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-015-9706-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nannoni F, Protano G, Riccobono F (2011) Uptake and bioaccumulation of heavy elements by two earthworm species from a smelter contaminated area in northern Kosovo. Soil Biol Biochem 43(12):2359–2367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Potvin LR, Lilleskov EA (2017) Introduced earthworm species exhibited unique patterns of seasonal activity and vertical distribution, and Lumbricus terrestris burrows remained usable for at least 7 years in hardwood and pine stands. Biol Fertil Soils 53(2):187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-016-1173-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qiu H, Peijnenburg WJGM, van Gestel CAM, Vijver MG (2014) Can commonly measurable traits explain differences in metal accumulation and toxicity in earthworm species? Ecotoxicology 23(1):21–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-013-1147-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schreck E, Foucault Y, Sarret G, Sobanska S, Cécillon L, Castrec-Rouelle M, Uzu G, Dumat C (2012) Metal and metalloid foliar uptake by various plant species exposed to atmospheric industrial fallout: mechanisms involved for lead. Sci Total Environ 427–428:253–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sivakumar S (2015) Effects of metals on earthworm life cycles: a review. Environ Monit Assess 187(8):530.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4742-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sizmur T, Palumbo-Roe B, Watts MJ, Hodson ME (2011) Impact of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris (L.) on As, Cu, Pb and Zn mobility and speciation in contaminated soils. Environ Pollut 159(3):742–748.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.11.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tang H, Yan Q, Wang X, Ai X, Robin P, Matthew C, Qiu J, Li X, Li Y (2016) Earthworm (Eisenia fetida) behavioral and respiration responses to sublethal mercury concentrations in an artificial soil substrate. Appl Soil Ecol 104:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tomlin AD (1992) Behaviour as a source of earthworm susceptibility to ecotoxicants. In: Greig-Smith PW, Becker H, Edwards PJ, Heimbach F (eds) Ecotoxicology of Earthworms. Intercept, Andover, pp 116–125Google Scholar
  38. Wang Y, Chen J, Gu W, Xu Y, Gu J, Tao J (2016) Earthworm activities increase the leaching of salt and water from salt-affected agricultural soil during the wet-dry process under simulated rainfall conditions. Biol Fertil Soils 52(3):323–330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-015-1078-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zheng R, Li C (2009) Effect of lead on survival, locomotion and sperm morphology of Asian earthworm, Pheretima guillelmi. J Environ Sci 21(5):691–695.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62325-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zorn MI, van Gestel CAM, Eijsackers H (2005) The effect of two endogeic earthworm species on zinc distribution and availability in artificial soil columns. Soil Biol Biochem 37(5):917–925.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Mombo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christophe Laplanche
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philippe Besson
    • 3
  • Stéphane Sammartino
    • 4
  • Eva Schreck
    • 3
  • Camille Dumat
    • 1
    • 5
  • Yvan Capowiez
    • 4
  1. 1.Université de Toulouse, INP, ENSATCastanet TolosanFrance
  2. 2.Université de Toulouse, INP, UPS; EcoLab; ENSATCastanet TolosanFrance
  3. 3.Géosciences Environnement Toulouse (GET), Observatoire Midi Pyrénées, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, IRDToulouseFrance
  4. 4.INRA-UAPV, UMR 1114 EMMAH (Environnement Méditerranéen et Modélisation des Agro-Hydrosystèmes)Avignon Cedex 9France
  5. 5.CERTOP, UMR5044, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, Maison de la RechercheToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations