The burrowing characteristics of three common earthworm species

被引:28
作者
Francis, GS [1 ]
Tabley, FJ [1 ]
Butler, RC [1 ]
Fraser, PM [1 ]
机构
[1] New Zealand Inst Crop & Food Res Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand
来源
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL RESEARCH | 2001年 / 39卷 / 06期
关键词
Aporrectodea caliginosa; earthworm burrows; hydraulic conductivity; Lumbricus rubellus; Octolasion cyaneum; porosity;
D O I
10.1071/SR00033
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
The burrowing characteristics of 3 common earthworm species were studied using X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning in large cylinders (24.1 cm diam.) packed with topsoil (0-25 cm) and subsoil (25-50 cm) to representative field bulk density values and sown with ryegrass. Replicated cylinders (n=3), kept under constant moisture and temperature conditions, were inoculated with mature species of Lumbricus rubellus, Aporrectodea caliginosa, or Octolasion cyaneum earthworms at rates similar to their population density in the field. A non-inoculated, unreplicated control was also included. The number, biomass, and activity of the 3 species were then examined. CT scans were taken every 5-10 cm through the soil cylinders 20, 40, and 60 days after inoculation to measure burrow parameters. Mean pore area was greatest for O. cyaneum and L. rubellus, and least for A. caliginosa. Porosity produced by both L. rubellus and A. caliginosa declined with depth. L. rubellus was most active in the top 5 cm, whereas A. caliginosa was most active in the top 10 cm. O. cyaneum created its burrows relatively uniformly throughout the top 20 cm. No species created significant porosity below 20 cm. The greatest amount of porosity and number of pores were created in the cylinders inoculated with A. caliginosa. However, porosity created per earthworm was least for A. caliginosa and L. rubellus and greatest for O. cyaneum. Porosity per biomass was least for L. rubellus and greatest for A. caliginosa and O. cyaneum. A. caliginosa created mainly temporary burrows, with 72-85% of its burrows backfilled between scans. L. rubellus burrows lasted longer (56-64% backfilled between successive scans) and hydraulic conductivity measurements suggested that L. rubellus burrows were surface-connected and more continuous than those created by A. caliginosa. It appears that, of the 3 species studied, L. rubellus has the most beneficial effects on the measured soil physical properties.
引用
收藏
页码:1453 / 1465
页数:13
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTED AND NATURAL SOIL MACROPORES USING X-RAY COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY [J].
ANDERSON, SH ;
PEYTON, RL ;
GANTZER, CJ .
GEODERMA, 1990, 46 (1-3) :13-29
[2]  
CAMERON K C, 1990, Australian Journal of Soil Research, V28, P879, DOI 10.1071/SR9900879
[3]   3D skeleton reconstructions of natural earthworm burrow systems using CAT scan images of soil cores [J].
Capowiez, Y ;
Pierret, A ;
Daniel, O ;
Monestiez, P ;
Kretzschmar, A .
BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS, 1998, 27 (01) :51-59
[4]   STATIC AND DYNAMIC 3-DIMENSIONAL STUDIES OF WATER IN SOIL USING COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC SCANNING [J].
CRESTANA, S ;
MASCARENHAS, S ;
POZZIMUCELLI, RS .
SOIL SCIENCE, 1985, 140 (05) :326-332
[5]   NEPHRIDIAL SYSTEMS AND WATER BALANCE OF 3 OLIGOCHAETE GENERA [J].
ELDUWEINI, AK ;
GHABBOUR, SI .
OIKOS, 1968, 19 (01) :61-+
[6]  
Francis GS, 1999, AUST J SOIL RES, V37, P1017
[7]   The effects of three earthworm species on soil macroporosity and hydraulic conductivity [J].
Francis, GS ;
Fraser, PM .
APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY, 1998, 10 (1-2) :11-19
[8]   Earthworm species, population size and biomass under different cropping systems across the Canterbury Plains, New Zealand [J].
Fraser, PM ;
Williams, PH ;
Haynes, RJ .
APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY, 1996, 3 (01) :49-57
[9]   THE USE OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY TO DETERMINE SPATIAL-DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL-WATER CONTENT [J].
HAINSWORTH, JM ;
AYLMORE, LAG .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL RESEARCH, 1983, 21 (04) :435-443
[10]   COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY AS A TOOL FOR NONDESTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS OF FLOW PATTERNS IN MACROPOROUS CLAY SOILS [J].
HEIJS, AWJ ;
DELANGE, J ;
SCHOUTE, JFT ;
BOUMA, J .
GEODERMA, 1995, 64 (3-4) :183-196