Total Soil Biology

[Smallaxe]

We have been so deeply involved in microbiology that the worms have virtually been ignored. I have done some research, but does any one have an idea how to keep an active population maximized in the lawn?

According to Ohio State University the grass clippings alone recycle roughly 25% of the plant needs. I had read long ago some numbers about nutrients provided by the worms. Has anyone seen those types of estimates recently?

Thanks, in advance.

[ICT Bill]

Worm POOP, I love this thread

I just don't know a lot about it:dancing:

What are we looking for here, the percentage of worm poop per acre within a certain population in an acre.

You could get a very creative algorythm going here. percent of worm food in soil, percent of worms per 1000 square feet, worms excrete: percentage of poop that is beneficial, protozoa count per 1K, Nematode count per 1K, effect of migrating robin's on worm population, overall effect on tidal pull on moisture in the soil:laugh:

[Smallaxe]

I just don't know a lot about it:dancing:

You could get a very creative algorythm going here. percent of worm food in soil, percent of worms per 1000 square feet, worms excrete: percentage of poop that is beneficial, protozoa count per 1K, Nematode count per 1K, effect of migrating robin's on worm population, overall effect on tidal pull on moisture in the soil:laugh:

Algorithms are for the researchers who compute those things - like the way OSU computed the actual plant needs and the amount of recycled nutrients.

The calculation for N put into the soil by your average density of worms with proper amounts of food was attempted and published in the early 70's, but no idea if they did it accurately or if they have refined it further. And don't remember what the stats were.

Just thought I would check and see if anyone who does the large volume of reading has come across this information.

You are not expected to know about worms and possibly your New England Research group doesn't know anything about the impact of a worm population either. I don't know.

Concentrating so much on microbes and ignoring the other life in the soil does not give you an opportunity to make wise management decisions. These management decisions are what this forum is all about. If it is simply an infomercial for CT then I guess it has outlived its usefulness.

[Kiril]

Concentrating so much on microbes and ignoring the other life in the soil does not give you an opportunity to make wise management decisions. These management decisions are what this forum is all about. If it is simply an infomercial for CT then I guess it has outlived its usefulness.

150% agree with this statement. :clapping:

[phasthound]

We have been so deeply involved in microbiology that the worms have virtually been ignored. I have done some research, but does any one have an idea how to keep an active population maximized in the lawn?

Do not use salt based fertilizers or pesticides. They need organic matter to feed on, mow leaves & let them break down, top dress with good compost.

According to Ohio State University the grass clippings alone recycle roughly 25% of the plant needs. I had read long ago some numbers about nutrients provided by the worms. Has anyone seen those types of estimates recently?

OSU has probably done more research (directed by Dr. Clive Edwards) on earthworms than any other U in the states. I have some figures on the increased nutrients in castings, I'll have to dig them up. Also important are the increase in microbial activity, the soil mixing and aeration done by earthworms.

[ICT Bill]

To show my complete ignorance here
I have heard that most of the worms we have in the soil were imported and not native and in fact in some scenarios they do more harm than good

The story goes that they eat all of the leaf litter that used to be food for the trees and that forests can literally starve to death

Just wondering, not a rant

[Kiril]

To show my complete ignorance here
I have heard that most of the worms we have in the soil were imported and not native and in fact in some scenarios they do more harm than good

The story goes that they eat all of the leaf litter that used to be food for the trees and that forests can literally starve to death

Just wondering, not a rant

No need to wonder, your right ..... http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/forest/soil.html

[phasthound]

While it's true that earthworms are not native to N America, they have been here for hundreds of years. I'm familiar with northeastern forests & I can't say that earthworms have done any harm to them. In fact I think it's important to realize that forests (and other ecosystems) are dynamic, therefore in a constant state of change. Nature adapts, constantly. The only "disasters" in a purely natural state are to the beings that suffer. Those that survive will become more dominant & the event was not disastrous to them.

Some cases;

The chestnut tree was the dominant species in eastern forests until a hundred years ago when the chestnut blight wiped them out. Disaterous for the chestnuts, but the forest adapted and became dominated by maples and oaks.

There have been some out breaks of gypsy moth defoliation lately in NJ. Some advocate aerial spraying of pesticides stronger than Bt & claim if this isn't done there will be ecological disaster. I remember the same being said 30 years ago. I do remember vast areas of forest were defoliated. Guess what? The forests have either recovered or have disappeared due to human activity.

Currently, the deer population in the northeast forests are eating tree saplings and it is said this will put an end to new growth forests. Personally I see this as a greater threat to the sustainability of forests. Especially since it is not politically correct to advocate increased deer hunting.
With no new growth the only thing that will replace the forests are parking lots. But that may happen anyway.

I guess my point is that it's all a matter of perspective. From my viewpoint, earthworms are OK in the grand scheme of things. :clapping:

[Organic a go go]

To show my complete ignorance here
I have heard that most of the worms we have in the soil were imported and not native and in fact in some scenarios they do more harm than good


Thats correct. Lumbricus terrestris is an invasive that hitched a ride with the European colonizers. I often wonder how the history of agriculture in America might have been different, if at all, had those worms not displaced the native population. We're so inclined to think of invasives as a negative but this suggests that isn't always the case.

[Elden]

I have a monkey to throw in.... What about Termites in the soil? Down here in the SE they are every where. Termites carry protazoa and bacteria in their gut. They consume cellulose ( wood ) and excrete feces, which is very dark and rich looking. It also holds moisture very well to keep the termites from drying out. If you have ever seen Subterranean or Formosan Termites you know what I mean. Is there any reasearch out there on what kind of benifits they provide to the soil?

And what about ants? Yes fire ants are bad, but when they build their mounds they bring up minerals and nutrients that may be out of the plants reach. Not only fire ants but all the hundreds of thousands of types of ants. Yes we don't want them in the house or biting us or our kids. So what kind of benifit do they provide?

Just thinking out side of the box a little bit. I've been reading the organic post for a while and haven't seen either of these two types of insects mentioned. Soil Food Web they are in there too some where.

[Kiril]

I remember the same being said 30 years ago. I do remember vast areas of forest were defoliated.

Memories of climbing trees with a can of kerosene come flooding back. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck16.gif

[Smallaxe]

No need to wonder, your right ..... http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/forest/soil.html

I read the article and would like some clarification on what seems to be logical inconsistancies.

The article portrayed tree roots as growing just under the leaf litter like the wild blackerries do and grow deeper into the earth simply for anchoring purposes and not so much for water or nutrients. Then the earthworms invade and eatup all the leaf litter mixing the nutrients in the O,A,E level soil horizons.

I live in the Great Lakes region and we can dig an earthworm anywhere we go, so the invasion is here. I have never seen a barren forest floor that was not created by public park workers. Trees could not possibly have survived any drought year in this area if it did not have roots gathering moisture below 2 feet or so. I have personally witnessed tree roots coming into old crawl spaces for the moisture around the plumbing, an that is commonly 4 to 6 feet under ground and without question it was for the water.

The nutrients are not being excavated and carted off to Canada they are being processed and moved deeper into the soil profile where tree roots are growing. 18 inches according to one article I read about nightcrawlers. If this keeps up eventually you have nutrient rich soil that is 18 inches thick.

Saying that this is a bad thing is a logical contradiction.
Straight sand with little or no OM, layered underneath straight clay with little or no OM, layered under a thin layer of rotted leaf OM, is better than a loam (sand, silt and clay mix) rich in OM?

So what am I missing? In laymen's terms please.
(I can read long technical articles but am very easily bored by them.) I only need to know the basic reason why hydrosorted mineral soils are better than loams in the case of the forest growth.

[Smallaxe]

OSU has probably done more research (directed by Dr. Clive Edwards) on earthworms than any other U in the states. I have some figures on the increased nutrients in castings, I'll have to dig them up. Also important are the increase in microbial activity, the soil mixing and aeration done by earthworms.

Thanks Barry :) Anything you can find will be appreciated.
Telling me about, Dr. Clive Edwards of OSU, is a great help already. At least I have a starting point.

Your point about the deer population in the forest is well taken. When Dukes of Hazzard was a popular TV show, Uncle Jesse, was doing PSAs in Wisconsin for the DNR; praising the job they have done increasing the population of White Tails over the past 25 years (at that time).
Now deer are littering the highway in the form of carcasses, wondering freely through residential neighborhoods in every town and trashing landscapes on a regular basis.

Many of the pines that start up in the wild - after a large oak, maple, or whatever is blown over or dies back - has forked leaders by the time they are 2 feet tall because of excessive deer populations having the tops for lunch. Many of these saplings become sick and die. This year with the excessive snow fall they are even eating oak twigs with the dead leaves still on them.
Deer season is a big money maker for DNR, retailers, restaurants and of course taverns so I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Kiril]

I read the article and would like some clarification on what seems to be logical inconsistancies.

I think this is a question best put to the authors, but I will make some observations.

I assume they are talking about an essentially undisturbed forest. Also, when a complex community of organisms live in a particular soil horizon, when something drastic changes with that horizon, you disrupt the balance. Trees will most likely adapt over time, the other organisms may or may not depending on what their living requirements are.

[ICT Bill]

I have a monkey to throw in.... What about Termites in the soil? Down here in the SE they are every where. Termites carry protazoa and bacteria in their gut. They consume cellulose ( wood ) and excrete feces, which is very dark and rich looking. It also holds moisture very well to keep the termites from drying out. If you have ever seen Subterranean or Formosan Termites you know what I mean. Is there any reasearch out there on what kind of benifits they provide to the soil?

AAHHHH one of my favorite words these days

microarthropods

You are right they are an essential part of the soil food web
Termites are very cool, they actually farm fungi in there nests for food.

[Smallaxe]

I think this is a question best put to the authors, but I will make some observations.

I assume they are talking about an essentially undisturbed forest. Also, when a complex community of organisms live in a particular soil horizon, when something drastic changes with that horizon, you disrupt the balance. Trees will most likely adapt over time, the other organisms may or may not depending on what their living requirements are.

Thanks for the reply. :)

I remember my son brought home a petunia from school. Didn't look that well but spring was coming and it would probably make it. One nice day it started to rain while the plant was outside and the boy ran out to 'rescue' his plant from the 'acid rain'. lol. Well water is fine, but rain water makes a definate difference in how it thrives.

Undisturbed forest or newly planted one - the general understanding of worms and their benefit has been called into question. If their 'discovery' is the exeption to the rule, then that, should have been a main focus of the article.

The authors of this article reminded me of the type of 'education' my son recieved about rain and plant life. Calling that which is beneficial a hazard instead. Difficult to have a meaningful talk with them I'm sure. Am I wrong?

If a nematode is 'ran out of town' because the soils are being blended into loams, so be it. Over all the soil profile, in the root zone of the tree, has benefitted, not starved.
This idea of indoctrination vs education is one that warrants perpetual vigilance.

The section about worms pruning (eating) the trees' root hairs and consuming beneficials is just bizarre. How can you teach the fundamentals of 'pruning' to someone who believes that what the worms do is evil? People are easily freaked out about pruning branches or roots enough the way it is. As a landscaper I have dealt with that misconception quite often.

[Kiril]

Smallaxe,

I think your reading more into this than is there. :) If you want a better idea of the research being done, check out the publications.

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/research/publications.html

You will find the research is pretty much limited to northern hardwood forests.

[Smallaxe]

I appreciated the, html, as opposed to, pdf, and also the fact that there was only 1 website listed. I got to the Homepage , but the 'Intro' button was "Page unavailale".
"Citizen Science" button, brought up an Intro about Mark Horlocker of the Hartley Nature Center around Duluth.

To read further I had to have a "Join an Ongoing Study" passport. That was also a 'page unavailable' response. The point is I tried. But IMO the forum is where someone who already knows the answer will pass it on.

If you have a belief and/or an article that clearly explains how earthworms starve trees, we can start from there. You have to understand that it is similar to saying the Earth is flat and being held up by the big oil interests. :)

There is a thread in the Commercial Landscape sub-forum on this site, that is called: 'because of all the fighting in the forums'. It brings into focus that I am not trying to start a fight. If you can show me the rational that the earth is flat and the oil companies really are the cosmic gods then - so be it. Being proved wrong only means that I've learned something new :)

[Kiril]

I'm not really sure what your trying to accomplish here? Once again, your questions are best directed to the people doing the research. I would suggest going through the site and read the material they have presented.

If that is not enough, then read the studies you can download for free. I have not read it all, but the stuff I have read makes sense given the constraints of the research.

I already provided the link to the publications page, here is the link to the summary of the research.

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/forest/index.html

[Smallaxe]

You send me a teachers' guide for elemtary student that show how to waste 3 class periods building a cardboard box and rolling dice to understand why the worms are killing the forest. Why don't they put pictures of the fossilized worms and worm trails in the Grand Canyon?

I am reading too much into this?
Who documented the "No Worms on the North American continent"?
Are they the first to successfully prove a negative?

They only travel over the continent at the rate of a 1/2 mile per 100 years.
Here is a class activity :) "How long for the worms to get from Jamestown to Duluth?"

And those 'before' and 'after' pictures!?!
It takes alot of nerve to call that crap science.
Propagandizing the kids plain and simple. Like acid rain.

Again I am not trying to start a fight Only expressing the frustration of junk science being sold to the culture; producing 'educated' kids who think they know something , but can't articulate clearly what they believe or why.

I think the idea of "worms killing trees" is now at the top of stupid ideas list. Puts acid rain at #2.

You didn't send me that, just to 'get me going' did you? lol.

[Kiril]

You have now completely lost me?

Calling it "junk science" is pretty strong, and I think inappropriate. It is well documented how earthworms affect soils. In most cases it is a positive affect, however in some cases it apparently can have a negative affect. I am confused at why you cannot see how exotic introduction of earthworms into an ecosystem can have a dramatic effect on the ecological composition and structure of that system.

If you think the information and findings are incorrect, then you need to read the publications and formulate a logical case against them by either presenting a discussion of research that contradicts their findings and/or do your own research.

[Smallaxe]

It doesn't really matter to me about what people want to believe, my question was about the nutritional input of earthworms as they clean up the various organic litters off the lawn.

I am beginning to think that the most input necessary for lawns in my climate would be an organic winterizer applied in September. It would be utilized by the plants as they are preparing for winter and off to a good start in the spring.

That is what I am trying to determine - based on what we do know about total soil biology. Perhaps even the winterizer application is redundant with proper management practices.
Perhaps the idea is foolish , but that is what I am researching. To determine if it is foolishness or reality.

Again thanks for any help :)

[Elden]

I know this is kind of an old post, but I found this off of a link that Kiril posted. It's about termites. It was brought up earlier in the post

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/ApplSoilEcol%2037,%20267-276,%202007%20Ackerman.pdf

the type of termites are a little different than what we have here but I found it interesting. Happy reading

[Tim Wilson]

It is probably a little silly to believe that all the worms spread across North America originated from the early European settlers, especially considering that worms cannot fly. I think that scientists are beginning to re-evaluate this stance.

Tim



“Terrestrial ecologists in Wisconsin note earthworms are native to the farmlands, savanna and prairie lands in southern Wisconsin, but there is little research to determine which worms were native in formerly glaciated areas.
“Given limited resources and other more pressing research questions, we’re not evaluating earthworms as an exotic species, and we’re not aware of other similar projects among Midwestern researchers other than these few projects in Minnesota,” said Karl Martin, DNR forest ecologist. Martin was aware that Holdsworth has begun examining a few sites in western Wisconsin.”

http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2005/aug05/eworm.htm


“There are many species of earthworms and each generally has different preferences for soil conditions. Of the 200 species found in North America only 18 have been found in Canada; only six of these are native to this country. Some species are only found within the top surface layers while others, such as Lumbricus may be able to penetrate several feet to the subsoil horizon. Those that live within the surface layers generally migrate to lower depths during the summer as the soil becomes drier. Cultivation of the soil may enable earthworms to penetrate further into the soil.”


http://eap.mcgill.ca/publications/eap6.htm

[Tim Wilson]

There are over 100 species of native North American earthworms in unglaciated areas such as the southeastern U.S. and the Pacific Northwest. However, native species have either been too slow to move northwards on their own or they are not able to survive Minnesota's harsh climate.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html


Pretty helter skelter information.

I had a First Nations foster son from the far north back in 1985. His grandfather taught him to dig for fishing worms. His grandfather was of the generation which first saw whitemen way up there. At least that's his story.

[Smallaxe]

Has anyone come up with a ballpark figure as to how quickly a good population of worms would turn leaf litter into N and how much N/1000 they could ultimately produce?
Or I should say has anyone come across an attempt at determining this?
That was the question.

My comment about the "invasive" worm theory is that, They never give a sound scientific method by which worms 'kill' saplings and wildflowers. Everything we know about worms doesn't leave anything to imagine how they could disrupt a living plant.
Chewing the roots to death is highly doubtful, and, no one notices it happening in gardens.
I don't believe in believing something because the "experts" say it is so. Without a rational explanation it is less that a valid opinion, IMHO.

[Tim Wilson]

The invasive theory is simple actually. Certain types of worms like to eat certain types of fungal hyphae. When a foreign worm ends up out of his territory it eats the fungal hyphae which are the living body of the mycorrhizae which feed the trees. So therefore undernourished trees. This combined with the worms eating the deadfall leaves.

[Tim Wilson]

Has anyone come up with a ballpark figure as to how quickly a good population of worms would turn leaf litter into N and how much N/1000 they could ultimately produce?
Or I should say has anyone come across an attempt at determining this?
That was the question.IMHO.

I don't really think it works exactly like that, although you may be inferring this. It is more that the worms convert organic matter into a microbial matrix and further food for other microbes further down/up the food chain. It is the activity of these microbes that convert nutrients to 2 or more forms of N which are bioavailable to the roots of plants.

[ICT Bill]

Thanks Tim, I have never thought of it that way but it is a very simple explanation

[Smallaxe]

That was what I kind of expected, and you confirmed it. Thanks, Tim.
So we are looking at worms turning tree leaves into grass food - with or without microbes.
Or microbes turning leaves into grass food with or without worms.

We seem to have developed formulas for corn, soy, or alfalfa meal, but , what I am beginning to understand there is no formula for how many cu.yd. or tons of mulched down leaves can give to the turf.
20# of corn meal or 30# of mulched maple perhaps 15# of oak leaves will give your average healthy lawn enough food for 6 weeks. [For an Example]

I am not sure if the point is clear, due to my lack of comm. skills, but:
"If the oak leaves mulched into the grass this spring, are ready as plant food, in 1 week or 2 months - how much NPK can be expected from it?"