Earthworm communities in arable fields and restored field margins, as related to management practices and surrounding landscape diversity

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Agricultural intensification has negative impacts on biodiversity at spatial scales from field to landscape. Earthworms are important for soil functioning, so it is crucial to understand the responses of earthworm communities to agricultural management and land use. We aimed to: 1) investigate whether earthworm communities differed between relatively undisturbed field margins, and highly disturbed arable fields; and 2) quantify how earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins are affected by three environmental filters, i.e. soil properties, management practices, and composition of the surrounding landscape. Earthworms were sampled in 26 arable fields and 15 field margins, across a polder area in The Netherlands. While earthworm density, total biomass and species richness did not differ significantly among arable fields and field margins, rarefied earthworm species richness and community composition did. The three environmental filters affected earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins differently. In arable fields, earthworm communities were explained by arable management only (26%). In contrast, all three filters contributed significantly to the variation in earthworm communities of field margins, where management practices explained a larger part of the variation (18%) than the surrounding landscape (11%) and soil properties (10%). Our results suggest that soil properties and surrounding landscape can affect earthworm communities of field margins. However, in the arable fields, where more diverse lumbricid communities are desirable to improve soil functions, such influences are negated by the impact of management at field scale. We demonstrated that field margins enhance earthworm biodiversity in arable landscapes, but surrounding landscape and field margins had limited impact on earthworm communities in arable fields. Decision-making and research should focus on less intensive management options for arable fields to stimulate earthworms and earthworm-mediated soil functions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-8
JournalAgriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
Volume248
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

field margin
edge effects
earthworms
earthworm
management practice
soil properties
soil property
filter
species richness
biodiversity
species diversity
soil
agricultural intensification
agricultural management

Keywords

  • Cultivated fields
  • Environmental filtering
  • Land management
  • Lumbricid communities
  • Non-productive landscape elements
  • Soil properties
  • Surrounding landscape

Cite this

@article{3e89776bcd9148c2b6f7f5b3ea3c6032,
title = "Earthworm communities in arable fields and restored field margins, as related to management practices and surrounding landscape diversity",
abstract = "Agricultural intensification has negative impacts on biodiversity at spatial scales from field to landscape. Earthworms are important for soil functioning, so it is crucial to understand the responses of earthworm communities to agricultural management and land use. We aimed to: 1) investigate whether earthworm communities differed between relatively undisturbed field margins, and highly disturbed arable fields; and 2) quantify how earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins are affected by three environmental filters, i.e. soil properties, management practices, and composition of the surrounding landscape. Earthworms were sampled in 26 arable fields and 15 field margins, across a polder area in The Netherlands. While earthworm density, total biomass and species richness did not differ significantly among arable fields and field margins, rarefied earthworm species richness and community composition did. The three environmental filters affected earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins differently. In arable fields, earthworm communities were explained by arable management only (26{\%}). In contrast, all three filters contributed significantly to the variation in earthworm communities of field margins, where management practices explained a larger part of the variation (18{\%}) than the surrounding landscape (11{\%}) and soil properties (10{\%}). Our results suggest that soil properties and surrounding landscape can affect earthworm communities of field margins. However, in the arable fields, where more diverse lumbricid communities are desirable to improve soil functions, such influences are negated by the impact of management at field scale. We demonstrated that field margins enhance earthworm biodiversity in arable landscapes, but surrounding landscape and field margins had limited impact on earthworm communities in arable fields. Decision-making and research should focus on less intensive management options for arable fields to stimulate earthworms and earthworm-mediated soil functions.",
keywords = "Cultivated fields, Environmental filtering, Land management, Lumbricid communities, Non-productive landscape elements, Soil properties, Surrounding landscape",
author = "Joana Fraz{\~a}o and {de Goede}, {Ron G.M.} and Lijbert Brussaard and Faber, {Jack H.} and Groot, {Jeroen C.J.} and Pulleman, {Mirjam M.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.014",
language = "English",
volume = "248",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment",
issn = "0167-8809",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Earthworm communities in arable fields and restored field margins, as related to management practices and surrounding landscape diversity

AU - Frazão, Joana

AU - de Goede, Ron G.M.

AU - Brussaard, Lijbert

AU - Faber, Jack H.

AU - Groot, Jeroen C.J.

AU - Pulleman, Mirjam M.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Agricultural intensification has negative impacts on biodiversity at spatial scales from field to landscape. Earthworms are important for soil functioning, so it is crucial to understand the responses of earthworm communities to agricultural management and land use. We aimed to: 1) investigate whether earthworm communities differed between relatively undisturbed field margins, and highly disturbed arable fields; and 2) quantify how earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins are affected by three environmental filters, i.e. soil properties, management practices, and composition of the surrounding landscape. Earthworms were sampled in 26 arable fields and 15 field margins, across a polder area in The Netherlands. While earthworm density, total biomass and species richness did not differ significantly among arable fields and field margins, rarefied earthworm species richness and community composition did. The three environmental filters affected earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins differently. In arable fields, earthworm communities were explained by arable management only (26%). In contrast, all three filters contributed significantly to the variation in earthworm communities of field margins, where management practices explained a larger part of the variation (18%) than the surrounding landscape (11%) and soil properties (10%). Our results suggest that soil properties and surrounding landscape can affect earthworm communities of field margins. However, in the arable fields, where more diverse lumbricid communities are desirable to improve soil functions, such influences are negated by the impact of management at field scale. We demonstrated that field margins enhance earthworm biodiversity in arable landscapes, but surrounding landscape and field margins had limited impact on earthworm communities in arable fields. Decision-making and research should focus on less intensive management options for arable fields to stimulate earthworms and earthworm-mediated soil functions.

AB - Agricultural intensification has negative impacts on biodiversity at spatial scales from field to landscape. Earthworms are important for soil functioning, so it is crucial to understand the responses of earthworm communities to agricultural management and land use. We aimed to: 1) investigate whether earthworm communities differed between relatively undisturbed field margins, and highly disturbed arable fields; and 2) quantify how earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins are affected by three environmental filters, i.e. soil properties, management practices, and composition of the surrounding landscape. Earthworms were sampled in 26 arable fields and 15 field margins, across a polder area in The Netherlands. While earthworm density, total biomass and species richness did not differ significantly among arable fields and field margins, rarefied earthworm species richness and community composition did. The three environmental filters affected earthworm communities of arable fields and field margins differently. In arable fields, earthworm communities were explained by arable management only (26%). In contrast, all three filters contributed significantly to the variation in earthworm communities of field margins, where management practices explained a larger part of the variation (18%) than the surrounding landscape (11%) and soil properties (10%). Our results suggest that soil properties and surrounding landscape can affect earthworm communities of field margins. However, in the arable fields, where more diverse lumbricid communities are desirable to improve soil functions, such influences are negated by the impact of management at field scale. We demonstrated that field margins enhance earthworm biodiversity in arable landscapes, but surrounding landscape and field margins had limited impact on earthworm communities in arable fields. Decision-making and research should focus on less intensive management options for arable fields to stimulate earthworms and earthworm-mediated soil functions.

KW - Cultivated fields

KW - Environmental filtering

KW - Land management

KW - Lumbricid communities

KW - Non-productive landscape elements

KW - Soil properties

KW - Surrounding landscape

U2 - 10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.014

DO - 10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.014

M3 - Article

VL - 248

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

JF - Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

SN - 0167-8809

ER -