4.7 Review

An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity - implications for functioning in soils

期刊

SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 179-191

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00173-2

关键词

no-tillage; sustainability; anecic; endogeic; soil structure; earthworm ecology; A. longa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conflicting reports in the literature on the effects of tillage on earthworms are reviewed in the light of their roles in agroecosystem functioning. Tillage can change the abundance (by 2-9 times) as well as the composition (diversity) of earthworm populations. The actual impact is dependent on soil factors, climatic conditions and the tillage operations but hitherto this information was seldom provided in research reports. The declines in earthworm population often reported in conventionally tilled soils are associated with undesirable changes in the soil environmental conditions resulting from excessive tillage. Different species of earthworm respond differently to tillage. While the abundance of the deep burrowing species (anecic) tends to decline under tillage, particularly under deep ploughing, endogeic species can actually increase in number especially when there is increased food supply. Under conservation tillage systems, earthworms can potentially play a more important role than under conventional tillage in the functioning of the farming systems because of their abilities to modify the soil physical environment and nutrient cycling. However, adoption of conservation tillage does not automatically result in an optimal earthworm population in terms of abundance and diversity. There are opportunities to introduce more beneficial species to improve the ecological performance of agro-ecosystems. More research is needed to fully understand the ecology of different earthworm species, their interactions and their potential roles in promoting more sustainable farming systems. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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