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