Skip to main content

Earthworm effects on soil biogeochemistry in temperate forests focusing on stable isotope tracing: a review

Abstract

Earthworms (Oligochaeta) are globally distributed soil-dwelling invertebrates that alter soil properties through feeding, casting, and burrowing behaviors. Soil physicochemical modification, which may directly influence the availability and dynamics of organic and inorganic nutrients in the soil, such as carbon and nitrogen, includes soil texture, porosity, and pH. Temperate forests produce year-round plant litter, the primary food source for earthworms, and litter processed by earthworms significantly contributes to soil organic material storage. In recent decades, studies on temperate forest ecosystems have attempted to elucidate and quantify the earthworm impact on soil organic material dynamics, mainly targeting carbon and nitrogen, using isotope analysis methods. This paper summarizes studies on the following topics: (1) effect of earthworm modification on soil property to understand these alterations’ interaction with carbon and nitrogen dynamics, and (2) isotope tracing method, used to elucidate the earthworm effect on carbon and nitrogen transformation and movements in temperate forests. The particular emphasis on the isotope method is based on its capability of time-adjusted quantification of organic materials in the ecosystem compartments. Also, isotopic labeling in biomass has a broad range of applications, such as tracing assimilated food sources, identifying trophic interactions in soil food webs, and addressing material dynamics in complex linkages between earthworms and their environment. In addition, we provide perspectives on other methodologies, such as chronology and population ecology, as feasible options to further assist the isotope tracing of earthworms’ impact on soil nutrient dynamics.

Introduction

Earthworms are universally distributed soil invertebrates found in natural and artificial ecosystems, including forests, grasslands, agricultural lands, orchards, and gardens [1]. Since earthworms are ectotherms and engage in cutaneous respiration in which gas exchange occurs through their moist, mucus-rich skin, they are abundant in warm and humid areas across temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions [2]. Amongst these habitats, earthworms have preferences for soil with pH ranging between 5.96 and 8.65 and organic carbon contents over 1% [3]. Still, earthworm distribution varies because of their species-specific traits and food preferences [4].

Earthworms feed on mineral soil and associated soil organic material (SOM), such as litter from fine roots, fallen leaves, and branches [5]. Hence, forests and grasslands that yield year-round litter possess abundant earthworm communities. In several temperate and tropical regions, earthworms account for 40–90% of the soil macrofauna [6,7,8] and play a vital role in nutrient recycling and reuse [9].

There are diverse research disciplines involving earthworms, including biogeochemistry, ecotoxicology, biodiversity, taxonomy, and vermicomposting [10]. Especially in the ecological field, investigations on earthworm biodiversity have been undertaken globally [11]. According to Phillips et al. [11], who reviewed the earthworm biodiversity monitoring conducted in the post-2000s, studies targeting the broadleaf deciduous forests and forest–grassland areas accounted for over 60% of the total study sites, highlighting the significance of temperate forests as earthworm habitats.

Compared to biodiversity investigations, fewer studies on biogeochemistry were conducted, and in limited regions. Previous review studies that addressed earthworms’ effects on soil biogeochemistry focused on (1) tracking elements’ (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) quantitative partitioning in their pools and SOM transformations, (2) pedologic processes of soil layers, and (3) interactions between soil fauna according to material reallocation. Most investigations were undertaken on arable lands and grasslands, while forests accounted for a small proportion. Forests, grasslands, and arable lands differ in organic material input pattern and litter quality, so litter decomposition and SOM storage also vary with land type [12]. In general, dissolved organic matter concentrations of soil follow the order forests > grasslands > arable lands, mainly because of vegetation compositions [13,14,15]. Also, among management practices in arable lands, mineral fertilization and tillage, decrease SOM levels in the long run [16] and earthworm populations of deep burrowing species, [17] respectively. The SOM dynamics of forests are expected to be significantly different from those of arable lands, so this paper focuses on mechanisms within the scope of forests.

Litters are dead plant biomass comprised of cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, proteins, hormones, and other substances [18]. Plants synthesize and store organic compounds made up of nutrients, such as carbon and nitrogen. Dead plant biomass on the ground, a food source for soil fauna constituting organic compounds, is mineralized and released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but most of it is fragmented and stored as SOM [5]. SOM takes a longer time, from months to decades, to be mineralized [19]. It is reported that forest soil holds more than 40% of the organic carbon among terrestrial carbon reservoirs [20, 21]. Small labile organic compounds and mineralized inorganic nutrients are reabsorbed into soil fauna or plant roots and again stored as biomass [18].

Furthermore, they are delivered to herbivores and predators of the upper food chain throughout the ecosystem. Therefore, litters are significant nutrient sources that sustain soil biota and ecosystems [22]. Earthworms decompose litter three times quicker than other invertebrates, such as springtails and enchytraeids, considering their biomass, density, and collaboration with gut microbiota possessing the ability to break down carbohydrate polymers [18, 23]. Sometimes, earthworms can consume the entire leaf-fall in deciduous temperate forests [24, 25].

Temperate forests are characterized by the massive seasonal production of litter during autumn [26] and are usually categorized into four stand types: broadleaf deciduous, needleleaf evergreen, needleleaf deciduous, and mixed [27]. Global analysis on annual litterfall ranged between 3 and 11 Mg ha−1, which varied significantly by the forest stand types [26]. In a meta-analysis study, root and leaf litter were reported to account for 48% and 41% of annual litters, respectively [28]. Also, more than 70% of the above-ground litter consists of leaf tissue; the rest are stems, twigs, and other components [29], but the proportion of wood material rises with increasing stand ages [30, 31]. Accordingly, the production and decomposition of plant biomass determine temperate forests as a substantial carbon source and sink [27, 32, 33]. Earthworm decomposition has been investigated mostly on leaves rather than root litter, despite the potential contribution of roots due to (1) massive leaf litter production during autumn and (2) difficulties in underground experimental observations.

The traditional approaches for soil property modification and material cycling by earthworms rely on direct observation of their feeding activities, microscopic examinations of gut contents, palatability test, estimation of ingestion, consumption, and growth rates [34]. However, each method consumes considerable time and provides limited information about the feeding strategy and the assimilated dietary components. Experimental designs include incubating earthworms within chambers placed in laboratories (microcosm) or outdoor fields (mesocosm). Mesocosm studies reflect natural climatic conditions such as temperature and humidity.

Isotope analysis emerged as a powerful research tool for animal ecology [35], and earthworm research could also benefit from its application [36]. For SOM tracing, ratios of stable isotope pairs, mostly 13C/12C and 15N/14N, are measured using isotope ratio mass spectrometry [37]. One advantage of the isotopic method is that isotopes can be employed as tracers in undisturbed soil of field settings. Environmental conditions vary significantly in scale and frequency between indoor and outdoor experiments; the application of isotope analysis provides a much simpler design, advantage, and accuracy to field experiment measurements. These methods also trace assimilated food materials, identify trophic interactions of earthworms in soil food webs, and address nutrient dynamics in complex linkages of earthworms and their environments [38]. Furthermore, labeling isotopes enable evaluation of their mean residence time and the half-life time in compartments. The mean residence time corresponds to the stock-to-exchange rates, which is not an intrinsic property of a compartment [39].

In the present paper, we synthesize recent discoveries of earthworm-derived biogeochemical changes in temperate forest soil and potential carbon and nitrogen dynamics, followed by litter and SOM decomposition. We also examine the current and latest methodologies for material dynamics to suggest future directions that may add more precision and efficiency to related studies, with particular implications regarding isotope tracing methods.

Hence, we have adopted the scoping review methodology [40] for this paper to generate a comprehensive literature review about the contribution of earthworms to soil biogeochemistry and isotopic measurements. The reviewed literature was restricted to peer-reviewed publications and grey literature from approved international bodies. The published online research was collected from Google scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. The online catalog gathered published articles, books, book chapters, and doctoral dissertations from various libraries. Especially for the latest isotopic research addressed in the “Isotope techniques for studying soil nutrient cycling by earthworms” section, we sorted publications between January 1st, 1999 and November 1st, 2022. The search was limited to the following keywords to clearly indicate the main focus of our paper: temperate forests, carbon and nitrogen isotopes, litter decomposition, and SOM. Even in references, we excluded results from non-temperate forest sites and indoor experiments that used agricultural soils.

Earthworms, soil, and nutrient cycling

Earthworms and soil properties

Earthworms are ecosystem engineers that have considerable physical, chemical, and biological alterations in their habitats [41, 42] through their burrowing, feeding, and casting activities. Earthworms’ vertical and horizontal burrowing activity affects the soil structure, resulting in a distinctive soil layer known as the drilosphere [43]. Studies have reported other earthworm-derived modifications on increasing soil porosity [44] and aggregate stability [45]. Also, water and air penetrate deeper soil through the earthworm burrows and promote the activity of aerobic microorganisms [46,47,48].

Earthworms’ feeding activity greatly influences soil chemical properties. Earthworm-derived chemical modifications include soil pH [49], cation exchange capacity (CEC) [50], carbon and nitrogen stock [51,52,53], and inorganic nutrient contents, such as potassium and magnesium [54]. Along the earthworm intestinal tract, organic materials are fragmented, converted into readily available carbon compounds or minerals and mixed with mucus; some are assimilated into biomass and the rest are released into bulk soil [55,56,57]. Moreover, earthworms carry organic materials into deeper soil, causing a vertical redistribution of nutrients [58, 59].

Earthworm casts are rich in labile carbon and nitrogen compounds, calcium, potassium, and magnesium compared to bulk soil because of their selective feeding and digestion of litter [4, 38, 60, 61]. Such chemical modification of soil promotes the activity of the surrounding microbiome and nutrient uptake of plant roots [62]. The estimated production of earthworm casts ranges between 31 and 293 kg year−1 per 100 g m−2 of earthworms [63,64,65]. The value varies depending on physical environmental conditions and earthworm species [66].

Soil’s physical and chemical properties constantly interact with each other. For instance, earthworm casts with high organic matter content easily bind the surrounding soil particles, which promotes soil aggregate formation [67]. Soil aggregate content and porosity are positively correlated and lead to soil aeration and substrate infiltration.

Earthworm mucus is another driver for soil aggregate formation and organic material dynamics [68]. It is a water-soluble mixture of diverse saccharides, such as glucose, galactose, glucosamine [68], aminoacid [69], and glycoproteins [70]. Microbes utilize mucus as an energy source, so they are abundant and active in earthworms’ intestines and mucus [71]. Likewise, there is also a high microbial population on the inner wall of the earthworm burrows [72, 73]. According to Scheu [74], daily carbon loss due to mucus production accounted for 0.2–0.5% of the total animal carbon in the case of Octolasion lacteum, which is an abundant species in temperate forests [74]. Daily mucus excretion of 1 g of earthworms is approximately 5.6 mg in dry weight [75, 76].

Soil properties and nutrient cycling

As briefly addressed in the previous section, soil properties directly influence the availability and dynamics of soil nutrients. Among them, soil pH is the primary regulating factor of litter decomposition, primarily dependent on the soil fauna activities [77]. It is known that soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, and the microbial community (e.g., nitrifiers) in soil positively correlate with soil pH [77]; soil acidity is often a limiting factor for bacterial activities [68].

In addition, organic carbon mineralization tends to represent higher rates in finely textured soils with low C:N ratios [78]. Soil containing more than about 15% clay can form aggregates, which can longer retain organic compounds [79]. Soil aggregates act as a reservoir for labile organic compounds, offering protection from microbial degradation [80]. Moreover, clay minerals have a large specific surface area and surface charges, stimulating interactions with SOM and other minerals [81]. One study examined SOM storage in silt loam and sandy loam soils and reported that the latter had lower total carbon and nitrogen contents and minor concentrations of available nitrogen [80]. Also, low soil porosity often forms anaerobic microclimates in soil, with increased activities of anaerobic bacteria communities, including nitrogen fixers [82].

Isotope techniques for studying soil nutrient cycling by earthworms

As we indicated in the previous section, isotope tracing is a promising method for material cycling in ecosystems. There are two general strategies in isotope analysis: natural abundance measurement and isotope labeling. The former method measures the naturally occurring isotope ratios. Since earthworms feed on mineral soil and SOM, it depends on the known isotopic ratio differences between food sources instead of the ratio linked to the original trophic hierarchy [83].

The isotope labeling method usually uses biomass (e.g., plant materials with artificially enriched isotope content) cultured in an airtight plant growth chamber provided with 13CO2 for photosynthesis and water-soluble 15N-inoculated substrates as nutrients. Isotope labeling is used to observe maximized changes by increasing the quantity of the isotopes, as the proportions of the isotopes are naturally very small (13C1%, 15N0.4%).

This section addresses the latest studies on earthworm contribution to SOM dynamics using 13C, 14C, and 15N analyses conducted in temperate forests globally. Table 1 represents studies in this scope with related methodology and major findings. These studies measured isotopes in soil, leachate, plant and mycorrhizal tissue, earthworm tissue, mucus, and casts to examine the earthworm-induced partitioning of nutrients in ecosystem compartments. The earthworm’s species-specific preference for food sources and contribution to soil respiration were also investigated with isotopes. Earthworms’ interaction with other organisms was studied by quantifying earthworm-derived carbon movement within the soil food web. Lastly, several cases have examined the soil structural alteration related to nutrient storage.

Table 1 Studies on earthworm impact of nutrient dynamics using isotope methods conducted in temperate regions

The feeding ecology of earthworms

The feeding ecology of earthworms has been effectively investigated in several studies using the natural abundance of isotope ratio. In Northeast Asia, Uchida et al. [84] measured the natural masses of 13C and 15N in earthworm tissue, gut contents, and soil layers to examine the feeding behaviors of several earthworm species. This study identified the vertical spatial niches and available food sources that vary according to earthworms’ functional groups (epigeic, endogeic, or anecic group). Values of δ15N and δ13C typically increased from litter to deeper soil, and δ15N from earthworm tissue indicated that epigeic earthworms exploited resources in the early stages of decomposition of fresh litter, whereas endogeic earthworms consumed more degraded substances [84].

On the other hand, Bohlen et al. [51] reported earthworms’ food preference and selection of leaf litter rather over stem and twig litters, based on different δ13C values among the forest floor materials. In shallower mineral soil, δ13C directly reflected that of remaining litter types that have neglected by earthworms [85].

Schmidt et al. [86] examined the carbon turnover within an earthworm using δ13C. They reported that when the earthworm food source switched from clover (C3 plant) to maize (C4 plant), the dietary δ13C signature was altered more rapidly in the mucus (4‰) than in the tissue (1‰) [86]. They also revealed that starvation does not cause 13C and 15N isotope ratio shifts in earthworms, but causes decreased mucus and tissue C:N ratio [86].

In addition, the soil food web was more enriched by the 13C from fine roots than from above-ground litter, with rapid fine root decay (k = 0.9 year−1) [87]. This implies the potential significance of fine roots as a source of SOM processed by earthworms, as well as leaf litter.

Species-specific traits of earthworms

Earthworms have interspecific variations in food preferences and ecological functions. Fahey et al. [57] investigated earthworm-induced sugar maple litter decomposition with different functional groups of earthworms [Lumbricus terrestris (anecic) and Lumbricus rubellus (epi-endogeic)]. Of 13C labeled litter, 37% was decomposed because of the elimination of forest floor, and loss of SOM and decrease in C:N ratio were observed; recovery of 15N was higher than 13C, with lower values for L. terrestris than L. rubellus, because higher overwinter activity of L. terrestris consumed more soil nitrogen [57].

Chang et al. [88] categorized earthworm species by origin, from exotics of Europe and Asia to natives of North America, to assess the species-specific and interspecific effect on litter decomposition and soil respiration (efflux of 13CO2). The interaction between the European species—Octolasion lacteum and Lumbricus rubellus—had a significant adverse impact on soil respiration, presumably by increasing anaerobic soil microsites. Moreover, litter-derived soil respiration was reduced by the Asian Amynthas hilgendorfi and L. rubellus, and by the North American Eisenoides lonnbergi, but not by O. lacteum [88]. The decrease in soil respiration may be due to earthworm-induced aggregate formation and ensuing reduction in microbial decomposition of labile carbon [88].

Nutrient recycling between organisms, including earthworms

Isotopes labeling in earthworm biomass can assist in investigating below- and above-ground interactions through the food web [89]. Grabmaier et al. [89] used 15N-labeled earthworms by culturing them with leguminous herbs and aphids. They observed earthworm-derived 15N incorporation into plant leaves (50‰), root and mycorrhizal fungi (62‰), and aphids (37‰) [89]. The results quantitatively revealed the course of plants’ utilization of nitrogen-containing nutrients to start from earthworm casts into plant compartments followed by delivery to associated organisms, such as symbiotic fungi and sap-sucking herbivore aphids.

Similarly, two studies were conducted in the European temperate forests by Yang et al. [90] and Marhan & Scheu [97]. Concerning litter quality, Yang et al. [90] used 15N-labeled ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) leaf-litter and measured the 15N reuptake of each tree species from earthworm casts [90]. Earthworms and mycorrhizal fungi participated in 2–7% nitrogen recycling from leaf litter and uniformly increased plant acquisition of leaf-derived nitrogen.

Earthworms’ effects on soil materials and structures ultimately result in soil microbiome abundance and activities. Groffman et al. (2015) witnessed that the 13C- and 15N-labeled litter input in earthworm-invaded plots resulted in greater 13C and 15N microbial biomass than in the mineral nitrogen pool. The depletion of soil carbon and soil nitrogen maintenance was observed, presumably caused by earthworm stimulation of microbial biomass and activity [91]. This may be a mechanism for nitrogen retention in carbon-rich soil in response to the earthworm invasion [91]. This result is opposite to several pieces of research, conducted in agricultural or mixed soils, reporting a reduction in microbial biomass and increase in nitrogen turnover by earthworms [92, 93]. This could have reflected the difference in soil quality (e.g., SOM contents) and earthworm mixing of soil horizon [94]. Due to the tight coupling of soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics, earthworm impact on nitrogen cycling in forest soils is inseparable from litter quantity and qualities [51].

Earthworm-induced soil nutrient storage

Temperate deciduous forests in North America are characterized by exotic earthworm invasions from Europe and Asia, majorly due to human settlement and agriculture [95]. Earthworm invasion has caught the interest of scientists since the early twentieth century, when an earthworm-induced modification to soil was observed. For instance, Ewing et al. [96] examined the physical reconstruction of soil layers by earthworms in terms of hydrology. It was found that 15NO3 added to the soil was more rapidly utilized in the earthworm-invaded plots than in uninvaded plots due to less nitrogen retention in litter and upper soil layers, but not due to the acceleration of the water infiltration stimulated by earthworm burrows [96].

Likewise, earthworms’ effect on soil physical structure can be attributed to carbon retention. Marhan & Scheu [97] combined 14C-labeled lignocellulose decomposition with earthworm mixing of mineral soil layers. Earthworms’ mineralization of lignocellulose was greater in treatments without (+ 14.1%) than in those with (+ 8.6%) mineral soil of Bw-horizon [97]. This may be because earthworm mixing of carbon-devoid mineral soil with earthworm casts containing 14C organic materials decreased microbial activities.

Soil texture is another factor that controls earthworms’ effects on soil nutrient storage. Crumsey et al. [98] found that nitrogen retention was higher in sandy loam than in sandy soil [98]. Besides, Fahey et al. [87] exploited carbon storage inside soil aggregates amongst silt and clay [87]. Carbon inoculated in silt and clay remained roughly constant through time; 13C recovery declined only by 0.8% after 5 years.

Future directions and suggested methodologies

Most studies conducted in temperate forests or laboratories using soil from the temperate forests targeted Lumbricus spp. from limited functional groups. However, various earthworm species coexist as communities in forests, occupying distinct niches utilizing soil environmental heterogeneity [99]. Thus, monitoring an isolated species may not reflect intraspecies interactions and their full impact on SOM. In addition, when assessing the earthworm communities in quantitative studies, it is crucial to specify earthworm species composition and temporal fluctuations of earthworm density (n m−2) and biomass (g m−2) for the same reason. Such information may support the meta-analysis to synthesize and generalize earthworm effects in various ecosystems. Disciplinary integration of population ecology and ecosystem ecology to elucidate the impact of forest earthworm populations on nutrient cycling is one method for considering earthworms’ life cycle and their changing density and biomass.

Extending our knowledge of forest-dwelling earthworms’ lifecycles and seasonal population dynamics may support investigation of their apparent species-specific capabilities. However, monitoring in a timescale ranging from months to years can be an alternative to assessing earthworm influence without precise prior knowledge, since very few cases have revealed earthworms’ lifecycles. Developing such a method is especially in demand since hand sorting and mustard powder methods, mainly used in fields to sample earthworm individuals and assess their distributions, remain controversial in terms of their accuracy.

Forests invaded by exotic earthworms provide the best conditions for observing the changes induced by earthworm activity. North American temperate forests are attracting attention as new research destinations because of earthworm invasion in recent decades due to farming and climate change [51, 100]. Some studies utilize chrono-sequential analysis based on regional invasion time and following soil modification. The chrono-sequential analysis has the advantage of field measurement on a broader area compared to that of the mesocosm study, which cultures earthworms in a chamber installed in fields. Also, earthworm invasion is expected to become more frequent in higher latitude regions because of climate change and other anthropological factors. As such, chronosequence methodologies may be powerful tools that provide insight into earthworm-induced SOM dynamics. In addition, phylogenetic studies can further strengthen earthworms’ impact on material cycling by analyzing their genetic correspondence of morphological, physiological, and ecological characteristics.

Leaf litter is a widely used material in experimental studies related to earthworm feeding. However, other parts of plants, such as fine roots and twig residues, are also essential sources of SOM for earthworms. Still, little is known about the earthworm’s attribution to their decomposition [38, 101, 102]. Rhizotron is a practical tool for related research as it can visualize below-ground soil profiles and monitor root development in real time. Vidal et al. [103] investigated the decomposition stages of the 13C-enriched shoot and root litters in earthworm casts [103]. The different chemical compositions between shoot and root tissues appeared as a driving factor for their distinct decomposition processes. NanoSIMS (nanometre‐scale secondary ion mass spectrometry) was used in that study to obtain microscale spatial images and monitor the changes in the structure and distribution of target organic materials, such as tissue walls.

We must verify correlations between environmental conditions of study sites and earthworm activities during material cycle studies to calibrate measurements. For instance, air temperature increases soil respiration and reduces soil carbon stocks, and soil texture is one factor that affects organic material stabilization by effectively binding SOM. Investigations in a broader region of different temperatures, humidity, and soil characteristics with a unified method are recommended to assess interactions between abiotic factors and earthworms.

Conclusions

This paper addressed the earthworm influences on soil physicochemical properties and on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in temperate forest ecosystems. Since soil properties directly regulate the decomposition of litter, a major food resource for earthworms and SOM sources in forests, elucidating relevant mechanisms of nutrient cycling in forest ecosystems is essential. Among other methods to investigate SOM dynamics and partitioning in forest soil, carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis has been adopted by soil ecologists based on its efficiency and accuracy. Several studies have quantified trophic interactions of earthworms in soil food webs, palatability, assimilation of SOM into earthworm biomass, carbon and nitrogen turnover, and earthworm impact on soil carbon and nitrogen contents using this method in temperate forests. Other methodologies, including chrono-sequential measuring and population assessments, are recommended for further elaboration and verification of soil nutrient circulation, especially for carbon and nitrogen.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. References are included for each and every data gathered from the published articles.

Abbreviations

CEC:

Cation exchange capacity

NanoSIMS:

Nanometre‐scale secondary ion mass spectrometry

SOM:

Soil organic material

References

  1. Phillips HR, Guerra CA, Bartz ML et al (2019) Global distribution of earthworm diversity. Science 366(6464):480–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Edwards CA, Bohlen PJ (1996) Biology and ecology of earthworms. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  3. Singh S, Sharma A, Khajuria K, Singh J, Vig AP (2020) Soil properties changes earthworm diversity indices in different agro-ecosystem. BMC Ecol 20(1):1–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hendriksen NB (1990) Leaf litter selection by detritivore and geophagous earthworms. Biol Fertil Soils 10(1):17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Prescott CE, Vesterdal L (2021) Decomposition and transformations along the continuum from litter to soil organic matter in forest soils. For Ecol Manag 498:119522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee KE (1985) Earthworms: their ecology and relationships with soils and land use. Academic Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards CA (2004) Earthworm Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Fragoso C, Lavelle P, Blanchart E et al (1999) Earthworm communities of tropical agroecosystems: origin, structure and influence of management practices. In: Lavelle P, Brussaard L, Hendrix P (eds) Earthworm management in tropical agroecosystems. CABI publishing, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar A (2005) Verms & vermitechnology. APH Publishing, Daryaganj

    Google Scholar 

  10. Le Bayon RC, Bullinger-Weber G, Schomburg A, Turberg P, Schlaepfer R, Guenat C (2017) Earthworms as ecosystem engineers: a review. In: Horton CG (ed) Earthworms: types, roles and research. NOVA Science Publishers, Hauppauge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Phillips HR, Bach EM, Bartz MLC et al (2021) Global data on earthworm abundance, biomass, diversity and corresponding environmental properties. Sci Data 8(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. John B, Yamashita T, Ludwig B, Flessa H (2005) Storage of organic carbon in aggregate and density fractions of silty soils under different types of land use. Geoderma 128(1):63–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Quideau SA, Bockheim JG (1997) Biogeochemical cycling following planting to red pine on a sandy prairie soil. J Environ Qual 26(4):1167–1175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Haynes RJ (2000) Labile organic matter as an indicator of organic matter quality in arable and pastoral soils in New Zealand. Soil Biol Biochem 32(2):211–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chantigny MH (2003) Dissolved and water-extractable organic matter in soils: a review on the influence of land use and management practices. Geoderma 113(3):357–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nardi S, Morari F, Berti A, Tosoni M, Giardini L (2004) Soil organic matter properties after 40 years of different use of organic and mineral fertilisers. Eur J Agron 21(3):357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chan KY (2001) An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity—implications for functioning in soils. Soil Tillage Res 57(4):179–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krishna MP, Mohan M (2017) Litter decomposition in forest ecosystems: a review. Energy Ecol Environ 2(4):236–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Conant RT, Ryan MG, Ågren GI et al (2011) Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob Change Biol 17(11):3392–3404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wei X, Shao M, Gale W, Li L (2014) Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests to agricultural land. Sci Rep 4(1):1–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ Press, New York, USA

  22. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44(2):322–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jenkinson DS, Bradbury NJ, Coleman K (1994) How the rothamsted classical experiments have been used to develop and test models for the turnover of carbon and nitrogen in soil. In: Johnston AE, Leigh RA (eds) Long-term experiments in agricultural and ecological sciences. CABI International, Wallingford Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nielsen GA, Hole FD (1964) Earthworms and the development of coprogenous A1 horizons in forest soils of Wisconsin. Soil Sci Soc Am J 28(3):426–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Edwards CA, Arancon NQ (2022) The role of earthworms in organic matter and nutrient cycles. In: Edwards CA, Arancon NQ (eds) Biology and ecology of earthworms. Springer, US, pp 233–274

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang H, Yuan W, Dong W, Liu S (2014) Seasonal patterns of litterfall in forest ecosystem worldwide. Ecol Complex 20:240–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Thurner M, Beer C, Santoro M et al (2014) Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and temperate forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23(3):297–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Freschet GT, Cornwell WK, Wardle DA et al (2013) Linking litter decomposition of above- and below-ground organs to plant–soil feedbacks worldwide. J Ecol 101(4):943–952

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Robertson GP, Paul EA (2000) Decomposition and soil organic matter dynamics. In: Sala OE, Jackson RB, Mooney HA, Howarth RW (eds) Methods in ecosystem science. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  30. Krankina ON, Harmon ME (1995) Dynamics of the dead wood carbon pool in northwestern Russian boreal forests. Water Air Soil Pollut 82(1):227–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hodge S, Peterken G (1998) Deadwood in British forests: priorities and a strategy. For Int J For Res 71(2):99–112

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sedjo RA (1993) The carbon cycle and global forest ecosystem. Water Air Soil Pollut 70(1):295–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333(6045):988–993

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Briones MJI, Schmidt O (2004) Stable isotope techniques in studies of the ecological diversity and functions of earthworm communities in agricultural soils. Recent Res Dev Crop Sci 1:11–26

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gannes LZ, O’Brien DM, del Rio CM (1997) Stable isotopes in animal ecology: assumptions, caveats, and a call for more laboratory experiments. Ecology 78(4):1271–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schmidt O, Scrimgeour CM, Handley LL (1997) Natural abundance of 15N and 13C in earthworms from a wheat and a wheat-clover field. Soil Biol Biochem 29(9–10):1301–1308

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith KA, Cresser MS (2003) Soil and environmental analysis: modern instrumental techniques. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Curry JP, Schmidt O (2007) The feeding ecology of earthworms—a review. Pedobiologia 50(6):463–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Epron D, Bahn M, Derrien D et al (2012) Pulse-labelling trees to study carbon allocation dynamics: a review of methods, current knowledge and future prospects. Tree Physiol 32(6):776–798

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lavelle P (2002) Functional domains in soils. Ecol Res 17(4):441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hastings A, Byers JE, Crooks JA et al (2007) Ecosystem engineering in space and time. Ecol Lett 10(2):153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cuddington K, Byers JE, Wilson WG, Hastings A (2011) Ecosystem engineers: plants to protists. Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  44. Blanchart E, Lavelle P, Braudeau E, Le Bissonnais Y, Valentin C (1997) Regulation of soil structure by geophagous earthworm activities in humid savannas of Côte d’Ivoire. Soil Biol Biochem 29(3):431–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bossuyt H, Six J, Hendrix PF (2006) Interactive effects of functionally different earthworm species on aggregation and incorporation and decomposition of newly added residue carbon. Geoderma 130(1):14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parkin TB, Berry EC (1999) Microbial nitrogen transformations in earthworm burrows. Soil Biol Biochem 31(13):1765–1771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Edwards WM, Shipitalo MJ, Owens LB, Norton LD (1989) Water and nitrate movement in earthworm burrows within long-term no-till cornfields. J Soil Water Conserv 44(3):240–243

    Google Scholar 

  48. Amador JA, Görres JH (2007) Microbiological characterization of the structures built by earthworms and ants in an agricultural field. Soil Biol Biochem 39(8):2070–2077

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hopfensperger KN, Leighton GM, Fahey TJ (2011) Influence of invasive earthworms on above and belowground vegetation in a northern hardwood forest. Am Midl Nat 166(1):53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yusnaini S, Niswati A, Arif MAS, Nonaka M (2008) The changes of earthworm population and chemical properties of tropical soils under different land use systems. J Trop Soils 13(2):131–137

    Google Scholar 

  51. Bohlen PJ, Scheu S, Hale CM et al (2004) Non-native invasive earthworms as agents of change in northern temperate forests. Front Ecol Environ 2(8):427–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hale CM, Frelich LE, Reich PB, Pastor J (2005) Effects of European earthworm invasion on soil characteristics in northern hardwood forests of Minnesota, USA. Ecosyst 8(8):911–927

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Groffman PM, Bohlen PJ, Fisk MC, Fahey TJ (2004) Exotic earthworm invasion and microbial biomass in temperate forest soils. Ecosyst 7(1):45–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Resner K, Yoo K, Sebestyen SD et al (2015) Invasive earthworms deplete key soil inorganic nutrients (Ca, Mg, K, and P) in a northern hardwood forest. Ecosyst 18(1):89–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Lavelle P, Spain AV (2001) Soil ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. McInerney M, Little DJ, Bolger T (2001) Effect of earthworm cast formation on the stabilization of organic matter in fine soil fractions. Eur J Soil Biol 37(4):251–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fahey TJ, Yavitt JB, Sherman RE et al (2013) Earthworm effects on the incorporation of litter C and N into soil organic matter in a sugar maple forest. Ecol Appl 23(5):1185–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Eisenhauer N, Partsch S, Parkinson D, Scheu S (2007) Invasion of a deciduous forest by earthworms: changes in soil chemistry, microflora, microarthropods and vegetation. Soil Biol Biochem 39(5):1099–1110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Knollenberg WG, Merritt RW, Lawson DL (1985) Consumption of leaf litter by Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta) on a Michigan woodland floodplain. Am Midl Nat 113(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Suk KT, Nor AAA, Muskhazli M, Suraini AA, Yi WY (2012) Evaluation on physical, chemical and biological properties of casts of geophagous earthworm Metaphire tschiliensis tschiliensis. Sci Res Essays 7(10):1169–1174

    Google Scholar 

  61. Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, Denef K (2004) A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res 79(1):7–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Brussaard L (1999) On the mechanisms of interactions between earthworms and plants. Pedobiologia 43:880–885

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cook SMF, Linden DR (1996) Effect of food type and placement on earthworm (Aporrectodea tuberculata) burrowing and soil turnover. Biol Fertil Soils 21(3):201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bouché MB, Al-Addan F (1997) Earthworms, water infiltration and soil stability: some new assessments. Soil Biol Biochem 29(3):441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Curry JP, Byrne D, Boyle KE (1995) The earthworm population of a winter cereal field and its effects on soil and nitrogen turnover. Biol Fertil Soils 19(2):166–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hmar L, Ramanujam SN (2014) Earthworm cast production and physico-chemical properties in two agroforestry systems of Mizoram (India). J Trop Ecol 55(1):75–84

    Google Scholar 

  67. Marashi ARA, Scullion J (2003) Earthworm casts form stable aggregates in physically degraded soils. Biol Fertil Soils 37(6):375–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zhang H, Schrader S (1993) Earthworm effects on selected physical and chemical properties of soil aggregates. Biol Fertil Soils 15(3):229–234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhang D, Chen Y, Ma Y, Guo L, Sun J, Tong J (2016) Earthworm epidermal mucus: rheological behavior reveals drag-reducing characteristics in soil. Soil Tillage Res 158:57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pan X, Song W, Zhang D (2010) Earthworms (Eisenia foetida, Savigny) mucus as complexing ligand for imidacloprid. Biol Fertil Soils 46(8):845–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Horn MA, Schramm A, Drake HL (2003) The earthworm gut: an ideal habitat for ingested N2O-producing microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(3):1662–1669

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Hoang DTT, Pausch J, Razavi BS, Kuzyakova I, Banfield CC, Kuzyakov Y (2016) Hotspots of microbial activity induced by earthworm burrows, old root channels, and their combination in subsoil. Biol Fertil Soils 52(8):1105–1119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Furlong MA, Singleton DR, Coleman DC, Whitman WB (2002) Molecular and culture-based analyses of prokaryotic communities from an agricultural soil and the burrows and casts of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus. Appl Environ Microbiol 68(3):1265–1279

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Scheu S (1991) Mucus excretion and carbon turnover of endogeic earthworms. Biol Fertil Soils 12(3):217–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Chen BC, Ren LQ, Li AQ, Hu QX (1990) Initial study on the method of collecting the body surface fluid of earthworms – one of bionic research of reducing adhesion and scouring soil for the terrain-machines. Trans CSAE 6:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  76. Bityutskii NP, Maiorov EI, Orlova NE (2012) The priming effects induced by earthworm mucus on mineralization and humification of plant residues. Eur J Soil Biol 50:1–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Kemmitt SJ, Wright D, Goulding KWT, Jones DL (2006) pH regulation of carbon and nitrogen dynamics in two agricultural soils. Soil Biol Biochem 38(5):898–911

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Riffaldi R, Saviozzi A, Levi-Minzi R (1996) Carbon mineralization kinetics as influenced by soil properties. Biol Fertil Soils 22(4):293–298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Horn R, Taubner H, Wuttke M, Baumgartl T (1994) Soil physical properties related to soil structure. Soil Tillage Res 30(2):187–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Borchers JG, Perry DA (1992) The influence of soil texture and aggregation on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in southwest Oregon forests and clearcuts. Can J For Res 22(3):298–305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Fernández-Ugalde O, Barré P, Hubert F et al (2013) Clay mineralogy differs qualitatively in aggregate-size classes: clay-mineral-based evidence for aggregate hierarchy in temperate soils. Eur J Soil Sci 64(4):410–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Leschine SB, Holwell K, Canale-Parola E (1988) Nitrogen fixation by anaerobic cellulolytic bacteria. Science 242(4882):1157–1159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Deniro MJ, Epstein S (1981) Influence of diet on the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 45(3):341–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Uchida T, Kaneko N, Ito MT, Futagami K, Sasaki T, Sugimoto A (2004) Analysis of the feeding ecology of earthworms (Megascolecidae) in Japanese forests using gut content fractionation and δ15N and δ13C stable isotope natural abundances. Appl Soil Ecol 27(2):153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Bohlen PJ, Pelletier DM, Groffman PM, Fahey TJ, Fisk MC (2004) Influence of earthworm invasion on redistribution and retention of soil carbon and nitrogen in northern temperate forests. Ecosyst 7(1):13–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Schmidt O, Scrimgeour CM, Curry JP (1999) Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios in body tissue and mucus of feeding and fasting earthworms (Lumbricus festivus). Oecologia 118(1):9–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Fahey T, Bohlen P, Feldpausch TR et al (2021) Tracing carbon flow through a sugar maple forest and its soil components: role of invasive earthworms. Plant Soil 464(1):517–537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Chang CH, Szlavecz K, Buyer JS (2016) Species-specific effects of earthworms on microbial communities and the fate of litter-derived carbon. Soil Biol Biochem 100:129–139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Grabmaier A, Heigl F, Eisenhauer N, van der Heijden MGA, Zaller JG (2014) Stable isotope labelling of earthworms can help deciphering belowground–aboveground interactions involving earthworms, mycorrhizal fungi, plants and aphids. Pedobiologia 57:197–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Yang N, Schützenmeister K, Grubert D et al (2015) Impacts of earthworms on nitrogen acquisition from leaf litter by arbuscular mycorrhizal ash and ectomycorrhizal beech trees. Environ Exp Bot 120:1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Groffman PM, Fahey TJ, Fisk MC et al (2015) Earthworms increase soil microbial biomass carrying capacity and nitrogen retention in northern hardwood forests. Soil Biol Biochem 87:51–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Blair JM, Parmelee RW, Allen MF, McCartney DA, Stinner BR (1997) Changes in soil N pools in response to earthworm population manipulations in agroecosystems with different N sources. Soil Biol Biochem 29(3):361–367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Hendrix PF, Peterson AC, Beare MH, Coleman DC (1998) Long-term effects of earthworms on microbial biomass nitrogen in coarse and fine textured soils. Appl Soil Ecol 9(1):375–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Scheu S, Parkinson D (1994) Effects of earthworms on nutrient dynamics, carbon turnover and microorganisms in soils from cool temperate forests of the Canadian Rocky Mountains—laboratory studies. Appl Soil Ecol 1(2):113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Tiunov AV, Hale CM, Holdsworth AR, Vsevolodova-Perel TS (2006) Invasion patterns of Lumbricidae into the previously earthworm-free areas of northeastern Europe and the western Great Lakes region of North America. In: Hendrit PF (ed) Biological invasions belowground: earthworms as invasive species. Springer, Netherlands, pp 23–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  96. Ewing HA, Tuininga AR, Groffman PM et al (2015) Earthworms reduce biotic 15-nitrogen retention in northern hardwood forests. Ecosyst 18(2):328–342

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Marhan S, Scheu S (2006) Mixing of different mineral soil layers by endogeic earthworms affects carbon and nitrogen mineralization. Biol Fertil Soils 42(4):308–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Crumsey JM, Capowiez Y, Goodsitt MM et al (2015) Exotic earthworm community composition interacts with soil texture to affect redistribution and retention of litter-derived C and N in northern temperate forest soils. Biogeochemistry 126(3):379–395

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Jiménez JJ, Decaëns T, Rossi JP (2012) Soil environmental heterogeneity allows spatial co-occurrence of competitor earthworm species in a gallery forest of the Colombian ‘Llanos.’ Oikos 121(6):915–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Snyder BA, Callaham MA, Lowe CN, Hendrix PF (2013) Earthworm invasion in North America: food resource competition affects native millipede survival and invasive earthworm reproduction. Soil Biol Biochem 57:212–216

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Zangerlé A, Pando A, Lavelle P (2011) Do earthworms and roots cooperate to build soil macroaggregates? a microcosm experiment. Geoderma 167:303–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Cameron EK, Cahill JF, Bayne EM (2014) Root foraging influences plant growth responses to earthworm foraging. PLoS ONE 9(9):e108873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Vidal A, Watteau F, Remusat L (2019) Earthworm cast formation and development: a shift from plant litter to mineral associated organic matter. Front Environ Sci 7:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out with the support of the Korea Research Foundation, Republic of Korea (Project name: Assessing the impacts of earthworm on forest soil carbon and nitrogen dynamic via 13C and 15N isotope tracing; Project No. 2022R1A2C1011309). This work also carried out with the support of Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Republic of Korea (Project name: Development of territorial spatial planning and management technology to reduce GHG emissions; Grant No. 22UMRG-C158194-03).

Funding

Korea Research Foundation, Republic of Korea (Project name: Assessing the impacts of earthworm on forest soil carbon and nitrogen dynamic via 13C and 15N isotope tracing; Project No. 2022R1A2C1011309); Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Republic of Korea (Project name: Development of territorial spatial planning and management technology to reduce GHG emissions; Grant No. 22UMRG-C158194-03).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GK performed and supported the collection and analysis of publications. MK supported material analysis. GK, HJ, H-SK, MK, and YS contributed in writing and formatting the manuscript. YS mainly supervised the current study as corresponding author. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yowhan Son.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, G., Jo, H., Kim, HS. et al. Earthworm effects on soil biogeochemistry in temperate forests focusing on stable isotope tracing: a review. Appl Biol Chem 65, 88 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-022-00758-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-022-00758-y

Keywords

  • Earthworm
  • Temperate forest
  • Soil organic material (SOM)
  • Carbon and nitrogen
  • Nutrient cycling
  • Stable isotope tracing