Plant and Soil

, Volume 328, Issue 1–2, pp 109–118

Earthworm effects on plant growth do not necessarily decrease with soil fertility

  • Kam-Rigne Laossi
  • Amandine Ginot
  • Diana Cristina Noguera
  • Manuel Blouin
  • Sébastien Barot
Regular Article

Abstract

Earthworms are known to generally increase plant growth. However, because plant-earthworm interactions are potentially mediated by soil characteristics the response of plants to earthworms should depend on the soil type. In a greenhouse microcosm experiment, the responsiveness of plants (Veronica persica, Trifolium dubium and Poa annua) to two earthworm species (in combination or not) belonging to different functional groups (Aporrectodea. caliginosa an endogeic species, Lumbricus terrestris an anecic species) was measured in term of biomass accumulation. This responsiveness was compared in two soils (nutrient rich and nutrient poor) and two mineral fertilization treatments (with and without). The main significant effects on plant growth were due to the anecic earthworm species. L. terrestris increased the shoot biomass and the total biomass of T. dubium only in the rich soil. It increased also the total biomass of P. annua without mineral fertilization but had the opposite effect with fertilization. Mineral fertilization, in the presence of L. terrestris, also reduced the total biomass of V. persica. L. terrestris did not only affect plant growth. In P. annua and V. persica A. caliginosa and L. terrestris also affected the shoot/root ratio and this effect depended on soil type. Finally, few significant interactions were found between the anecic and the endogeic earthworms and these interactions did not depend on the soil type. A general idea would be that earthworms mostly increase plant growth through the enhancement of mineralization and that earthworm effects should decrease in nutrient-rich soils or with mineral fertilization. However, our results show that this view does not hold and that other mechanisms are influential.

Keywords

Earthworms L. terrestris A. caliginosa Plant growth Soil type Nutrient availability Shoot/root ratio 

References

  1. Bardgett RD, Bowman WD, Kaufmann R, Schmidt SK (2005) A temporal approach to linking aboveground and belowground ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:634–641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barot S, Ugolini A, Bakal Brikci F (2007) Nutrient cycling efficiency explains the long-term effect of ecosystem engineers on primary production. Funct Ecol 21:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blouin M, Barot S, Lavelle P (2006) Earthworms (Millsonia anomala, Megascolecidae) do not increase rice growth through enhanced nitrogen mineralization. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2063–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown GG, Barois I, Lavelle P (2000) Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activity in the drilosphere and the role of interactions with other edaphic functional domains. Eur J Soil Biol 26:177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown GG, Edwards CA, Brussaard L (2004) How earthworms effect plant growth: burrowing into the mechanisms. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology, pp 13–49Google Scholar
  6. Campbell BD, Grime JP, Mackey JML (1991) A trade-off between scale and precision in resource foraging. Oecologia 87:532–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dominguez J, Bohlen PJ, Parmelee RW (2004) Earthworms increase nitrogen leaching to greater soil depths in row crop agroecosystems. Ecosystems 7:672–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doube BM, Williams PML, Willmott PJ (1997) The influence of two species of earthworm (Aporrectodea trapezoides and Aporrectodea rosea) on the growth of wheat, barley and faba beans in three soil types in the greenhouse. Soil Biol Biochem 29:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards CA (2004) Earthworm ecology. CRC, Boca Raton, p 441Google Scholar
  10. Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hendrix PF, Petersona AC, Bearec MH, Coleman DC (1998) Long-term effects of earthworms on microbial biomass nitrogen in coarse and fine textured soils. Appl Soil Ecol 9:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchings MJ (1988) Differential foraging for resources and structural plasticity in plants. Trends Ecol Evol 3:200–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jégou D, Cluzeau D, Balesdent J, Tréhen P (1998) Effects of four ecological categories of earthworms on carbon transfer in soil. Appl Soil Ecol 9:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenerette GD, Wu J (2004) Interactions of ecosystem processes with spatial heterogeneity in the puzzle of nitrogen limitation. Oikos 107:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kreuzer K, Bonkowski M, Langel R, Scheu S (2004) Decomposer animals (Lumbricidae, Collembola) and organic matter distribution affect the performance of Lolium perenne (Poaceae) and Trifolium dubium (Fabaceae). Soil Biol Biochem 36:2005–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laossi K-R et al. (2009) Effects of endogeic and anecic earthworms on the competition between four annual plants and their relative reproduction potential. Soil Biol Biochem (in press). doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.05.009
  17. Lavelle P, Spain A (2001) Soil ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 654Google Scholar
  18. Lavelle P, Barois I, Blanchart E, Brown G, Brussaard L, Decaëns T, Fragoso C, Jimenez JJ, Kajondo KK, Martinez MDLA, Moreno A, Pashanasi B, Senapati B, Villenave C (1998) Earthworms as a resource in tropical agroesosystems. Nat resour 34:26–40Google Scholar
  19. Muscolo A, Bovalo F, Gionfriddo F, Nardi S (1999) Earthworm humic matter produces auxin-like effects on Daucus carota cell growth and nitrate metabolism. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1303–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Partsch S, Milcu A, Scheu S (2006) Decomposers (Lumbricidae, collembola) affect plant performance in model grasslands of different diversity. Ecology 87:2548–2558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. SAS (1990) GLM procedure. In: SAS/GRAPH software, version 6, volume 2. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheu S (2003) Effects of earthworms on plant growth: patterns and perspectives. Pedobiologia 47:846–856Google Scholar
  23. Scheu S, Theenhaus A, Jones TH (1999) Links between the detritivore and the herbivore system: effects of earthworms and Collembola on plant growth and aphid development. Oecologia 119:541–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, van Straalen NM (2007) The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystem. Ecol Lett 11:1–15Google Scholar
  25. Wilson JB (1988) A review of evidence on the control of shoot: root ratio, in relation to models. Ann Bot 61:433–449Google Scholar
  26. Wurst S, Jones TH (2003) Indirect effects of earthworms (Aporrectodea caliginosa) on an above-ground tritrophic interaction. Pedobiologia 47:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wurst S, Langel R, Reineking A, Bonkowski M, Scheu S (2003) Effects of earthworms and organic litter distribution on plant performance and aphid reproduction. Oecologia 137:90–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wurst S, Langel R, Scheu S (2005) Do endogeic earthworms change plant competition? A microcosm study. Plant Soil 271:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kam-Rigne Laossi
    • 1
  • Amandine Ginot
    • 1
  • Diana Cristina Noguera
    • 1
  • Manuel Blouin
    • 2
  • Sébastien Barot
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Bioemco (UMR 7618)/Université Pierre et Marie Curie—IBIOSBondy CedexFrance
  2. 2.Bioemco (UMR 7618)—IBIOS/Université Paris 12Créteil CedexFrance
  3. 3.IRD—Bioemco (UMR 7618)Ecole Normale SupérieureParis cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations