Advertisement

Effects of soil acid stress on the survival, growth, reproduction, antioxidant enzyme activities, and protein contents in earthworm (Eisenia fetida)

  • Jialong Wu
  • Zongling RenEmail author
  • Chi Zhang
  • Mikael Motelica-Heino
  • Ting Deng
  • Haoyu Wang
  • Jun DaiEmail author
Earthworm and Soil Pollution
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

This study focused on the study of earthworm survival, growth, reproduction, enzyme activities, and protein contents to evaluate and predict the effects of different soil pH levels and determine the optimal risk assessment indicators for the effects. Survival rate, growth rate, and cocoon number as well as four enzyme (glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX), superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT)) activities and two proteins (total protein (TP) and metallothionein (MT)) contents in earthworms were determined to characterize the responses of earthworm activity to five soil pH levels. These biological datasets (survival, growth, and reproduction) were compared with biochemical indexes (GSH-PX, SOD, POD, CAT, TP, and MT), mainly using biphasic dose-response models. The results indicated that the soil pH value had significant inhibitory effects on the survival, growth, and reproduction of earthworms beginning with 3.0, 4.0, and 5.2, respectively. The dose-response models (J-shaped and inverted U-shaped curves) statistics indicated that the critical values (ECZEP) of the GSH-PX, SOD, POD, CAT, TP, and MT inhibited by soil acid stress were 3.46, 3.76, 3.35, 3.54, 3.50, and 3.96 (average 3.60), respectively. In the present study, the fitting curve analysis showed that the responses of the CAT activities and TP and MT contents in earthworm in response to soil pH have the behavior of hormesis.

Keywords

Soil acidity Growth Reproduction Biochemical response Hormetic effect Eisenia fetida 

Notes

Funding information

This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (U1401234, 41601227 and 41701262) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0800300, 2016YFD0201301).

Compliance with ethical standards

Human and animal rights and informed consent

We declare that these experiments were conducted in accordance with EC Directive 86/609/EEC and national and institutional guidelines for the protection of human subjects and animal welfare.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beckon WN, Parkins C, Maximovich A, Beckon AV (2008) A general approach to modeling biphasic relationships. Environ Sci Technol 42:1308–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradford MM (1976) Rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72(1/2):248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown TT, Koenig RT, Huggins DR, Harsh JB, Rossi RE (2008) Lime effects on soil acidity, crop yield, and aluminum chemistry in direct-seeded cropping systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:634–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calabrese EJ (2001) Overcompensation stimulation: a mechanism for hormetic effects. Crit Rev Toxicol 31:425–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003) Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 421:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabrese EJ, Blain R (2005) The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 202:289–301Google Scholar
  7. Calabrese EJ (1999) Evidence that hormesis represents an “overcompensation” response to a disruption in homeostasis. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 42:135–137Google Scholar
  8. Chan KY, Mead JA (2003) Soil acidity limits colonisation by Aporrectodea trapezoides, an exotic earthworm. Pedobiologia 47:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen X, Wang XR, Gu XY, Jiang Y, Ji R (2017) Oxidative stress responses and insights into the sensitivity of the earthworms Metaphire guillelmi and Eisenia fetida to soil cadmium. Sci Total Environ 574:300–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dedeke GA, Owagboriaye FO, Adebambo AO, Ademolu KO (2016) Earthworm metallothionein production as biomarker of heavy metal pollution in abattoir soil. Appl Soil Ecol 104:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards CA (2004) The importance of earthworms as key representatives of the soil fauna. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology. Boca Raton, Florida, pp 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms, third edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 142–145Google Scholar
  13. Ge H, Liu S, Zhu X, Liu H, Wang L (2011) Predicting hormetic effects of ionic liquid mixtures on luciferase activity using the concentration addition model. Environ Sci Technol 45:1623–1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo JH, Liu XJ, Zhang Y, Shen JL, Han WX, Zhang WF, Christie P, Goulding KWT, Vitousek PM, Zhang FS (2010) Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science 327:1008–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hackenberger BK, Jarić-Perkušić D, Stepić S (2008) Effect of temephos on cholinesterase activity in the earthworm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 71:583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodson ME, Donner E (2013) Managing adverse soil chemical environments. Blackwell, Chichester, pp 195–237Google Scholar
  17. Homan C, Beier C, Mccay T, Lawrence G (2016) Application of lime (CaCO3) to promote forest recovery from severe acidification increases potential for earthworm invasion. For Ecol Manag 368:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu SQ, Zhang W, Li J, Lin KF, Ji R (2016) Antioxidant and gene expression responses of Eisenia fetida following repeated exposure to BDE209 and Pb in a soil-earthworm system. Sci Total Environ 556:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jia L, Liu ZL, Wei C, Ye Y, Yu S, He XY (2015) Hormesis effects induced by cadmium on growth and phototsynthetic performance in a hyperaccumulator, Lonicera japonica Thunb. J Plant Growth Regul 34:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunito T, Isomura I, Sumi H, Park HD, Toda H, Otsuka S, Nagaoka K, Saeki K, Senoo K (2016) Aluminum and acidity suppress microbial activity and biomass in acidic forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 97:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li YS, Sun J, Robin P, Cluzeau D, Qiu JP (2014) Responses of earthworm Eisenia andrei exposed to sublethal aluminium levels in an artificial soil substrate. Chem Ecol 7:611–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu S, Zhou QX, Wang YY (2011) Ecotoxicological responses of the earthworm Eisenia fetida exposed to soil contaminated with HHCB. Chemosphere 83:1080–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu T, Wang XG, Chen D, Li YQ, Wang FL (2018) Growth, reproduction and biochemical toxicity of chlorantraniliprole in soil on earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 150:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mattson MP, Calabrese EJ (2010) Hormesis: a revolution in biology, toxicology and medicine. Humana. Springer, New York, p 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mccallum HM, Wilson JD, Beaumont D, Sheldon R, O'Brien MG, Park KJ (2016) A role for liming as a conservation intervention? Earthworm abundance is associated with higher soil pH and foraging activity of a threatened shorebird in upland grasslands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 223:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore J, Ouimet R, Bohlen PJ (2013) Effects of liming on survival and reproduction of two potentially invasive earthworm species in a northern forest Podzol. Soil Biol Biochem 64:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosleh Y, Paris-Palacios P, Couderchet M, Vernet G (2003) Effects of the herbicide isoproturon on survival, growth rate, and protein content of mature earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris L.) and its fate in the soil. Appl Soil Ecol 23:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nahmani J, Hodson ME, Black S (2007) Effects of metals on life cycle parameters of the earthworm Eisenia fetida exposed to field-contaminated, metal-polluted soils. Environ Pollut 149:44–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2004) Earthworm reproduction tests. Guidelines for testing chemicals. No. 222. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Qiao X, Xiao WY, Jaffe D, Kota SH, Ying Q, Tang Y (2015) Atmospheric wet deposition of sulfur and nitrogen in Jiuzhaigou National Nature Reserve, Sichuan Province, China. Sci Total Environ 511:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Development Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. (ISBN 3–900051–07-0) http://www.R-project.org/
  32. Razinger J, Dermastia M, Koce JD, Zrimec A (2008) Oxidative stress in duckweed (Lemna minor L.) caused by short-term cadmium exposure. Environ Pollut 153:687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ribeoro S, Sousa JP, Nogueira AJA, Soares AMVM (2001) Effect of endosulfan and parathion on energy reserves and physiological parameters of the terrestrial isopod Porcellio dilatatus. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 49:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rusek J, Marshall VG (2000) Impacts of airborne pollutants on soil fauna. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:395–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sanchez-Hernandez JC, Narvaez C, Sabat P, Martinez Mocillo S (2014) Integrated biomarker analysis of chlorpyrifos metabolism and toxicity in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa. Sci Total Environ 490:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shi Z, Tang Z, Wang C (2017) A brief review and evaluation of earthworm biomarkers in soil pollution assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:13284–13294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spurgeon DJ, Hopkin SP (1996) Effects of variations of the organic matter content and pH of soils on the availability and toxicity of zinc to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Pedobiologia 40:80–96Google Scholar
  38. Tejada M, Gómez I, Hernández T, García C (2010) Response of Eisenia fetida to the application of different organic wastes in an aluminium-contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:1944–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tian DS, Niu SL (2015) A global analysis of soil acidification caused by nitrogen addition. Environ Res Lett 10.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024019
  40. Velki M, Hackenberger BK (2013) Biomarker responses in earthworm Eisenia andrei exposed to pirimiphos-methyl and deltamethrin using different toxicity tests. Chemosphere 90:1216–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang J, Wang JX, Xu C, Liu R, Chen YD (2016) Molecular mechanism of catalase activity change under sodium dodecyl sulfate-induced oxidative stress in the mouse primary hepatocytes. J Hazard Mater 307:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wei H, Liu W, Zhang JE, Zhong Q (2017) Effects of simulated acid rain on soil fauna community composition and their ecological niches. Environ Pollut 220:460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu SJ, Wu EM, Qiu LQ, Zhong WH, Chen JM (2011) Effects of phenanthrene on the mortality, growth and anti-oxidant system of earthworms (Eisenia fetida) under laboratory conditions. Chemosphere 83:429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeng MF, Vries WD, Bonten LTC, Zhu QC, Hao TX, Liu XJ, Xu MG, Shi XJ, Zhang FS, Shen JB (2017) Model-based analysis of the long-term effects of fertilization management on cropland soil acidification. Environ Sci Technol 51:3843–3851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang Y, Shen GQ, Yu YS, Zhu HL (2009) The hormetic effect of cadmium on the activity of antioxidant enzymes in the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Environ Pollut 157:3064–3068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang JE, Yu JY, Ouyang Y, Xu HQ (2013) Responses of earthworm to aluminum toxicity in latosol. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:1135–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang JQ, Shen M, Zhu CC, Yu FX, Liu ZQ, Ally N, Sun SC, Li K, Liu HL (2014) 3-Nitropropionic acid induces ovarian oxidative stress and impairs follicle in mouse. PLoS One 9:e86589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang JE, Yu JY, Ouyang Y (2015a) Activity of earthworm in latosol under simulated acid rain stress. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 94:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang Q, Zhang G, Yin P, Lv Y, Yuan S, Chen J, Wei B, Wang C (2015b) Toxicological effects of soil contaminated with spirotetramat to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Chemosphere 139:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang XM, Liu W, Zhang GM, Jiang L, Han XG (2015c) Mechanisms of soil acidification reducing bacterial diversity. Soil Biol Biochem 81:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhao Y, Duan L, Xing J, Larssen T, Nielsen PC, Hao JM (2009) Soil acidification in China: is controlling SO2 emissions enough? Environ Sci Technol 43:8021–8026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhao FJ, Ma YB, Zhu YG, Tang Z, McGrath SP (2015) Soil contamination in China: current status and mitigation strategies. Environ Sci Technol 49:750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhou DX, Ning YC, Wang B, Wang GD, Su Y, Li L, Wang Y (2016) Study on the influential factors of Cd2+ on the earthworm Eisenia fetida in oxidative stress based on factor analysis approach. Chemosphere 157:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhu XW, Liu SS, Qin LT, Chen F, Liu HL (2013) Modeling non-monotonic dose-response relationships: model evaluation and hormetic quantities exploration. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 89:130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jialong Wu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Zongling Ren
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Chi Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mikael Motelica-Heino
    • 5
  • Ting Deng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Haoyu Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jun Dai
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Natural Resources and EnvironmentSouth China Agricultural UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation in South China, Ministry of Agriculture People’s Republic of ChinaGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Land and Resources for Construction Land TransformationGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Land Use and ConsolidationGuangzhouChina
  5. 5.Université d’Orléans, CNRS/INSU Institut des Sciences de la Terre d’OrléansOrléansFrance

Personalised recommendations