Advertisement

Soil properties and earthworm populations associated with bauxite residue rehabilitation strategies

  • Ronan CourtneyEmail author
  • Elisa Di Carlo
  • Olaf Schmidt
Earthworm and Soil Pollution

Abstract

It is recognised that the establishment and function of soil biota is critical for successful mine residue rehabilitation. Bauxite residues are alkaline, saline and sodic and, whilst methods for establishing vegetation are well studied, little is known about key soil fauna such as earthworms. At a bauxite residue disposal area in Ireland, a 12-year-old rehabilitated residue was examined for evidence of earthworm populations. Five species of earthworm, dominated by Allolobophora chlorotica, were recorded in the rehabilitated residue representing the endogeic, epigeic and epi-anecic ecological groups. To further understand the potential for rehabilitated residues to support earthworm communities, a series of exposure tests was conducted. Whilst unamended residues (pH 10.2, EC 0.629 mS cm−1, ESP 54) was hostile to A. chlorotica survival, 100% survival was observed after 90 days for gypsum and organic-amended residue at salinity of up to 2.9 mS cm−1, possibly due to calcium becoming the dominant cation. Survival of earthworms at salinities higher than anticipated tolerance levels suggests that specific ion dominance plays a role in earthworm survival in saline soils. Percent mass change was negatively correlated with pH, EC and sodium content of the residues. Residue from the 12-year-old site also supported the anecic species Aporrectodea longa over 100 days. Percent mass change in residue samples retrieved from the 12-year-old site was significantly greater (p < 0.05) to that observed for a control soil. Capability of the rehabilitated residue to support earthworm populations indicates the development of a functioning soil system in rehabilitated residues.

Keywords

Bioassays Colonisation Mine soils Reclamation Salinity Specific ion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the SFI Career Development Award 17/CDA/4778.

References

  1. Baker GH, Brown G, Butt K, Curry JP, Scullion J (2006) Introduced earthworms in agricultural and reclaimed land: their ecology and influences on soil properties, plant production and other soil biota. In: Biological invasions belowground: earthworms as invasive species. Springer, Netherlands, pp 101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman LA, Boutton TW, Whisenant SG (2008) Nematode community development early in ecological restoration: the role of organic amendments. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2366–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouché MB (1972) Lombriciens de France: écologie et systématique. INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyer S, Wratten SD (2010) The potential of earthworms to restore ecosystem services after opencast mining—a review. Basic Appl Ecol 11:196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckerfield JC, Doube BM (1993) Responses of native and introduced earthworm species to limed soil. In: Workshop on tillage systems, rotations and associated root Diseases, pp 68–69Google Scholar
  6. Butt KR (2008) Earthworms in soil restoration: lessons learned from United Kingdom case studies of land reclamation. Restor Ecol 16:637–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butt KR, Briones MJ (2017) Earthworms and mesofauna from an isolated, alkaline chemical waste site in Northwest England. Eur J Soil Biol 78:43–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butt KR, Lowe CN, Frederickson J, Moffat AJ (2004) The development of sustainable earthworm populations at Calvert landfill site, UK. Land Degrad Dev 15:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courtney R, Harrington T (2012) Growth and nutrition of Holcus lanatus in bauxite residue amended with combinations of spent mushroom compost and gypsum. Land Degrad Dev 23:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtney R, Mullen G (2009) Use of germination and seedling performance bioassays for assessing revegetation strategies on bauxite residue. Water Air Soil Pollut 197:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Courtney RG, Timpson JP (2005) Nutrient status of vegetation grown in alkaline bauxite processing residue amended with gypsum and thermally dried sewage sludge—a two year field study. Plant Soil 266:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Courtney R, Mullen G, Harrington T (2009) An evaluation of revegetation success on bauxite residue. Restor Ecol 17:350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Courtney R, Keith AM, Harrington T (2011) Nematode assemblages in bauxite residue with different restoration histories. Restor Ecol 19:758–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Courtney R, Harrington T, Byrne KA (2013) Indicators of soil formation in restored bauxite residues. Ecol Eng 58:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curry JP, Cotton DCF (1983) Earthworms and land reclamation. In: Satchell JE (ed) Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to vermiculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunger W (1989) The return of soil fauna to coal mined areas in the German Democratic Republic. In: Majer JD (ed) Animals in primary succession—the role of fauna in reclaimed lands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 307–337Google Scholar
  17. Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Eijsackers H (2010) Earthworms as colonisers: primary colonisation of contaminated land, and sediment and soil waste deposits. Sci Total Environ 408:1759–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eijsackers H, Lourijsen N, Mentink J (1983) Effects of fly ash on soil fauna. In: Lebrun P (ed) New trends in soil biology. Dieu-Brichart, Louvain-la-Neuve, pp 680–681Google Scholar
  20. Eijsackers H, Bruggeman J, Harmsen J, de Kort T, Schakel A (2009) Colonization of PAH-contaminated dredged sediment by earthworms. Appl Soil Ecol 43:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnegan G, O’ Grady A, Courtney R (2018) Plant assays and avoidance tests with collembola and earthworms demonstrate rehabilitation success in bauxite residue. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(3):2157–2166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Frouz J, Hrčková K, Lána J, Krištůfek V, Mudrák O, Lukešová A, Mihaljevič M (2011) Can laboratory toxicity tests explain the pattern of field communities of algae, plants, and invertebrates along a toxicity gradient of post-mining sites? Appl Soil Ecol 51:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gräfe M, Klauber C (2011) Bauxite residue issues: IV. Old obstacles and new pathways for in situ residue bioremediation. Hydrometallurgy 108:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamdy MK, Williams FS (2001) Bacterial amelioration of bauxite residue waste of industrial alumina plants. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 27:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haynes RJ (2014) Nature of the belowground ecosystem and its development during pedogenesis. Adv Agron 127:43–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Higgins D, Curtin T, Pawlett M, Courtney R (2016) The potential for constructed wetlands to treat alkaline bauxite-residue leachate: Phragmites australis growth. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:24305–24315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Homan C, Beier C, McCay T, Lawrence G (2016) Application of lime (CaCO3) to promote forest recovery from severe acidification increases potential for earthworm invasion. For Ecol Manag 368:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones BE, Haynes RJ, Phillips IR (2011) Influence of organic waste and residue mud additions on chemical, physical and microbial properties of bauxite residue sand. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18:199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones BE, Haynes RJ, Phillips IR (2012) Addition of an organic amendment and/or residue mud to bauxite residue sand in order to improve its properties as a growth medium. J Environ Manag 95:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jouquet P, Blanchart E, Capowiez Y (2014) Utilization of earthworms and termites for the restoration of ecosystem functioning. Appl Soil Ecol 73:34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Judd KW, Mason CF (1995) Earthworm populations of a restored landfill site. Pedobiologia 39:107–115Google Scholar
  33. Kardol P, Wardle DA (2010) How understanding aboveground–belowground linkages can assist restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 25:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kawakami T, Makoto K (2017) Does an earthworm species acclimatize and/or adapt to soil calcium conditions? The consequences of soil nitrogen mineralization in forest soil. Ecol Res 32:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keith AM, Boots B, Hazard C, Niechoj R, Arroyo J, Bending GD, Bolger T, Breen J, Clipson N, Doohan FM, Griffin CT, Schmidt O (2012) Cross-taxa congruence, indicators and environmental drivers in soils under agricultural and extensive land management. Eur J Soil Biol 49:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kinraide TB (1999) Interactions among Ca2+, Na+ and K+ in salinity toxicity: quantitative resolution of multiple toxic and ameliorative effects. J Exp Bot 50:1495–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowe CN, Butt KR (2005) Culture techniques for soil dwelling earthworms: a review. Pedobiologia 49:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ma WC, Eijsackers H (1989) The influence of substrate toxicity on soil macrofauna return in reclaimed land. In: Majer JD (ed) Animals in primary succession: the role of fauna in reclaimed lands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 223–244Google Scholar
  39. Majer JD, Brennan KE, Moir ML (2007) Invertebrates and the restoration of a forest ecosystem: 30 years of research following bauxite mining in Western Australia. Restor Ecol 15:S104–S115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marashi AR, Scullion J (2003) Earthworm casts form stable aggregates in physically degraded soils. Biol Fertil Soils 37:375–380Google Scholar
  41. Mudrák O, Uteseny K, Frouz J (2012) Earthworms drive succession of both plant and Collembola communities in post-mining sites. Appl Soil Ecol 62:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nirola R, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Aryal R, Correll R, Naidu R (2016) Assessment of metal toxicity and bioavailability in metallophyte leaf litters and metalliferous soils using Eisenia fetida in a microcosm study. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 129:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owojori OJ, Reinecke AJ (2009) Avoidance behaviour of two eco-physiologically different earthworms (Eisenia fetida and Aporrectodea caliginosa) in natural and artificial saline soils. Chemosphere 75:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Owojori OJ, Reinecke AJ (2014) Differences in ionic properties of salts affect saline toxicity to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Appl Soil Ecol 83:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Owojori OJ, Reinecke AJ, Rozanov AB (2008) Effects of salinity on partitioning, uptake and toxicity of zinc in the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2385–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pereira CS, Lopes I, Sousa JP, Chelinho S (2015) Effects of NaCl and seawater induced salinity on survival and reproduction of three soil invertebrate species. Chemosphere 135:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piearce TG, Piearce B (1979) Responses of Lumbricidae to saline inundation. J Appl Ecol 16: 461–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pižl V (2001) Earthworm succession in afforested colliery spoil heaps in the Sokolov region, Czech Republic. Restor Ecol 9:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Qadir M, Schubert S (2002) Degradation processes and nutrient constraints in sodic soils. Land Degradation & Development 13(4):275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rietz DN, Haynes RJ (2003) Effects of irrigation-induced salinity and sodicity on soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 35:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roubíčková A, Mudrák O, Frouz J (2009) Effect of earthworm on growth of late succession plant species in postmining sites under laboratory and field conditions. Biol Fertil Soils 45:769–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Satchell J, Stone DA (1972) Earthworm activity in pulverised fuel ash sites restored to agriculture. Report to Central Electricity Generating Board.Google Scholar
  53. Scullion J (1994). Earthworms and soil rehabilitation after opencast mining for coal. Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, 49–51Google Scholar
  54. Scullion J, Malik A (2000) Earthworm activity affecting organic matter, aggregation and microbial activity in soils restored after opencast mining for coal. Soil Biol Biochem 32:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scullion J, Mohammed ARA, Ramshaw GA (1988) Changes in earthworm populations following cultivation of undisturbed and former opencast coal-mining land. Agric Ecosyst Environ 20:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simmons JA (2012) Toxicity of major cations and anions (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl, and SO4 2−) to a macrophyte and an alga. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1370–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Southwell LT, Majer JD (1982) The survival and growth of the earthworm Eisenia foetida (Lumbricidae: Oligochaeta) in alkaline residues associated with the bauxite refining process. Pedobiologia 23:42–52Google Scholar
  58. Spurgeon DJ, Tomlin MA, Hopkin SP (1997) Influence of temperature on the toxicity of zinc to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 58:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tamis WLM, Udo De Haes H (1995) Recovery of earthworm communities (Lumbricidae) in some thermally and biologically cleaned soils. Pedobiologia 39:351–369Google Scholar
  60. Thomas GW (1982) Exchangeable cations. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, p 159–165Google Scholar
  61. Tordoff GM, Baker AJM, Willis AJ (2000) Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation of metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere 41:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vimmerstedt JP (1983) Earthworm ecology in reclaimed opencast coal mining sites in Ohio. In: Earthworm ecology, from Darwin to vermiculture, pp 229–240Google Scholar
  63. Xue S, Zhu F, Kong X, Wu C, Huang L, Huang N, Hartley W (2016) A review of the characterization and revegetation of bauxite residues (Red mud). Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1120–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhu F, Hou J, Xue S, Wu C, Wang, Hartley W (2017) Vermicompost and gypsum amendments improve aggregate formation in bauxite residue. Land Degrad Dev 28:2109–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronan Courtney
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Elisa Di Carlo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olaf Schmidt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.The Bernal InstituteUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.UCD School of Agriculture & Food ScienceUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations