Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 1223–1234 | Cite as

Invasion Patterns of Lumbricidae Into the Previously Earthworm-free Areas of Northeastern Europe and the Western Great Lakes Region of North America

  • Alexei V. Tiunov
  • Cindy M. Hale
  • Andrew R. Holdsworth
  • Tamara S. Vsevolodova-Perel
Original Paper

Abstract

We examine the patterns of expansion of exotic European earthworms in northeastern Europe and the western Great Lakes region of North America. These areas share many ecological, climatic and historical characteristics and are devoid of indigenous earthworm fauna due to Quaternary glaciations. These regions are being colonized by a similar suite of exotic lumbricid species and it is unlikely that this is the result of chance, but rather indicates that these species have particular characteristics making them successful invaders. The present macro-scale distributions of earthworm species in northern Russia show little connection to the pattern of the last glaciation. Rather, the primary factors that determine the current distributions of earthworm species include climatic conditions, the life history traits of different earthworm species, the suitability of habitat and intensity and patterns of human activity. In the western Great Lakes region of North America, there are three primary factors affecting current distributions of exotic earthworm species including the patterns of human activity and land use practices, the composition of particular source populations of earthworms associated with different vectors of transport and the soil and litter properties of habitats across the region. Disturbance of a habitat does not appear to be a prerequisite to the invasion and establishment of exotic earthworms. Analysis of the macro-scale distributions of Lumbricidae species in northeastern Europe may provide important insights into the potential of invasive European earthworm species to spread in North America, and identify potentially invasive species.

Keywords

Soil animals Jump dispersal Climatic conditions Frost tolerance Vegetation type Disturbance Fish bait 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alban DH, Berry EC (1994) Effects of earthworm invasion on morphology, carbon and nitrogen of a forest soil. Appl Soil Ecol 1:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman DI, Leirikh AN (1985) The ability of the earthworm Eisenia nordenskioldi (Eisen) (Lumbricidae, Oligochaeta) to endure subfreezing temperatures. Proc Acad Sci USSR 285:1258–1261 (Russian)Google Scholar
  3. Berman D, Meshcheryakova EN, Alfimov AV, Leirikh AN (2002) Distribution of the earthworm Dendrobaena octaedra (Lumbricidae, Oligochaeta) in the Northern Holarctic is restricted by its insufficient freeze tolerance. Zoologichesky Zhurnal 81:1210–1221 (Russian)Google Scholar
  4. Bohlen PJ, Groffman PM, Fahey TJ, Fisk MC, Suarez E, Pelletier DM, Fahey RT (2004a) Ecosystem consequences of exotic earthworm invasion of north temperate forests. Ecosystems 7:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohlen PJ, Scheu S, Hale CM, McLean MA, Migge S, Groffman P, Parkinson D (2004b) Non-native invasive earthworms as agents of change in north temperate forests. Front Ecol Environ 2:427–435Google Scholar
  6. Byzova JB (1974) The dynamics of some blood indices in earthworms (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Révue d’Écologie et de Biologie du Sol:325–332Google Scholar
  7. Ducey PK, Noce S (1998) Successful invasion of New York State by the terrestrial flatworm, Bipalium adventitium. Northeastern Naturalist 5:199–206Google Scholar
  8. Dymond P, Scheu S, Parkinson D (1997) Density and distribution of Dendrobaena octaedra (Lumbricidae) in aspen and pine forests in the Canadian Rocky Mountains (Alberta). Soil Biol Biochem 29:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enckell PH, Rundgren S (1988) Anthropochorous earthworms (Lumbricidae) as indicators of abandoned settlements in the Faroe Islands. J Archaeol Sci 15:439–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gates GE (1977) More on the earthworm genus Diplocardia. Megadrilogica 3:1–48Google Scholar
  11. Gates GE (1982) Farwell to North American megadriles. Megadrilogica 4:12–77Google Scholar
  12. Gundale MJ, Jolly WM, De Luca TH (2005) Susceptibility of a northern hardwood forest to exotic earthworm invasion. Conserv Biol 19:1075–1083Google Scholar
  13. Hale CM (2004) Ecological consequences of exotic invaders: interactions involving European earthworms and native plant communities in hardwood forests. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, Twin CitiesGoogle Scholar
  14. Hale CM, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2005) Exotic European earthworm invasion dynamics in northern hardwood forests of Minnesota, USA. Ecol Appl 15:848–860Google Scholar
  15. Hendrix PF, Callaham MA, Lachnicht SL, Blair JM, James SW, Zou X (1999) Stable isotopic studies of resource utilization by nearctic earthworms (Diplocardia, Oligochaeta) in subtropical savanna and forest ecosystems. Pedobiologia 43:818–823Google Scholar
  16. Holdsworth AR, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2004) Landscape patterns of earthworm invasion and plant composition in northern temperate hardwood forests. In: XIVth International Colloquium on Soil Zoology and Ecology, Mont Saint Aignan, France, p 326Google Scholar
  17. Holmstrup M, Hansen BT, Nielsen A, Østergaard IK (1990) Frost tolerance of lumbricid earthworm cocoons. Pedobiologia 34:361–366Google Scholar
  18. Holmstrup M, Zachariassen KE (1996) Physiology of cold hardiness in earthworms. Comp Biochem Physiol 115A:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmstrup M, Loeschcke V (2003) Genetic variation in desiccation tolerance of Dendrobaena octaedra cocoons originating from different climatic regions. Soil Biol Biochem 35:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. James SW (2004) Planetary processes and their interactions with earthworm distributions and ecology. In Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  21. Jensen KS, Holmstrup M (1997) Estimation of earthworm cocoon development time and its use in studies of in situ reproduction rates. Appl Soil Ecol 7:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Judas M (1989) Predator-pressure on earthworms: field experiments in a beechwood. Pedobiologia 33:339–354Google Scholar
  23. Judas M (1990) The development of earthworm populations following manipulation of the canopy leaf litter in a beechwood on limestone. Pedobiologia 34:247–255Google Scholar
  24. Kalisz PJ, Dotson DB (1989) Land-use history and the occurrence of exotic earthworms in the mountains of eastern Kentucky [USA]. Am Midland Naturalist 122:288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalisz PJ, Wood HB (1995) Native and exotic earthworms in wildland ecosystems. In: Hendrix PF (ed) Earthworm ecology and biogeography in North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 117–126Google Scholar
  26. Kudryasheva (1997) Changes in populations of soil invertebrates with substitution of original forests by secondary aspen stands in various natural zones. Biol Bull Russ Acad Sci 4:446–454 (Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Lavelle P (1997) Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem function. In: Begon M, Fitter AH (eds) Advances in ecological research. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 93–122Google Scholar
  28. Lee KE (1985) Earthworms, their ecology and relationships with soils and land use. Academic Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  29. Lillico S, Cosens D, Gibson P (1996) Studies of the behaviour of Artioposthia triangulata (Platyhelminthes; Tricladida), a predator of earthworms. J Zool 238:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacIsaac HJ, Igor A, Grigorovich IA, Ricciardi A (2001) Reassessment of species invasions concepts: the Great Lakes basin as a model. Biol Inv 3:405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marinissen JCY, Van den Bosch F (1992) Colonization of new habitats by earthworms. Oecologia 91:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLean MA, Parkinson D (1997) Changes in structure, organic matter and microbial activity in pine forest soil following the introduction of Dendrobaena octaedra (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Soil Biol Biochem 29:537–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nixon W (1996) Killer worms (flatworms threaten earthworm population). Soil Biol Biochem 75:51–52Google Scholar
  34. Nordström S, Rundgren S (1974) Environmental factors and lumbricid associations in southern Sweden. Pedobiologia 14:1–27Google Scholar
  35. Osipov VV, Gavrilova NK (1983) Agriculture development and forest dynamics in “non-chernozem” zone of Russian Federation. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow (Russian)Google Scholar
  36. Perel TS (1979) Range and distribution of earthworms of the USSR fauna. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow (Russian)Google Scholar
  37. Petersen SO, Holmstrup M (2000) Temperature effects on lipid composition of the earthworms Lumbricus rubellus and Eisenia nordenskioeldi. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1787–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ponge JF, Delhaye L (1995) The heterogeneity of humus profiles and earthworm communities in a virgin beech forest. Biol Fertility Soils 20:24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pop VV (1997) Earthworm–vegetation–soil relationships in the Romanian Carpathians. Soil Biol Biochem 29:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Proulx N (2003) Ecological risk assessment of non-indigenous earthworm species. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs, Division of Scientific Authority by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  41. Reynolds JW (1977) The Earthworms (Lumbricidae and Sparganophilidae) of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum Miscellaneous Publication, Toronto, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds JW (1994) The distribution of the earthworms (Oligochaeta) of Indiana: a case for the post-quaternary introduction theory for megadrile migration in North America. Megadrilogica 5:13–32Google Scholar
  43. Reynolds JW (1995) The distribution of earthworms (Annelida, Oligochaeta) in North America. In: Mishra PC, Behera N, Senapati BK, Guru BC (eds) Advances in ecology and environmental sciences. Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 133–153Google Scholar
  44. Reynolds JW, Krohn WB, Jordan GA (1977) Earthworm population as related to woodcock habitat usage in central Maine. Proc Woodcock Symp 6:135–146Google Scholar
  45. Reynolds JW, Linden DR, Hale CM (2002) The earthworms of Minnesota (Oligochaeta: Acanthodrilidae, Lumbricidae and Megascolecidae). Megadrilogica 8:85–100Google Scholar
  46. Semenova LM (1968) Morpho-functional peculiarities of integuments in earthworms (Lumbricidae, Oligochaeta). Zoologichesky Zhurnal 47:1621–1627 (Russian)Google Scholar
  47. Shakir SH, Dindal DL (1997) Density and biomass of earthworms in forest and herbaceous microecosystems in central New York, North America. Soil Biol Biochem 29:275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shigesada N, Kawasaki K, Takeda Y (1995) Modeling stratified diffusions in biological invasions. Am Naturalist 146:229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simberloff D, von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Inv 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Staaf H (1987) Foliage litter turnover and earthworm populations in three beech forests of contrasting soil and vegetation types. Oecologia 72:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. USDA (1997) Soil survey of Cass County, Minnesota. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service and Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  52. Vsevolodova-Perel TS (1988) Earthworm species distribution in the northern Palearctic (USSR). In: Krivolutzkij DA (ed) Soil biology of northern Europe. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow, pp 84–99 (Russian)Google Scholar
  53. Vsevolodova-Perel TS (1997) The earthworms of the fauna of Russia. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow (Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexei V. Tiunov
    • 1
  • Cindy M. Hale
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrew R. Holdsworth
    • 2
  • Tamara S. Vsevolodova-Perel
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and EvolutionLaboratory of Soil ZoologyMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  3. 3.Natural Resources Research InstituteUniversity of Minnesota-DuluthDuluthUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Forest SciencesLaboratory of ZoologyMoscow oblastRussia

Personalised recommendations