4.2 Article

Soil Animals and Pedogenesis: The Role of Earthworms in Anthropogenic Soils

期刊

SOIL SCIENCE
卷 181, 期 3-4, 页码 110-125

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SS.0000000000000144

关键词

Amazonia; Amazonian Dark Earths; bioturbation; earthworms; nutrient cycling; soil formation

资金

  1. Newton-Confap project [NE/N000323/1, 45.166]
  2. NERC-IOF project [NE/M017656/1]
  3. CNPq-CSF project [401824/2013-6]
  4. EU Marie Curie Fellowship [MSCAIF-2014-GF-660378]
  5. CNPq Fellowship
  6. Fulbright Fellowship
  7. CAPES
  8. CNPq
  9. NERC [NE/M017656/1, NE/N000323/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N000323/1, NE/M017656/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Direct For Biological Sciences
  12. Division Of Environmental Biology [1136604] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of earthworms as one of the most important groups of ecosystem engineers in human-modified and natural environments has been increasingly recognized only during the last 30 years, yet earthworms and humans have been acting together in building landscapes for millennia. This relationship is well represented in the pre-Columbian raised fields, in flood-prone savannas around the rim of Amazonia, but also by the potentially significant role of earthworms in the formation and resilience of Amazonian Dark Earths. Through the bioturbating action of earthworms, soil is biologically, chemically, and physically altered; nutrients are translocated; organic matter is decomposed and transformed; and the surrounding biota interacts as a large orchestra where the soil musicians play together on the various instruments but where earthworms take a leading role, enhancing microbial activity and generally stimulating plant growth. In this article, we assess the remarkable role of earthworms at the center of soil pedogenetic processes within anthropogenic landscapes, dissecting their functions with a special focus on Amazonian Dark Earths.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据