Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Data in Brief logoLink to Data in Brief
. 2020 Feb 8;29:105263. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105263

A dataset for the effect of earthworm abundance and functional group diversity on plant litter decay and soil organic carbon level

Wei Huang a,b, Grizelle González c, Xiaoming Zou a,b,∗
PMCID: PMC7033319  PMID: 32149168

Abstract

This paper describes data of earthworm abundance and functional group diversity regulate plant litter decay and soil organic carbon (SOC) level in global terrestrial ecosystems. The data also describes the potential effect of vegetation types, litter quality, litterbag mesh size, soil C/N, soil aggregate size, experimental types and length of experimental time on earthworm induced plant litter and SOC decay. The data were collected from 69 studies published between 1985 and 2018, covering 340 observations. This data article is related to the paper “Earthworm Abundance and Functional Group Diversity Regulate Plant Litter Decay and Soil Organic Carbon Level: A Global Meta-analysis” [1].

Keywords: Anecic worms, Endogeic worms, Epigeic worms, Forest floor mass, Litter decomposition, Soil carbon

Specifications Table

Subject Ecology, Soil Science
Specific subject area Earthworm ecology, litter decomposition, soil carbon
Type of data Table
How data were acquired Systematic review of the literature
Data format Raw
Parameters for data collection We used three different combinations of keywords: earthworm and litter decomposition; earthworm and forest floor; earthworm and soil carbon.
Description of data collection Data were collected from the ISI-Web of Science and Google Scholar.
Data source location 18 countries over five continents
Data accessibility With the article
Related research article Wei Huang, Grizelle Gonzalez, Xiaoming Zou, Earthworm Abundance and Functional Group Diversity Regulate Plant Litter Decay and Soil Organic Carbon Level: A Global Meta-analysis, Applied Soil Ecology, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103473. [1]
Open in a new tab
Value of the Data
  • •

    To date, no dataset has provided a comprehensive synthesis of existing experimental data about the effect of earthworms on litter decomposition and soil organic carbon (SOC) levels at global scale.

  • •

    Data can be used to quantify the effect of earthworms on litter decomposition and SOC levels at global scale.

  • •

    Data can be used to identify effects of earthworm functional group diversity, vegetation types, litter quality, litterbag mesh size, soil C/N, soil aggregate size, experiment types and length of experimental time on earthworm induced plant litter and SOC decay.

Open in a new tab

1. Data description

Data were extracted from peer-reviewed journal papers published between 1985 and 2018. Totally 340 observations from 69 studies were included. Detailed data are listed in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, giving the following information: location, ecosystem, earthworm density, annual litter decomposition rate, earthworm function group, the response ratio (R), mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, experimental type, experimental duration, litter quality, forest floormass thickness and carbon stock, soil carbon concentration, soil C/N, soil aggregate size, and literature reference.

Table 1.

Location, earthworm density, plant litter decomposition rate, and earthworm functional group in crop fields, tree plantations and forests worldwide for curve estimation.

Location Ecosystem Earthworm density (no./m2) Annual litter decomposition rate (y−1) Earthworm function group Reference
Georgia, USA Crop
Soy bean 176 1.67 Mixture [3]
Rye 176 1.45 Mixture
Queensland, Australia Sugarcane 199 1.88 Endogeic [4]
Plantation
Dublin, Ireland Salix 189 1.69 Mixture [5]
Carlshead, UK Short Rotation Forestry 152 0.91 Mixture [6]
Natural forest
Puerto Rico, USA Tabonuco (Upland) 45 1.47 Mixture [7]
Tabonuco (Riparian) 16 0.94 Mixture
Anduze, France Chestnut 86 1.50 Mixture [8,9]
86 0.55 Mixture
86 1.10 Mixture
86 0.64 Mixture
4 0.71 Anecic
4 0.56 Anecic
4 0.50 Anecic
4 0.37 Anecic
28 0.52 Mixture
28 0.52 Mixture
28 0.48 Mixture
28 0.25 Mixture
Skane, Sweden Beech 2.5 0.33 Epigeic [10]
39.8 0.60 Mixture
219.7 2.15 Mixture
Hawaii, USA Metrosiderus 21 0.37 Mixture [11,12]
Puerto Rico, USA Tabonuco (Control) 168.8 1.12 Mixture [13]
Tabonuco (Fertilization) 29.33 0.84 Endogeic
Subtropical lower montane rain forest (Control) 12 0.7 mixture
Subtropical lower montane rain forest (Fertilization) 19 1.49 Mixture
Ontario, Canada Sugar maple and American beech 67.675 0.39 Mixture [14]
Colorado, USA Aspen Forest 44.44 0.36 Mixture [15]
44.44 0.31 Mixture
Pine Forest 0.77 0.29 Epigeic
0.77 0.25 Epigeic
New York State, USA Sugar maple 79.6 1.05 Mixture [16]
26.5 0.51 Mixture
99.4 1.27 Mixture
26.1 0.6 Mixture
Oak 81.6 0.96 Mixture
26.4 0.53 Mixture
92.6 1.16 Mixture
21.5 0.63 Mixture
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

The location, biome, mean annual temperature (MAT), mean annual precipitation (MAP), experimental type, experimental duration, earthworm functional group, earthworm numbers, litter quality for observations about the effects of earthworm on litter decomposition in the meta-analysis.

Location Ecosystems MAT (oC) MAP (mm) Experimental type Experimental period (days) Earthworm functional group Litter type Litter C/N Litter bag mesh size (mm) Effect size References
Puerto Rico, USA Pasture 22–26 3500 Field 365 Endogeic Leaf 26 1 2.62 [17]
Pasture 22–26 3500 Field 365 Endogeic Root 101 1 1.10
Forest 20.8–24.5 3456 Field 365 Mixture Leaf 32 1 1.22
Forest 20.8–24.5 3456 Field 365 Mixture Root 101 1 1.12
Maryland, USA Forest (Tulip poplar Association-mature) Field 240 Mixture Leaf 10 2.29 [18]
Field 240 Mixture Leaf 1 1.12
Anduze, France Forest 11.9 1212 Field 760 Mixture Leaf 5 2.33 [8]
[9]
Field 760 Mixture Leaf 5 1.75
Field 760 Mixture Leaf 5 2.42
Field 760 Mixture Leaf 5 1.492
Chicago, USA Forest (Buckthorn) Field 365 Leaf 4 33.76 [19]
Field 365 Leaf 4 2.32
Field 365 Leaf 4 1.95
Field 365 Leaf 4 1.64
Forest (mesic) Field 365 Leaf 4 9.81
Field 365 Leaf 4 3.73
Field 365 Leaf 4 2.33
Field 365 Leaf 4 2.56
Forest (maple) Field 365 Leaf 4 2.79
Field 365 Leaf 4 0.77
Field 365 Leaf 4 1.73
Field 365 Leaf 4 0.94
Ibadan, Nigeria Crop Lab 56 Epigeic Leaf 10.1 2.53 [20]
Field 56 Epigeic Leaf 10.1 1.98
New York, USA Forest (Oak) 1000 Field 190 Mixture Leaf 10 0.98 [21]
Field 190 Mixture Leaf 10 1.077
Forest (Sugar maple) Field 190 Mixture Leaf 10 1.027
Field 190 Mixture Leaf 10 1.11
Forest (Oak) Field 340 Mixture Leaf 10 1.35
Field 340 Mixture Leaf 10 1.51
Forest (Sugar maple) Field 340 Mixture Leaf 10 2.58
Field 340 Mixture Leaf 10 1.53
Forest (Oak) Field 540 Mixture Leaf 10 1.68
Field 540 Mixture Leaf 10 2.41
Forest (Sugar maple) Field 540 Mixture Leaf 10 1.56
Field 540 Mixture Leaf 10 2.59
Guangdong, China Lab 126 Endogeic Leaf 0.93 [22]
Lab 126 Anecic Leaf 1.42
Baden Wurttemberg, Germany 14–22 Lab 63 Anecic Leaf 17.3 1 [23]
14–22 Lab 63 Anecic Leaf 17.3 1.91
14–22 Lab 63 Anecic Leaf 17.3 2.37
Amazonas, Brazil 24–31 Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 27 0.95 [24]
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 32 1.03
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 34 1.07
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 42 1.04
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 27 0.78
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 32 0.89
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 34 1.00
Lab 97 Endogeic Leaf 42 0.98
Tyrol, Austria 15 - 20 Lab 84 Endogeic Leaf 34.7 0.96 [25]
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 34.7 1.00
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 34.7 1.43
Lab 84 Mixture Leaf 34.7 1.02
Lab 84 Mixture Leaf 34.7 1.09
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 34.7 1.12
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 34.7 1.32
Lab 84 Endogeic Leaf 34.7 1.11
Lab 84 Endogeic Leaf 27.2 0.95
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 27.2 1.04
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 27.2 1.97
Lab 84 Mixture Leaf 27.2 1.02
Lab 84 Mixture Leaf 27.2 1.31
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 27.2 1.25
Lab 84 Epigeic Leaf 27.2 2.05
Lab 84 Endogeic Leaf 27.2 1.56
Wisconsin, USA Forest Field 123 Anecic Leaf 4.62 [26]
Minnesota, USA Temperate deciduous forest 18 Lab 42 Anecic Leaf 1.50 [27]
18 Lab 42 Epigeic Leaf 2.35
18 Lab 42 Mixture Leaf 2.80
Field 82 Anecic Leaf 1.06
Field 82 Epigeic Leaf 1.47
Field 82 Mixture Leaf 1.37
Tyrol, Austria 15 Lab 28 Epigeic Leaf 1.07 [28]
15 Lab 28 Epigeic Leaf 1.11
15 Lab 28 Epigeic Leaf 1.17
15 Lab 28 Epigeic Leaf 1.21
Bechstedt, Germany 15–20 Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 2.12 [29]
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 2.68
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 3.15
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 3.26
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 2.67
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 4.00
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 13.28
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 6.28
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.34
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.06
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 35.85
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 2.15
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 5.95
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.33
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 2.18
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 4.72
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 9.63
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.16
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.20
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.56
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 1.80
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 3.34
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 11.36
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 6.97
Lab 56 Anecic Leaf 12.36
Puerto Rico, USA Lab 22 Mixture Leaf 2.10 [30]
Hampshire, UK Short rotation forestry 11.2 630 Field 365 Mixture Leaf 32.5 2.26 [31]
Field 365 Mixture Leaf 39.5 1.51
Carlshead, UK Short rotation forestry 9 1000 Field 365 Mixture Leaf 39.5 5 5.28 [6]
Field 365 Mixture Leaf 52 5 8.15
Field 365 Mixture Leaf 33 5 12.44
Field 365 Mixture Leaf 32.5 5 10.41
Field 261 Mixture Leaf 18.2 5 17.56
Kaserstattalm, Austria 9–17 Lab 120 Epigeic Leaf 1.35 [32]
Lab 120 Epigeic Leaf 1.07
Lab 120 Epigeic Leaf 2.50
Gottingen, Germany 18 Lab 90 Epigeic Leaf 1.24 [33]
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Location, earthworm density, and forest floormass thickness and carbon stock in forests worldwide for curve estimation.

Location Earthworm density (no./m2) Forest floormass
 References
Thickness (cm) Carbon stock (g/m2)
Minnesota, USA 592.00 0.60 [34]
Minnesota, USA 821.47 1.14 [35]
Ontario, Canada 99.50 2.70 [36]
Alberta, Canada 622.72 4.19 [37]
181.59 3.66
108.14 3.57
136.42 3.49
162.75 2.64
214.18 1.01
196.08 0.97
623.02 0.20
458.67 0.12
661.73 0.04
Maryland, USA 212.00 1.00 116.00 [38]
Maryland, USA 38.00 6.25 [39]
Michigan, USA 9.10 895.60 [40]
247.80 316.20
New York State, USA 106.30 211.20 [41]
76.83 70.40
New York State, USA 150.00 196.34 [42]
89.20 295.39
Puerto Rico, USA 32.67 785.10 [43]
56.00 406.40
8.76 563.90
Jilin, China 780 1.0 [44]
336 2.5
153 2.0
52 1.5
Yunan, China 28.5 1.5 [45]
12.35 0.5
7.5 1
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Location, earthworm density, and mineral soil carbon concentration in 12 sites of crop fields, pasture, and forests worldwide used for curve estimation.

Location Ecosystems Earthworm density (no./m2) Soil depth (cm) Soil organic C concentration (%) Earthworm functional group References
Ohio, USA Crop
Corn-soybean 17.9 0–10 16.1 Mixture [46]
10–20 12.4
20–30 12.3
30–40 8.8
Jiangsu, China Rice–wheat 30 0–20 8.04 Anecic [47]
9.09
Timiş, Romania Wheat-soybean-maize-barley 9.33 2.26 [48]
14.76 2.16
9.33 2.16
13.33 2.10
26.67 2.53
Tennessee, USA Rotation 0–15 [49]
Corn
-soybean		 46.05 1.2 Mixture
Continuous Soybean 52.85 1.4 Mixture
Continuous Corn 40.5 1.0 Mixture
Bio-cover
Fallow 45.8 1.1 Mixture
Hair vetch 75.5 1.1 Mixture
Poultry litter 27.35 1.3 Mixture
Wheat 36.75 1.1 Mixture
Hawaii, USA Eucalypt 12 0–25 7.55 Endogeic [50]
151 8.52 Endogeic
154 8.80 Endogeic
398 9.86 Endogeic
Eifel, Germany Four crop rotation (rape, winter wheat, winter barley, and spring barley) 119.3 0–10 1.56 Mixture [51]
10–20 1.52
20–30 0.87
113.3 0–10 1.79 Mixture
10–20 1.22
20–30 0.75
160 0–10 1.94 Mixture
10–20 1.23
20–30 0.74
132.7 0–10 1.71 Mixture
10–20 1.14
20–30 0.68
157.3 0–10 1.75 Mixture
10–20 1.15
20–30 0.67
Karnataka, India Agricultural fields (rice, nuts, and banana) 485.14 0–30 4.94 Mixture [52]
KwaZuluNatal midlands, South Africa Ryegrass 158.82 0–10 3.74 Mixture [53]
Maize 49.27 3.12 Mixture
Sugarcane 25.74 2.56 Epigeic
Ryegrass 76.53 3.21 Mixture
Maize 45.79 2.68 Mixture
Sugarcane 164.69 3.06 Epigeic
Victoria, Australia Crop 21.00 0–7.5 0.93 [54]
46.00 0.94
50.00 0.96
Pasture
New Zealand 637 0–5 3.98 Mixture [55]
5–10 4.10
10–18 3.30
18–26 3.20
KwaZuluNatal midlands, South Africa Kikuyu grass 236.03 0–10 7.58 Mixture [53]
Native grassland 6.08 5.79
Kikuyu grass 303.34 8.07 Mixture
Forest
New York, USA Forest 106 0–5 5.75 Mixture [39,40]
5–10 2.63
10–15 1.65
15–20 1.43
76 0–5 6.97 Mixture
5–10 4.12
10–15 1.93
15–20 1.71
Honduras
Karnataka, India		 Forest 37.89 0–15 3.59 Endogeic [56]
Forest 561.06 0–30 5.24 Mixture [52]
KwaZuluNatal midlands, South Africa Gum forest 60.29 0–10 3.53 Endogeic [53]
Pine forest 18.38 4.45 Mixture
Gum forest 60.97 5.62 Endogeic
Pine forest 19.91 5.51 Mixture
Hawaii, USA Eucalypt 173 0–25 8.90 Mixture [50]
147 9.43 Mixture
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

The location, biome, MAT, MAP, experimental type, earthworm functional group, earthworm number, soil depth, soil C/N and soil aggregate size for observations about the effects of earthworm on soil organic carbon levels in the meta-analysis.

Location Ecosystems MAT (oC) MAP (mm) Experimental type Earthworm functional group Soil depth (cm) Experimental period Soil C/N Soil aggregate size Effect size of soil organic carbon References
New York, USA Forest 900 Field Mixture 0 - 5 730 13.3 0.62 [41]
Mixture 5 - 10 730 11.6 0.81
Mixture 10 - 15 730 10.1 0.62
Mixture 15 - 20 730 10.0 0.65
Mixture 0 - 5 730 0.75
Mixture 5 - 10 730 1.27
Mixture 10 - 15 730 0.72
Mixture 15 - 20 730 0.78
New York, USA Forest 900 Field Mixture 0 - 5 730 0.86 [57]
Mixture 5 - 10 730 1.10
Mixture 10 - 15 730 0.62
Mixture 15 - 20 730 0.72
New Zealand Pasture 12.2 1050 Field Anecic 0 - 5 10950 0.82 [55]
5 - 10 10950 0.75
10 - 18 10950 0.58
18 - 26 10950 0.82
0 - 5 7300 0.98
5 - 10 7300 1.06
10 - 18 7300 1.05
18 - 26 7300 1.24
New York, USA Sugar maple 980 Field 0 - 3 18.73 1.34 [42]
3 - 6 17.53 1.14
6 - 9 16.80 1.08
9 - 12 15.84 0.96
0 - 3 13.59 1.17
3 - 6 11.83 0.99
6 - 9 11.59 1.05
9 - 12 11.18 0.95
Cumbria, UK 15 Lab 0 - 8 110 1.06 [58]
Tennessee, USA 20 Lab Endogeic 26 >250 2.05 [59]
Endogeic 26 53–250 0.78
Endogeic 26 <53 1.30
Epigeic 26 >250 3.60
Epigeic 26 53–250 0.96
Epigeic 26 <53 1.13
Ohio, USA Corn-soybean Field Mixture 0 - 10 1075 1.11 [46]
Mixture 10 - 20 1075 1.19
Mixture 20 - 30 1075 1.01
Mixture 30 - 40 1075 1.02
Jiangsu, China Rice–wheat 16 1106 Field Anecic 0 - 20 2555 8.30 1.02 [47]
2555 1.02
Quebec, Canada Hardwood forest 6.2 1058 Field 0–10 14.00 1.56 [60]
10–20 13.30 1.50
Xishuangbanna
, China		 Rubber plantation 21.8 1493 Field Endogeic 0–5 600 11.80 0.94 [61]
5–15 600 11.80 1.05
0–5 600 11.80 0.72
5–15 600 11.80 1.45
Congo, Brail Savanna Endogeic 0–10 0.67 [62]
10–20 1.31
20–30 1.00
Georgia, USA Lab Endogeic 20 >2000 3.42 [63]
20 250–2000 0.52
Georgia, USA Lab Endogeic 20 >2000 3.12 [64]
20 250–2000 0.78
20 53–250 0.71
20 <53 0.61
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA 18 Lab Epigeic 23 0.92 [65]
23 0.89
23 >2000 10.25
23 >2000 5.32
23 250–2000 0.59
23 250–2000 0.80
23 53–250 0.08
23 53–250 0.66
Trier, Germany 15 Lab Mixture 42 14.88 1.01 [66]
42 14.31 1.06
42 15.25 0.99
42 15.25 1.03
Georgia, USA Lab Endogeic 0–3.5 37 1.03 [67]
Epigeic 3.5–7 37 1.09
Endogeic 0–3.5 37 0.98
Epigeic 3.5–7 37 1.08
Alberta, Canada Lab Epigeic 1–4 28 1.03 [68]
1–4 56 0.89
1–4 84 0.96
1–4 28 0.73
1–4 56 0.89
1–4 84 0.70
4–7 28 0.94
4–7 56 0.90
4–7 84 1.00
4–7 28 0.79
4–7 56 1.00
4–7 84 0.68
>7 28 1.16
>7 56 1.29
>7 84 1.04
>7 28 1.60
>7 56 1.23
>7 84 1.94
Jilin, China 18 Lab 0–2.5 30 0.95 [69]
0–2.5 30 1.12
0–2.5 30 0.94
0–2.5 30 1.18
2.5–5 30 1.03
2.5–5 30 0.77
2.5–5 30 0.95
2.5–5 30 1.14
Hubei, China 25±2 Lab Anecic 40 0.96 [70]
40 0.77
40 <250 1.10
40 250–1000 0.79
40 1000–2000 1.21
40 >2000 1.19
Jinlin, China 20 Lab compost 18 13.04 1.04 [71]
18 13.04 1.15
18 13.04 1.04
35 14.09 1.12
35 14.09 1.10
35 14.09 1.08
Puerto Rico, USA Lab Anecic 22 0.98 [30]
Endogeic 22 1.01
Endogeic 22 0.94
Mixture 22 0.99
Mixture 22 0.97
Mixture 22 0.97
Mixture 22 0.97
Hanoi, Vietnam 15–25 Lab Endogeic 365 1.02 [72]
Endogeic 365 0.82
Endogeic 365 0.81
Open in a new tab

2. Experimental design, materials, and methods

A data set was compiled using literature search of peer-reviewed publications about the effects of earthworms on litter decomposition or SOC from the ISI-Web of Science and Google Scholar research database. We used three different combinations of keywords: earthworm and litter decomposition; earthworm and forest floor; earthworm and soil carbon. A total of 69 studies published between 1985 and 2018 were found (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5). An Engauge Digitizer (Free Software Foundation, Inc., Boston, MA, United States of America) was used to extract numerical values from figures in selected articles in which data were graphically presented.

For Table 1, we included studies that reported earthworm density and litter decomposition/decay rate; 40 observations from 13 studies were found. For Table 3, we included studies that reported earthworm density and forest floor thickness or carbon stock; 32 observations from 12 studies were found. For Table 4, we included studies that reported earthworm density and soil carbon content (%, g C/kg soil or mg C/g soil); 70 observations from 12 studies were found. For Table 1, Table 3, Table 4, we included studies that reflected earthworm density under field conditions (i.e. earthworms were not reduced or added), and plant litter from the vegetation currently under the experimental sites so that these observations can reflect the balance between earthworm density and turnover of plant litter, SOC under field conditions.

To be included in the meta-analysis, the paper had to report the means, standard deviation (SDs) and replicate numbers of litter percent mass loss or SOC for the control treatment (C, with no earthworms or reduced earthworm number) and the experimental treatment (E, with earthworms or earthworm number do not reduce). For studies that did not report SD or standard error (SE), we conservatively estimated SD values as 150% of the average variance across the dataset [2]. To evaluate the significance of the earthworm-induced effect on litter decomposition, 113 observations from 20 studies were found (Table 2). For the magnitude of the earthworm-induced effect on SOC content, 120 observations from 22 studies were found (Table 5). Because most of the studies do not report soil bulk density, we therefore converted SOC stocks with known bulk density (20 observations) to SOC concentrations. Besides earthworm functional groups, other details of experimental conditions were also specified in our analyses. We included studies that reported climate, vegetation types (naturally-grown forest, plantation, pastureland and crop), litter quality (litter C/N ratio and leaf versus root litter), litterbag mesh size, time length of experiment, soil depth, soil aggregate size, soil C/N ratio and experimental types (field versus laboratory). These parameters were the controlling factors that we considered for the earthworm effect on litter decay and SOC. The magnitude of the earthworm-induced effect on litter decay and SOC were calculated as the response ratio (R), R = E/C, where E and C are the means of experimental and control treatments, respectively.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by a cooperative agreement between the USDA-Forest Service International Institute of Tropical Forestry and the University of Puerto Rico [14-JV-11120101-018, 2015]. Grizelle González was supported by the Luquillo Critical Zone Observatory [EAR-1331841] and the Luquillo Long-Term Ecological Research Site [DEB-1239764].

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  • 1.Huang W., González G., Zou X. Earthworm abundance and functional group diversity regulate plant litter decay and soil organic carbon level: a global meta-analysis. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lubbers I.M., van Groenigen K.J., Fonte S.J., Six J., Brussaard L. Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms. Nat. Clim. Change. 2013;3:187–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Parmelee R., Beare M., Cheng W., Hendrix P., Rider S. Earthworms and enchytraeids in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems: a biocide approach to assess their role in organic matter breakdown. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 1990;10:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Spain A., Hodgen M. Changes in the composition of sugarcane harvest residues during decomposition as a surface mulch. Biol. Fert. soils. 1994;17:225–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Curry J., Kelly M., Bolger T. Role of invertebrates in the decomposition of Salix litter in reclaimed cutover peat. In: Fitter A.H., editor. Ecological Interactions in the Soil Special Publication Number 4 of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Scientifica Publications; London: 1985. pp. 393–397. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rajapaksha N., Butt K.R., Vanguelova E., Moffat A. Effects of short rotation forestry on earthworm community development in the UK. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013;309:96–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dechaine J., Ruan H., Sanchez-de L.Y., Zou X. Correlation between earthworms and plant litter decomposition in a tropical wet forest of Puerto Rico. Pedobiologia. 2005;49:601–607. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cortez J., Bouché M. Field decomposition of leaf litters: earthworm–microorganism interactions—the ploughing-in effect. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1998;30:795–804. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cortez J. Field decomposition of leaf litters: relationships between decomposition rates and soil moisture, soil temperature and earthworm activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1998;30:783–793. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Staaf H. Foliage litter turnover and earthworm populations in three beech forests of contrasting soil and vegetation types. Oecologia. 1987;72:58–64. doi: 10.1007/BF00385045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aplet G. Alteration of earthworm community biomass by the alien Myrica faya in Hawai'i. Oecologia. 1990;82:414–416. doi: 10.1007/BF00317491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vitousek P.M., Turner D.R., Parton W.J., Sanford R.L. Litter decomposition on the Mauna Loa environmental matrix, Hawai'i: patterns, mechanisms, and models. Ecology. 1994;75:418–429. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yang X., Warren M., Zou X. Fertilization responses of soil litter fauna and litter quantity, quality, and turnover in low and high elevation forests of Puerto Rico. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007;37:63–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jennings B.W., Watmough S.A. The impact of invasive earthworms on soil respiration and soil carbon within temperate hardwood forests. Ecosystems. 2016;19:942–954. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.González G., Seastedt T.R., Donato Z. Earthworms, arthropods and plant litter decomposition in aspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests in Colorado, USA. Pedobiologia. 2003;47:863–869. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Suárez E.R., Fahey T.J., Yavitt J.B., Groffman P.M., Bohlen P.J. Patterns of litter disappearance in a northern hardwood forest invaded by exotic earthworms. Ecol. Appl. 2006;16:154–165. doi: 10.1890/04-0788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liu Z., Zou X. Exotic earthworms accelerate plant litter decomposition in a Puerto Rican pasture and a wet forest. Ecol. Appl. 2002;12:1406–1417. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Szlavecz K., McCormick M., Xia L., Saunders J., Morcol T. Ecosystem effects of non-native earthworms in Mid-Atlantic deciduous forests. Biol. Invasions. 2011;13:1165–1182. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Heneghan L., Steffen J., Fagen K. Interactions of an introduced shrub and introduced earthworms in an Illinois urban woodland: impact on leaf litter decomposition. Pedobiologia. 2007;50:543–551. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Adejuyigbe C.O., Tian G., Adeoye G.O. Microcosmic study of soil microarthropod and earthworm interaction in litter decomposition and nutrient turnover. Nutrient Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2006;75:47–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bohlen P.J., Groffman P.M., Fahey T.J., Fisk M.C., Suárez E. Ecosystem consequences of exotic earthworm invasion of north temperate forests. Ecosystems. 2004;7:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wu J., Li H., Zhang W., Li F., Huang J. Contrasting impacts of two subtropical earthworm species on leaf litter carbon sequestration into soil aggregates. J. Soils Sediments. 2017;17:1672–1681. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Eisenhauer N., Marhan S., Scheu S. Assessment of anecic behavior in selected earthworm species: effects on wheat seed burial, seedling establishment, wheat growth and litter incorporation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008;38:79–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Araujo Y., Luizão F.J., Barros E. Effect of earthworm addition on soil nitrogen availability, microbial biomass and litter decomposition in mesocosms. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 2004;39:146–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Seeber J., Scheu S., Meyer E. Effects of macro-decomposers on litter decomposition and soil properties in alpine pastureland: a mesocosm experiment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006;34:168–175. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Qiu J., Turner M.G. Effects of non-native Asian earthworm invasion on temperate forest and prairie soils in the Midwestern US. Biol. Invasions. 2016;19:73–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Greiner H.G., Kashian D.R., Tiegs S.D. Impacts of invasive Asian (Amynthas hilgendorfi) and European (Lumbricus rubellus) earthworms in a North American temperate deciduous forest. Biol. Invasions. 2012;14:2017–2027. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kitz F., Steinwandter M., Traugott M., Seeber J. Increased decomposer diversity accelerates and potentially stabilises litter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015;83:138–141. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Patoine G., Thakur M.P., Friese J., Nock C., Honig L. Plant litter functional diversity effects on litter mass loss depend on the macro-detritivore community. Pedobiologia. 2017;65:29–42. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2017.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Huang C., González G., Hendrix P.F. Resource utilization by native and invasive earthworms and their effects on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in Puerto Rican soils. Forests. 2016;7:277. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rajapaksha N.S.S., Butt K.R., Vanguelova E.I., Moffat A.J. Short rotation forestry – earthworm interactions: a field based mesocosm experiment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014;76:52–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Seeber J., Seeber G., Langel R., Scheu S., Meyer E. The effect of macro-invertebrates and plant litter of different quality on the release of N from litter to plant on alpine pastureland. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 2008;44:783–790. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Grubert D., Butenschoen O., Maraun M., Scheu S. Understanding earthworm – Collembola interactions and their importance for ecosystem processes needs consideration of species identity. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2016;77:60–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Alban D.H., Berry E.C. Effects of earthworm invasion on morphology, carbon, and nitrogen of a forest soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1994;1:243–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hale C.M., Frelich L.E., Reich P.B., Pastor J. Exotic earthworm effects on hardwood forest floor, nutrient availability and native plants: a mesocosm study. Oecologia. 2008;155:509–518. doi: 10.1007/s00442-007-0925-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sackett T.E., Smith S.M., Basiliko N. Indirect and direct effects of exotic earthworms on soil nutrient and carbon pools in North American temperate forests. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013;57:459–467. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Eisenhauer N., Partsch S., Parkinson D., Scheu S. Invasion of a deciduous forest by earthworms: Changes in soil chemistry, microflora, microarthropods and vegetation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007;39:1099–1110. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Szlávecz K., Csuzdi C. Land use change affects earthworm communities in Eastern Maryland, USA. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2007;43:S79–S85. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ma Y., Filley T.R., Johnston C.T., Crow S.E., Szlavecz K. The combined controls of land use legacy and earthworm activity on soil organic matter chemistry and particle association during afforestation. Org. Geochem. 2013;58:56–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.McFarlane K.J., Torn M.S., Hanson P.J., Porras R.C., Swanston C.W. Comparison of soil organic matter dynamics at five temperate deciduous forests with physical fractionation and radiocarbon measurements. Biogeochemistry. 2013;112:457–476. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fahey T.J., Yavitt J.B., Sherman R.E., Maerz J.C., Groffman P.M. Earthworm effects on the incorporation of litter C and N into soil organic matter in a sugar maple forest. Ecol. Appl. 2013;23:1185–1201. doi: 10.1890/12-1760.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bohlen P.J., Pelletier D.M., Groffman P.M., Fahey T.J., Fisk M.C. Influence of earthworm invasion on redistribution and retention of soil carbon and nitrogen in northern temperate forests. Ecosystems. 2004;7:13–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Warren M.W., Zou X. Soil macrofauna and litter nutrients in three tropical tree plantations on a disturbed site in Puerto Rico. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002;170:161–171. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Xiu Y., Li Q., Ling Y., Bo S. The relation and difference of nutritional elements in forest litter-macrofaunas-soil system. Chinese Geo. Res. 2006;25:320–326. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wang S., Wang H., Li W. Effect of different land use types on spatial-temporal distribution of earthworm denstiy and biomass. Chinese J. Ecol. 2017;36:118–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shuster W.D., Subler S., McCoy E. Deep-burrowing earthworm additions changed the distribution of soil organic carbon in a chisel-tilled soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001;33:983–996. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang J., Hu F., Li H., Gao Q., Song X. Effects of earthworm activity on humus composition and humic acid characteristics of soil in a maize residue amended rice–wheat rotation agroecosystem. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011;51:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Iordache M., Borza I. Relation between chemical indices of soil and earthworm abundance under chemical fertilization. Plant Soil Environ. 2010;56:401–407. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ashworth A.J., Allen F.L., Tyler D.D., Pote D.H., Shipitalo M.J. Earthworm populations are affected from long-term crop sequences and bio-covers under no-tillage. Pedobiologia. 2017;60:27–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zou X., Bashkin M. Soil carbon accretion and earthworm recovery following revegetation in abandoned sugarcane fields. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1998;30:825–830. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ernst G., Emmerling C. Impact of five different tillage systems on soil organic carbon content and the density, biomass, and community composition of earthworms after a ten year period. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009;45:247–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kumar T.S.H., Siddaraju M., Bhat C.H.K., Sreepada K.S. Seasonal distribution and abundance of earthworms (Annelida: Oligochaeta) in relation to the edaphic factors around Udupi Power Corporation Limited (UPCL), Udupi District, southwestern coast of India. J. Threat. Taxa. 2018;10:11432. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Haynes R.J., Dominy C.S., Graham M.H. Effect of agricultural land use on soil organic matter status and the composition of earthworm communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003;95:453–464. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Haines P., Uren N. Effects of conservation tillage farming on soil microbial biomass, organic matter and earthworm populations, in north-eastern Victoria. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1990;30:365–371. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Schon N.L., Mackay A.D., Gray R.A., Dodd M.B. The action of an anecic earthworm (Aporrectodea longa) on vertical soil carbon distribution in New Zealand pastures several decades after their introduction. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2014;62:101–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fonte S.J., Barrios E., Six J. Earthworms, soil fertility and aggregate-associated soil organic matter dynamics in the Quesungual agroforestry system. Geoderma. 2010;155:320–328. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fahey T.J., Yavitt J.B., Sherman R.E., Maerz J.C., Groffman P.M. Earthworms, litter and soil carbon in a northern hardwood forest. Biogeochemistry. 2012;114:269–280. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Cole L., Bardgett R.D., Ineson P. Enchytraeid worms (Oligochaeta) enhance mineralization of carbon in organic upland soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2000;51:185–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sánchez-de L.Y., Lugo-Pérez J., Wise D.H., Jastrow J.D., González-Meler M.A. Aggregate formation and carbon sequestration by earthworms in soil from a temperate forest exposed to elevated atmospheric CO2: a microcosm experiment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014;68:223–230. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wironen M., Moore T.R. Exotic earthworm invasion increases soil carbon and nitrogen in an old-growth forest in southern Quebec. Can. J. For. Res. 2006;36:845–854. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Zhang M., Zou X., Schaefer D.A. Alteration of soil labile organic carbon by invasive earthworms (Pontoscolex corethrurus) in tropical rubber plantations. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2010;46:74–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lavelle P., Martin A. Small-scale and large-scale effects of endogeic earthworms on soil organic matter dynamics in soils of the humid tropics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1992;24:1491–1498. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bossuyt H., Six J., Hendrix P. Rapid incorporation of carbon from fresh residues into newly formed stable microaggregates within earthworm casts. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2004;55:393–399. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bossuyt H., Six J., Hendrix P.F. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005;37:251–258. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhang W., Hendrix P.F., Dame L.E., Burke R.A., Wu J. Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization. Nat. Commun. 2013;4:2576. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ernst G., Henseler I., Felten D., Emmerling C. Decomposition and mineralization of energy crop residues governed by earthworms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009;41:1548–1554. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Zhang Q., Hendrix P.F. Earthworm (Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea caliginosa) effects on carbon flux in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1995;59:816–823. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Scheu S., Parkinson D. Effects of earthworms on nutrient dynamics, carbon turnover and microorganisms in soils from cool temperate forests of the Canadian Rocky Mountains — laboratory studies. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1994;1:113–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Guo Y., Liang A., Zhang Y., Zhang S., Chen X. Evaluating the contributions of earthworms to soil organic carbon decomposition under different tillage practices combined with straw additions. Ecol. Indicat. 2018;109:516–524. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wu Y., Shaaban M., Peng Q.A., Zhou A., Hu R. Impacts of earthworm activity on the fate of straw carbon in soil: a microcosm experiment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018;25:11054–11062. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-1397-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Zhu X., Chang L., Li J., Liu J., Feng L. Interactions between earthworms and mesofauna affect CO 2 and N 2 O emissions from soils under long-term conservation tillage. Geoderma. 2017;332:153–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Ngo P.T., Rumpel C., Doan T.T., Jouquet P. The effect of earthworms on carbon storage and soil organic matter composition in tropical soil amended with compost and vermicompost. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012;50:214–220. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Data in Brief are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES