Advertisement

Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 170–173 | Cite as

Gut load and food-retention time in the earthworms Lumbricus festivus and L. castaneus: A field study

  • N. B. Hendriksen
Article

Summary

Lumbricus festivus and L. castaneus consume dung. In the field, below cow pats, their gut loads were about 0.15 and 0.14 g dry weight g-1 ash-free dry weight of worm, respectively, but in “free” soil the loads were higher, about 0.21 and 0.19 g g-1 ash-free dry weight of worm. The gut contents of dung were lighter than the total ingested material, at about 0.10 and 0.07 g dry weight g-1 ash-free dry weight of worm, respectively. Field experiments showed that the retention time of dung ranged from >9 to 15 h for L. festivus, and from >3 to 6 h for L. castaneus. The experiments also indicated that L. festivus exploited 20- and 36-day-old dung in different ways, since the gut load was lower in those worms consuming 20-day-old dung than in those consuming 36- to 40-day-old dung. On the basis of these results the calculated consumption rate for L. festivus is 0.08 g dung day-1 g live weight of worm-1, and for L. castaneus 0.15 g dung day-1, with retention times assumed to be at maximum, 15 h, for L. festivus and 6 h for L. castaneus. These calculations indicate that our field population of worms (75 g m-2) consumes 10–15 t dung ha-1 180 days-1, corresponding to the amount of dung produced by 2–3 dairy cows.

Key words

Gut load Retention time Dung Earthworms Lumbricus festivus Lumbricus castaneus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barley KP (1959) The influence of earthworms on soil fertility. II. Consumption of soil and organic matter by the earthworm Allolobophora caliginosa (Savigny). Aust J Agric Res 10:179–185Google Scholar
  2. Curry JP, Bolger T (1984) Growth, reproduction and litter and soil consumption by Lumbricus terrestris L. in reclaimed peat. Soil Biol Biochem 16:253–257Google Scholar
  3. Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple contrasts using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252Google Scholar
  4. Guild WJMcI (1955) Earthworms and soil structure. In: Kevan DKMcE (ed) Soil zoology. Butterworth, London, pp 83–98Google Scholar
  5. Hartenstein R, Amico L (1983) Production and carrying capacity for the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris in culture. Soil Biol Biochem 15:51–54Google Scholar
  6. Hartenstein F, Hartenstein E, Hartenstein R (1981) Gut load and transit time in the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Pedobiologia 22:5–20Google Scholar
  7. Hendriksen NB (1991) Consumption and utilization of dung by detritivorous and geophagous earthworms in a Danish pasture. Pedobiologia 35:65–70Google Scholar
  8. Holter P (1973) A chromic oxide method for measuring consumption in dung-eating Aphodius larvae. Oikos 24:117–122Google Scholar
  9. Holter P (1979) Effect of dung-beetles (Aphodius spp.) and earthworms on the disappearance of cattle dung. Oikos 32:393–402Google Scholar
  10. Holter P (1983) Effect of earthworms on the disappearance rate of cattle droppings. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 49–57Google Scholar
  11. Holter P, Hendriksen NB (1987) Field method for measuring respiratory loss and bulk export of organic matter from cattle dung pats. Soil Biol Biochem 19:649–650Google Scholar
  12. Holter P, Hendriksen NB (1988) Respiratory loss and bulk export of organic matter from cattle dung pats: A field study. Hol. Ecol 11:81–86Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan OL, Hartenstein R, Neuhauser EF, Malleski M (1980) Physicochemical requirements in the environment of the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Soil Biol Biochem 12:347–352Google Scholar
  14. McGinnis AJ, Kasting R (1964a) Chromic oxide indicator method for measuring food utilization in a plant-feeding insect. Science 144:1464–1465Google Scholar
  15. McGinnis AS, Kasting R (1964b) Colorometric analysis of chromic oxide used to study food utilization by phytophagous insects. Agric Food Chem 12:259–162Google Scholar
  16. Piearce TG (1972) The calcium relations of selected Lumbricidae. J Anim Ecol 41:167–188Google Scholar
  17. Piearce TG (1978) Gut contents of some lumbricid earthworms. Pedobiologia 18:153–157Google Scholar
  18. Satchell JE (1967) Lumbricidae. In: Burges A, Raw F (eds) Soil biology Academic Press, London, pp 259–322Google Scholar
  19. Shapitalo MJ, Protz R, Tomlin AP (1988) Effect of diet on the feeding and casting activity of Lumbricus terrestris and L. rubellus in laboratory culture. Soil Biol Biochem 20:233–237Google Scholar
  20. Van Soest PJ (1982) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O and B Books, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  21. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. B. Hendriksen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Population BiologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen ØDenmark

Personalised recommendations