next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Dear All, Dec 2, 2007
After having made some comments about Suarez et al. today, so I
could lose track of where the hard copy was and where it came from, I
was inspired to see what my 1946 Forest Soils text (Lutz & Chandler) had
to say on the subject of earthworms.
On pages 107-108; "...in temperate zone forests disintegration of
the litter which fall to the ground each year is most prompt and
incorporation of material into the mineral soil is most complete where
earthworms or large millipedes are present in considerable numbers." and
"...the formation of coarse mull is directly associated with an abundant
and active earthworm or large arthropod population."
So apparently this aspect of earthworm effects in forest soils has
been accepted as a given for more than 60 years.
What appears to have changed is the perception of consequences; spin.
In 1946, mull soils and the associated rapid incorporation of
recent litter into the soil profile by earthworm or large arthropod
activity were regarded as being highly desirable [as opposed to the
relatively poor, shallow, drouth-prone, species-poor, earthworm-free,
mor soils].
For reasons that I fail to understand, this previous 'good thing' is
now a 'bad thing'. Perhaps it is just an expression of the 20-year
academic pendulum cycle. If so, then any year now the discovery will be
made that earthworm activity is a 'good thing' in forest soils.
Overall forest health will probably not be affected by this swing in
spin.
Yours truly, Dave Webster
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects