Earthworms are little affected by reduced soil tillage methods in vineyards

Abstract

Inter-rows in vineyards are commonly tilled in order to control weeds and/or to conserve water. While impacts of tillage on earthworms are well studied in arable systems, very little is known from vineyards. In an experimental vineyard, the impact of four reduced tillage methods on earthworms was examined: rotary hoeing, rotary harrowing, grubbing and no tillage. According to an erosion prevention programme, tillage was applied every other inter-row only while alternating rows retained vegetated. Earthworms were extracted from the treated inter-rows 10, 36, 162 and 188 days after tillage. Across dates, tillage methods had no effect on overall earthworm densities or biomass. Considering each sampling date separately, earthworm densities were affected only at day 36 after tillage leading to lower densities under rotary hoeing (150.7 ± 42.5 worms/m<sup>2</sup>) and no tillage (117.3 ± 24.8 worms/m<sup>2</sup>) than under rotary harrowing (340.0 ± 87.4 worms/m<sup>2</sup>) and grubbing (242.7 ± 43.9 worms/m<sup>2</sup>). Time since tillage significantly increased earthworm densities or biomass, and affected soil moisture and temperature. Across sampling dates, earthworm densities correlated positively with soil moisture and negatively with soil temperature; individual earthworm mass increased with increasing time since tillage. It was concluded that reduced tillage in vineyards has little impact on earthworms when applied in spring under dry soil conditions.

Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta‐analysis

“…Extensive vegetation management also positively affected soil fertility, which can be attributed to stimulatory effects on soil biota such as earthworms (Briones & Schmidt, 2017). However, we should note that most studies investigating tillage effects on soil biota were conducted in arable crops, but tillage in perennial vineyards is not always detrimental to earthworms (Faber, Wachter, & Zaller, 2017;Vršic, 2011). Besides earthworms, springtails have been studied in vineyard soils.…”

Neveneffecten van niet-chemische onkruidbestrijding in de landbouw : Een literatuurstudie naar de (neven)effecten op drie groepen: bodemleven, insecten en broedsel

“…De internationale literatuurstudie leverde vier studies op waarin de (neven)effecten van mechanische onkruidbestrijding op regenwormen zijn vergeleken met (neven)effecten van andere vormen van onkruidbestrijding zoals gebruik van herbiciden, groenbemesters en mulching (Andersen et al, 2013;F. Faber, Wachter, & Zaller, 2017;Schreck, Gontier, Dumat, & Geret, 2012;Zaller et al, 2018).…”

“…De regenworm dichtheid en biomassa tussen de bewerkingsmethoden tot 188 dagen na toepassing van de bewerking verschilde niet. Hierbij is wel de kanttekening gemaakt dat langjarige proeven op verschillende grondsoorten nodig zijn om te verifiëren of de bevindingen in het algemeen gelden, voor verschillende bodemvocht gehaltes en bodemtemperaturen (F. Faber et al, 2017). In een Franse wijngaard resulteerde zowel een herbicide toepassing (niet gespecificeerd) als een 15 cm diepe grondbewerking in een negatieve impact op regenwormsoorten, -aantal en -biomassa in vergelijking met een bedekking van de grond tussen de boomrijen (inter-rij) met gras (Schreck et al, 2012).…”

Earthworm Abundance Changes Depending on Soil Management Practices in Slovenian Vineyards

“…The testing of individual soil management practices and their impact on earthworms are common. Faber [11] tested different tillage tools and found no differences in the earthworm population. The lowest impact of tillage was registered when it was tilled in spring during the dry period.…”

“…It is well known that earthworms respond differently to diverse soil management practices because they are among the largest soil organisms that are sensitive to the mechanical impacts of tillage [11,12]. When they are widely distributed on a plantation, they are useful bioindicators for sustainable land use [13][14][15].…”