Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Open access books available
Countries delivered to Contributors from top 500 universities
International authors and editor s
Our authors are among the
most cited scientists
Downloads
We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
12.2%
108,000
1.7 M
TOP 1%
151
3,350
Chapter 3
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and
Functional Interactions
Jair Alves Dionísio, Wilian Carlo Demetrio and
Arlei Maceda
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
Abstract
Soil invertebrate organisms are responsible for several biochemical processes indispens-
able for the correct functioning of ecosystems. Because of the high diversity of animals that
occurs in the soil environment, some invertebrates such as earthworms and nematodes are
highly important in trophic chains, with high number of species and the effect that they
exert on both natural and agricultural systems. However, although numerous studies
have evaluated the implications of these organisms in soil processes and their conse-
quences on crop productivity, the interaction between earthworms and nematodes has
received little attention in recent years. This chapter reviews studies focusing on the
elucidation of the interaction between earthworms and nematodes in diverse situations
in which they occur, for example, the vermicompost process and the native and agricul-
tural systems. Several studies have shown that the direct and/or indirect action of earth-
worms can highly modify nematode populations. In addition, in the presence of
earthworms, the damage caused by phytonematodes can be reduced in some crops.
Keywords: biological control, plant growth, vermicomposting, plant parasitic nematode,
soil food web
1. Introduction
The first studies on earthworms were initiated by Darwin, with the classic “The Formation of
Vegetable Mold through the Action of Worms, with observations on their Habits”[1]. Since
then, thousands of studies related to the biology and ecology of earthworms have been
performed worldwide. However, even in ancient Rome, these invertebrates had already
© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
attracted the attention of Aristotle, who described them as “the intestines of the earth”in
340BC [2].
At present, the importance of earthworms for the functioning of natural and agricultural ecosys-
tems is recognized [3–6]. These organisms can influence the growth of plants via several mech-
anisms, which were described by Edwards [2] and Scheu [7], such as increasing soil organic
matter mineralization; modifications of soil porosity and aggregation that change the availability
of water and oxygen to plants; production of plant growth regulators via the stimulation of
microbial activity; pest and parasite control; and stimulation of symbiotic microorganisms.
However, the benefits mediated by these organisms in the soils led to erroneous interpretations,
mainly because of their high diversity; there are about 3500 earthworm species described world-
wide, with potential of more than 7000 species [8–10]. In addition, also it is high the diversity of
earthworms occurring in an area with natural vegetation or agricultural system. This has already
been noted by Steffen et al. [11], who identified about 56 earthworm species in natural and agricul-
tural ecosystems, of which 26 were native and 30 exotic, belonging to six families. In addition, the
greatest diversity of these species was related to the type of ecosystem evaluated: their richness is
greater in areas of forest fragments and native fields. Brown et al. [12] evaluated earthworm
populations in different land use systems and observed high earthworm abundance in conservation
systems with values ranging from 116 to 179 ind. m
2
in no-tillage and minimum tillage, respec-
tively. The authors suggested that the greater presence of these organisms can be attributed to the
lack of soil management in no-tillage, promoting the accumulation of organic material on the soil
surface, and small mechanical movement, benefiting the community of these organisms. In addi-
tion to the effect of management on earthworm populations, Tanck et al. [13] found seasonality
effects in the communities of Amynthas spp. (exotic earthworm) under no-tillage and native forests,
with densities of about 170 and 93 ind m
2
and biomass of 50 and 65 g m
2
,respectively.
The remarkable diversity of earthworm species can be divided into three distinct ecological
categories: epigeic, anecic, and endogeic [14]. Epigeic earthworms comprise animals living on
the soil surface, by using the litter and organic horizons as habitat, feeding on organic materials at
the beginning of the decomposition process, and incapable of digging galleries in the soil;they are
normally used in vermicompost processes. Conversely, endogeic species live in greater depths of
soil; are geophageous, taking from the soil the food necessary for their survival; and include most
of the earthworms described. The anecic earthworms are organisms that live in the soil-surface
interface and are considered the most active of the three categories mentioned above [15].
These ecological categories are based on the environments in which earthworms live, ingesting
and transporting organic and mineral particles at different distances horizontally and verti-
cally in the soil profile [16–18]. Because of their size and dietary habits, earthworms also
unintentionally ingest a large diversity of organisms, ranging from microorganisms such as
bacteria and fungi to small animals such as nematodes [15, 19, 20].
Nematodes are highly representative invertebrates in soils, with densities ranging from 106 to
10
7
m
2
and biomass of up to 100 kg ha
1
[21]. Like earthworms, these organisms also present
remarkable ecological diversity, with free-living species—bacteriophages, plant-parasitic,
mycophages, omnivores, and predators—responsible for the regulation of several trophic
chains in the soil, and parasitic nematodes of plants or animals [22]. Population densities of
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil18
these animals are of the order of 10
6
m
2
and can consume up to 800 kg ha
1
of bacteria [23].
However, plant-parasitic nematodes, a group with high agricultural interest, and bacterio-
phages, nematodes that feed on both pathogenic and saprophytic bacteria and other beneficial
species, are the most representative groups in soils [24].
Considering the small size of free-living and plant-parasitic nematodes, they are inevitably
ingested by other organisms, mainly by earthworms [25]. Several studies have attempted to
elucidate the interactions between these groups of invertebrates; however, because of the
remarkable ecological variability already mentioned, the results have not been consistent, and
these interactions have not been clearly defined [26–28]. Thus, little is known about the effects
of earthworms on microbial diversity and soil microfauna [29].
In this context, a series of studies were performed in order to elucidate the interactions
between earthworms and nematodes, as well as the implications of these interactions with
other soil organisms and plants in natural and agricultural systems. A simplified version of
these interactions is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Interactions between earthworms and nematodes in the soils.
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
19
2. Effects of earthworms on nematode communities
The effects of earthworms on nematode communities (free living or phytonematodes) can be
analyzed under four different situations. First, the effects of earthworms on the populations of
nematodes during the vermicomposting process of unstabilized organic residues; second, the
effects of the products generated by the action of earthworms (vermicompost) or the
byproducts (vermicompost tea) as controlling agents of phytonematodes; third, when soil
interaction only occurs between worms and nematodes; and fourth, when the interaction of
earthworms and phytonematodes occurs in the presence of plants, the latter being more
complex, with greater variability of results and thus greater difficulty of interpretation.
2.1. Earthworms and nematodes in vermicomposting process
Because of the high diversity of organisms involved and the ecological complexity of soils, the
interactions between earthworms and nematodes have been completely dependent on the
particularities of the surveys conducted. Domínguez et al. [28] evaluated the effects of Eisenia
fetida (earthworms worldwide used in vermicomposting) on the population of free-living
nematodes (bacteriophages and fungivorous) in cattle manure and sewage sludge. In both
substrates, bacteriophage nematode populations were reduced during the evaluated period in
the presence of earthworms. However, assessment of the fluctuations in nematode populations
revealed that fungivorous communities were more affected by the presence of oligochaetes
(Figure 2). The fungi represent one of the main food sources for earthworms, which might
Figure 2. Fungivore nematode abundance (mean SE) in the presence and absence of the earthworm Eisenia andrei
during vermicomposting of cow manure. The figure includes the results of repeated-measures ANOVA for the presence
of earthworms (Source: Redrawn from [28]).
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil20
explain the greater effect of vermicomposts on fungivorous populations than on bacteriophage
populations. Conversely, earthworms can also facilitate the dispersion of these microorgan-
isms by the excretion of their spores in the coprolites [30]. However, the dispersion of
nematophagous fungi by earthworms might also be responsible for the reduction of the
nematode populations in the substrates evaluated [31]. Monroy et al. [32] also observed a
reduction of bacteriophage populations by the activity of several earthworm species. Kokhia
et al. [33] showed that the changes in nematode communities by earthworms did not occur
only at the population level, but rather led to the restructuring of all biodiversity when these
invertebrates were present.
The effect of earthworms on nematode populations can be attributed to the direct ingestion
and digestion, or reduction by indirect effects [34]. The indirect effect is attributed to the
reduction of fungal populations by integrating the diet of the earthworms, thereby reducing
communities of fungivorous nematodes [30].
2.1.1. Vermicomposting and byproducts in the control of nematodes
Although the action of vermicompost earthworms shows the reduction of populations of free-
living nematodes, the application of vermicompost in soils has shown to have adverse effects.
Arancon et al. [35] observed a reduction of the communities of plant-parasitic nematodes after
the application of vermicompost from different plant materials. However, considering the
effect similar to the use of organic compounds in this experiment, the addition of organic
materials to the soil was assumed to increase the availability of food for fungivorous and
bacteriophage nematodes, increasing the competition between them with other groups.
Gabour et al. [36] also observed this effect of vermicompost application on the populations of
the plant-parasitic nematode Rotylenchulus reniformis.
In addition to vermicompost, recent studies have shown that the application of vermicompost
tea has the potential to control plant parasitic nematodes. In this sense, Edwards et al. [37]
observed a significant suppression in the number of galls caused by Meloidogyne hapla in
tomato crop when the plants were subjected to aerated vermicompost tea (Figure 3).
Mechanisms of nematode control by vermicompost tea are still poorly understood. The effects
of this substance are likely caused by the death of nematodes by the release of toxic substances
such as hydrogen sulfate, ammonia, and nitrite produced during vermicomposting process
[38]; promotion of the growth of nematode predatory fungi that attack their cysts [39]; favor-
ing of rhizobacteria that produce toxic enzymes and toxins [40]; or indirectly by favoring
populations of microorganisms, bacteria, and fungi, which serve as food for predatory or
omnivorous nematodes, or arthropods such as mites, which are selectively opposed to para-
sitic nematodes of the plant [41].
2.2. Earthworms and nematodes in the soils
Poinar [42] reviewed several works and published a list regarding the natural relationships
between oligochaetes and nematodes, with more than 150 nematode citations, also containing
a brief summary of the groups of nematodes, mainly endoparasite species, found in
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
21
earthworms. However, it does not present information on these endoparasites in presence of
some tropical earthworm species such as Pontoscolex corethrurus and Amynthas spp. (especially
A. gracilis and A. corticis), which are frequently used in studies evaluating the interaction
between these organisms [26, 43–46].
The effects of geophageous earthworms on soil nematodes also differ across studies, and this
variability occurs among studies that use the same worm species, which is probably related to
the high diversity of these organisms, especially nematodes found in situ. Dash et al. [34]
observed reductions of nematode populations in the soil in the presence of Lampito mauritii,an
effect that occurred without the distinction of groups; however, plant-parasitic species were less
affected, likely because of the low palatability of this group, which is lower than that of the free
life forms. Senapati [47] also evaluated the effect of L. mauritii on nematode communities, but the
results showed an increase in bacteriophage populations and a decrease in plant-parasitic
populations, whereas Tao et al. [48] evaluated effects in the presence of Metaphire guillelmi in field
experiments and revealed reduction of all groups of nematodes to the depth of 20 cm.
Studies by Boyer et al. [43] on P. corethrurus, an exotic earthworm distributed globally in
tropical regions, in the laboratory by using sterilized soil showed that this species had the
potential to reduce phytonematodes. They suggested that some compounds such as proteo-
lytic enzymes released into the digestive system of earthworms seem to have an antagonistic
effect on these invertebrates (Figure 4).
Further, Villenave et al. [46] evaluated the interaction between nematodes and P. corethrurus
and found an increase in the population of soil nematodes, mainly of the plant-parasitic
Figure 3. Mean numbers of Meloidogyne hapla galls (mean SE) on tomato roots infested with the nematodes and treated
with soil drenches of vermicompost tea. Columns with different letters are significantly different (p< 0.05). All plants were
grown in MM 360 and received all needed nutrients (Source: Redrawn from [37]).
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil22
species, in a field experiment. Although these studies differed in the methodological approach,
and a greater number of interactions might occur in experiments in which the substrate is not
sterilized, a key factor to be observed is the earthworm density that was used in each experi-
ment. Boyer et al. [43] used a small amount of soil (200 g) and a large number of earthworms,
which would represent around 2000 m
2
individuals (up to 20 cm deep). However, in the
experiment by Villenave et al. [46], the densities were approximately 122 earthworms m
2
.
However, the disagreement in the results of the studies mentioned above was not necessarily
an effect of the methodology used, since another factor to be considered in these interactions
is the time of coexistence between worms and nematodes, which was 35 and 150 days for
[43, 46], respectively. Experiments with Lumbricus rubellus [27] showed a reduction of the
general density of soil nematodes; however, this effect occurred in a pronounced way in the
first 60 days, with a reduction of bacteriophages and increase in plant-parasitic species after
this period. The interaction between earthworms and nematodes, in addition to being depen-
dent on all the variables already discussed, is also influenced by the presence of plants. Yeates
[49] studied the interaction of these three components and observed the same results as those
of Ilieva-Makulec and Makulec [27]. According to Yeates [49], the positive effect of earthworms
on root development also increases the rhizospheric area, which is a highly complex zone in
which frequent release of cells, mucilages, exudates, and lysates that contain amino acids,
enzymes, proteins, sugars, carbohydrate complexes, alcohols, vitamins, and hormones [50],
thereby increasing the food for microorganisms and thus for nematodes (Figure 5). Räty and
Huhta [51] showed that some abiotic conditions such as soil pH also modify the behavior of
earthworms and nematodes in the soil.
Figure 4. Living and dead J2 larvae and total eggs per polystyrene (PS) transparent tube obtained 5 weeks after exposure
of J2 Heterodera sacchari to the Pontoscolex corethrurus gut contents, the P. corethrurus gut alone, aqueous soil extracts
(Andisol), or phosphate buffer. (Source: Redrawn from [43]).
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
23
The effect of earthworms on the environment are not only restricted to the changes that occur
in the soil ingested by these animals. Tiunov et al. [52] evaluated the populations of nematodes
on the walls of the galleries of L. terrestris and found communities of bacteriophage nematodes
associated with this environment. Thus, like coprolites, the walls of earthworm galleries are
rich in nitrogen compounds that promote the development of microorganisms in these sites,
which might also favor the development of nematodes.
In addition to all the results cited above, earthworms can also act as a transport vehicle for
these small invertebrates. Shapiro et al. [53] reported the ability of L. terrestris and A. trapezoides
to disperse within the soil Steinernema carpocapsae, the parasitic nematode of over 250 species of
insects.
2.3. Interaction between earthworms and nematodes and their effects on plants
Few studies have investigated the effects of earthworm and nematode interactions on plant
growth [26, 44, 45, 54].
Dionísio et al. [26] evaluated the effect of the inoculation of earthworms P. corethrurus and
Amynthas spp. in tomato plants infested with the plant-parasitic species Meloidogyne paranaensis
in a greenhouse. Six adult worms of Amynthas spp. or P. corethrurus, isolated or in the same
proportion (3, 3), were inoculated in pots containing soil sterilized in a steam oven. After 1
week, tomato seedlings (Rutgers”cultivar) were transplanted into the pots, and 5 mL of a
suspension of M. paranaensis containing 5000 eggs and/or juveniles was inoculated per pot. The
authors observed a reduction in the number of galls plant per plant after 65 days in the
treatments in which the earthworms were inoculated, with reduction varying from 39.2 to
55.2% for Amynthas spp. and P. corethrurus, respectively (Figure 6). Nonetheless, the combina-
tion of the two species resulted in the reduction of 50.0% incidence of galls.
The authors indicated that the action of the earthworms occurred probably after the inocula-
tion of the nematodes, because tomato is highly susceptible to attack by nematodes, especially
Figure 5. Effects of earthworms on the growth of bean roots (Source: Authors).
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil24
at the seedling stage [55]. Thus, two explanations were presented. First, the earthworms
Amynthas spp. and P. corethrurus are epigeic and endogeic, respectively, and ingested a greater
(P. corethrurus) or smaller (Amynthas spp.) soil quantity. Further, they might also have ingested
eggs/juveniles of M. paranaensis, which might have been destroyed or inactivated in the pas-
sage through the digestive system, thereby reducing the possibility of gall formation in plants.
Second, the eggshell of M. paranaensis might have been destroyed by the enzymes in the
digestive tract of earthworms, mainly chitinase [30], releasing the larvae inside. Thus, the
released larvae remained in the infested state in the tissues, coelom, and hemocele without
essential development and, normally, without growth, what is called as paratenosis [56].
Therefore, future experiments are needed to perform parasitological tests of the earthworm
tissues to better interpret the results.
Contrary results are cited by Lafont et al. [44] evaluating the effects of P. corethrurus and
Radopholus similis (cave nematodes) on banana plants (Musa acuminata, subgroup Cavendish,
”Grande-Naine”). The study was conducted in a greenhouse by using pots containing soil,
which was previously frozen (20C) for 2 days to eliminate the native microfauna. The total
biomass of inoculated P. corethrurus was 5.0 (g pot
1
); 4 weeks later, the plants were inoculated
with a R. similis suspension containing 450 eggs. The results showed the absence of the control
of nematodes in the soil; however, the plants developed better in the presence of earthworms
(Figure 7) and also showed a reduction in the severity of necrosis in the root system. Similar
Figure 6. Galls per tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum ”Rutger”) inoculated with earthworms (Amynthas spp. and
P. corethrurus) and plant parasite nematodes. Letters indicate statistical differences (p< 0.05) by Tukey’s test (Modified
from [26]).
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
25
results have also been reported by Loranger-Merciris [45] by using P. corethrurus in banana
plants infected with R. similis,Helicotylenchus multicinctus, and Pratylenchus coffeae.
The reduction of nematode damage in plants in the presence of earthworms was also observed
by Demetrio et al. [54], who evaluated the potential of the earthworm Amynthas spp. in
reducing the infection of Meloidogyne javanica (worldwide parasite of tomato crop) as well as
the effects of the inoculation of these organisms on some soil biological attributes. Under
similar conditions as those used in [26], different densities of Amynthas spp. were inoculated
(0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 animals per pot) in the presence of tomato plants, which received a suspension
containing 3000 eggs and/or juveniles of M. javanica. At the end of the experiment, the increase
in carbon content of the microbial biomass and positive correlation of this attribute with the
dry mass of the plants was verified. The results of this experiment showed that the earthworms
were not able to reduce the infection of the plant-parasitic species in the tomato roots; how-
ever, in the presence of these invertebrates, the damage caused was reduced. Further, a
positive correlation was noted between the number of inoculated earthworms and the dry
mass of tomato (Figure 8a).
The better development of plants even with the formation of galls in the presence of earth-
worms can be attributed to several factors: physical changes of the soil by the action of these
invertebrates, since galleries formed are normally used by plants as a preferred route for root
growth, in addition to facilitate the infiltration of water and oxygen throughout the soil profile
[57]. Second, chemical changes, which might increase the availability of P and N mainly,
because of the acceleration of nutrient cycling, as well as the continuous deposition of NH
4+
Figure 7. Shoot dry and root fresh biomass of banana plants under different treatments at the end of the experiment:
N- E- Absence of fauna; N- E+ P. corethrurus earthworms alone; N+ E- R. similis nematodes alone; N+ E+ earthworms plus
nematodes. Bars indicate standard errors, n = 12. For each treatment, the means with the same letter are not significantly
different based on Bonferroni test at p< 0.05 (Source: Adapted from [44]).
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil26
by earthworms, both by the production of casts and organo-mineral excrements. These pro-
cesses could stimulate communities of nitrifying bacteria and growth-regulating-hormone
producers, as well as the deposition of mucus-rich nitrogen compounds on the walls of the
galleries [7, 47, 48].
The physico-chemical variations promoted by the earthworms alter the biological component
of the soil, thereby mainly stimulating the microorganisms (Figure 8b) that can be reflected in
the colonization of the roots by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [58]. This contributes to the
greater absorption of nutrients, mainly phosphorus; the development of plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria [59] such as Pseudomonas spp. fluorescents [60], which produce
siderophores, that is, increase the availability of Fe
2+
to plants; or to the production of antibi-
otics that inhibit the effects caused by clinical and subclinical pathogens [61]. These physico-
chemical and biological factors can favor the development of plants and compensate for the
damage caused by plant-parasitic species in the roots.
The results of these studies showed that earthworms have a remarkable potential to be used as
an alternative in the biological control of plant-parasitic species in several crops; however,
further studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms involved in this process as well as to
reveal the interactions with other plants.
3. Final considerations
The complete understanding of the effects of earthworms on nematode communities requires
further studies. Considering the studies performed in controlled systems, earthworms seem
capable of altering the communities of these invertebrates; however, the effects of other factors
such as non-sterilization of the soil and addition of vegetal components could change the
number of interactions that exist in this environment, often leading to the generation of
Figure 8. Effects of the levels of earthworms (Amynthas spp.) and nematodes (Meloidogyne javanica) in (a) dry mass of
tomato plants; (b) soil microbial biomass (Source: Modified from [54]). *,** significance at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respec-
tively.
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
27
contradictory results. The lack of adequate and standardized methodologies for determining
the interaction between these organisms and the different habits of life of the nematodes and
earthworm species are factors that contribute to the differences found among studies. Never-
theless, this ecological complexity is a part of the soil; therefore, it should be considered in
future studies.
Because of the potential to reduce the damage caused by plant-parasitic species, studies with
different ecological categories of earthworms need to be performed to understand the interac-
tions occurring in different species and the use of these invertebrates as a tool in the biological
control of plant-parasitic nematodes.
Author details
Jair Alves Dionísio
1
*, Wilian Carlo Demetrio
1
and Arlei Maceda
2
*Address all correspondence to: jair@ufpr.br
1 Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
2 Agricultural Defense Agency of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
References
[1] Darwin C. The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms, With
Observations on Their Habits. st ed. London: John Murray; 1881. p. 326
[2] Edwards CA. Earthworm Ecology. 2nd ed. Florida: CRC Press; 2004. p. 417
[3] Barros E, Curmi P, Hallaire V, Chauvel A, Lavelle P. The role of macrofauna in the
transformation and reversibility of soil structure of an oxisol in the process of forest to
pasture conversion. Geoderma. 2001;100(1–2):193-213
[4] Bartz MLC, Pasini A, Brown GG. Earthworms as soil quality indicators in Brazilian no-
tillage systems. Applied Soil Ecology. 2013;69:39-48. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apsoil.2013.01.011
[5] Brown GG, Hendrix PF. Beare. Influence of earthworms (Lumbricus rubellus) on sorghum
litter processing and nitrogen mineralization in two Ultisols. Acta Zoologica Fennica.
1995;196:55-59
[6] Feller C, Brown GG, Blanchart E, Deleporte P, Chernyanskii SS. Charles Darwin, earth-
worms and the natural sciences: Various lessons from past to future. Agriculture, Ecosys-
tems and Environment. 2003;99(1–3):29-49
[7] Scheu S. Effects of earthworms on plant growth: Patterns and perspectives. Pedobiologia.
2003;47(5–6):846-856
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil28
[8] Reynolds JW. Earthworms of the world. Global Biodiversity. 1994;4(1):11-16
[9] Fragoso C, Brown G, Feijoo A. The influence of Gilberto Righi on tropical earthworm
taxonomy: The value of a full-time taxonomist. The 7th international symposium on
earthworm ecology. Pedobiologia 2003;47(5–6):400-404
[10] Brown GG, Fragoso C, editors. Minhocas na América Latina: biodiversidade e ecologia.
1st ed. Londrina: Embrapa Soja; 2007. p. 545
[11] Steffen GPK, Antoniolli ZI, Steffen RB, Jacques RJS, dos Santos ML. Earthworm extraction
with onion solution. Applied Soil Ecology. 2013;69(1):28-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.12.013
[12] Brown GG, Benito NP, Pasini A, Sautter KD, Guimarães MDF, Torres E. No-tillage
greatly increases earthworm populations in Paraná State, Brazil. Pedobiologia. 2003;
47:764-771
[13] Tanck BCB, Santos HR, Dionísio JA. Influência de diferentes sistemas de uso e manejo do
solo sobre a flutuação populacional do oligochaeta edáfico Amynthas spp. Revista
Brasileira de Ciência do Solo. 2000;24(1):409-415
[14] Bouché MB. Strategies lombriciennes. In: Lohm U, Persson T, editors. Soil Organisms as
Components of Ecosystems. Stockholm: Ecological bulletins; 1977. pp. 122-132
[15] Brown GG, Barois I, Lavelle P. Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial
activity in the drilosphere and the role of interactions with other edaphic funcional
domains. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2000;36:177-198
[16] Groffman PM, Fahey TJ, Fisk MC, Yavitt JB, Sherman RE, Bohlen PJ, et al. Earthworms
increase soil microbial biomass carrying capacity and nitrogen retention in northern hard-
wood forests. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2015;87:51-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.03.025
[17] Coleman DC, Wall DH. Soil fauna: Occurrence, biodiversity, and roles in ecosystem
function. In: Paul E editor. Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biochemistry. Waltham: Aca-
demic Press; 2015. pp. 111-149
[18] Drake HL, M a H. As the worm turns: The earthworm gut as a transient habitat for soil
microbial biomes. Annual Review of microbiology. 2007;61:169-189
[19] Brown GG, Pashanasi B, Villenave C, Patron JC, Senapati BK, Giri S, et al. Effects of
earthworms on plant production in the tropics. In: Lavelle P, Brussaard L, Hendrix PF,
editors. Earthworm Management in Tropical Agroecosystems. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International; 1999. pp. 87-147
[20] Chapuis-Lardy L, Brauman A, Bernard L, Pablo AL, Toucet J, Mano MJ, et al. Effect of the
endogeic earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on the microbial structure and activity
related to CO
2
and N
2
O fluxes from a tropical soil (Madagascar). Applied Soil Ecology.
2010;45(3):201-208
[21] Siqueira JO. Microbiologia do solo: só simbioses? In: Moniz AC, Furlani AMC, Furlani PR,
Freitas SS, editors. A responsabilidade social da ciência do solo. Campinas: SBCS; 1988. pp.
337-389
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
29
[22] Yeates GW, Bongers T, De Goede RG, Freckman DW, Georgieva SS. Feeding habits in soil
nematode families and genera-an outline for soil ecologists. Journal of Nematology. 1993;
25(3):315-331
[23] Nielsen CO. Respiratory metabolism of some populations of enchytraeid worms and
freeliving nematodes. Oikos. 1961;12:17-35
[24] Mattos JKA, Huang SP, Pimentel CMM. Grupos tróficos da comunidade de nematóides
do solo em oito sistemas de uso da terra nos cerrados do Brasil Central. Nematologia
Brasileira. 2006;30(3):267-273
[25] Lavelle P. Earthworm activities and the soil system. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 1988;
6(3):237-251
[26] Dionísio JA, De Fátima Lunardi M, Maceda A, Kusdra JF. Como reduzir o número de
galhas de Meloidogyne paranaensis em raízes de tomateiro usando minhocas? Semina:
Ciências Agrárias. 2014;35(2):781-786
[27] Ilieva-Makulec K, Makulec G. Effect of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus on the nematode
community in a peat meadow soil. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2002;38(1):59-62
[28] Domínguez J, Parmelee RW, Edwards CA. Interactions between Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta)
and nematode populations during vermicomposting. Pedobiologia. 2003;47(1):53-60
[29] Aira M, Monroy F, Dominguez J. Effects of two species of earthworms (Allolobophora spp.) on
soil systems: A microfaunal and biochemical analysis. Pedobiologia. 2003;47(5–6):877-881
[30] Edwards CA, Fletcher KE. Interactions between earthworms and microorganisms in
organic-matter breakdown. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 1988;24(1–3):235-247
[31] Edwards CA, Dominguez J, Arancon NQ. The influence of vermicomposts on plant
growth and pest incidence. In: Hanna SH, WZA M, editors. Soil Zoology for Sustainable
Development in the 21st Century: a festschrift in honour of Prof. Samir I. Ghabbour on
the occasion of his 70th birthday. Cairo: Geocities; 2004. pp. 397-420
[32] Monroy F, Aira M, Domínguez J. Changes in density of nematodes, protozoa and total
coliforms after transit through the gut of four epigeic earthworms (Oligochaeta). Applied
Soil Ecology. 2008;39(2):127-132
[33] Kokhia M, Tskitishvili E, Gigolashvili M. Biodiversity of Nematofauna of earthworm
casts. International Journal of Agricultural Innovations and Research. 2015;4(1):191-196
[34] Dash MC, Senapati BK, Mishra CC. Nematode feeding by tropical earthworms. Oikos.
1980;34(3):322-325
[35] Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Lee SS, Yardim E. Management of plant parasitic nematode
populations by use of vermicomposts. Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection Confer-
ence Pests and Diseases. 2002;8(B2):705-716
[36] Gabour EI, Marahatta SP, Lau J-W. Vermicomposting: A potential management approach
for the reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis. Nematropica. 2015;45(1):285-287
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil30
[37] Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Emerson E, Pulliam R. Suppression of plant parasitic nema-
todes and arthropod pests by vermicompost teas. Biocycle. 2007;48(12):1-6
[38] Rodríguez-Kábana R. Organic and inorganic nitrogen amendments to soil as nematode
suppressants. Journal of Nematology. 1986;18(2):129-135
[39] Kerry B. Fungal parasites of cysts nematodes. In: Edwards CA, Stinner BR, Stinner D,
Rabatin S, editors. Biological Interaction in Soils. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998. pp. 293-306
[40] Siddiqui ZA, Mahmood I. Role of bacteria in the management of plant parasitic nema-
todes: A review. Bioresource Technology. 1999;69(2):167-179
[41] Bilgrami L. Evaluation of the predation abilities of the mite hypoaspis calcuttaensis, preda-
ceous on plant and soil nematodes. Fundamental & Applied Nematology. 1997;20:96-97
[42] Poinar GO. Associations between nematodes (Nematoda) and oligochaetes (Annelida).
Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington. 1978;45(2):202-210
[43] Boyer J, Reversat G, Lavelle P, Chabanne A. Interactions between earthworms and plant-
parasitic nematodes. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2013;59(1):43-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.
ejsobi.2013.10.004
[44] Lafont A, Risède J-M, Loranger-Merciris G, Clermont-Dauphin C, Dorel M, Rhino B, et al.
Effects of the earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on banana plants infected or not with the
plant-parasitic nematode Radophulus similis. Pedobiologia. 2007;51(1):311-318
[45] Loranger-Merciris G, Cabidoche YM, Deloné B, Quénéhervé P, Ozier-Lafontaine H. How
earthworm activities affect banana plant response to nematodes parasitism. Applied Soil
Ecology. 2012;52(1):1-8
[46] Villenave C, Rabary B, Kichenin E, Djigal D, Blanchart E. Earthworms and plant residues
modify nematodes in tropical cropping soils (Madagascar): A mesocosm experiment.
Applied and Environmental. Soil Science. 2010;2010:1-7
[47] Senapati BK. Biotic interactions between soil nematodes and earthworms. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry. 1992;24(12):1441-1444
[48] Tao J, Chen X, Liu M, Hu F, Griffiths B, Li H. Earthworms change the abundance and
community structure of nematodes and protozoa in a maize residue amended rice-wheat
rotation agro-ecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2009;41(5):898-904
[49] Yeates GW. Soil nematode populations depresed in the presence of earthworms.
Pedobiologia. 1981;22(1):191-195
[50] Kluepfel DA. The behavior and tracking of bacteria in the rhizosphere. Annual Review of
Phytopathology. 1993;31:441-472
[51] Räty M, Huhta V. Earthworms and pH affect communities of nematodes and enchytraeids
in forest soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2003;38(1):52-58
[52] Tiunov AV, Bonkowski M, Alphei J, Scheu S. Microflora, protozoa and nematoda in
Lumbricus terrestris burrow walls: A laboratory experiment. Pedobiologia. 2001;60(1):46-60
Earthworms and Nematodes: The Ecological and Functional Interactions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74211
31
[53] Shapiro DI, Berry EC, Lewis LC. Interactions between nematodes and earthworms:
Enhanced dispersal of Steinernema carpocapsae. Journal of Nematology. 1993;25(2):189-192
[54] Demetrio WC, Dionísio JA, Maceda A. Earthworms and root-knot nematodes: Effect on soil
biological activity and tomato growth. Semina:Ciências Agrarias. 2017;38(4):2449-2462
[55] Campos VP, Campos JR, Silva LHCP, Dutra MR. Manejo de nematoides em hortaliças. In:
Silva LHCP, Campos JR, Nojosa GBA, editors. Manejo integrado: doenças e pragas em
hortaliças. Lavras: UFLA; 2001. pp. 125-158
[56] Pessoa SB, Martins AV. Parasitologia médica. 11th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan;
1988. p. 872
[57] Yvan C, Stéphane S, Stéphane C, Pierre B, Guy R, Hubert B. Role of earthworms in
regenerating soil structure after compaction in reduced tillage systems. Soil Biology &
Biochemistry. 2012;55:93-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.06.013
[58] Aghababaei F, Raiesi F, Hosseinpur A. The combined effects of earthworms and
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a calcareous
soil spiked with cadmium. Applied Soil Ecology. 2014;75:33-42
[59] Li X, Fisk MC, Fahey TJ, Bohlen PJ. Influence of earthworm invasion on soil microbial
biomass and activity in a northern hardwood forest. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 2002;34:
1929-1937
[60] Coelho LF, Dos Santos Freitas S, De Melo AMT, Ambrosano GMB. Interação de bactérias
fluorescentes do genero Pseudomonas edeBacillus spp. com a rizosfera de diferentes
plantas. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo. 2007;31(6):1413-1420
[61] Freitas S. Rizobactérias promotoras do crescimento de plantas. In: Silveira APD, Freitas SS,
editors. Microbiota do solo e qualidade. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico; 2007. pp. 1-20
Earthworms - The Ecological Engineers of Soil32
