Cited by 83Invertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyBioenergy crop production and managementEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Effects of bioenergy crop cultivation on earthworm communities—A comparative study of perennial (Miscanthus) and annual crops with consideration of graded land-use intensity

Felten, Daniel, Emmerling, Christoph·2011·Applied Soil Ecology

Abstract

Energy crops are of growing importance in agriculture worldwide. This field study aimed to investigate earthworm communities of different intensively cultivated soils during a 2-year period, with special emphasis on annual and perennial energy crops like rapeseed, maize, and Miscanthus. These were compared with cereals, grassland, and fallow sites. Distribution patterns of earthworm abundance, species, and ecological categories were analysed by constrained ordination procedures (redundancy analysis; CANOCO) using a set of environmental variables as predictors, such as CN value of harvest residues, SOC and Nₜ content, soil pH, soil texture, and land-use intensity. The latter was determined by principal component analysis using average soil coverage and intensity of tillage, weed control, and fertilisation as input variables. It was clearly found that land-use intensity was the dominant regressor for earthworm abundance and total number of species. The diversity of earthworm communities was especially enhanced and showed a more balanced species composition in extensively managed soils under grassland, fallow, and Miscanthus. For the total number of species, Miscanthus (5.1±0.9) took a medium position and neither differed significantly from intensively managed rapeseed (4.0±0.9), cereals (3.7±1.1), and maize sites (3.0±1.4), nor from grassland (6.8±1.5) and fallow (6.4±1.0) sites. Total earthworm abundance ranged between 355 (±132) and 62 (±49)individualsm⁻² in fallow and maize sites, respectively. Interestingly, Miscanthus had quite positive effects on earthworm communities although the CN value of harvest residues was very high. It is recommended that Miscanthus may facilitate a diverse earthworm community even in intensive agricultural landscapes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.06.001

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Felten, D., & Emmerling, C.
Affiliations
Universität Trier (DE)
Corresponding author
Felten, Daniel
Venue
Applied Soil Ecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
49
Pages
167-177
ISSN
0929-1393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088085434
Cited by
83
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied Soil Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
earthworm communities, energy crops, Miscanthus, land use intensity, soil fauna, earthworm diversity, earthworm abundance, soil organic carbon, soil nitrogen, harvest residues, tillage, fertilization, weed control, Brassica napus, maize, grassland, fallow

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review