Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 138, Issue 4, pp 753–761 | Cite as

Tree species identity governs the soil macrofauna community composition and soil development at reclaimed post-mining sites on calcium-rich clays

  • Alena WalmsleyEmail author
  • Pavla Vachová
  • Jakub Hlava
Original Paper
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

We tested the effect of main soil characteristics and tree species on earthworm community composition and abundance in reclaimed spoil heaps planted with five different tree species. Earthworm and soil macroarthropod abundance and biomass were highest in alder plantations, followed by oak plantations. The numbers of soil macrofauna were positively correlated with the total soil N content, which was highest in alder plantation. The correlation was strongest for endogeic earthworms (genus Aporrectodea and Octolasion). Soil moisture, measured in top 10 cm, affected only endogeic species. Other soil variables (pH, Ca) did not have a strong effect on earthworms. The earthworm community composition was similar in alder and oak, with most species occurring at both types of forest; however, in alder forest the epigeic species Dendrobaena octaedra was more common, whilst in oak forest the epigeic earthworms form genus Lumbricus were more abundant (L. rubellus and L. castaneus). The anecic species Aporrectodea longa was more abundant at alder sites, but L. terrestris was more abundant under oak. The alder forest was characteristic by a thick humus layer (10–15 cm), which at oak and larch sites was thinner (4–7 cm) and at pine and spruce stands was absent. Soil compaction was lower under the deciduous trees (alder, oak, larch), than under spruce and pine. We conclude that the alder plantations have most palatable litter and lowest C/N ratio and therefore support the highest numbers of soil macrofauna, which affects the humus layer thickness and soil compaction in the surface layers.

Keywords

Reclamation Post-mining Earthworm Soil macrofauna Tree species Soil properties 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the Grant of the Czech Ministry of Agriculture: QK1710241—Optimization of management of forest restoration on sites affected by surface mining. We would like to thank Dr. Kamila Svobodová, Martin Berka, Jan Řezník, Jan Roubíček and Dr. Marek Vach for their help during field sampling.

References

  1. Andersson S, Nilsson SI, Saetre P (2000) Leaching of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in mor humus as affected by temperature and pH. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartuška M, Pawlett M, Frouz J (2015) Particulate organic carbon at reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining soils and its microbial community composition. CATENA 131:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blouin M, Hodson ME, Delgado EA, Baker G, Brussaard L, Butt KR, Dai J, Dendooven L, Pérès G, Tondoh J (2013) A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Sci 64:161–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branquart E, Kime R, Dufrêne M, Tavernier J, Wauthy G (1995) Macroarthropod-habitat relationships in oak forests in South Belgium. 1. Environments and communities. Pedobiologia 39:243Google Scholar
  5. Caro G, Decaëns T, Lecarpentier C, Mathieu J (2013) Are dispersal behaviours of earthworms related to their functional group? Soil Biol Biochem 58:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cesarz S, Craven D, Dietrich C, Eisenhauer N (2016) Effects of soil and leaf litter quality on the biomass of two endogeic earthworm species. Eur J Soil Biol 77:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claessens H, Oosterbaan A, Savill P, Rondeux J (2010) A review of the characteristics of black alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) and their implications for silvicultural practices. Forestry 83:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry JP (2004) Factors affecting the abundance of earthworms in soils. Earthworm Ecol 9:113Google Scholar
  9. De Wandeler H, Sousa-Silva R, Ampoorter E, Bruelheide H, Carnol M, Dawud SM, Dănilă G, Finer L, Hättenschwiler S, Hermy M (2016) Drivers of earthworm incidence and abundance across European forests. Soil Biol Biochem 99:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunger, W. 1989. The return of soil fauna to coal mined areas in the German Democratic Republic. Animals in Primary Succession. The Role of Fauna in Reclaimed Land:307–337Google Scholar
  11. Dunger W, Voigtländer K (2005) Assessment of biological soil quality in wooded reclaimed mine sites. Geoderma 129:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunger W, Wanner M, Hauser H, Hohberg K, Schulz H-J, Schwalbe T, Seifert B, Vogel J, Voigtländer K, Zimdars B (2001) Development of soil fauna at mine sites during 46 years after afforestation. Pedobiologia 45:243–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dworschak UR (1997) Earthworm populations in a reclaimed lignite open-cast mine of the Rhineland. Eur J Soil Biol 33:75–81Google Scholar
  14. Eijsackers H (2011) Earthworms as colonizers of natural and cultivated soil environments. Appl Soil Ecol 50:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenhauer N, Marhan S, Scheu S (2008) Assessment of anecic behavior in selected earthworm species: effects on wheat seed burial, seedling establishment, wheat growth and litter incorporation. Appl Soil Ecol 38:79–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eitzinger B, Traugott M (2011) Which prey sustains cold-adapted invertebrate generalist predators in arable land? Examining prey choices by molecular gut-content analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:591–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emmerling C, Strunk H (2012) Active dispersal of the endo-anecic earthworm Aporrectodea longa (Ude) in an experimental box. Soil Org 84:491–498Google Scholar
  18. Frouz J, Keplin B, Pižl V, Tajovský K, Starý J, Lukešová A, Nováková A, Balı́k VR, Háněl L, Materna J, Düker C, Chalupský J, Rusek J, Heinkele T (2001) Soil biota and upper soil layer development in two contrasting post-mining chronosequences. Ecol Eng 17:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frouz J, Elhottová D, Kuráž V, Šourková M (2006) Effects of soil macrofauna on other soil biota and soil formation in reclaimed and unreclaimed post mining sites: results of a field microcosm experiment. Appl Soil Ecol 33:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frouz J, Prach K, Pižl V, Háněl L, Starý J, Tajovský K, Materna J, Balík V, Kalčík J, Řehounková K (2008) Interactions between soil development, vegetation and soil fauna during spontaneous succession in post mining sites. Eur J Soil Biol 44:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frouz J, Pižl V, Cienciala E, Kalčík J (2009) Carbon storage in post-mining forest soil, the role of tree biomass and soil bioturbation. Biogeochemistry 94:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frouz J, Livečková M, Albrechtová J, Chroňáková A, Cajthaml T, Pižl V, Háněl L, Starý J, Baldrian P, Lhotáková Z (2013) Is the effect of trees on soil properties mediated by soil fauna? A case study from post-mining sites. For Ecol Manag 309:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Günther B, Rall BC, Ferlian O, Scheu S, Eitzinger B (2014) Variations in prey consumption of centipede predators in forest soils as indicated by molecular gut content analysis. Oikos 123:1192–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hemerik L, Gort G, Brussaard L (2003) Food preference of wireworms analyzed with multinomial logit models. J Insect Behav 16:647–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hlava J, Hlavová A, Hakl J, Fér M (2015) Earthworm responses to different reclamation processes in post opencast mining lands during succession. Environ Monit Assess 187:4108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holdsworth AR, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2012) Leaf litter disappearance in earthworm-invaded northern hardwood forests: role of tree species and the chemistry and diversity of litter. Ecosystems 15:913–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horodecki P, Jagodziński AM (2017) Tree species effects on litter decomposition in pure stands on afforested post-mining sites. For Ecol Manag 406:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jänsch S, Steffens L, Höfer H, Horak F, Roß-Nickoll M, Russell D, Toschki A, Römbke J (2013) State of knowledge of earthworm communities in German soils as a basis for biological soil quality assessment. Soil Org 85:215–233Google Scholar
  29. Joschko M, Diestel H, Larink O (1989) Assessment of earthworm burrowing efficiency in compacted soil with a combination of morphological and soil physical measurements. Biol Fertil Soils 8:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kretzschmar A (1991) Burrowing ability of the earthworm Aporrectodea longa limited by soil compaction and water potential. Biol Fertil Soils 11:48–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Křı́bek B, Strnad, Boháček Z, Sýkorová I, Čejka J, Sobalı́k Z (1998) Geochemistry of Miocene lacustrine sediments from the Sokolov coal basin (Czech Republic). Int J Coal Geol 37:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuráž V, Frouz J, Kuráž M, Mako A, Shustr V, Cejpek J, Romanov O, Abakumov E (2012) Changes in some physical properties of soils in the chronosequence of self-overgrown dumps of the Sokolov quarry-dump complex, Czechia. Eurasian Soil Science 45:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lavelle P, Decaëns T, Aubert M, Barot SB, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi J-P (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Biol 42:S3–S15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loranger G, Ponge J, Blanchart E, Lavelle P (1998) Impact of earthworms on the diversity of microarthropods in a vertisol (Martinique). Biol Fertil Soils 27:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marinissen J, Van den Bosch F (1992) Colonization of new habitats by earthworms. Oecologia 91:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehlich A (1984) Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 15:1409–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Migge-Kleian S, McLean MA, Maerz JC, Heneghan L (2006) The influence of invasive earthworms on indigenous fauna in ecosystems previously uninhabited by earthworms. Biol Invasions 8:1275–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monroy F, Aira M, Domínguez J (2011) Epigeic earthworms increase soil arthropod populations during first steps of decomposition of organic matter. Pedobiologia 54:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mudrák O, Frouz J, Velichová V (2010) Understory vegetation in reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining forest stands. Ecol Eng 36:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mueller KE, Eisenhauer N, Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Chadwick OA, Chorover J, Dobies T, Hale CM, Jagodziński AM, Kałucka I (2016) Light, earthworms, and soil resources as predictors of diversity of 10 soil invertebrate groups across monocultures of 14 tree species. Soil Biol Biochem 92:184–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muys B, Granval PH (1997) Earthworms as bio-indicators of forest site quality. Soil Biol Biochem 29:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neirynck J, Mirtcheva S, Sioen G, Lust N (2000) Impact of Tilia platyphyllos Scop., Fraxinus excelsior L., Acer pseudoplatanus L., Quercus robur L. and Fagus sylvatica L. on earthworm biomass and physico-chemical properties of a loamy topsoil. For Ecol Manage 133:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pižl V (1992) Succession of earthworm populations in abandoned fields. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1623–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pižl V (2001) Earthworm succession in afforested colliery spoil heaps in the Sokolov region, Czech Republic. Restor Ecol 9:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pontégnie M, de Warnaffe GDB, Lebrun P (2005) Impacts of silvicultural practices on the structure of hemi-edaphic macrofauna community. Pedobiologia 49:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rawlik M, Kasprowicz M, Jagodziński AM (2018) Differentiation of herb layer vascular flora in reclaimed areas depends on the species composition of forest stands. For Ecol Manag 409:541–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roubíčková A, Mudrák O, Frouz J (2012) The effect of belowground herbivory by wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) on performance of Calamagrostis epigejos (L) Roth in post-mining sites. Eur J Soil Biol 50:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schelfhout S, Mertens J, Verheyen K, Vesterdal L, Baeten L, Muys B, De Schrijver A (2017) Tree species identity shapes earthworm communities. Forests 8:85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shipitalo M, Le Bayon R (2004) Quantifying the effects of earthworms on soil aggregation and porosity. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smit R, Olff H (1998) Woody species colonisation in relation to habitat productivity. Plant Ecol 139:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Statsoft Inc., (2012) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), ver. 12Google Scholar
  52. Šmilauer P, Lepš J (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO 5. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Šnajdr J, Dobiášová P, Urbanová M, Petránková M, Cajthaml T, Frouz J, Baldrian P (2013) Dominant trees affect microbial community composition and activity in post-mining afforested soils. Soil Biol Biochem 56:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Šourková M, Frouz J, Šantrùčková H (2005) Accumulation of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus during soil formation on alder spoil heaps after brown-coal mining, near Sokolov (Czech Republic). Geoderma 124:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vacek Z, Vacek S, Podrazsky V, Král J, Bulusek D, Putalová T, Balas M, Kalousková I, Schwarz O (2016) Structural diversity and production of alder stands on former agricultural land at high altitudes. Dendrobiology 75:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walmsley A, Vachová P, Vach M (2017) Topography of spoil heaps and its role in plant succession and soil fauna presence. Sci Agric Bohem 48:30–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Land Use and Improvement, Faculty of Environmental SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Botany, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural ResourcesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Zoology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural ResourcesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations