Earthworm community development in reclaimed colliery spoil amended with organic matter
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15584/pjsd.2026.30.1.3Keywords:
anaerobic digestate, colliery spoil, earthworms, organic growth mediumAbstract
Earthworms were sampled after two and eleven years following experimental addition of organic matter to a semi-restored colliery spoil site at Chisnall Hall in Lancashire. Organic matter (OM) in the form of anaerobic digestate (AD) and/or organic growth medium (OGM) was incorporated into 200 m2 plots on site using a mechanical digger. Six treatments, including a control with no amendment were replicated 3 times. A quarter of each plot was planted with ash, cherry, willow or reed canary grass. After 2 years, results showed that addition of OM gave rise to significantly higher community densities of earthworms with the greatest (638 m-2) in a high (1875 t ha-1) digestate application treatment, compared with 192 m-2 in the unamended control (p<0.05). Of the nine species found, Allolobophora chlorotica and Aporrectodea caliginosa, both shallow-working, and Aporrectodea longa, a deep burrowing earthworm, contributed to greatest numbers. Eleven years after OM addition, the density of earthworms had fallen significantly in most of the OM-amended plots (maximum of 428 m-2 in high anaerobic digestate) with no change in the control. Overall, earthworm community biomasses had also fallen but not significantly. Species composition on site had changed during the intervening period with less epigeic species present (e.g., Bimastos rubidus no longer present after eleven years) and a change in dominance of endogeic species to A. rosea. Tree-related species, e.g., Dendrobaena octaedra were also found more recently. Experimental plant species used did not affect earthworm abundance or biomass. Addition of organic matter to a colliery spoil site initially enhanced earthworm community density, most likely through a combination of immigration from surrounding areas and through increased reproduction associated with the abundance of food. After eleven years, the reduction in earthworm numbers was most likely a function of nutrient depletion.
Downloads
References
Addison J.A. (2009). Distribution and Impacts of Invasive Earthworms in Canadian Forest Ecosystems. Biological Invasions. 11(1). 59-79.
Ashwood F., Butt K.R., Doick K.J, Vanguelova E.I. (2017). Investigating tree foliar preference by the earthworms Aporrectodea longa and Allolobophora chlorotica in reclaimed and loam soil. Applied Soil Ecology. 110. 109-117.
Blouin M., Hodson M.E., Aranda Delgado E., Baker G., Brussaard L., Butt K.R., Dai J., Dendooven L., Pérès G., Tondoh J., Cluzeau J., Brun J-J. (2013). A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Science. 64. 161-182.
Bottinelli N., Hedde M., Jouquet P., Capowiez Y. (2020). An explicit definition of earthworm ecological categories - Marcel Bouché’s triangle revisited. Geoderma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114361
Bouché M.B. (1977). Stratégies lombriciennes in (Lohm U. and Persson T. Eds.) Soil Organisms as components of Ecosystems. Biological Bulletin (Stockholm). 25. 122-132.
Butt K.R. (2000). Earthworms of the Malham Tarn Estate (Yorkshire Dales National Park). Field Studies. 9. 701-710.
Butt K.R., Grigoropoulou N. (2010). Basic Research Tools for Earthworm Ecology. Applied and Environmental Soil Science. 562816. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aess/2010/562816.html
Butt K.R., Kostecka J., Lowe C.N. (2010). Field collection of earthworms: Comparisons of commonly used techniques. Zesz. Prob. Post. Nauk Roln. 547. s. 67-75.
Butt K.R., Putwain P.D. (2017). Earthworm community development in organic matter-amended plots on reclaimed colliery spoil. North-West Geography. 17 (2). 1-8.
Costigan P.A., Bradshaw A.D., Gemmell R.P. (1981). The Reclamation of Acidic Colliery Spoil. I. Acid Production Potential. Journal of Applied Ecology. 18. 865-878.
Curry J.P., Schmidt O. (2007). The feeding ecology of earthworms – a review. Pedobiologia. 50. 463-47.
Earthworm Society of Britain (ESB). No date. British Isles Earthworm Species Checklist: Natural Environments | Earthworm Society of Britain (accessed 01/04/26)
Edwards C.A., Arancon N.Q. (2022). Biology and ecology of earthworms. Springer. New York.
Frouz J., Piẑl V., Tajovskẏ K. (2007). The effect of earthworms and other saprophagous macrofauna on soil microstructure in reclaimed and un-reclaimed post-mining sites in Central Europe. European Journal of Soil Biology. 43. S184-189. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.08.033
Ganault P., Nahmani J., Hättenschwiler S., Gillespie L.M., David J-F., Henneron L., Iorio E., Mazzia C., Muys B., Pasquet A., Prada-Salcedo L.D., Wambsganss J., Decaëns T. (2021). Relative Importance of Tree Species Richness, Tree Functional Type, and Microenvironment for Soil Macrofauna Communities in European Forests. Oecologia. 196(2). 455-68. doi:10.1007/s00442-021-04931-w
Gunn A. (1992). The use of mustard to estimate earthworm populations. Pedobiologia. 36. 65-67.
Muys B., Lust N., Granval Ph. (1992). Effects of Grassland Afforestation with Different Tree Species on Earthworm Communities, Litter Decomposition and Nutrient Status. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 24(12).1459–66. doi:10.1016/0038-0717(92)90133-I
Natalio A.I.M., Back M., Richards A., Jeffery S. (2021). The Effects of Saline Toxicity and Food-Based AD Digestate on the Earthworm Allolobophora chlorotica. Geoderma. 393.115005. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115005
Nuutinen V., Butt K.R. (2003). Interaction of Lumbricus terrestris L. burrows with field subdrains. Pedobiologia. 47. 578-581.
Pelosi C., Bertrand M., Capowiez Y., Boizard H., Roger-Estrade J. (2009). Earthworm collection from agricultural fields: comparisons of selected expellants in presence/absence of hand-sorting. European Journal of Soil Biology. 45. 176-183.
R Core Team. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rajapaksha N.S.S., Butt K.R., Vanguelova E., Moffat A.J. (2013). Earthworm selection of Short Rotation Forestry leaf litter through preference testing and direct observation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 67. 12-19. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.08.006
Satchell J.E. (1980). R worms and K worms: A basis for classifying lumbricid earthworm strategies, in Soil Biology as related to land use practices (ed. Dindal D.L.). Proc 7th Int Colloquium on Soil Zoology. EPA Washington DC. pp 848-854.
Sherlock E. (2018). Key to the Earthworms of the UK and Ireland. Telford. Field Studies Council.
Sims R.W., Gerard B.M. (1999). Earthworms: Synopses of the British Fauna No. 31 revised. The Linnean Society and the Brackish-Water Sciences Association. Shrewsbury.
Woodlands from Waste (WFW). No date. Lancashire County Council http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=5592&pageid=30717 (accessed 24 May 2017).
Woodland Trust. No date. Ash Dieback (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus) - Woodland Trust (accessed 12 April 2026).
WRAP. (2015). Compost-like output and digestate enhance the growth of woodland trees and the biomass yield of SRC Willow. Report April 2015.
WRAP. No date. BSI PAS 110: Producing Quality Anaerobic Digestate | WRAP - The Waste and Resources Action Programme (accessed 12 April 2026).
Zaborski E.R. (2003). Allyl isothiocyanate: an alternative chemical expellant for sampling earthworms. Applied Soil Ecology. 22. 87-95.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Polish Journal for Sustainable Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
