Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:59:01.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short-term effects on earthworm populations of sidedressing corn with solid dairy cattle manure in a boreal climate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

B. Estevez ,
D. Côté ,
F. Pagé  and
D. Coderre
B. Estevez
Affiliation:
M.Sc. student, Département des sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), CP 8888, succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Que., CanadaH3C 3P8;
D. Côté
Affiliation:
Researchers, Service des sols, MAPAQ, Complexe scientifique, 2700 Einstein, SteFoy, Que., CanadaG1P 3W8.
F. Pagé
Affiliation:
Researchers, Service des sols, MAPAQ, Complexe scientifique, 2700 Einstein, SteFoy, Que., CanadaG1P 3W8.
D. Coderre
Affiliation:
Professor, Département des sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), CP 8888, succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Que., CanadaH3C 3P8;
Get access

Abstract

We evaluated the short-term effects on earthworms of sidedressing solid dairy cattle manure on corn. The manure rates were 40, 46 and 53 t/ha applied in 1991, and a control (no manure). From 1988 to 1990, the manure plots received solid dairy cattle manure sidedressed at an annual rate of 40 to 50 t/ha, the equivalent of 100 kg N/ha, while the control received a standard mineral fertilization. The experiment took place at the MAPAQ experimental station in St.-Lambert, Quebec, Canada. Sampling occurred in autumn 1991 and spring 1992.

Sidedressing solid dairy cattle manure in spring increased earthworm populations compared with the control in fall 1991, but no significant population differences were observed among the three different manure treatments, which were then pooled for further statistical analysis. In spring 1992, the populations declined, at which time the manure treatment and the control did not differ significantly in abundance, but total earthworm biomass and Lumbricus biomass were significantly higher in the manure treatment. Cocoon production showed significant differences between treatments, which provides evidence for the potential effect of manure sidedressing on earthworm population dynamics. Although the genus Aporrectodea (endogeic) was dominant among the treatments, sidedressing of solid dairy cattle manure also stimulated Lumbricus populations, especially juveniles and adult L terrestris (epianecic).

Keywords

Aporrectodea turgidaLumbricuscocoonmanure sidedressingorganic soil amendmentmulchsheet composting
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 74 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Andersen, N. 1980. The influence of farmyard manure and slurry on the earthworm population (Lumbricidae) in arable soil. In Dindal, D.L. (ed). Soil Biology as Related to Land Use Practices. Proc. 7th International Soil Zoology Colloquium, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. pp. 325–334.Google Scholar
2.Berry, E.C., and Karlen, D.L.. 1993. Comparison of alternative farming systems. 2. Earthworm population density and species diversity. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bieri, M. 1981. Improved methods for the extraction of soil arthropods and influence of sheet composting on the soil fauna. Ph.D. thesis (English abstract). Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
4.Borst, H.L., and Mederski, H.J.. 1957. Surface mulches and mulch tillage for corn production. Bull. 796. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta., Wooster.Google Scholar
5.Bostrom, U. 1988. Growth and cocoon production by the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa in soil mixed with various plant materials. Pedobiologia 32:77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Bouché, M.B. 1975. Fonctions des lombriciens (lombrics) (3): Premières estimations quantitatives des stations françaises du P.B.I. (Functions of lombrics (3): First quantitative estimations of the P.B.I. French stations). Revue d'écologie et de biologie des sols 12:25–44.Google Scholar
7.Bouché, M.B., and Gardner, R.H.. 1984. Earthworm functions (8): Population estimation techniques. Revue d'écologie et de biologie des sols 21:37–63.Google Scholar
8.Christensen, O. 1991. Lumbricid earthworms as bio-indicators relative to soil factors in different agro-ecosystems. In Veeresh, G.K., Rajagopal, D. and Viraktamath, C.A. (eds). Advances in Management and Conservation of Soil Fauna. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, India, pp. 839–849.Google Scholar
9.Christensen, O., and Mather, J.G.. 1990. Dynamics of lumbricid earthworm cocoons in relation to habitat conditions at three different arable sites. Pedobiologia 34:227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Côté, D. 1992. Optimisation de la valeur fertilisante du lisier de pore pour l'épandage en postlevée. (Optimization of the fertilizing value of pig slurry for sidedressing). Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec. Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
11.Côté, D., Giroux, M., and N'Dayegamiye, A.. 1991. Étude de la fertilisation du maïs en postlevée avec du fumier solide de bovin laitier: faisabilité et critères d'efficacité. (Study of sidedressing corn fertilization with solid dairy cattle manure: Feasibility and efficiency criteria.) Agrosol 4:33–38.Google Scholar
12.Cuendet, G., and Bieri, M.. 1990. Les vers de terre, garants de la fertilité des sols agricoles et forestiers suisses. (Earthworms, guarantors of the fertility of Swiss agricultural and forest soils.) Revue Suisse Agriculture 22:69–73.Google Scholar
13.Curry, J.P. 1976. Some effects of animal manures on earthworms in grassland. Pedobiologia 16:425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Edwards, C.A. 1983. Earthworm ecology in cultivated soils. In Satchell, J.E. (ed). Earthworm Ecology, from Darwin to Vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, New York, N.Y. pp. 1123–1138.Google Scholar
15.Edwards, C.A., and Lofty, J.R.. 1972. Biology of Earthworms. Chapman and Hall, London, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Estevez, B. 1992. Effets de la fertilisation organique, minérale et combinée sur les populations de lombrics et la structure du sol. (Effects of organic, mineral and combined fertilization on earthworm populations and soil structure.) M. Sc. thesis. Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
17.Garceau, C., and Coderre, D.. 1991. Efficacité d'une méthode d'extraction éthologique des lombriciens d'une plantation récente de feuillus. (Effectiveness of an ethological method of extraction of earthworms in a recent plantation of deciduous trees.) Pedobiologia 35:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Haukka, J. 1988. Effect of various cultivation methods on earthworm biomasses and communities on different soil types. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 27:263–269.Google Scholar
19.Kühle, J.C. 1982. Adaptation of earthworm populations to different soil treatments in apple orchard. In Lebrun, P., André, H.M., De Medts, A., Grégoire, C., Wauthy, W., and Wauthy, G. (eds). Tendances nouvelles en biologie du sol. Comptes rendus du 8ème Colloque International de Zoologie du Sol. Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, pp. 487–501.Google Scholar
20.Lee, K.E. 1985. Earthworms: Their Ecology and Relationships with Soils and Land Use. Academic Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
21.Lofs-Holmin, A. 1982. Reproduction and growth of common arable land and pasture species of earthworms (Lumbricidae) in laboratory cultures. Swedish J. Agric. Research 13:31–37.Google Scholar
22.Lofs-Holmin, A. 1983. Earthworm population dynamics in different agricultural rotations. In Satchell, J.E. (ed). Earthworm Ecology, from Darwin to Vermiculture. Chapman and Hall, New York, N.Y. pp. 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Mather, J.G., and Christensen, O. 1988. Surface movements of earthworms in agricultural land. Pedobiologia 32:399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Nuutinen, V., and Haukka, J.. 1990. Conventional and organic systems at Suitia. 7: Earthworms. J. Agric. Sci. Finland 62:357–367.Google Scholar
25.Parmelee, R.W., Beare, M.H., Cheng, W., Hendrix, P.F., Rider, S.J., Crossley, D.A. Jr., and Coleman, D.C.. 1990. Earthworms and enchytraeids in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems: A biocide approach to assess their role in organic matter breakdown. Soil Biology and Fertility 10:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Piearce, T.G. 1978. Gut contents of some lumbricid earthworms. Pedobiologia 18:153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Reynolds, J.W. 1976. Catalogue et clé d'identification des Lombricidés du Québec. (Catalog and identification key of earthworms of Québec). Naturaliste Canadien 103:21–27.Google Scholar
28.Reynolds, J.W. 1977. The earthworms (Lumbricidae and Sparganophilidae) of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada. 29.SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS Procedures Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6 Edition. Cary, North Carolina.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
31.Syers, J.K., and Springett, J.A.. 1984. Earthworms and soil fertility. Plant and Soil 76:93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Werner, M.R., and Dindal, D.L.. 1989. Earthworm community dynamics in conventional and low-input agroecosystems. Revue d'écologie et de biologie des sols 26:427–437.Google Scholar