Back

Darwin was right, in any given field, the spatial variability of earthworm communities in pastures isnt driven by measurable soil properties.

Hodson, M.; Corstanje, R.; Jones, D.; Whitton, J.; Burton, V.; Sloane, T.; Eggleton, P.

2020-10-26 ecology
10.1101/2020.10.26.355024 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Abundance and distribution of earthworms in agricultural fields is frequently proposed as a measure of soil quality assuming that observed patterns of abundance are in response to improved or degraded environmental conditions. However, it is not clear that earthworm abundances can be directly related to their edaphic environment, as noted in Darwins final publication, perhaps limiting or restricting their value as indicators of ecological quality in any given field. We present results from a spatially explicit intensive survey of pastures within United Kingdom farms, looking for the main drivers of earthworm density at a range of scales. When describing spatial variability of earthworm abundance within any given field, the best predictor was earthworm abundance itself within 20 - 30 m of the sampling point; there were no consistent environmental correlates with earthworm numbers, suggesting that biological factors (e.g. colonisation rate, competition, predation, parasitism) drive or at least significantly modify earthworm distributions at this spatial level. However, at the national scale, earthworm abundance is well predicted by soil nitrate levels, density, temperature and moisture content, albeit not in a simple linear fashion. This suggests that although land can be managed at the farm scale to promote earthworm abundance and the resulting soil processes that deliver ecosystem services, within a field, earthworm distributions will remain patchy. The divergence in the interpretative value of earthworm abundance as an ecological indicator is a function of spatial scale, corresponding to species specific biological factors as well as a response to environmental pressures. Species abundance can effectively be used as ecological indicators, even if, at first, distributions seem random. However, care must be exercised, in the sampling design for the indicator species, if its abundance is to be used as a proxy for environmental quality at a particular scale (e.g. a management scale such as field scale).

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
2
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
3
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
8.1%
5
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
6
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.5%
7
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.5%
8
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
10
Journal of Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
12
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
13
Basic and Applied Ecology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
14
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
15
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
16
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
17
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
18
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
19
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
20
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
21
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
22
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
23
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
24
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
25
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
26
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
27
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
28
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
29
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
30
Biological Invasions
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%