Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial variation of earthworm communities and soil organic carbon in temperate agroforestry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biology and Fertility of Soils Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess how soil organic C (SOC) stocks and earthworm communities were modified in agroforestry systems compared to treeless control plots and within the agroforestry plots (tree rows vs alleys). We used a network of 13 silvoarable agroforestry sites in France along a north/south gradient. Total earthworm abundance and biomass were significantly higher in the tree rows than those in the control plots, but were not modified in the alleys compared to those in the control plots. Earthworm species richness, Shannon index, and species evenness were significantly higher in the tree rows than those in the alleys. Total abundance of epigeic, epi-anecic, strict anecic, and endogeic was higher in the tree rows. Surprisingly, earthworm individual weight was significantly lower in the tree rows than that in the alleys and in the control plots. SOC stocks were significantly higher in the tree rows compared to that in the control plots across all sites. Despite higher SOC stocks in the tree rows, the amount of available C per earthworm individual was lower compared to those in the control. The absence of disturbance (no tillage, no fertilizers, no pesticides) in the tree rows rather than increased SOC stocks therefore seems to be the main factor explaining the increased total abundance, biomass, and diversity of earthworms. The observed differences in earthworm communities between tree rows and alleys may lead to modified and spatially structured SOC dynamics within agroforestry plots.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Araujo Y, López-Hernández D (1999) Earthworm populations in a savanna-agroforestry system of Venezuelan Amazonia. Biol Fertil Soils 29:413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bambrick AD, Whalen JK, Bradley RL, Cogliastro A, Gordon AM, Olivier A, Thevathasan NV (2010) Spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in tree-based intercropping systems in Quebec and Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 79:343–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates DM (2010) lme4: mixed-effects modeling with R. Springer, 145p. URL lme4.r-forge.rproject.org/book/front.pdf

  • Bertrand M, Barot S, Blouin M, Whalen J, de Oliveira T, Roger-Estrade J (2015) Earthworm services for cropping systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:553–567

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blouin M, Hodson ME, Delgado EA, Baker G, Brussaard L, Butt KR, Dai J, Denddoven L, Pérès G, Tondoh JE, Cluzeau D, Brun JJ (2013) A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Sci 64:161–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouché MB (1972) Lombriciens de France: écologie et systématique. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouché MB (1977) Stratégies lombriciennes. Ecol Bull 25:122–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouché MB, Kretzschmar A (1974) Fonctions des lombriciens II. Recherches méthodologiques pour l’analyse qualitative de la matière organique végétale ingérée (étude du peuplement de la station R.C.P.-165/P.B.I). Rev Ecol Biol Sol 11:127–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Briones MJI, Schmidt O (2017) Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 23:4396–4419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:254–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt KR, Briones MJI, Lowe CN (2009) Is tagging with visual implant elastomer a reliable technique for marking earthworms? Pesq Agropec Bras 44:969–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capowiez Y, Cadoux S, Bouchant P, Ruy S, Roger-Estrade J, Richard G, Boizard H (2009) The effect of tillage type and cropping system on earthworm communities, macroporosity and water infiltration. Soil Tillage Res 105:209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinael R, Chevallier T, Barthès BG, Saby NPA, Parent T, Dupraz C, Bernoux M, Chenu C (2015a) Impact of alley cropping agroforestry on stocks, forms and spatial distribution of soil organic carbon—a case study in a Mediterranean context. Geoderma 259–260:288–299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinael R, Mao Z, Prieto I, Stokes A, Dupraz C, Kim JH, Jourdan C (2015b) Competition with winter crops induces deeper rooting of walnut trees in a Mediterranean alley cropping agroforestry system. Plant Soil 391:219–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinael R, Chevallier T, Cambou A, Béral C, Barthès BG, Dupraz C, Durand C, Kouakoua E, Chenu C (2017) Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: a survey of six different sites in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 236:243–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinael R, Umulisa V, Toudert A, Olivier A, Bockel L, Bernoux M (2018a) Revisiting IPCC Tier 1 coefficients for soil organic and biomass carbon storage in agroforestry systems. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaeb5f in press

  • Cardinael R, Guenet B, Chevallier T, Dupraz C, Cozzi T, Chenu C (2018b) High organic inputs explain shallow and deep SOC storage in a long-term agroforestry system—combining experimental and modeling approaches. Biogeosciences 15:297–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KY (2001) An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity—implications for functioning in soils. Soil Tillage Res 57:179–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee N, Nair PKR, Chakraborty S, Nair VD (2018) Changes in soil carbon stocks across the Forest-Agroforest-Agriculture/Pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: a meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 266:55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cluzeau D (1992) Structure et dynamique des peuplements lombriciens dans des systèmes tempérés anthropisés. Université Rennes 1, Rennes

    Google Scholar 

  • Cluzeau D, Guernion M, Chaussod R, Martin-Laurent F, Villenave C, Cortet J, Ruiz-Camacho N, Pernin C, Mateille T, Philippot L, Bellido A, Rougé L, Arrouays D, Bispo A, Pérès G (2012) Integration of biodiversity in soil quality monitoring: baselines for microbial and soil fauna parameters for different land-use types. Eur J Soil Biol 49:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden SJ, Huerta E, de Goede RGM, Pulleman MM (2015) Earthworm assemblages as affected by field margin strips and tillage intensity: an on-farm approach. Eur J Soil Biol 66:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry J (1998) Factors affecting earthworm abundance in soils. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology. St. Lucie Press, Raton, pp 37–64

    Google Scholar 

  • de Stefano A, Jacobson MG (2018) Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agrofor Syst 92:285–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Decaëns T, Bureau F, Margerie P (2003) Earthworm communities in a wet agricultural landscape of the Seine Valley (Upper Normandy, France): the 7th International Symposium on Earthworm Ecology Cardiff Wales 2002. Pedobiologia 47:479–489

  • Decaëns T, Margerie P, Aubert M, Hedde M, Bureau F (2008) Assembly rules within earthworm communities in North-Western France—a regional analysis. Appl Soil Ecol 39:321–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont L, Gresille Y, Richard B, Decaëns T, Mathieu J (2015) Dispersal constraints and fine-scale spatial genetic structure in two earthworm species. Biol J Linn Soc 114:335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont L, Torres-Leguizamon M, René-Corail P, Mathieu J (2017) Landscape features impact connectivity between soil populations: a comparative study of gene flow in earthworms. Mol Ecol 26:3128–3140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eijsackers H (2011) Earthworms as colonizers of natural and cultivated soil environments. Appl Soil Ecol 50:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellert BH, Bettany JR (1995) Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes. Can J Soil Sci 75:529–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feliciano D, Ledo A, Hillier J, Nayak DR (2018) Which agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon benefits in different world regions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrière G (1980) Fonctions des Lombriciens. VII. Une méthode d’analyse de la matière organique végétale ingérée. Pedobiologia 20:263–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonte SJ, Barrios E, Six J (2010) Earthworms, soil fertility and aggregate-associated soil organic matter dynamics in the Quesungual agroforestry system. Geoderma 155:320–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frazão J, de Goede RGM, Brussaard L, Faber JH, Groot JCJ, Pulleman MM (2017) Earthworm communities in arable fields and restored field margins, as related to management practices and surrounding landscape diversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 248:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frouz J, Pižl V, Cienciala E, Kalčík J (2009) Carbon storage in post-mining forest soil, the role of tree biomass and soil bioturbation. Biogeochemistry 94:111–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Germon A, Cardinael R, Prieto I, Mao Z, Kim JH, Stokes A, Dupraz C, Laclau JP, Jourdan C (2016) Unexpected phenology and lifespan of shallow and deep fine roots of walnut trees grown in a silvoarable Mediterranean agroforestry system. Plant Soil 401:409–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartenstein R, Amico L (1983) Production and carrying for the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris in culture. Soil Biol Biochem 15:51–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser S (1993) Distribution and activity of earthworms and contribution to nutrient recycling in alley cropping. Biol Fertil Soils 15:16–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser S, Osawalam DO, Vanlauwe B (1998) Spatial and temporal gradients of earthworms casting activity in alley cropping systems. Agrofor Syst 41:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmar L, Ramanujam SN (2014) Earthworm cast production and physico-chemical properties in two agroforestry systems of Mizoram (India). Trop Ecol 55:75–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffner K, Monard C, Santonja M, Cluzeau D (2018) Feeding behaviour of epi-anecic earthworm species and their impacts on soil microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 125:1–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hof AR, Bright PW (2010) The impact of grassy field margins on macro-invertebrate abundance in adjacent arable fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:280–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogerkamp M, Rogaar H, Eijsackers HJP (1983) Effect of earthworms on grassland on recently reclaimed polder soils in the Netherlands. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 85–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jégou D, Cluzeau D, Balesdent J, Tréhen P (1998) Effects of four ecological categories of earthworms on carbon transfer in soil. Appl Soil Ecol 9:249–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jégou D, Capowiez Y, Cluzeau D (2001a) Interactions between earthworm species in artificial soil cores assessed through the 3D reconstruction of the burrow systems. Geoderma 102:123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jégou D, Schrader S, Diestel H, Cluzeau D (2001b) Morphological, physical and biochemical characteristics of burrow walls formed by earthworms. Appl Soil Ecol 17:165–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jouquet P, Dauber J, Lagerlöf J, Lavelle P, Lepage M (2006) Soil invertebrates as ecosystem engineers: intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Appl Soil Ecol 32:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretzschmar A (1977) Etude du transit intestinal des Lombriciens aneciques. II. Resultats et interpretation ecologique. Ecol Bull 25:210–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerlöf J, Goffre B, Vincent C (2002) The importance of field boundaries for earthworms (Lumbricidae) in the Swedish agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle P (1983) The structure of earthworm communities. In: Satchell J (ed) Earthworm ecology. Chapman & Hall, London, p 449–466

  • Lavelle P (1988) Earthworm activities and the soil system. Biol Fertil Soils 6:237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle P (1997) Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptative strategy that determine ecosystem function. Adv Ecol Res 27:93–132

  • Lavelle P, Decaëns T, Aubert M, Barot S, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi JP (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Biol 42:3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KE (1985) Earthworms their ecology and relationships with soils and land use. Academic Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligthart TN, Peek GJCW (1997) Evolution of earthworm burrow systems after inoculation of lumbricid earthworms in a pasture in the Netherlands. Soil Biol Biochem 29:453–462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Makowski D, Piraux F, Brun F (2018) De l’analyse des réseaux expérimentaux à la méta-analyse. Méthodes et applications avec le logiciel R pour les sciences agronomiques et environnementales. EditionsQuae, p 162

  • Mathieu J, Barot S, Blouin M, Caro G, Decaëns T, Dubs F, Dupont L, Jouquet P, Nai P (2010) Habitat quality, conspecific density, and habitat pre-use affect the dispersal behaviour of two earthworm species, Aporrectodea icterica and Dendrobaena veneta, in a mesocosm experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 42:203–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu J, Caro G, Dupont L (2018) Methods for studying earthworm dispersal. Appl Soil Ecol 123:339–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR (1993) An introduction to agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neuhauser E, Hartenstein R, Kaplan D (1980) Growth of the earthworm Eisenia foetida in relation to population density and food rationing. Oikos 35:93–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieminen M, Ketoja E, Mikola J, Terhivuo J, Siren T, Nuutinen V (2011) Local land use effects and regional environmental limits on earthworm communities in Finnish arable landscapes. Ecol Appl 21:3162–3177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuutinen V, Butt KR, Jauhiainen L (2011) Field margins and management affect settlement and spread of an introduced dew-worm (Lumbricus terrestris L.) population. Pedobiologia 54S:S167–S172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelosi C, Bertrand M, Roger-Estrade J (2009) Earthworm community in conventional, organic and direct seeding with living mulch cropping systems. Agron Sustain Dev 29:287–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pelosi C, Pey B, Hedde M, Caro G, Capowiez Y, Guernion M, Peigné J, Diron D, Bertrand M, Cluzeau D (2014) Reducing tillage in cultivated fields increases earthworm functional diversity. Appl Soil Ecol 83:79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérès G, Cluzeau D, Curmi P, Hallaire V (1998) Earthworm activity and soil structure changes due to organic enrichments in vineyard systems. Biol Fertil Soils 27:417–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–111

  • Ponge JF, Pérès G, Guernion M, Ruiz-Camacho N, Cortet J, Pernin C, Villenave C, Chaussod R, Martin-Laurent F, Bispo A, Cluzeau D (2013) The impact of agricultural practices on soil biota: a regional study. Soil Biol Biochem 67:271–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potvin LR, Lilleskov EA (2017) Introduced earthworm species exhibited unique patterns of seasonal activity and vertical distribution, and Lumbricus terrestris burrows remained usable for at least 7 years in hardwood and pine stands. Biol Fertil Soils 53:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price GW, Gordon AM (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of earthworms in a temperate intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 44:141–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/

  • Roarty S, Schmidt O (2013) Permanent and new arable field margins support large earthworm communities but do not increase in-field populations. Agric Ecosyst Environ 170:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saharan N, Singh RP (1988) Influence of earthworm activity on soil fertility in agroforestry systems. Ann Arid Zone 27:81–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon NL, Mackay AD, Gray RA, Dodd MB (2014) The action of an anecic earthworm (Aporrectodea longa) on vertical soil carbon distribution in New Zealand pastures several decades after their introduction. Eur J Soil Biol 62:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi L, Feng W, Xu J, Kuzyakov Y (2018) Agroforestry systems: meta-analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degrad Dev:1–12

  • Shipitalo MJ, Protz R, Tomlin AD (1988) Effect of diet on the feeding and casting activity of Lumbricus terrestris and Lumbricus rubellus in laboratory culture. Soil Biol Biochem 20:233–237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Potts SG, Woodcock BA, Eggleton P (2008a) Can arable field margins be managed to enhance their biodiversity, conservation and functional value for soil macrofauna? J Appl Ecol 45:269–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RG, McSwiney CP, Grandy AS, Suwanwaree P, Snider RM, Robertson GP (2008b) Diversity and abundance of earthworms across an agricultural land-use intensity gradient. Soil Tillage Res 100:83–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian G, Olimah JA, Adeoye GO, Kang BT (2000) Regeneration of earthworm populations in a degraded soil by natural and planted fallows under humid tropical conditions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Udawatta RP, Kremer RJ, Adamson BW, Anderson SH (2008) Variations in soil aggregate stability and enzyme activities in a temperate agroforestry practice. Appl Soil Ecol 39:153–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Capelle C, Schrader S, Brunotte J (2012) Tillage-induced changes in the functional diversity of soil biota—a review with a focus on German data. Eur J Soil Biol 50:165–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wotherspoon A, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Voroney RP (2014) Carbon sequestration potential of five tree species in a 25-year-old temperate tree-based intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 88:631–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml J, Pizl V, Sklenicka P (2009) Earthworm assemblages in an ecotone between forest and arable field and their relations with soil properties. Pesq Agrop Brasileira 44:922–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Hoël Hotte and Morgane Ollivier for their technical assistance during the earthworm field sampling.

Funding

This study was financed by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), following a call for proposals as part of the REACCTIF program (Research on Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture and Forestry). This study was part of the funded project AGRIPSOL (Agroforestry for Soil Protection), coordinated by AGROOF. Rémi Cardinael’s PhD thesis was co-funded by La Fondation de France and ADEME. Kevin Hoeffner’s PhD thesis was funded by a grant of the French Ministry of Research.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Rémi Cardinael

    Present address: CIRAD, UPR AIDA, F-34398, Montpellier, France

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eco&Sols, IRD, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Rémi Cardinael & Tiphaine Chevallier

  2. UMR Ecosys, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris Saclay, Thiverval-Grignon, France

    Rémi Cardinael & Claire Chenu

  3. AIDA, CIRAD, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Rémi Cardinael

  4. CNRS, ECOBIO UMR 6553, University of Rennes, Rennes, France

    Kevin Hoeffner, Antoine Dewisme & Daniel Cluzeau

  5. AGROOF, 19 rue du Luxembourg, Anduze, France

    Camille Béral

Authors
  1. Rémi Cardinael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Hoeffner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claire Chenu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tiphaine Chevallier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Camille Béral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Antoine Dewisme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daniel Cluzeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rémi Cardinael.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1692 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cardinael, R., Hoeffner, K., Chenu, C. et al. Spatial variation of earthworm communities and soil organic carbon in temperate agroforestry. Biol Fertil Soils 55, 171–183 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-018-1332-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-018-1332-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation