Next Article in Journal
Trifluralin and Atrazine Sensitivity to Selected Cereal and Legume Crops
Next Article in Special Issue
Response of the Arthropod Community to Soil Characteristics and Management in the Franciacorta Viticultural Area (Lombardy, Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
Accelerating Genetic Gain in Sugarcane Breeding Using Genomic Selection
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Cover Crops on the Biodiversity and Abundance of Ground-Dwelling Arthropods in a Mediterranean Pear Orchard
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy10040586
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Do Long-Term Continuous Cropping and Pesticides Affect Earthworm Communities?

by
Kinga Treder
*,
Magdalena Jastrzębska
,
Marta Katarzyna Kostrzewska
and
Przemysław Makowski
Department of Agroecosystems, Faculty of Environmental Management and Agriculture, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(4), 586; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040586
Submission received: 4 March 2020 / Revised: 15 April 2020 / Accepted: 16 April 2020 / Published: 20 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Agricultural Practices on Biodiversity of Soil Invertebrates)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Earthworm species composition, the density of individuals, and their biomass were investigated in spring barley and faba bean fields in a long-term (52-year) experiment conducted at the Production and Experimental Station in Bałcyny, in north-eastern Poland (53°40′ N; 19°50′ E). Additionally, post-harvest residues biomass, soil organic matter (SOM), and soil pH were recorded. The above traits were investigated using two experimental factors: I. cropping system—continuous cropping (CC) vs. crop rotation (CR) and II. pesticide plant protection: herbicide + fungicide (HF+) vs. no plant protection (HF−). A total of three species of Lumbricidae were found: Aporrectodea caliginosa (Sav.) in both crops, Aporrectodea rosea (Sav.) in spring barley, and Lumbricus terrestris (L.) in faba bean. The density and biomass of earthworms were unaffected by experimental treatments in spring barley fields, whereas in faba bean CC increased and HF+ decreased earthworm density and biomass in comparison with CR and HF− respectively. Total post-harvest residues in faba bean fields were higher under CC in relation to CR and under HF+ compared with HF− treatment in both crops. Compared to CR, CC increased soil pH in spring barley fields and decreased in faba bean fields. Experimental factors did not affect SOM. Earthworm density and biomass were positively correlated with SOM content.

1. Introduction

Earthworms are strategic invertebrates in agroecosystems. The drillosphere, composed of horizontal and vertical burrows and casts created by earthworms, significantly affects soil structure and enhances gas exchange, water infiltration, and root penetration across the soil profile [1,2,3,4]. Earthworms improve the content of soil organic matter, contribute to humus formation processes and form a mull soil by burrowing large quantities of surface organic matter to belowground and relocating soil from depths to the top by casting. These invertebrates have an impact on the structure, concentration, and activity of soil microbial communities involved in organic matter decomposition and mineralization [5,6]. Earthworms casts are characterized by higher pH, C, Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+ contents than surrounding soil aggregates and incorporate nutrients available for plants [7,8]. The N mineral availability increases with earthworm abundance [9,10]. Earthworms, through their interaction with microorganisms, are essential factors influencing soil organic carbon and its dynamics [10,11]. In the presence of earthworms, greater production of plant growth regulators was observed [12,13]. The non-negligible role of earthworms on improving plant tolerance to parasitic nematodes and a reduction in the severity of take-all disease was also reported [14,15,16]. The above-mentioned benefits of earthworm activity contribute to plant growth and production as seen by aboveground biomass and crop yield increases [17,18,19].
Density, diversity, structure, and activity of earthworm populations in agroecosystems are dependent on agricultural management [20]. Intensification of agricultural practices based on multiple tillage treatments, simple crop sequence, minor organic fertilization, and chemical methods of plant protection have a negative effect on earthworm populations. Long-term, intensive, and deep tillage can decline earthworm (mainly anecic) abundance [21,22,23,24] whereas shallow plowing with residue mixing and conservation cultivation techniques can increase their number [25,26,27]. Organic fertilizers such as manure, crop residues, and mulch are the source of food supply for soil biota and have a positive impact on their populations [28,29]. The conclusion from the literature on the effect of pesticides on earthworm populations is still ambiguous. The effect of pesticides on soil organisms is closely related to their active substances and doses. Some of them, especially fungicides and insecticides, are toxic or lethal to earthworms and cause a decrease in cocoon production and density of juveniles, a delay in growth and a mortality increase [3,30,31,32]. Herbicides were also found to have an adverse impact on earthworms by causing histological changes in their body tissues and increasing mortality [33,34,35,36,37]. However, earthworms can develop adaptation mechanisms against the toxic effect of pesticides [38,39].
The importance of earthworms in agroecosystems is well-recognized, but the long-term effects of continuous cropping and pesticide use on earthworm populations are much less documented. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the above-mentioned factors on species composition, density, and biomass of earthworms, post-harvest residue biomass, soil organic matter, and soil pH. The alternative hypothesis assumed that long-term continuous cropping and chemical plant protection have an impact on earthworm communities was tested against the null hypothesis that the above factors do not affect the analyzed parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design and Crop Management

The field experiment was initiated in autumn 1967 in the Production and Experimental Station in Bałcyny in north-eastern Poland (53°40′ N; 19°50′ E). During the first five years, nine crops were sown in a continuous cropping system (growing of the same crop on the same field each year). In 1972, two crop rotations were included to analyze continuous cropping impact. Crop rotation varied throughout the experiment. Currently, twelve crops in continuous cropping and in two crop rotations (growing different crops one after the other on the same field) are being sown. The crop rotations are A. sugar beet, maize, spring barley, peas, winter rape, and winter wheat; B. potato, oats, fiber flax, winter rye, faba bean, and winter triticale.
Fertilization in the first sixteen years was the only mineral. Since 1983 farmyard manure was included in doses: 30 t ha−1 on potato/sugar beet field and 15 t ha−1 every three years in a continuous cropping system. Mineral fertilizers are applied in terms and doses respective to each crop’s needs.
In one part of every crop field, no pesticides have been ever applied, which provides a unique chance to study no plant protection effect after 52-years of a continuous cropping and crop rotation system. To have a comparison for these results on the other parts of each crop field, herbicides (since 1972 till now) and fungicides (since 1983 till now) have been included. Throughout the experiment, the use of pesticides has been updated according to The Institute of Plant Protection National Research Institute recommendations.
The results presented in this paper were based on two crops differing in their biology and agricultural importance: spring barley (cultivar Radek) and faba bean (cultivar Amigo). Spring barley is grass with a short root system and short vegetation period whereas faba bean has a deep, well-developed root system with nitrogen-fixing nodules. Faba bean, by nitrogen fixation and high mass of residues, increases soil biological activity, organic matter content, porosity and soil moisture, which has an impact on earthworm communities [40].
Basic agricultural data for spring barley and faba bean in 2019 are presented in Table 1.
Two experimental factors were investigated, each with two levels: I. cropping system: continuous cropping (CC) vs. crop rotation (CR), II. plant protection: herbicide + fungicide (HF+) vs. no plant protection (HF−). In both spring barley and faba bean, particular experimental treatments (CC-HF+, CC-HF–, CR-HF+, CR-HF−) were performed in 3 replications (i.e., plots). From each plot 3 samples were taken. That brought the total to 9 samples for each treatment. Each plot size was 27 m2.

2.2. Soil Characteristics

The experiment was established on Luvisol medium soil, derived from light loam lying on loamy sand. At the beginning of the lasting rotation (2016) soil contained an average (mg kg−1) of available forms of phosphorous—289.3, potassium—258.5, magnesium—55.0, total nitrogen—800 with 1.1% Corg, and pH—5.7.

2.3. Meteorological Data

The climate in this region is temperate humid, with annual total precipitation around 587.5 mm and a mean annual air temperature of 7.9 °C (data for the years 1981–2015). Weather conditions of the July–September 2019 period are presented in Figure 1. High air temperature in combination with small rainfall before sampling in August could have reduced earthworm activity and biomass. In September, the rainfall and temperature were more favorable for earthworms [41].

2.4. Sampling

2.4.1. Post-Harvest Residue Sampling and Preparation

Just after harvest, the post-harvest residues (crop and weed bottom stalks with roots) were removed from a surface area of 0.40 m2 and a depth of 0.30 m in three replications from each plot. Residues were transported to the laboratory in plastic bags. Crop and weed residues were separated, washed under tap water and air-dried for several days. Crop residues were split into shoots and roots. The dry mass of post-harvest residues was weighed.

2.4.2. Soil Sampling and Preparation

Three soil samples from each plot were selected on the days of earthworm collection. Soil samples were taken in three replications from each plot from a 0–30 cm depth with a hand-held twisting probe (Egner’s soil sampler) and returned in plastic bags to the laboratory. Stones and plant residues were removed from the soil. Soil samples were air-dried in plastic trays and then passed through a 2 mm sieve to prepare homogenous samples.

Soil Organic Matter Analysis

The soil organic matter (SOM) was determined using the loss-on-ignition method [42]. Soil samples (each of mass 10 g) were oven-dried in crucibles at 105 °C for 2 h to remove hygroscopic water and then cooled and weighed. Afterward, soil samples were heated at 360 °C for 2 h and cooled and weighed. SOM (%) was calculated as the mass lost during combustion:
SOM = [(soil weight 105 °C − soil weight 360 °C)/soil weight 105 °C] × 100

Soil pH Determination

Soil pH was determined using the potentiometric method after water extraction (pH (H2O)). In glass beakers, 10 g of the air-dried and sieved soil samples were mixed with 25 mL of distilled water and shaken. After two hours of equilibration, electrical conductance was measured in soil-water suspension for 10 min using a Hanna HI 221 (Hanna Instruments) pH meter.

2.4.3. Earthworm Sampling and Identification

On 12 plots of each crop, three soil samples (25 cm × 25 cm × 40 cm depth) were sampled after each crop harvest: spring barley—1.08.2019 and faba bean—26.09.2019. Earthworms were selected from soil blocks by the hand-sorting method. In the laboratory, earthworms were rinsed, dried, weighed (data refers to live biomass), narcotized in 35% ethyl alcohol and preserved in 4% formalin and 75% ethyl alcohol. Clitelated individuals were classified into species level, and juveniles were classified into species or genera level by external morphology using keys [41].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed statistically by a two-factorial analysis of variance ANOVA in the STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 12, StatSoft. Homogeneous groups were estimated by Duncan’s test at a p < 0.05. The Shapiro–Wilk W-test was used for testing the normality of variable distribution and Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance. The correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the strength and direction of the relationship between the variables. The coefficients were determined based on the data from all treatments, separately for spring barley and faba bean.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Post-Harvest Residues

In spring barley fields, the cropping system did not affect the dry mass of post-harvest residue (Table 2). However, CC related to CR increased faba bean mass of shoots, weeds and total residues. Positive influence of CC on faba bean shoots residues biomass was an unexpected result because growing faba bean in the same field year after year leads to the accumulation of autotoxic compounds (mainly phenolic acids) in the soil that inhibits plants growth [43]. In previous studies based on this experiment, Rychcik and Zawiślak [44] reported lower faba density under CC than CR treatment. Though, the lower density of plants may result in their higher biomass. This effect was reported by Kotecki in the experiment with faba bean, were biomass of one plant increased with density decrease [45]. Post-harvest biomass of weeds is the aftereffect of weeds density. The current consensus is that crop rotation, in contrast to continuous cropping, decreases weeds density, which was confirmed by Rychcik in faba bean fields [46].
HF+ compared to HF− treatment resulted in higher production of residues in both crops: in spring barley—shoots, in faba bean—shoots and roots. Furthermore, the biomass of weeds residues was significantly higher in HF− cereal and legume fields in relation to HF+. The presented results are obvious, considering the effects of herbicide use, which was in line with previous studies [46].
In spring barley fields, CC-HF+ increased the total residue biomass in comparison to CC-HF−, while there was no difference between CR-HF+ and CR-HF−. CR-HF− resulted in less spring barley shoots mass production related to CC-HF+ but it was higher than under CC-HF−. The biomass of weed residues under CC-HF− and CR-HF− was higher than in CR-HF+. The achieved results are in agreement with a previous study concerning weed infestation of spring barley in this experiment [47].
Similar results were noted in faba bean fields. The total residue biomass in CC-HF− and CR-HF+ was significantly lower than in CC-HF+ and higher in relation to CR-HF− interaction.
Moreover, HF+ in relation to HF− increased the biomass of faba bean shoots residues in CR, but not as strong as with CC. In relation to other treatments, CC-HF−increased the mass of weed residues. The biomass of faba bean roots was unaffected by treatment interactions.

3.2. Soil Organic Matter Content

Experimental factors and their interactions did not affect the SOM in spring barley and faba bean fields (Table 3). These results are in line with the previous study based on this experiment where the Corg content in spring barley was comparable to faba bean fields in both cropping systems [48]. The same amounts of manure during every six-year-lasting rotation were applied in all treatments, so this may be the major cause of undifferentiated SOM levels. In contrast to the presented results, some authors [49,50,51] assert that crop rotation, especially with legumes, gives preferential conditions for soil C increase.

3.3. Soil pH

In comparison with CR, CC increased soil pH in spring barley (Table 4). Hickman [52] reported lower pH in maize continuous cropping than in maize—wheat and maize—soybean rotations and soybean continuous cropping. The author suggested that these results may be explained by the long-term use of anhydrous ammonia in maize crops fields. HF+ lowered soil pH in relation to HF−. Spring barley under HF+ achieved higher yields than HF− (data not published). With higher yields, larger amounts of macroelements were removed from the soil. In spring barley fields, the interaction between cropping system and plant protection was proved. Under CR-HF+ treatment lower soil pH than under CR-HF− was noted, while there was no difference in soil pH under CC-HF− and CC-HF+. In faba bean fields, the values of soil pH were lower in CC than in CR. Dinitrogen-fixing legumes, including faba bean, are considered to generate soil acidification by releasing H+ to rhizosphere [53,54,55]. Lee [56] reported that continuous legume cultivation increased soil acidity. Comparably, Williams [57] noted soil pH decrease in a long-term experiment with clover pastures.
HF+ caused pH decrease only in spring barley fields. Spring barley under HF+ produced higher yields than under HF− (own data not published). Thus with higher yields, larger amounts of macroelements were removed from the soil.
In faba bean fields, no interaction of cropping system and plant protection on soil pH was revealed.

3.4. Earthworm Species Richness and Structure

In the experimental fields, only three species of Lumbricidae were found: Aporrectodea caliginosa (Sav.), Aporrectodea rosea (Sav.), and Lumbricus terrestris (L.) (Figure 2). The same species composition was reported by Valchovski [58] in cultivated and non-cultivated Vertic Luvisol. The species richness of earthworms in agroecosystems is usually lower than in natural ecosystems and depends mainly on soil type, soil humidity, organic matter content, cultivation treatments, and crop type [59,60,61]. In both crops, the most numerous species was Aporrectodea caliginosa (Sav.), which occurs commonly in arable lands in all temperate zones [62,63,64]. This endogenic earthworm can adapt to unfavorable environmental conditions like low soil moisture, low organic matter content, or tillage practices [22,65,66,67]. Although Aporrectodea rosea (Sav.) is very common in agroecosystems in different crops as well as in pastures [20,62,68], in the current study it was recorded only in spring barley fields under CR-HF+ and CC-HF− treatments. It is worth noting that Lumbricus terrestris (L.) was found only in CR-HF+ and CC-HF+ faba bean fields. Edwards [62] suggests that one of the limiting factors for Lumbricus terrestris (L.) abundance is soil organic matter. Faba bean plants have a well-developed, extensive fibrous root system, which gives preferential treatment to anecic earthworms.
In both crops, the majority of the earthworms found were juveniles representing the genera Aporrectodea.

3.5. Earthworm Density and Biomass

The density of individuals and biomass of collected earthworms was lower than reported in other works [64,69,70], but comparable with results achieved in other researchers conducted in The Experimental Station in Bałcyny [71,72,73,74]. Experimental treatments did not affect the density or biomass of earthworms in spring barley fields (Table 5). Spring crops do not create favorable environmental conditions for earthworm abundance because of low organic matter input and agrotechnical works on fields in early spring when the activity of earthworm communities increases.
In faba bean fields, both experimental treatments affected earthworm abundance. In comparison with CR, CC increased the density of individuals and biomass of earthworms. The reason for this could be the higher mass of post-harvest residues. In a study by Edwards [62], the abundance of earthworms was two times higher in fields with continuous wheat (for 136 years) than with wheat—root crops. The negative influence of HF+ on the earthworm population in relation to HF− on faba bean fields was apparent in the decrease in individual density and their biomass. Many authors reported a reduction in growth, biomass loss, decreased cocoon production or higher mortality after pesticide application [75,76,77,78,79]. Biomass reduction may be an effect of reduced food intake as a strategy to avoid contamination. Nonetheless, the response to agrochemicals differs depending on earthworm species, the concentration of toxic substances, environmental conditions (soil type, temperature, humidity, organic matter content, etc.) and the duration of exposure [77,80,81]. CC-HF− treatment had a positive influence on earthworm density and biomass in relation to other experimental treatments.

3.6. Relationship Between Earthworm Abundance and Post-Harvest Residues, SOM, and Soil pH

In spring barley fields, no relationship between earthworm abundance and post-harvest residues, SOM or soil pH was observed (Table 6). A strong positive association of SOM and earthworm abundance was noted in faba bean fields This suggests that organic matter left in the field by a legume, characterized by high protein content may be beneficial for earthworm populations. The above is in the line with Kladivko [82], where a higher density of earthworms in continuous soybean than in continuous corn was reported. The association between soil organic matter content and the presence of the earthworms was also observed in other findings [83,84]. Soil pH and dry mass of post-harvest residues were not significantly correlated with earthworm density or biomass.

4. Conclusions

In the current study post-harvest residues were unaffected by cropping system, but HF+ compared to HF− increased spring barely shoots residues and total post-harvest biomass and decreased weed post-harvest biomass. Experimental factors did not differentiate SOM in spring barley fields. CC, in relation to CR, increased soil pH whereas HF+ decreased it in comparison with HF−. In spring barley fields, two earthworm species were found: Aporrectodea caliginosa (Sav.) and Aporrectodea rosea (Sav.). CC and HF+ did not affect earthworm density or biomass in relation to CR and HF−. No correlation between earthworm abundance and post-harvest residues, SOM, or soil pH was noted.
In faba bean fields above-ground post-harvest residue biomass was increased by CC in relation to CR. In turn, HF+ compared with HF− increased total and faba bean shoots and roots post-harvest biomass but decreased weeds post-harvest biomass. In faba bean fields, SOM stayed at the same level regardless of experimental factors. Lower pH values were noted under CC than CR treatment, whereas HF+ did not affect it. Aporrectodea caliginosa (Sav.) and Lumbricus terrestris (L.) were recorded in faba bean fields. CC increased earthworm density and biomass in comparison with CR whereas HF+ decreased these features in relation to HF−. Positive correlations between earthworm density and biomass and SOM content were noted in faba bean fields.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.T., M.J., and M.K.K.; methodology, K.T., M.J., and M.K.K.; validation, M.K.K. and P.M.; investigation, K.T. and P.M.; formal analysis, K.T., M.J., and P.M.; data curation, K.T. and P.M.; visualization, K.T., M.J., and M.K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.T.; writing—review and editing, M.J. and M.K.K.; funding acquisition, K.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Minister of Science and Higher Education within the framework of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, Project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding 12.000.000 PLN.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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]
  2. Bottinelli, N.; Henry-des-Tureaux, T.; Hallaire, V.; Mathieu, J.; Benard, Y.; Duc Tran, T.; Jouquet, P. Earthworms accelerate soil porosity turnover under watering conditions. Geoderma 2010, 156, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pelosi, C.; Barot, S.; Capowiez, Y.; Hedde, M.; Vandenbulcke, F. Pesticides and earthworms. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 199–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Jouquet, P.; Podwojewski, P.; Bottinelli, N.; Mathieu, J.; Ricoy, M.; Orange, D.; Tran, T.D.; Valentin, C. Above-ground earthworm casts affect water runoff and soil erosion in Northern Vietnam. Catena 2008, 74, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Winding, A.; Rønn, R.; Hendriksen, N.B. Bacteria and protozoa in soil microhabitats as affected by earthworms. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1997, 24, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Scheu, S.; Schlitt, N.; Tiunov, A.V.; Newington, J.E.; Jones, T.H. Effects of the presence and community composition of earthworms on microbial community functioning. Oecologia 2002, 133, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jouquet, P.; Bottinelli, N.; Podwojewski, P.; Hallaire, V.; Tran Duc, T. Chemical and physical properties of earthworm casts as compared to bulk soil under a range of different land-use systems in Vietnam. Geoderma 2008, 146, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vos, H.M.J.; Koopmans, G.F.; Beezemer, L.; de Goede, R.G.M.; Hiemstra, T.; van Groenigen, J.W. Large variations in readily-available phosphorus in casts of eight earthworm species are linked to cast properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 138, 107583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Eriksen-Hamel, N.S.; Whalen, J.K. Impacts of earthworms on soil nutrients and plant growth in soybean and maize agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 120, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fonte, S.J.; Kong, A.Y.Y.; van Kessel, C.; Hendrix, P.F.; Six, J. Influence of earthworm activity on aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen dynamics differs with agroecosystem management. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sruthi, S.N.; Ramasamy, E.V. Enrichment of soil organic carbon by native earthworms in a patch of tropical soil, Kerala, India: First report. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Krishnamoorthy, R.V.; Vajranabhaiah, S.N. Biological activity of earthworm casts: An assessment of plant growth promotor levels in the casts. Proc. Anim. Sci. 1986, 95, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Muscolo, A.; Bovalo, F.; Gionfriddo, F.; Nardi, S. Earthworm humic matter produces auxin-like effects on Daucus carota cell growth and nitrate metabolism. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1999, 31, 1303–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Blouin, M.; Zuily-Fodil, Y.; Pham-Thi, A.T.; Laffray, D.; Reversat, G.; Pando, A.; Tondoh, J.; Lavelle, P. Belowground organism activities affect plant aboveground phenotype, inducing plant tolerance to parasites. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boyer, J.; Reversat, G.; Lavelle, P.; Chabanne, A. Interactions between earthworms and plant-parasitic nematodes. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2013, 59, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stephens, P.M.; Davoren, C.W.; Doube, B.M.; Ryder, M.H. Ability of the lumbricid earthworms Aporrectodea rosea and Aporrectodea trapezoides to reduce the severity of take-all under greenhouse and field conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Groenigen, J.W.; Lubbers, I.M.; Vos, H.M.J.; Brown, G.G.; De Deyn, G.B.; Van Groenigen, K.J. Earthworms increase plant production: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Scheu, S. Effects of earthworms on plant growth: Patterns and perspectives. Pedobiologia 2003, 47, 846–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baldivieso-Freitas, P.; Blanco-Moreno, J.M.; Gutiérrez-López, M.; Peigné, J.; Pérez-Ferrer, A.; Trigo-Aza, D.; Sans, F.X. Earthworm abundance response to conservation agriculture practices in organic arable farming under Mediterranean climate. Pedobiologia 2018, 66, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Falco, L.B.; Sandler, R.; Momo, F.; Di Ciocco, C.; Saravia, L.; Coviella, C. Earthworm assemblages in different intensity of agricultural uses and their relation to edaphic variables. PeerJ 2015, 3, e979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Gerard, B.M.; Hay, R.K.M. The effect on earthworms of ploughing, tined cultivation, direct drilling and nitrogen in a barley monoculture system. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 93, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Curry, J.P.; Byrne, D.; Schmidt, O. Intensive cultivation can drastically reduce earthworm populations in arable land. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2002, 38, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Emmerling, C. Response of earthworm communities to different types of soil tillage. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2001, 17, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Capowiez, Y.; Cadoux, S.; Bouchant, P.; Ruy, S.; Roger-Estrade, J.; Richard, G.; Boizard, H. The effect of tillage type and cropping system on earthworm communities, macroporosity and water infiltration. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 105, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Metzke, M.; Potthoff, M.; Quintern, M.; Heß, J.; Joergensen, R.G. Effect of reduced tillage systems on earthworm communities in a 6-year organic rotation. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2007, 43, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bohlen, P.J.; Edwards, C.A.; Zhang, Q.; Parmelee, R.W.; Allen, M. Indirect effects of earthworms on microbial assimilation of labile carbon. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2002, 20, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parmelee, R.W.; Beare, M.H.; Cheng, W.; Hendrix, P.F.; Rider, S.J.; Crossley, D.A.; Coleman, D.C. Earthworms and enchytraeids in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems: A biocide approach to assess their role in organic matter breakdown. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1990, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Edwards, C.A.; Lofty, J.R. Nitrogenous fertilizers and earthworm populations in agricultural soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1982, 14, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eriksen-Hamel, N.S.; Speratti, A.B.; Whalen, J.K.; Légère, A.; Madramootoo, C.A. Earthworm populations and growth rates related to long-term crop residue and tillage management. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Edwards, C.A.; Bohlen, P.J. The effects of toxic chemicals on earthworms. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1992, 125, 23–100. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bustos-Obregón, E.; Goicochea, R.I. Pesticide soil contamination mainly affects earthworm male reproductive parameters. Asian J. Androl. 2002, 4, 195–199. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yasmin, S.; D’Souza, D. Effects of pesticides on the growth and reproduction of earthworm: A review. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2010, 2010, 678360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ndubuisi, S.O.; Obiezue, R.N.; Amarachi, O.; Onuoha, E. Toxicity and histopathological effect of atrazine (Herbicide) on the earthworm Nsukkadrilus mbae under laboratory conditions. Anim. Res. Int. 2010, 7, 1287–1293. [Google Scholar]
  34. Xiao, N.; Jing, B.; Ge, F.; Liu, X. The fate of herbicide acetochlor and its toxicity to Eisenia fetida under laboratory conditions. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 1366–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Correia, F.V.; Moreira, J.C. Effects of glyphosate and 2,4-D on earthworms (Eisenia foetida) in laboratory tests. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 85, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Muthukaruppan, G.; Janardhanan, S.; Vijayalakshmi, G.S. Sublethal toxicity of the herbicide butachlor on the earthworm Perionyx sansibaricus and its histological changes. J. Soils Sediments 2005, 5, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gobi, M.; Gunasekaran, P. Effect of butachlor herbicide on earthworm Eisenia fetida—Its histological perspicuity. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2010, 2010, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Singh, V.; Singh, K. Toxic Effect of herbicide 2,4-D on the earthworm Eutyphoeus waltoni Michaelsen. Environ. Process. 2015, 2, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Givaudan, N.; Wiegand, C.; Le Bot, B.; Renault, D.; Pallois, F.; Llopis, S.; Binet, F. Acclimation of earthworms to chemicals in anthropogenic landscapes, physiological mechanisms and soil ecological implications. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 73, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Duc, G. Faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crop. Res. 1997, 53, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kasprzak, K. Skaposzczety Glebowe, III: Rodzina; dżdżownice (Lumbricidae); MiIZ PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, H.; Wang., J.J. Soil pH Changes During Legume Growth and Application of Plant Material; Southern Extension and Research Activity Information Exchange Group 6; University of Georgia: Athens, Greece, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lv, J.; Dong, Y.; Dong, K.; Zhao, Q.; Yang, Z.; Chen, L. Intercropping with wheat suppressed Fusarium wilt in faba bean and modulated the composition of root exudates. Plant Soil. 2020, 448, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rychcik, B.; Zawiślak, K. Effect of crop rotation and monoculture on faba bean phytosanitary and production. Pam. Puł. 2002, 130, 623–659. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kotecki, A. The influence of row spacing and quantity of seeds sown on the development and yielding of Tibo cultivar field bean with terminal inflorescence Zesz. Nauk. AR We Wrocławiu. 1994, 238, 133–143. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rychcik, B. Effect of herbicide and crop sequence on weed infestation of field bean. Prog. Plant Prot. 2004, 44, 1058–1060. [Google Scholar]
  47. Adamiak, E.; Adamiak, J.; Stępień, A. Wpływ następstwa roślin i stosowania herbicydów na zachwaszczenie jęczmienia jarego. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska 2000, 55, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rychcik, B.; Adamiak, J.; Wójciak, H. Dynamics of the soil organic matter in crop rotation and long-term monoculture. Plant Soil Environ. 2006, 52, 12–20. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yang, X.M.; Kay, B.D. Rotation and tillage effects on soil organic carbon sequestration in a typic Hapludalf in southern Ontario. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 59, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Campbell, C.A.; Biederbeck, V.O.; Zentner, R.P.; Lafond, G.P. Effect of crop rotations and cultural practices on soil organic matter, microbial biomass and respiration in a thin Black Chernozem. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1991, 71, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Blair, N.; Crocker, G.J. Crop rotation effects on soil carbon and physical fertility of two Australian soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2000, 38, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hickman, M.V. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on soil chemical and mineral properties. J. Plant Nutr. 2002, 25, 1457–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Van Beusichem, M.L. Nutrient absorption by pea plants during dinitrogen fixation. I. Comparison with nitrate nutrition. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 1981, 29, 259–272. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bolan, N.S.; Hedley, M.J.; White, R.E. Processes of soil acidification during nitrogen cycling with emphasis on legume based pastures. Plant Soil 1991, 134, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tang, C.; Unkovich, M.J.; Bowden, J.W. Factors affecting soil acidification under legumes. III. Acid production by N2-fixing legumes as influenced by nitrate supply. New Phytol. 1999, 143, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, B. Farming brings acid soils. Rural Res. 1980, 106, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  57. Williams, C.H. Soil acidification under clover pasture. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1980, 20, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Valchovski, H. Effect of erosion on biodiversity of earthworms (Lumbricidae) in agroecosystems of Suhodol (Sofia province). Semin. Ecol. 2012, 182–189. [Google Scholar]
  59. Fragoso, C.; Brown, G.G.; Patrón, J.C.; Blanchart, E.; Lavelle, P.; Pashanasi, B.; Senapati, B.; Kumar, T. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function in the tropics: The role of earthworms. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1997, 6, 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paoletti, M.G. The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Curry, J.P.; Doherty, P.; Purvis, G.; Schmidt, O. Relationships between earthworm populations and management intensity in cattle-grazed pastures in Ireland. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 39, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Edwards, C.A. Earthworm ecology in cultivated soils. In Earthworm Ecology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1983; pp. 123–137. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bart, S.; Amossé, J.; Lowe, C.N.; Mougin, C.; Péry, A.R.R.; Pelosi, C. Aporrectodea caliginosa, a relevant earthworm species for a posteriori pesticide risk assessment: Current knowledge and recommendations for culture and experimental design. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 33867–33881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Feledyn-Szewczyk, B.; Radzikowski, P.; Stalenga, J.; Matyka, M. Comparison of the effect of perennial energy crops and arable crops on earthworm populations. Agronomy 2019, 9, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Holmstrup, M.; Overgaard, J. Freeze tolerance in Aporrectodea caliginosa and other earthworms from Finland. Cryobiology 2007, 55, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Zorn, M.I.; Van Gestel, C.A.M.; Morrien, E.; Wagenaar, M.; Eijsackers, H. Flooding responses of three earthworm species, Allolobophora chlorotica, Aporrectodea caliginosa and Lumbricus rubellus, in a laboratory-controlled environment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nuutinen, V. Earthworm community response to tillage and residue management on different soil types in southern Finland. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 23, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Holter, P. Effect of earthworms on the disappearance rate of cattle droppings. In Earthworm Ecology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1983; pp. 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ivask, M.; Kuu, A.; Sizov, E. Abundance of earthworm species in Estonian arable soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2007, 43, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pfiffner, L.; Luka, H. Earthworm populations in two low-input cereal farming systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007, 37, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jastrzebska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K.; Makowski, P.; Treder, K.; Marks, M. Effects of ash and bone phosphorus biofertilizers on Bacillus megaterium counts and select biological and physical soil properties. Polish J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 1603–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Orzech, K.; Załuski, D. Chemical properties of soil and occurrence of earthworms in soil in response to soil compaction and different soil tillage in cereals. J. Elem. 2020, 25, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.; Makowski, P.; Treder, K.; Jastrzębski, W. Granulated phosphorus fertilizer made of ash from biomass combustion and bones with addition of Bacillus megaterium in the field assessment. Part 3. Impact on selected properties of soil environment of winter wheat. Przem. Chem. 2017, 96, 2180–2183. [Google Scholar]
  74. Orzech, K.; Załuski, D. Effect of soil compaction and different soil tillage systems on chemical properties of soil and presence of earthworms in winter oilseed rape fields. J. Elem. 2020, 25, 413–429. [Google Scholar]
  75. Badawy, M.E.I.; Kenawy, A.; El-Aswad, A.F. Toxicity assessment of buprofezin, lufenuron, and triflumuron to the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa. Int. J. Zool. 2013, 2013, 174523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Mosleh, Y.Y.; Ismail, S.M.M.; Ahmed, M.T.; Ahmed, Y.M. Comparative toxicity and biochemical responses of certain pesticides to the mature earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa under laboratory conditions. Environ. Toxicol. 2003, 18, 338–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Gaupp-Berghausen, M.; Hofer, M.; Rewald, B.; Zaller, J.G. Glyphosate-based herbicides reduce the activity and reproduction of earthworms and lead to increased soil nutrient concentrations. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Dittbrenner, N.; Triebskorn, R.; Moser, I.; Capowiez, Y. Physiological and behavioural effects of imidacloprid on two ecologically relevant earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris and Aporrectodea caliginosa). Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, 1567–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Capowiez, Y.; Rault, M.; Costagliola, G.; Mazzia, C. Lethal and sublethal effects of imidacloprid on two earthworm species (Aporrectodea nocturna and Allolobophora icterica). Biol. Fertil. Soils 2005, 41, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hodge, S.; Webster, K.M.; Booth, L.; Hepplethwaite, V.; O’Halloran, K. Non-avoidance of organophosphate insecticides by the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Lumbricidae). Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 425–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. López-Hernández, D. Earthworm populations in savannas of the Orinoco basin. A review of studies in long-term agricultural-managed and protected ecosystems. Agriculture 2012, 2, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kladivko, E.J. Earthworms and Crop Management.; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  83. Fonte, S.J.; Winsome, T.; Six, J. Earthworm populations in relation to soil organic matter dynamics and management in California tomato cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2009, 41, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Haynes, R.J.; Dominy, C.S.; Graham, M.H. Effect of agricultural land use on soil organic matter status and the composition of earthworm communities in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 95, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 10 00586 g001 550
Figure 1. Daily temperature and rainfall before sampling.
Figure 1. Daily temperature and rainfall before sampling.
Agronomy 10 00586 g001
Agronomy 10 00586 g002 550
Figure 2. Relative abundance (%) of earthworm species (based on individuals m−2) on (a) spring barley and (b) faba bean (B) fields; CR—crop rotation, CC—continuous cropping, HF−—no plant protection, HF+—herbicide + fungicide.
Figure 2. Relative abundance (%) of earthworm species (based on individuals m−2) on (a) spring barley and (b) faba bean (B) fields; CR—crop rotation, CC—continuous cropping, HF−—no plant protection, HF+—herbicide + fungicide.
Agronomy 10 00586 g002
Table
Table 1. Basic agricultural data for spring barley and faba bean in 2019.
Table 1. Basic agricultural data for spring barley and faba bean in 2019.
ItemSpring BarleyFaba Bean
Soil tillage systemPlow tillage (with crop residues incorporation after harvest)
Mineral fertilisation
-P2O5 (kg/ha)70 160 1
-K2O (kg/ha)100 1100 1
-N (kg/ha)70 (50 1 + 20 2)40 1
Plant protection
herbicides
Mustang 306 SE; florasulam + 2,4-D EHE; 0.5 l/ha; stem elongation *Corum 502.4 SL; bentazon + imazamox; 1.25 l/ha; 16 leaf unfolded
Dash HC; fatty acid esters + alkoxylated alcohols-phosphate esters; 0.6 l/ha; 16 leaf unfolded
fungicides
Capalo 337.5 SE; fenpropimorph + epoxiconazole + metrafenone; 1.5 l/ha; stem elongationDithane NeoTec 75 WG; mancozeb; 2.0 kg/ha; flower buds visible outside leaves
Amistar 250 SC; azoxystrobin; 0.6 l/ha; flowering
Artea 330 EC; propiconazole + cyproconazole; 0.4 l/ha; flowering
1—before sowing, 2—at stem elongation stage; * trade name; active ingredient; rate; crop growth stage.
Table
Table 2. Dry mass of post-harvest residues (t ha−1).
Table 2. Dry mass of post-harvest residues (t ha−1).
TreatmentsTotalShootsRootsWeeds
Spring Barley
cropping system
CR *2.82a ** ± 0.152.07a ± 0.100.62a ± 0.070.13a ± 0.04
CC2.74a ± 0.392.04a ± 0.330.49a ± 0.090.20a ± 0.03
plant protection
HF−2.37b ± 0.211.70b ± 0.160.45a ± 0.070.23a ± 0.02
HF+3.18a ± 0.262.42a ± 0.210.66a ± 0.070.11b ± 0.04
interaction
CR-HF−2.74ab ± 0.272.02b ± 0.140.52a ± 0.100.21a ± 0.03
CR-HF+2.89ab ± 0.172.12ab ± 0.180.71a ± 0.050.05b ± 0.01
CC-HF−2.00b ± 0.161.37c ± 0.050.38a ± 0.110.24a ± 0.02
CC-HF+3.48a ± 0.462.71a ± 0.280.61a ± 0.140.16ab ± 0.05
Faba Bean
cropping system
CR1.24b ± 0.150.42b ± 0.090.47a ± 0.130.35b ± 0.08
CC1.93a ± 0.180.70a ± 0.170.49a ± 0.140.73a ± 0.13
plant protection
HF−1.29b ± 0.170.29b ± 0.050.26b ± 0.070.74a ± 0.13
HF+1.87a ± 0.190.82a ± 0.110.70a ± 0.100.34b ± 0.07
interaction
CR-HF−0.97c ± 0.050.25c ± 0.070.26a ± 0.090.46b ± 0.12
CR-HF+1.51b ± 0.180.59b ± 0.050.69a ± 0.170.23b ± 0.06
CC-HF−1.62b ± 0.210.34c ± 0.060.27a ± 0.131.01a ± 0.04
CC-HF+2.23a ± 0.161.06a ± 0.090.72a ± 0.160.45b ± 0.12
* CR—crop rotation, CC—continuous cropping, HF−—no plant protection, HF+—herbicide + fungicide; ** values with different letters vary significantly (Duncan’s test, p < 0.05), x ± sem—mean ± standard error of mean.
Table
Table 3. Soil organic matter (SOM) (%).
Table 3. Soil organic matter (SOM) (%).
TreatmentsSpring BarleyFaba Bean
cropping system
CR *1.86 ** ± 0.101.98 ± 0.04
CC1.88 ± 0.062.08 ± 0.08
plant protection
HF−1.89 ± 0.112.11 ± 0.05
HF+1.85 ± 0.031.95 ± 0.07
interaction
CR-HF−1.84 ± 0.212.03 ± 0.06
CR-HF+1.87 ± 0.081.93 ± 0.06
CC-HF−1.93 ± 0.112.20 ± 0.03
CC-HF+1.83 ± 0.031.96 ± 0.13
* CR—crop rotation, CC—continuous cropping, HF−—no plant protection, HF+—herbicide + fungicide; ** values do not differ significantly (Duncan’s test, p < 0.05), x ± sem—mean ± standard error of mean.
Table
Table 4. Soil pH.
Table 4. Soil pH.
TreatmentsSpring BarleyFaba Bean
cropping system
CR *6.37b ** ± 0.116.73a ± 0.06
CC6.89a ± 0.046.32b ± 0.03
plant protection
HF−6.74a ± 0.096.55a ± 0.09
HF+6.51b ± 0.176.50a ± 0.12
interaction
CR-HF−6.56b ± 0.066.75a ± 0.05
CR-HF+6.18c ± 0.166.72a ± 0.13
CC-HF−6.92a ± 0.066.35b ± 0.03
CC-HF+6.85ab ± 0.056.28b ± 0.05
* CR—crop rotation, CC—continuous cropping, HF−—no plant protection, HF+—herbicide + fungicide; ** values with different letters vary significantly (Duncan’s test, p < 0.05), x ± sem—mean ± standard error of mean.
Table
Table 5. Density (individuals m−2) and biomass (g m−2) of earthworms in spring barley and faba bean fields.
Table 5. Density (individuals m−2) and biomass (g m−2) of earthworms in spring barley and faba bean fields.
TreatmentsSpring BarleyFaba Bean
IndividualsBiomassIndividualsBiomass
cropping system
CR *15.3 ± 1.907.4 ± 0.948.0b ** ± 2.074.3b ± 1.28
CC14.7 ± 3.375.9 ± 2.1413.3a ± 3.219.0a ± 2.07
plant protection
HF−14.0 ± 2.475.9 ± 1.5215.3 a ±2.819.4a ± 2.19
HF+16.0 ± 2.917.5 ± 1.776.0b ± 0.894.0b ± 0.67
interaction
CR-HF−18.7 ± 1.338.9 ± 1.0410.7b ± 3.525.5b ± 2.42
CR-HF+12.0 ± 6.926.0 ± 1.085.3b ± 1.333.0b ± 0.81
CC-HF−9.3 ± 2.672.8 ± 1.0620.0a ± 2.3013.2a ± 1.83
CC-HF+20.0 ± 4.619.1 ± 3.466.7b ± 1.334.9b ± 0.85
* CR—crop rotation, CC—continuous cropping, HF−—no plant protection, HF+—herbicide + fungicide; ** values with different letters vary significantly (Duncan’s test, p < 0.05), no letters—no significant differences, x ± sem—mean ± standard error of mean.
Table
Table 6. The correlation coefficient (r) between density and biomass of earthworms with SOM, pH, and post-harvest residues of spring barley and faba bean fields.
Table 6. The correlation coefficient (r) between density and biomass of earthworms with SOM, pH, and post-harvest residues of spring barley and faba bean fields.
FeaturesSpring BarleyFaba Bean
Earthworms
IndividualsBiomassIndividualsBiomass
residues0.0950.030−0.1160.057
SOM0.1920.1050.730 *0.713 *
pH0.1200.013−0.228−0.386
* coefficient significant at p < 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Treder, K.; Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K.; Makowski, P. Do Long-Term Continuous Cropping and Pesticides Affect Earthworm Communities? Agronomy 2020, 10, 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040586

AMA Style

Treder K, Jastrzębska M, Kostrzewska MK, Makowski P. Do Long-Term Continuous Cropping and Pesticides Affect Earthworm Communities? Agronomy. 2020; 10(4):586. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040586

Chicago/Turabian Style

Treder, Kinga, Magdalena Jastrzębska, Marta Katarzyna Kostrzewska, and Przemysław Makowski. 2020. "Do Long-Term Continuous Cropping and Pesticides Affect Earthworm Communities?" Agronomy 10, no. 4: 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040586

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