Next Article in Journal
Nutritional Value of Coloured Flesh Potato Tubers in Terms of Their Micronutrient Content
Previous Article in Journal
Consortium of Phosphorus-Solubilizing Bacteria Promotes Maize Growth and Changes the Microbial Community Composition of Rhizosphere Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy14071536
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mechanism of Interaction between Earthworms and Root Parameters on Cambisol

by
Mykola Kochiieru
*,
Agnė Veršulienė
,
Kateryna Shatkovska
,
Virginijus Feiza
and
Vytautas Seibutis
Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Kedainiai District, 58344 Akademija, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(7), 1536; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071536
Submission received: 17 May 2024 / Revised: 8 July 2024 / Accepted: 13 July 2024 / Published: 15 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Plants respond to their environment through adaptations; for example, earthworms that create heterogeneity can lead to local adaptation of roots. This research identifies a mechanism to explain plant responses to earthworms and how these mechanisms are related. Our results show that tillage intensity has a negative effect on earthworms and root volume. The mean root volume and earthworm biomass under conventional tillage were lower than in reduced tillage and no-tillage. The root volume and the root diameter in the field with residues were higher than in the field without residues, while the root length density and earthworm biomass in the field with residues were lower than in the field without residues. This study demonstrates that the mean of the root length density and biomass of the earthworms were higher in sandy loam than in loam. Therefore, sand content had a positive effect on root length density (R2 = 0.72, p < 0.01) and earthworm biomass (R2 = 0.74, p < 0.01). Earthworm biomass had a positive effect on root volume (R2 = 0.54, p < 0.05) and length density (R2 = 0.88, p < 0.01). This confirms our hypothesis on the effect of earthworms on root systems.

1. Introduction

Tilled soils and their productivity are always under great pressure from biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic factors. Balancing these factors is a key element to sustainable and environmentally safe management of tilled soils and results in higher yields.
Earthworms, as part of the soil biosystem, have an influence on crop production in agricultural soils through earthworm–soil–plant interactions [1]. Research has shown an increase in crop yield and above-ground biomass (up to 25% and 23%, respectively) from earthworm activities [2]. The influence of earthworms also results in improved soil structure, enhancement of soil microorganisms’ activity, an increase in nutrient bioavailability, and thereby, earthworms’ indirect stimulation of plant growth, which is also attributed to the induction of signal molecules with hormone-like effects on plants [3,4]. Worms provide bioaccumulation of pollutants and can affect the physical and chemical properties of soils by changing the properties and bioavailability of pollutants [5]. Soil structure is also influenced by the earthworms’ activities—they feed on soil and affect soil factors such as porosity, water content, mineral N, and organic matter content.
In tilled agriculture, earthworms have a positive effect on compacted soils and can help to alleviate soil structure degradation [3]. The effect of earthworms on soil under different tillages is highly dependent on the intensity and scheduling of tillage. Moreover, tillage and earthworms are interdependent; with a decrease in tillage intensity, the earthworms’ density increases and intensifies the soil process influenced by earthworms. Conventional tillage (plowing and secondary tillage operations) decreases the number of worms by destroying existing space burrows [6] and changing soil physical conditions such as temperature, moisture, and soil structure [7,8], making the earthworms visible to predators or mechanically damaging them with tillage tools or soil clods during tillage [9]. A decrease of up to 70% in earthworm biomass and 80% in earthworm numbers was recorded with plowing [10]. On the other hand, no-tillage and conservation agriculture increased earthworm numbers (up to 137% and 127%, respectively) and earthworm biomass (up to 196% and 101%, respectively) compared to conventional tillage [9].
Different tillage technologies affecting earthworms’ burrows also influence plant root development. Tillage changes the soil structure and distribution of residues and, as a result, influences the mineralization of soil organic matter and the production of nutrients by soil organisms for crop growth [11,12]. The heterogeneity created by earthworms through burrows and cast production is closely linked to local root adaptations—root growth’s tendency (proliferation) to nutrient-rich sites [13,14]. A two-way connection between the movements of worms and the growth of plant roots has been established. The worms partially use the peri-root space, and the roots follow the burrows of the worms [15]. In soils of all types, especially within compact layers, earthworm channels are a pathway for root growth [16]. They form macropores by burrowing, which enhances water infiltration and the supply of water to crop roots, decreasing runoff and preventing erosion [3]. Soil structure is also an important limiting factor in earthworm–soil–plant interactions. Previous surveys [17,18,19] show that soil composition, such as sandy soils or soils very rich in clay earthworm activity, significantly decreases and could lead to weak effects on plant growth. Therefore, different intensities of tillage on different soils could have different effects on earthworms’ biomass and activity and plant root development.
The effect of tillage on earthworms has been documented in a large number of studies, as has the growth of roots under different tillages. Some authors describe an increase in the earthworm population with a decrease in the tillage load on soil [3,10], the busting effect of earthworms on above-ground biomass [20], the influence of soil compaction on root density and earthworm activities [21,22,23], and differences in root growth and density under different tillages [24,25].
Overall, the dependencies between soil structure, root density, and earthworm biomass and activity under different tillage methods on Cambisol remain poorly understood. Therefore, the objective of this study is to quantify the effect of earthworms on roots in topsoil (0–10 cm depth) under different tillage systems (conventional tillage, reduced tillage, and no-tillage) and plant residue management systems (plant residues removed and plant residues returned) in two soil texture (sandy loam and loam) on Cambisol.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Description and Site

The research was carried out in Central Lithuania (55°23′38″ N, 23°51′35″ E) at the Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. The experiment treatments were composed of three soil tillage systems (Factor A: CT—conventional tillage, RT—reduced tillage, and NT—no-tillage) and two plant residue management systems (Factor B: 1—plant residues removed, 2—plant residues returned) in two soil textures (sandy loam and loam). The study fields with different soil textures were located (55°23′16″ N, 23°52′33″ E) in one site 30 m from each other. Different soil treatments have been investigated in a long-term field study, since 1999 in sandy loam and since 2004 in loam (Figure 1). Cereal crops such as wheat, triticale, and barley (winter and spring varieties) were grown in these experimental fields.
The soil at the local site (Figure 2a) is classified as Cambisol (loam, drained, Endocalcaric, Endogleyic), according to WRB [26]. Soil texture composition is presented in Table 1.
Conventional tillage involved stubble cultivation (Vaderstad Carrier CRL-425, notched discs) and mouldboard plowing (Kverneland ES-80/95, 4 furrows reversible) 3 weeks after stubble cultivation. Reduced tillage involved stubble cultivation (Vaderstad Carrier CRL-425, notched discs) and herbicide glyphosate application 3 weeks after crop harvesting.
No-tillage involved the application of herbicide glyphosate 3 weeks after crop harvesting. Direct drilling was performed with a disk seed drill (Vaderstad Rapid 400C) on the same day for all tillage systems. Soil tillage systems are presented in Table 2.
The crop in the investigation field in 2019 was spring triticale (x Triticosecale Wittm.). Plant residues (straw) from the previous harvest were removed from half the field. In the other half of the field, the residues were chopped and spread in the experimental field using the chopping machine just before the autumn tillage in mid-October 2018. The crop in 2018 was spring wheat (Triricum aestivum L.). Straw mineralization is activated by adding nitrogen (N) fertilizer. N fertilizers were applied in the form of ammonium nitrate. Mineral fertilizers were spread on the surface and slightly incorporated by presowing tillage. The size of individual tillage treatment was 3.3 × 20 m = 66 m2.

2.2. Assessments of Earthworms

Monoliths 25 × 25 cm in cross-section from the 0–25 cm soil depth were taken from each treatment (one monolith from each of the three field replications) [24]. Samples were hand-sorted for earthworms in each plot (Figure 2b) and transported to the laboratory. During the study, four species of earthworms were found in the fields: Aporrectodea caliginosa (Sav.), Lumbricus terrestris (Lin.), Allolobophora chlorotica (Sav.), and Eisenia rosea (Sav.). This work provides not only data on one earthworm but also total data on the number and weight of all earthworms. In order not to affect the yield, the earthworm samples were taken after harvest. Earthworm density was calculated and expressed as number of individuals per m2. Earthworms were washed with distilled water, weighed, and expressed as mass in g per m2 (Figure 2c).

2.3. Measurement of the Root System

Small monoliths 10 × 10 cm in cross-section (Figure 2d) from the topsoil (0–10 cm depth) were taken from each land use treatment with three replications [27]. Samples were collected at the flowering stage (BBCH 61–65) of spring triticale (x Triticosecale Wittm.). Samples were tightly packed into plastic bags and stored in a freezer at −20° C until analyzed. Before analysis, the soil samples with roots were washed carefully with running water using 500 and 250 μm sieves. Admixtures were removed from the washed roots. The roots were dyed with Neutral Red reagent and chopped into 2 cm long pieces. The analysis (Figure 2e) of root length density, root volume, and diameter was conducted using the software WinRHIZO Pro [28].

2.4. Meteorological Conditions

Lithuania belongs to the Nemoral environmental zone. In 2019, at the experimental site (Table 3), the mean annual air temperature was 8.9 °C, the mean air temperature for the growing season was 15.1 °C, and the total annual precipitation was 530 mm (data from Dotnuva Meteorological Station, Lithuanian Hydrometeorological Service under the Ministry of Environment).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The software package SAS 7.1 was used to calculate the mean (root volume, root length density, earthworm biomass, and earthworm individual) values and standard errors. ANOVA for split-plot design was used to determine tillage and residue effects on root parameters and earthworms in different soil textures (loam and sandy loam). Mean values were compared by Fisher’s least significant-difference tests at the probability level of p < 0.05. Correlation-regression analysis was also implemented. The standard error values are presented as error bars.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Soil Texture, Tillage, and Residues on Root Length Density, Root Volume, and Root Diameter

The effects of soil texture on root length density and root diameter were statistically significant at p < 0.05 but not on root volume (p = 0.606). The effects of tillage and residues on root length density, root volume, and root diameter were not significant at p > 0.05 (Table 4).
The average root length density (33%) and root volume (8%) in sandy loam were higher than in loam, while the mean root diameter (15%) in sandy loam was lower than in loam. Root volume, averaged across soil texture and residues, tended to increase as follows: conventional tillage (0.425 cm3) < reduced tillage (0.445 cm3) < no-tillage (0.465 cm3). Root length density, averaged across soil texture and residues, tended to decrease as follows: reduced tillage (78.85 km m−3) > conventional tillage (68.05 km m−3) > no-tillage (63.25 km m−3) (Table 5, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). The average of the root volume (9.7%) and the mean root diameter (11.3%) in the field with (returned) residues were higher than in the field without (removed) residues, while the root length density (13.7%) in the field with (returned) residues was lower than in the field without (removed) residues (Table 5).
The average root length density (29.2%) and root volume (26.4%) with (returned) residues in sandy loam were lower than in the field without (removed) residues, while loam (13.3% and 42.6%, respectively) with (returned) residues was higher than in the field without (removed) residues (Table 5).
In sandy loam soil, the application of reduced tillage determined a higher spring triticale root length density average compared to conventional and no-tillage (23.9% and 30.3%, respectively). On the field with plant residues, the root length density was higher under conventional tillage, while the root length density under reduced and no-tillage was higher in the field without (removed) residues (Table 5).
In loam soil on the field with (returned) plant residues, the reduced tillage significantly increased the root length of spring triticale. Different soil tillages did not have an effect on the average root length density (Table 5).
In sandy loam soil, different soil tillage and residue management did not have an effect on root diameter (Table 5). In the loam soil, root diameter in conventional and no-tillage was higher than in reduced tillage (15.2% and 17.6%, respectively). On the field with (returned) plant residues, the root diameter was higher in all experimental soil tillage (conventional, reduced, and no-tillage) compared with the field without (removed) residues and in the no-tillage with (returned) plant residues field root diameter was significantly higher (Table 5).
In sandy loam soil, the application of reduced tillage determined a higher spring triticale root volume average compared to conventional and no-tillage (16.7% and 25.9%, respectively). On the field with (returned) plant residues and applied reduced tillage, root volume was significantly higher than without (removed) plant residues (Table 5).
In loam soil, root volume in the no-tillage was higher than in conventional and reduced tillage (24.5% and 34%, respectively). On the field with (returned) plant residues, the root volume was higher in all experimental soil tillage (conventional, reduced, and no-tillage) compared with the field without (removed) residues and in the reduced and no-tillage with (returned) plant residues field root volume was significantly higher (Table 5).

3.2. Correlation between Root Characteristics in Different Tillage Systems

The correlation matrix between root diameter, root volume, and root length density under different tillage within the 0–10 cm soil layer is presented in Table 6.
Significant correlations between the root volume and root length density were found in conventional and reduced tillage (p < 0.01) and no-tillage (p < 0.05) at the 0–10 cm soil depth (Table 6). The relationship (p < 0.05) between root volume and root diameter was registered in no-tillage but not in conventional and reduced tillage (Table 6). The negative relationship between root diameter and root length density was recorded in all tillage systems (Table 6).

3.3. Effect of Soil Texture, Tillage, and Residues on Earthworm Parameters

The effect of the soil’s texture on the biomass of earthworms was statistically significant at p < 0.05, except for the number of individual earthworms, which was not significant at p = 0.339. The effects of tillage and residues for individual earthworms and earthworm biomass were not significant at p > 0.05 (Table 7).
The average earthworm biomass (36%) and earthworm individual (16%) in loam soil was lower than in sandy loam (Table 8, Figure 6 and Figure 7). The average earthworm individuals tended to decrease as follows: no-tillage > reduced tillage > conventional tillage in loam and sandy loam (Table 8, Figure 6). The average earthworm individual (5.6%) and biomass of the earthworm (0.8%) in the field with (returned) residues were lower than in the field without (removed) residues (Table 8).
The average individual of earthworms in sandy loam (14.5%) with (returned) residues was lower than in the field without (removed) residues, while in loam (5.3%) with (returned) residues was higher than in the field without (removed) residues (Table 8, Figure 6).
Earthworm biomass, across soil texture and residues, tended to decrease as follows: reduced tillage (27.1 g m−2) > no-tillage (26.5 g m−2) > conventional tillage (20.1 g m−2) (Table 8, Figure 7).
In sandy loam soil, the application of reduced tillage determined a higher earthworm biomass average compared to conventional and no-tillage (24.9% and 23.8%, respectively). In loam soil, earthworm biomass in the no-tillage was higher than in conventional and reduced tillage (47.9% and 28.4%, respectively) (Table 8).
The average of earthworm biomass in sandy loam (9.6%) without (removed) residues was higher than in the field with (returned) residues, while in loam (12.7%) without (removed) residues was lower than in the field with (returned) residues (Table 8, Figure 7).

3.4. The Effect of Earthworm Biomass on Root Parameters

The earthworm biomass had a simple multiple regression model (y = 0.00x2 − 0.01x + 0.42; R2 = 0.54, p < 0.05) with root volume (Figure 8a) and with length root density (y = 0.14x2 − 4.81x + 97.06; R2 = 0.88, p < 0.01) under different tillage and soil texture (Figure 8b).

3.5. The Effect of Sand Content in the Soil on Root Length Density and Earthworm Biomass

The content of sand had a simple quadratic regression model (y = 1.32x2 − 128.51x + 3173.26; R2 = 0.72, p < 0.01) with root length density (Figure 9a). The sand content had a linear relationship with earthworm biomass (y = 2.82x − 119.20; R2 = 0.74, p < 0.01) under different tillage and soil texture (Figure 9b).

4. Discussion

Earthworms are part of the biosystem of the soil and influence crop yields through the interaction between earthworms, soil, and plants [1]. Plants are exposed to various environmental influences, and earthworms are one of them. Some studies [2,14] have shown that earthworms influence the increase in underground plant biomass. The burrowing activity of earthworms increases soil macropores [29], which promotes root development and aggregate stability. This is confirmed by the relationship between root parameters and very fine macropores [30]. The data reported here support the assumption that the decrease in root volume and root length density depends on land use [31,32]. The root volume and root length density in the loam were lower than in sandy loam. The results of our study show that the content of sand in the soil had a positive effect (R2 = 0.72, p < 0.01) on root length density. In sandy loam, the average values of root length density and root volume in a field with (returned) residues were lower than in a field without (removed) residues. In loam, these parameters of roots in the field with (returned) residues were higher than in the field without (removed) residues. The findings of our study show that different soil textures with different residue fields can have different effects on root parameters. The root volume tended to decrease as follows: no-tillage > reduced tillage > conventional tillage. Root length density tended to decrease as follows: reduced tillage > conventional tillage > no-tillage. Szatanik-Kloc et al. [23] wrote that soil compaction influences root parameters. Previous work [33] confirms that conventional tillage is more compact because bulk density in conventional tillage was higher than reduced tillage on Cambisol.
Our results show that the quantity of earthworms in sandy loam was higher than in loam. The mean of individual earthworms in the field with (returned) residues was higher than in the field without (removed) residues in loam. According to Jiang et al. [34], the results showed that earthworms have a positive effect on later stages of residue decomposition, which supports our results. However, in sandy loam, the average of individual earthworms in the field with (returned) residues was lower than in the field without (removed) residues. One of the factors affecting earthworms is soil structure. Soil structure parameters such as stable aggregates and porosity show differences between soil tillage and residues in loam [35]. Earthworms affect many soil properties, such as soil structure and dynamics of organic matter, and can be very sensitive to variations in texture [24]. Previous research shows that in sandy and clay soils, earthworm activity significantly decreases, which, in turn, can lead to poor effects on plant growth [17,18,19]. The results of our study show that the content of sand in the soil had a positive effect (R2 = 0.74, p < 0.01) on the content of earthworm biomass. The findings of our work suggest that earthworms tended to decrease as follows: no-tillage > reduced tillage > conventional tillage. The findings from these studies [3,8,9,20] suggest that tillage intensity hurts earthworm density. Capowiez et al. [21] found that reduced tillage compacts soil and negatively impacts earthworms. The evidence from this study suggests that the content of earthworms was one of the main factors affecting root parameters from various tillage systems. The data reported here support the assumption that earthworm biomass has a positive effect on root length density and root volume. Our results support the idea that earthworms influence plant roots, as previously demonstrated by Agapit et al. [14] on poor Cambisol with a sandy texture. Conversion from conventional tillage to reduced tillage or no-tillage can promote one of the many services provided by the soil sector, namely soil biodiversity, and therefore improve soil quality and health [24]. The amount of sand promotes the growth of roots and earthworms both together and independently of each other.
From an ecological point of view, this work will help to increase knowledge about the mechanism that explains the response of root systems to earthworms and to understand how these mechanisms are related. As our results are mainly based on correlations, the mechanisms of earthworm–root system interactions should be further explored in future investigations.

5. Conclusions

Our results show that tillage intensity has a negative effect on earthworms and root volume. The mean root volume and earthworm biomass in the conventional tillage were lower than in the reduced tillage and no-tillage. The root volume and the root diameter in the field with residues were higher than in the field without residues, while the root length density and earthworms in the field with residues were lower than in the field without residues. This study demonstrates that the mean of the root length density and biomasses of the earthworms were higher in sandy loam than in loam. Therefore, sand content had a positive effect on root length density and earthworm biomass. Earthworm biomass had a positive effect on root volume and length density. This confirms our hypothesis about the influence of earthworms on the parameters of the root system under various treatments on Cambisol. This work will help further study the mechanism that explains plant responses to earthworms and understand how these mechanisms are related to each other.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.; investigation, M.K. and V.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K., A.V. and K.S.; writing—review and editing, M.K. and V.F.; project administration, V.F.; funding acquisition, V.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partly supported by the research program “Productivity and sustainability of agricultural and forest soils” implemented by the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. This study was partly supported by the EJP SOIL project “Mechanisms underlying TRAde-offs between Carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient losses in Soils under conservation agriculture in Europe (TRACE-Soils) as part of Horizon 2020 Programme”.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lavelle, P.; Spain, A.; Blouin, M.; Brown, G.; Decaens, T.; Grimaldi, M.; Jimenez, J.J.; McKey, D.; Mathieu, J.; Velasquez, E.; et al. Ecosystem engineers in a self-organized soil: A review of concepts and future research questions. Soil Sci. 2016, 181, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Van Groenigen, J.W.; Lubbers, I.M.; Vos, H.M.J.; Brown, G.G.; Deyn, G.B.D.; van Groenigen, K.J. Earthworms increase plant production: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bertrand, M.; Barot, S.; Bloiun, M.; Whalen, J.; de Oliveira, T.; Roger-Estrade, J. Earthworm services for cropping systems. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Medina-Sauza, R.M.; Álvarez-Jiménez, M.; Delhal, A.; Reverchon, F.; Blouin, M.; Guerrero-Analco, J.A.; Cerdán, C.R.; Guevara, R.; Villain, L.; Barois, I. Earthworms Building up Soil Microbiota, a Review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sizmur, T.; Hodson, M.E. Do earthworms impact metal mobility and availability in soil?—A review. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 1981–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Briones, M.J.I.; Bol, R. Natural abundance of 13C and 15N in earthworms from different cropping treatments: The 7th international symposium on earthworm ecology · Cardiff Wales 2002. Pedobiologia 2003, 47, 560–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Birkas, M.; Jolánkai, M.; Gyuricza, C.; Percze, A. Tillage effects on compaction, earthworms and other soil quality indicators in Hungary. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 78, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rosas-Medina, M.; Macia-Vicente, J.; Piepenbring, M. Diversity of Fungi in Soils with Different Degrees of Degradation in Germany and Panama. Mycobiology 2019, 48, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Briones, M.J.I.; Schmidt, O. Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 4396–4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chan, K.Y. An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity-implications for functioning in soils. Soil Till. Res. 2001, 57, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blouin, M.; Hodson, M.E.; Delgado, E.A.; Baker, G.; Brussaard, L.; Butt, K.R.; Dai, J.; Dendooven, L.; Peres, G.; Tondoh, J.E.; et al. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2013, 64, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vian, J.F.; Peigne, J.; Chaussod, R.; Roger-Estrade, J. Effects of four tillage systems on soil structure and soil microbial biomass in organic farming. Soil Use Manag. 2009, 25, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Decaëns, T.; Margerie, P.; Aubert, M.; Hedde, M.; Bureau, F. Assembly rules within earthworm communities in North-Western France—A regional analysis. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 39, 321–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Agapit, C.; Gigon, A.; Blouin, M. Earthworm effect on root morphology in a split root system. Plant Biosyst. 2017, 152, 780–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Springett, J.; Gray, R. The interaction between plant roots and earthworm burrows in pasture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1997, 29, 621–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Batey, T.; McKenzie, D.C. Soil compaction: Identification directly in the field. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 22, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Laossi, K.R.; Decaëns, T.; Jouquet, P.; Barot, S. Can we predict how earthworm effects on plant growth vary with soil properties? Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2010, 2010, 784342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Laossi, K.R.; Ginot, A.; Noguera, D.C.; Blouin, M.; Barot, S. Earthworm effects on plant growth do not necessarily decrease with soil fertility. Plant Soil 2010, 328, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hullot, O.; Lamy, I.; Tiziani, R.; Mimmo, T.; Ciadamidaro, L. The effect of earthworms on plant response in metal contaminated soil focusing on belowground-aboveground relationships. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 274, 116499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jana, U.; Barot, S.; Blouin, M.; Lavelle, P.; Laffray, D.; Repellin, A. Earthworms influence the production of above- and belowground biomass and the expression of genes involved in cell proliferation and stress responses in Arabidopsis thaliana. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Capowiez, Y.; Samartino, S.; Stéphane, C.; Bouchant, P.; Richard, G.; Boizard, H. Role of earthworms in regenerating soil structure after compaction in reduced tillage systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 55, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Castellanos Suarez, D.E.; Gigon, A.; Puga-Freitas, R.; Lavelle, P.; Velasquez, E.; Blouin, M. Combined effects of earthworms and IAA-producing rhizobacteria on plant growth and development. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014, 80, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Szatanik-Kloc, A.; Horn, R.; Lipiec, J.; Siczek, A.; Szerement, J. Soil compaction-induced changes of physicochemical properties of cereal roots. Soil Till. Res. 2018, 175, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Coulibaly, S.F.M.; Aubert, M.; Brunet, N.; Bureau, F.; Legras, M.; Chauvat, M. Short-term dynamic responses of soil properties and soil fauna under contrasting tillage systems. Soil Till. Res. 2022, 215, 105191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aixia, R.; Weifeng, Z.; Anwar, S.; Wen, L.; Pengcheng, D.; Ruixuan, H.; Peiru, W.; Rong, Z.; Jin, T.; Zhiqiang, G.; et al. Effects of tillage and seasonal variation of rainfall on soil water content and root growth distribution of winter wheat under rainfed conditions of the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 268, 107533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS): Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lapinskienė, N. Ecomorphological, Quantitative and Phytocoenotic Evaluation of the Underground Organs of Grasses of the Lithuanian Agrolandscape Ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Botany of Nature Research Centre, Vilnius, Lithuania, 1993; 45p. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bouma, T.J.; Nielsen, K.L.; Koutstaal, B.A.S. Sample preparation and scanning protocol for computerized analysis of root length and diameter. Plant Soil 2000, 218, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ma, L.; Shao, M.; Fan, J.; Wang, J.; Li, Y. Effects of earthworm (Metaphire guillelmi) density on soil macropore and soil water content in typical Anthrosol soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 311, 107338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kochiieru, M.; Lamorski, K.; Feiza, V.; Feiziene, D.; Volungevicius, J. Quantification of the relationship between root parameters and soil macropore parameters under different land use systems in Retisol. Int. Agrophys. 2020, 34, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ning, S.; Shi, J.; Zuo, Q.; Wang, S.; Ben-Gal, A. Generalization of the root length density distribution of cotton under film mulched drip irrigation. Field Crops Res. 2015, 177, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kochiieru, M.; Feiza, V.; Feizienė, D.; Volungevičius, J.; Deveikytė, I.; Seibutis, V.; Pranaitienė, S. The effect of environmental factors and root system on CO2 efflux in different types of soil and land uses. Zemdirb.-Agric. 2021, 108, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kochiieru, M.; Feiziene, D.; Feiza, V.; Volungevicius, J.; Velykis, A.; Slepetiene, A.; Deveikyte, I.; Seibutis, V. Freezing-thawing impact on aggregate stability as affected by land management, soil genesis and soil chemical and physical quality. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 203, 104705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jiang, Y.; Wang, J.; Muhammad, S.; Zhou, A.; Hao, R.; Wu, Y. How do earthworms affect decomposition of residues with different quality apart from fragmentation and incorporation? Geoderma 2018, 326, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kochiieru, M.; Feiza, V.; Feiziene, D.; Lamorski, K.; Deveikyte, I.; Seibutis, V.; Pranaitiene, S. Long-term contrasting tillage in Cambisol: Effect on water-stable aggregates, macropore network and soil chemical properties. Int. Agrophys. 2022, 37, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 01536 g001
Figure 1. The treatments in long-term field experiments in different soil textures (since 1999 in sandy loam and since 2004 in loam). Numbers in the left corner indicate field replicates.
Figure 1. The treatments in long-term field experiments in different soil textures (since 1999 in sandy loam and since 2004 in loam). Numbers in the left corner indicate field replicates.
Agronomy 14 01536 g001
Agronomy 14 01536 g002
Figure 2. The sampling procedure ((a)—long-term field experiment site (A); (b)—taking samples for determination of the earthworms; (c)—measurement of the earthworms; (d)—taking soil samples for determination of the root parameters; (e)—measurement of the root system).
Figure 2. The sampling procedure ((a)—long-term field experiment site (A); (b)—taking samples for determination of the earthworms; (c)—measurement of the earthworms; (d)—taking soil samples for determination of the root parameters; (e)—measurement of the root system).
Agronomy 14 01536 g002
Agronomy 14 01536 g003
Figure 3. Mean root length density under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Figure 3. Mean root length density under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Agronomy 14 01536 g003
Agronomy 14 01536 g004
Figure 4. Mean root diameter under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Figure 4. Mean root diameter under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Agronomy 14 01536 g004
Agronomy 14 01536 g005
Figure 5. Mean root volume under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Figure 5. Mean root volume under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Agronomy 14 01536 g005
Agronomy 14 01536 g006
Figure 6. Mean earthworm density under the different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Figure 6. Mean earthworm density under the different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Agronomy 14 01536 g006
Agronomy 14 01536 g007
Figure 7. Mean earthworm biomass under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Figure 7. Mean earthworm biomass under different tillage and soil texture. Bars are standard errors.
Agronomy 14 01536 g007
Agronomy 14 01536 g008
Figure 8. The effect of the earthworm biomass on root volume (a) and root length density (b) under different tillage and soil texture.
Figure 8. The effect of the earthworm biomass on root volume (a) and root length density (b) under different tillage and soil texture.
Agronomy 14 01536 g008
Agronomy 14 01536 g009
Figure 9. The effect of the sand content on root length density (a) and earthworm biomass (b) under different tillage and soil texture.
Figure 9. The effect of the sand content on root length density (a) and earthworm biomass (b) under different tillage and soil texture.
Agronomy 14 01536 g009
Table 1. Soil texture composition (±standard error) at the study site (n = 4).
Table 1. Soil texture composition (±standard error) at the study site (n = 4).
FieldTillageSoil Texture Composition (%)Texture
Sand
>0.050 mm		Silt
0.002–0.050 mm		Clay
<0.002 mm
Sandy loamConventional tillage52.1 ± 1.531.4 ± 2.816.5 ± 1.3Sandy loam
Reduced tillage53.5 ± 0.132.7 ± 0.513.8 ± 0.5Sandy loam
No-tillage53.4 ± 1.133.7 ± 1.712.9 ± 0.7Sandy loam
LoamConventional tillage48.7 ± 1.036.7 ± 1.914.6 ± 1.3Loam
Reduced tillage48.2 ± 0.536.0 ± 0.715.8 ± 0.7Loam
No-tillage49.8 ± 0.536.5 ± 1.113.7 ± 1.1Loam
Table 2. Soil tillage systems at the long-term field experiment.
Table 2. Soil tillage systems at the long-term field experiment.
Tillage
TreatmentPrimary TillagePresowing Tillage
No-tillageGlyphosate (3 L ha−1)Direct drilling
Reduced tillageStubble cultivation (10–12 cm) + glyphosate (3 L ha−1)Direct drilling
Conventional tillageStubble cultivation (10–12 cm) + plowing (23–25 cm)Direct drilling
Table 3. Weather conditions for 2019 (the data from Dotnuva Meteorological Station).
Table 3. Weather conditions for 2019 (the data from Dotnuva Meteorological Station).
2019Mean Air Temperature
(°C)		Total Monthly Precipitation (mm)
January−4.448.8
February1.239.2
March3.337.8
April8.90.0
May12.955.4
June20.616.1
July17.366.0
August18.2107.0
September12.848.5
October9.234.9
November4.929.5
December2.445.3
Table 4. Results of ANOVA for root length density, root volume, and root diameter in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Table 4. Results of ANOVA for root length density, root volume, and root diameter in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Source
of Variation		DfRoot Length DensityRoot VolumeRoot Diameter
FPr > FFPr > FFPr > F
Texture16.570.0150.270.6065.940.020
Tillage20.630.5410.100.9021.200.313
Residues10.800.3770.350.5583.030.091
Table 5. Mean ± standard error of root length density, root volume, and root diameter in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Table 5. Mean ± standard error of root length density, root volume, and root diameter in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Tillage
(Factor A)		Residues
(Factor B)		Root Length Density (km m−3)Root Volume (cm3)Root Diameter (mm)
LoamSandy LoamLoamSandy LoamLoamSandy Loam
CT 58.3 a ± 13.777.8 a ± 12.50.40 a ± 0.030.45 a ± 0.050.33 a ± 0.050.28 a ± 0.01
RT 55.4 a ± 8.3102.3 a ± 18.30.35 a ± 0.060.54 a ± 0.100.28 a ± 0.010.26 a ± 0.01
NT 55.2 a ± 7.471.3 a ± 16.10.53 a ± 0.130.40 a ± 0.080.34 a ± 0.030.27 a ± 0.01
Removed52.3 a ± 8.198.1 a ± 14.30.31 b ± 0.040.53 a ± 0.070.28 a ± 0.010.27 a ± 0.01
Returned60.3 a ± 7.869.5 a ± 10.20.54 a ± 0.080.39 a ± 0.050.35 a ± 0.030.27 a ± 0.01
Actions and interactions:
AF0.031.071.110.911.000.51
Pr > F0.9710.3690.3550.4230.3890.613
BF0.502.676.523.064.220.01
Pr > F0.4910.1220.0210.1000.0570.970
A × BF0.552.453.211.781.611.15
Pr > F0.7380.0940.0450.1910.2310.385
Factor data followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Table 6. Correlation matrix among the root parameters at the 0–10 cm soil depth under different tillage (averaged for soil texture and plant residues).
Table 6. Correlation matrix among the root parameters at the 0–10 cm soil depth under different tillage (averaged for soil texture and plant residues).
TillageRoot ParametersRangeCorrelation Matrix
FromToRoot VolumeRoot Length Density
Conventional tillageRoot diameter (mm)0.240.56−0.23−0.73 *
Root volume (cm3)0.270.561.000.77 **
Root length density (km m−3)15.5121.6 1.00
Reduced tillageRoot diameter (mm)0.240.30−0.08−0.32
Root volume (cm3)0.170.841.000.97 **
Root length density (km m−3)25.8154.7 1.00
No-tillageRoot diameter (mm)0.230.470.71 *−0.26
Root volume (cm3)0.221.151.000.48 *
Root length density (km m−3)29.7125.1 1.00
*, **—the least significant difference at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.
Table 7. Results of ANOVA in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Table 7. Results of ANOVA in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Source
of Variation		DfEarthworm (Individuals m−2)Earthworm Biomass (g m−2)
FPr > FFPr > F
Texture10.940.3395.630.023
Tillage21.740.1920.850.438
Residues10.110.7420.010.968
Table 8. Mean ± standard error of earthworm individuals and biomass in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Table 8. Mean ± standard error of earthworm individuals and biomass in relation to different soil texture, tillage, and residues.
Tillage
(Factor A)		Residues
(Factor B)		Earthworm (Individuals m−2)Earthworm Biomass (g m−2)
LoamSandy LoamLoamSandy Loam
Conventional tillage 43.3 a ± 9.364.7 a ± 12.713.4 a ± 3.126.8 a ± 6.1
Reduced tillage 49.3 a ± 9.566.0 a ± 10.518.4 a ± 3.935.7 a ± 7.5
No-tillage 80.0 a ± 22.174.7 a ± 13.725.7 a ± 6.827.2 a ± 4.5
Removed56.0 a ± 16.873.8 a ± 11.217.8 a ± 5.231.4 a ± 5.9
Returned59.1 a ± 7.663.1 a ± 8.020.4 a ± 2.828.4 a ± 4.0
Actions and interactions:
AF1.750.191.610.67
Pr > F0.2070.8270.2320.527
BF0.030.600.190.18
Pr > F0.8680.4490.6680.679
A × BF1.060.810.940.54
Pr > F0.4300.5630.4870.745
Earthworm parameters followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kochiieru, M.; Veršulienė, A.; Shatkovska, K.; Feiza, V.; Seibutis, V. Mechanism of Interaction between Earthworms and Root Parameters on Cambisol. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071536

AMA Style

Kochiieru M, Veršulienė A, Shatkovska K, Feiza V, Seibutis V. Mechanism of Interaction between Earthworms and Root Parameters on Cambisol. Agronomy. 2024; 14(7):1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071536

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kochiieru, Mykola, Agnė Veršulienė, Kateryna Shatkovska, Virginijus Feiza, and Vytautas Seibutis. 2024. "Mechanism of Interaction between Earthworms and Root Parameters on Cambisol" Agronomy 14, no. 7: 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071536

APA Style

Kochiieru, M., Veršulienė, A., Shatkovska, K., Feiza, V., & Seibutis, V. (2024). Mechanism of Interaction between Earthworms and Root Parameters on Cambisol. Agronomy, 14(7), 1536. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071536

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop