, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 570–575 | Cite as

Enchytraeus crypticus fitness: effect of density on a two-generation study

  • Micael F. M. Gonçalves
  • Susana I. L. Gomes
  • Amadeu M. V. M Soares
  • Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand
  • Mónica J. B. Amorim
Technical Note


Organisms’ density can influence physiological processes related with fitness. In the present study we assessed the influence of organisms’ density on the life-history parameters in two consecutive generations in Enchytraeus crypticus (Oligochaeta), a standard model in soil ecotoxicology. The densities tested were 1 (N1) and 20 (N20) organisms per replicate and 10 vs. 20 g of soil (for the 2nd generation test only). Results showed that reproductive output was affected by density, with organisms in N1 producing three times more juveniles per adult than when at N20. Organisms’ length was affected by both density and space, i.e., organisms were smaller when less space available. Further, the density of parental generation (F0) had no influence on the endpoints reproduction and length assessed in F1, hence there was no transference of effects. These findings have potential implications in the standard Enchytraeid Reproduction Test, i.e. early mortality of the adults during toxicant exposure can affect the number and size of the offspring and the final results will also reflect the density related changes in reproduction.


Density Reproduction Population growth Size Growth Multigeneration 



This study was supported by the European Commission EU-FP7 SUN (G.A. No. 604305), by CESAM (UID/AMB/50017), to FCT/MEC through national funds, the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020, and a post-doc grant to Susana Gomes (SFRH/BPD/95775/2013).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Bicho RC, Ribeiro T, Rodrigues NP et al. (2016) Effects of Ag nanomaterials (NM300K) and Ag salt (AgNO3) can be discriminated in a full life cycle long term test with Enchytraeus crypticus. J Hazard Mater 318:608–614. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.07.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bicho RC, Santos FCF, Gonçalves MFM et al. (2015) Enchytraeid reproduction TestPLUS: hatching, growth and full life cycle test—an optional multi-endpoint test with Enchytraeus crypticus. Ecotoxicology 24:1053–1063. doi: 10.1007/s10646-015-1445-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butt KR, Frederickson J, Morris RM (1994) Effect of earthworm density on the growth and reproduction of Lumbricus terrestris L. (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) in culture. Pedobiologia (Jena) 38:254–261Google Scholar
  4. Didden WAM (1993) Ecology of enchytraeidae. Pedobiologia (Jena) 37:2–29Google Scholar
  5. Dominiguez J, Edwards CA (1997) Effects of stocking rate and moisture content on the growth and maturation of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) in pig manure. Soil Biol Biochem 29:743–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graefe U, Schmelz RM (1999) Indicator values, strategy types and life forms of terrestrial Enchytraeidae and other microannelids. Newsl Enchytraeidae 6:59–67Google Scholar
  7. Herrera JA, De Mischis C (1994) Influence of feeding in the biological cycle of Eisenia foetida (Savigny). Megadrilogica 5:117–124Google Scholar
  8. Jager T, Reinecke SA, Reinecke AJ (2006) Using process-based modelling to analyse earthworm life cycles. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jänsch S, Amorim MJB, Römbke J (2005) Identification of the ecological requirements of important terrestrial ecotoxicological test species. Environ Rev 13:51–83. doi: 10.1139/a05-007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jänsch S, Römbke J (2003) Ecological characterization of selected enchytraeid species (Enchytraeidae, Oligochaeta). A literature research. Newsl Enchytraeidae 8:57–68Google Scholar
  11. Klok C (2007) Effects of earthworm density on growth, development, and reproduction in Lumbricus rubellus (Hoffm.) and possible consequences for the intrinsic rate of population increase. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2401–2407. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kokta C (1992) Measuring effects of chemicals in the laboratory: effect criteria and endpoints. In: Greig-Smith PW, Becker H, Edwards PI, & Heimbach F (eds) Ecotoxicology of earthworms. Intercept (1992), Andover, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  13. Menezes-Oliveira VB, Damgaard C, Scott-Fordsmand JJ, Amorim MJB (2013) Interaction between density and Cu toxicity for Enchytraeus crypticus – comparing first and second generation effects. Sci Total Environ 458–460:361–366. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Menezes-Oliveira VB, Scott-Fordsmand JJ, Rocco A et al. (2011) Interaction between density and Cu toxicity for Enchytraeus crypticus and Eisenia fetida reflecting field scenarios. Sci Total Environ 409:3370–3374. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. OECD (2004) Guidelines for the testing of chemicals No. 220. Enchytraeid Reproduction Test. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  16. Peachey JE (1963) Studies on the Enchytraeidae (Oligochaeta) of moorland soil. Pedobiologia (Jena) 2:S81–S95Google Scholar
  17. Reinecke AJ, Viljoen SA (1990) The influence of worm density on growth and cocoon production of the compost worm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta). Rev d’Ecologie Biol du Sol 27:184–230Google Scholar
  18. Reinecke AJ, Viljoen SA (1993) Effects of worm density on growth and cocoon production of the African nightcrawler Eudrilus eugenia (Oligochaeta). Eur J Soil Biol 29:29–34Google Scholar
  19. Westheide W, Graefe U (1992) Two new terrestrial Enchytraeus species (Oligochaeta, Annelida). J Nat Hist 26:479–488. doi: 10.1080/00222939200770311

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology & CESAMUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversitySilkeborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations