About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Applied and Environmental Soil Science
Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 816073, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/816073
Review Article

Role of Earthworms in Soil Fertility Maintenance through the Production of Biogenic Structures

1Department of Zoology, Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate Degree College, Raebareli 229001, Uttar Pradesh, India
2School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India

Received 26 July 2009; Accepted 22 October 2009

Academic Editor: Natchimuthu Karmegam

Copyright © 2010 Tunira Bhadauria and Krishan Gopal Saxena. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The soil biota benefits soil productivity and contributes to the sustainable function of all ecosystems. The cycling of nutrients is a critical function that is essential to life on earth. Earthworms (EWs) are a major component of soil fauna communities in most ecosystems and comprise a large proportion of macrofauna biomass. Their activity is beneficial because it can enhance soil nutrient cycling through the rapid incorporation of detritus into mineral soils. In addition to this mixing effect, mucus production associated with water excretion in earthworm guts also enhances the activity of other beneficial soil microorganisms. This is followed by the production of organic matter. So, in the short term, a more significant effect is the concentration of large quantities of nutrients (N, P, K, and Ca) that are easily assimilable by plants in fresh cast depositions. In addition, earthworms seem to accelerate the mineralization as well as the turnover of soil organic matter. Earthworms are known also to increase nitrogen mineralization, through direct and indirect effects on the microbial community. The increased transfer of organic C and N into soil aggregates indicates the potential for earthworms to facilitate soil organic matter stabilization and accumulation in agricultural systems, and that their influence depends greatly on differences in land management practices. This paper summarises information on published data on the described subjects.

1. Introduction

Protection of the soil habitat is the first step towards sustainable management of its biological properties that determine long-term quality and productivity. It is generally accepted that soil biota benefits soil productivity but very little is known about the organisms that live in the soil and the functioning of the soil ecosystem. The role of earthworms (EWs) in soil fertility is known since 1881, when Darwin (1809–1882) published his last scientific book entitled “The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms with observations on their habits.’’ Since then, several studies have been undertaken to highlight the soil organisms contribution to the sustainable function of all ecosystems [1]. Soil macrofauna, such as EWs, modify the soil and litter environment indirectly by the accumulation of their biogenic structures (casts, pellets, galleries, etc.) (Table 1). The cycling of nutrients is a critical ecosystem function that is essential to life on earth. Studies in the recent years have shown increasing interest in the development of productive farming systems with a high efficiency of internal resource use and thus lower input requirement and cost [2, 3]. At present, there is increasing evidence that soil macroinvertebrates play a key role in SOM transformations and nutrient dynamics at different spatial and temporal scales through perturbation and the production of biogenic structures for the improvement of soil fertility and land productivity [4, 5]. EWs are a major component of soil fauna communities in most natural ecosystems of the humid tropics and comprise a large proportion of macrofauna biomass [6]. In cultivated tropical soils, where organic matter is frequently related to fertility and productivity, the communities of invertebrates—especially EWs—could play an important role in (SOM) dynamics by the regulation of the mineralization and humification processes [79].

tab1
Table 1: Some properties of casts of Pheretima alaxandri and their underlying soils with and without litter cover [10].

1.1. Functional Significance of Earthworms

The effects of EWs on soil biological processes and fertility level differ in ecological categories [12]. Anecic species build permanent burrows into the deep mineral layers of the soil; they drag organic matter from the soil surface into their burrows for food. Endogeic species live exclusively and build extensive nonpermanent burrows in the upper mineral layer of soil, mainly ingested mineral soil matter, and are known as “ecological engineers,’’ or “ecosystem engineers.’’ They produce physical structures through which they can modify the availability or accessibility of a resource for other organisms [13]. Epigeic species live on the soil surface, form no permanent burrows, and mainly ingest litter and humus, as well as on decaying organic matter, and do not mix organic and inorganic matter [14]. In the majority of habitats and ecosystems (Table 2), it is usually a combination of these ecological categories which together or individually are responsible for maintaining the fertility of soils [1517].

tab2
Table 2: Effect of land conversion and management practices on changes in functional catagories of earthworms in the Indo-Gangetic plains, ( SE, ).

1.2. Role of Earthworms in Nutrient Availability to Soil

EWs influence the supply of nutrients through their tissues but largely through their burrowing activities; they produce aggregates and pores (i.e., biostructures) in the soil and/or on the soil surface, thus affecting its physical properties, nutrient cycling, and plant growth [19, 20]. The biogenic structures constitute assemblages of organo-mineral aggregates. Their stability and the concentration of organic matter impact soil physical properties and SOM dynamics. Besides they affect some important soil ecological processes within their “functional domain’’ [21, 22] where they concentrate nutrients and resources that are further exploited by soil microorganism communities [23, 24]. The effect of EWs on the dynamics of organic matter varies depending on the time and space scales considered [25]. The activity of endogeic EWs in the humid tropical environment accelerates initial SOM turnover through indirect effects on soil C as determinants of microbial activity. Due to selective foraging of organic particles, gut contents are often enriched in organic matter, nutrients, and water compared with bulk soil and can foster high levels of microbial activity [26, 27]. They have been reported to enhance mineralization by first fragmenting SOM and then mixing it together with mineral particles and microorganisms, and thereby creating new surfaces of contact between SOM and microorganisms [28]. In the short term, a more significant effect is the concentration of large quantities of nutrients (N, P, K, and Ca) that are easily assimilable by plants in fresh cast depositions [18]. Most of these nutrients are derived from earthworm urine and mucus [29]. In highly leached soils of humid tropics, earthworm activity is beneficial because of rapid incorporation of the detritus into the soils [30]. In addition to this mixing effect, mucus production associated with water excretion in the earthworm gut is known to enhance the activity of microorganisms [31]. This is followed by the production of organic matter. So fresh casts show high nutrient contents (Table 3). The chemical characteristics of casts differ from those of noningested soil [32] and are rich in plant available nutrients. Upon cast deposition, microbial products, in addition to earthworm mucilages, bind soil particles and contribute to the formation of highly stable aggregates [33, 34]. Although EWs may speed up the initial breakdown of organic residues [35, 36], several studies have indicated that they may also stabilize SOM through its incorporation and protection in their casts [3740]. Over longer periods of time, this enhanced microbial activity decreases when the casts dry, and aggregation is then reported to physically protect SOM against mineralization. Thus C mineralization rate decreases and mineralization of SOM from casts may be blocked for several months [37, 41]. It might become accessible again for the microflora once these are degraded into small fragments [4244]. In addition EWs seem to accelerate the mineralization as well as the turnover of SOM [45]. Furthermore, studies have also indicated that organic matter in the casts, once stabilized, can maintain this stabilization for many years [46, 47]. Nevertheless, chemical mechanisms may also contribute to the stabilization since evidence shows that the casts are held together by strong interactions between mineral soil particles and SOM that is enriched in bacterial polysaccharides and fungal hyphae [48, 49]. Earthworm casts are enriched in organic C and N, exceeding the C and N contents of the non ingested soil by a factor of 1.5, and 1.3, respectively (Table 4). This enrichment appears in all particle-size fractions, not restricted to certain organic compound dynamics of a cultivated soil [50]. These results clearly indicate the direct involvement of EWs in providing protection of soil C in microaggregates within large macroaggregates leading to a possible long-term stabilization of soil C [51] (Table 5). It has also been reported that EWs increase the incorporation of cover crop-derived C into macroaggregates, and more important, into microaggregates formed within macroaggregates. The increased transfer of organic C and N into soil aggregates indicates the potential for EWs to facilitate SOM stabilization and accumulation in agricultural systems [52].

tab3
Table 3: Variation in nutrient concentration of earthworm casts and noningested soils during cropping under shifting agriculture in North East India ( SE, ) [18].
tab4
Table 4: Variation in nutrient concentration of earthworm casts and non ingested soils in abandoned agricultural fallows in North East India ( SE, ) [18].
tab5
Table 5: C and N contents and C : N ratio in particle-size organic fractions in control soil and cast of Pontoscolex corethrurus ( SE) [53].

EWs are known also to increase nitrogen mineralization, through direct and indirect effects on the microbial community (Table 6). Our studies on the role of EWs in the nitrogen cycling during the cropping phase of shifting agriculture in North East India showed (Table 7) that the total soil nitrogen made available for plants through the activity of EWs was higher than the total input of nitrogen to the soil through the addition of slashed vegetation, inorganic and organic manure, recycled crop residues, and weeds [54]. An important role of EWs is the dramatic increase in soil pH as observed through our studies in shifting agroecosystem in North East India, in a sedentary terrace agroecosystem in central Himalayas, and in intensive agroecosystem in Indo-Gangetic plains. This increases microbial activity and N fixation in the soil, so that nitrogen in the worm cast may be due at least in part to this rather than to concentration by gain worms. Nitrogen mineralization by microflora is also quite intense in the earthworm gut and continues for several hours in fresh casts [55, 56], respectively, by incorporating organic matter into the soil and or by grazing the bacterial community. EWs have been found to either enhance or decrease bacterial biomass [5759], and to stimulate bacterial activity [60, 61]. The influence of EWs on N cycling, however, appears also to be largely determined by cropping system type and the fertilizer applied (mineral versus organic). Various experimental studies suggest that EWs have potentially negative consequences on fertilizer-N retention studies [62]. The earthworm species and species interactions present in the system also effect nitrogen mineralization and crop production [63]. This may result in enhanced nitrogen immobilization or mineralization depending on species characteristics and substrate quality. The review thus highlights the important effects that EWs have on C and N cycling processes in agroecosystems and that their influence depends greatly on differences in management practices [64]. Further the EWs can also increase nutrient availability in systems with reduced human influence and low nutrient status, that is, no tillage, reduced mineral fertilizer use, and low organic matter content [6567]. The role of EWs in improving soil fertility is ancient knowledge which is now better explained by scientific results emerging from different studies. This is an important field of study where the research is directly linked to the social welfare [68]. Every involved step requires appropriate protocols and reproducible results. This is a feedback mechanism where the technology adopted in the fields is further improved in the laboratories based on the feedback received from the technology adopters so as to provide more convincing information to technology adopters.

tab6
Table 6: Total and mineral nitrogen content in soil and fresh casts from earthworms incubated in different soil types (Barois et al., 1992 [53]).
tab7
Table 7: Nitrogen input/output budget during the cropping phase under 5- and 15-year Jhum cycle, ( SE, ) [54].

2. Future Research Needs

Most of the studies conducted to assess the role of earthworm casting in nutrient cycling and soil structure are related to surface casting species, and only a few have dealt with casts deposited under field conditions [5, 18, 54]. To reach a better understanding of the ecological impact of in-soil casts, the assessment of nutrient dynamics in earthworm burrows and on the effect of in-soil casts on plant growth would be of immense help. For below-ground casting earthworm species, the ecological impact of their below-ground casts is likely to be as important as their surface casts in relation with nutrient availability, especially for biological management of degraded and disturbed ecosystems. Therefore more research is needed to be done in this area to complete our knowledge of the role of EWs in nutrient dynamics so as to evolve strategies for better soil management techniques.

3. Conclusions

Considering the potential contribution of EWs to soil fertility management, there is the need to consider them in agroecosystem management decisions. The EWs can specifically affect soil fertility that may be of great importance to increase sustainable land use in naturally degraded ecosystems as well as agroecosystems. Proper earthworm management may sustain crop yields whilst fertilizer inputs could be reduced. Since farming can involve many soil disturbing activities, the understanding of the biology and ecology of EWs will help devise management strategies that may impact soil biota and crop performance.

Abbreviations

EW:earthworm
SOM:soil organic matter.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Miss Rajani for laboratory assistance and Mr. Navin for logistic support.

References

  1. D. A. Wardle, Communities and Ecosystems: Linking the Aboveground and Belowground Components, Princeton University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002.
  2. E. Barrios, “Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity,” Ecological Economics, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 269–285, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. P. Mora, C. Seugé, J. L. Chotte, and C. Rouland, “Physico-chemical typology of the biogenic structures of termites and earthworms: a comparative analysis,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 245–249, 2003.
  4. L. Brussaard, V. M. Behan-Pelletier, D. E. Bignell, et al., “Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil,” Ambio, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 563–570, 1997.
  5. P. Lavelle and A. V. Spain, Soil Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001.
  6. P. Lavelle, A. Chauvel, and C. Fragoso, “Faunal activity in acid soils,” in Plant-Soil Interactions at Low pH: Principles and Management, R. A. Date, Ed., pp. 201–211, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
  7. P. Lavelle and A. Martin, “Small-scale and large-scale effects of endogeic earthworms on soil organic matter dynamics in soils of the humid tropics,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1491–1498, 1992.
  8. C. Villenave, F. Charpentier, P. Lavelle, et al., “Effects of earthworms on soil organic matter and nutrient dynamics following earthworm inoculation in field experimental situations,” in Earthworm Management in Tropical Agroecosystems, P. Lavelle, L. Brussaard, and P. Hendrix, Eds., pp. 173–197, CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 1999.
  9. M. B. Bouche, “Statégies lombriciennes,” in Soil Organisms as Component of Ecosystems, U. Lohm and T. Persson, Eds., pp. 122–132, Ecological Bulletin, Stockholm, Sweden, 1977.
  10. M. V. Reddy, “Effects of fire on the nutrient content and microflora of casts of Pheretima alaxandri,” in Earthworm Ecology from Darwin to Vermiculture, J. E. Satchell, Ed., pp. 209–213.
  11. T. Bhadauria, “Impact of intensive agricultural practices on diversity of earthworms in Raebareli District of Indogangetic plains, India,” Final Report, Department of Science And Technology, Govt of India, New Delhi, India, 2008.
  12. G. G. Brown, I. Barois, and P. Lavelle, “Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activity in the drilosphere and the role of interactions with other edaphic functional domains,” European Journal of Soil Biology, vol. 36, no. 3-4, pp. 177–198, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. C. G. Jones, J. H. Lawton, and M. Shachak, “Organisms as ecosystem engineers,” Oikos, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 373–386, 1994.
  14. M. A. McLean and D. Parkinson, “Impacts of the epigeic earthworm Dendrobaena octaedra on oribatid mite community diversity and microarthropod abundances in pine forest floor: a mesocosm study,” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 125–136, 1998.
  15. T. Bhadauria, P. S. Ramakrishnan, and K. N. Srivastava, “Population dynamics of earthworms during crop rotation under rainfed agriculture in central Himalayas, India,” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 205–215, 1997.
  16. B. Sinha, T. Bhadauria, P. S. Ramakrishnan, K. G. Saxena, and R. K. Maikhuri, “Impact of landscape modification on earthworm diversity and abundance in the Hariyali sacred landscape, Garhwal Himalaya,” Pedobiologia, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 357–370, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. T. Bhadauria and K. G. Saxena, “Influence of land scape modification on earthworm biodiversity in the Garhwal region of Central Himalayas,” in Proceedings of Indo US Workshop on Vermitechnology in Human Welfare(Indo—US Science and Technology Forum), June 2007, C. A. Edwards, R. Jeyaraaj, and I. Jayaraaj, Eds., pp. 80–95, Coimbatoor, Tamil Nadu, India, 2009.
  18. T. Bhadauria and P. S. Ramakrishnan, “Earthworm population dynamics and contribution to nutrient cycling during cropping and fallow phases of shifting agriculture (jhum) in north-east India,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 505–520, 1989.
  19. R. Lal, “Soil conservation and biodiversity,” in The Biodiversity of Microorganisms and Invertebrates: Its Role in Sustainable Agriculture, D. L. Hawksworth, Ed., pp. 89–103, CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 1999.
  20. S. Scheu, “Effects of earthworms on plant growth: patterns and perspectives,” Pedobiologia, vol. 47, no. 5-6, pp. 846–856, 2003.
  21. S. Coq, B. G. Barthès, R. Oliver, B. Rabary, and E. Blanchart, “Earthworm activity affects soil aggregation and organic matter dynamics according to the quality and localization of crop residues—an experimental study (Madagascar),” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2119–2128, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. P. Lavelle, “Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem function,” Advances in Ecological Research, vol. 27, pp. 93–132, 1997.
  23. S. Scheu, “Microbial activity and nutrient dynamics in earthworm casts (Lumbricidae),” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 230–234, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. J. C. Y. Marinissen and P. C. De Ruiter, “Contribution of earthworms to carbon and nitrogen cycling in agro-ecosystems,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 59–74, 1993.
  25. P. Mora, E. Miambi, J. J. Jiménez, T. Decaëns, and C. Rouland, “Functional complement of biogenic structures produced by earthworms, termites and ants in the neotropical savannas,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1043–1048, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. R. J. Haynes and P. M. Fraser, “A comparison of aggregate stability and biological activity in earthworm casts and uningested soil as affected by amendment with wheat or Lucerne straw,” European Journal of Soil Science, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 629–636, 1998.
  27. R. D. Kale, “Significant contribution with Vermiculture,” in Proceedings of the DST and DBT Sponsored National Seminar Cum Workshop on Conservation and Inventerization of Soil Biota, Kathireswari and R. D. Kale, Eds., pp. 1–2, Tiruchengode, Tamil Nadu, India, 2008.
  28. R. W. Parmelee, P. J. Bohlen, and J. M. Blair, “Earthworms and nutrient cycling processes: integrating across the ecological hierarchy,” in Earthworm Ecology, C. Edwards, Ed., pp. 179–211, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1998.
  29. I. Barois and P. Lavelle, “Changes in respiration rate and some physicochemical properties of a tropical soil during transit through Pontoscolex corethrurus (glossoscolecidae, oligochaeta),” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 539–541, 1986.
  30. T. Bhadauria and P. S. Ramakrishnan, “Population dynamics of earthworms and their activity in forest ecosystems of north-east India,” Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 305–318, 1991.
  31. I. Barois, Interactions entre les Vers de terre (Oligochaeta) tropicaux géophages et la microflore pour l'exploitation de la matiére organique des sols, Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris, Paris, France, 1987.
  32. E. Blanchart, P. Lavelle, E. Braudeau, Y. Le Bissonnais, and C. Valentin, “Regulation of soil structure by geophagous earthworm activities in humid savannas of Cote d'Ivoire,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 29, no. 3-4, pp. 431–439, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. M. J. Shipitalo and R. Protz, “Chemistry and micromorphology of aggregation in earthworm casts,” Geoderma, vol. 45, no. 3-4, pp. 357–374, 1989.
  34. R. D. Kale, Earthworms; Cinderella of Organic Farming, Prism Books Pvt, Bangalore, India, 1998.
  35. P. Lavelle, “Earthworm activities and the soil system,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 237–251, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. J. Six, E. T. Elliott, K. Paustian, and J. W. Doran, “Aggregation and soil organic matter accumulation in cultivated and native grassland soils,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1367–1377, 1998.
  37. A. Martin, “Short- and long-term effects of the endogeic earthworm Millsonia anomala (Omodeo) (Megascolecidæ, Oligochæta) of tropical savannas, on soil organic matter,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 234–238, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. G. Guggenberger, R. J. Thomas, and W. Zech, “Soil organic matter within earthworm casts of an anecic-endogeic tropical pasture community, Colombia,” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 263–274, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. H. Bossuyt, J. Six, and P. F. Hendrix, “Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 251–258, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. M. M. Pulleman, J. Six, A. Uyl, J. C. Y. Marinissen, and A. G. Jongmans, “Earthworms and management affect organic matter incorporation and microaggregate formation in agricultural soils,” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. P. Lavelle and A. Martin, “Small-scale and large-scale effects of endogeic earthworms on soil organic matter dynamics in soils of the humid tropics,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1491–1498, 1992.
  42. E. Blanchart, P. Lavelle, E. Braudeau, Y. Le Bissonnais, and C. Valentin, “Regulation of soil structure by geophagous earthworm activities in humid savannas of Cote d'Ivoire,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 29, no. 3-4, pp. 431–439, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. T. Decaëns, “Degradation dynamics of surface earthworm casts in grasslands of the eastern plains, of Colombia,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 149–156, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. H. Bossuyt, J. Six, and P. F. Hendrix, “Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 251–258, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. C. A. Edwards and P. J. Bohlen, “The Role of Earthworms in Organic matter and nutrient cycles,” in Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, pp. 155–180, Chapman and Hall, NY, USA, 1996.
  46. M. McInerney and T. Bolger, “Decomposition of Quercus petraea litter: influence of burial, comminution and earthworms,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 32, no. 14, pp. 1989–2000, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. L. Mariani, J. J. Jiménez, N. Asakawa, R. J. Thomas, and T. Decaëns, “What happens to earthworm casts in the soil? A field study of carbon and nitrogen dynamics in Neotropical savannahs,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 757–767, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  48. G. S. Bhandari, N. S. Ranghawa, and M. S. Maskina, “On the polysaccharide content of earthworm casts,” Current Science, vol. 36, pp. 519–520, 1967.
  49. K. H. Domsch and H.-J. Banse, “Mykologische untersuchungen an regenwurmexkrementen,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 31–38, 1972.
  50. T. Desjardins, F. Charpentier, B. Pashanasi, A. Pando-Bahuon, P. Lavelle, and A. Mariotti, “Effects of earthworm inoculation on soil organic matter dynamics of a cultivated ultisol,” Pedobiologia, vol. 47, no. 5-6, pp. 835–841, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. X. Zhang, J. Wang, H. Xie, J. Wang, and W. Zech, “Comparison of organic compounds in the particle-size fractions of earthworm casts and surrounding soil in humid Laos,” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 147–153, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. S. J. Fonte, A. Y. Y. Kong, C. van Kessel, P. F. Hendrix, and J. Six, “Influence of earthworm activity on aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen dynamics differs with agroecosystem management,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1014–1022, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  53. I. Barois, P. Lavelle, and J. K. Kajondo, “Adaptive strategies and short term effects of selected earthworm species, selection of particles,” in Conservation of Soil Fertility in Low-Input Agricultural Systems of the Humid Tropics by Manipulating Earthworm Communities, P. Lavelle, Ed., pp. 35–67, IRD, Bondy, France, 1992, Report of the CCE Project No.TS2.0292-F(EDB).
  54. T. Bhadauria and P. S. Ramakrishnan, “Role of earthworms in nitrogen cycling during the cropping phase of shifting agriculture (Jhum) in north-east India,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 350–354, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. J. M. Blair, R. W. Parmelee, M. F. Allen, D. A. Mccartney, and B. R. Stinner, “Changes in soil N pools in response to earthworm population manipulations in agroecosystems with different N sources,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 29, no. 3-4, pp. 361–367, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  56. H. Bossuyta, J. Six, and P. F. Hendrix, “Comparison of organic compounds in the particle-size fractions of earthworm casts and surrounding soil in humid Laos. Protection of soil carbon by micro aggregates within earthworm casts,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 37, pp. 251–258, 2005.
  57. B. E. Ruz-Jerez, P. R. Ball, and R. W. Tillman, “Laboratory assessment of nutrient release from a pasture soil receiving grass or clover residues, in the presence or absence of Lumbricus rubellus or Eisenia foetida,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 24, pp. 1529–1534, 1992.
  58. P. J. Bohlen and C. A. Edwards, “Earthworm effects on N dynamics and soil respiration in microcosms receiving organic and inorganic nutrients,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 341–348, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. J. Cortez, G. Billes, and M. B. Bouché, “Effect of climate, soil type and earthworm activity on nitrogen transfer from a nitrogen-15-labelled decomposing material under field conditions,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 318–327, 2000.
  60. O. Daniel and J. M. Anderson, “Microbial biomass and activity in contrasting soil materials after passage through the gut of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus Hoffmeister,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 465–470, 1992.
  61. V. Wolters and R. G. Joergensen, “Microbial carbon turnover in beech forest soils worked by Aporrectodea caliginosa (Savigny) (Oligochaeta:Lumbricidae),” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 171–177, 1992.
  62. M. B. Postma-Blaauw, J. Bloem, J. H. Faber, J. W. van Groenigen, R. G. M. de Goede, and L. Brussaard, “Earthworm species composition affects the soil bacterial community and net nitrogen mineralization,” Pedobiologia, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 243–256, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  63. G. G. Brown, B. Pashanasi, C. Villenave, et al., “Effects of earthworms on plant production in the tropics,” in Earthworm Management in Tropical Agro Ecosystems, P. Lavelle, L. Brussaard, and P. Hendrix, Eds., pp. 87–147, CABI Publishing, Wallinford, UK, 1999.
  64. S. J. Fonte, A. Y. Y. Kong, C. van Kessel, P. F. Hendrix, and J. Six, “Influence of earthworm activity on aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen dynamics differs with agroecosystem management,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1014–1022, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  65. G. G. Brown, P. F. Hendrix, and M. H. Beare, “Earthworms (Lumbricus rubellus) and the fate of N15 in surface-applied sorghum residues,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 1701–1705, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. G. G. Brown, C. A. Edwards, and L. Brussaard, “How earthworms affect plant growth: burrowing into the mechanisms,” in Earthworm Ecology, C. A. Edwards, Ed., pp. 13–49, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2nd edition, 2004.
  67. J. Cortez and R. H. Hameed, “Simultaneous effects of plants and earthworms on mineralisation of N15-labelled organic compounds adsorbed onto soil size fractions,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 218–225, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  68. R. D. Kale, “The need for an interdisciplinary approach in understanding the importance of earthworms in India,” in Proceedings of Indo US Workshop on Vermitechnology in Human Welfare (Indo—US Science and Technology Forum), June 2007, C. A. Edwards, R. Jeyaraaj, and I. Jayaraaj, Eds., p. 164, Coimbatoor, Tamil Nadu, India, 2009.