If you thought global warming is a 'can of worms' you were right – Earthworms found to increase GHG emissions

Bruce. C. submits this odd story from the Dutch Telegraph, which is likely to have some organic farmers is a tizzy. This is a story that was translated from the Dutch newspaper article, so may not be 100% accurate in translation. The paper abstract and introduction follows. – Anthony

Worms guilty of climate problem 

Earthworm
Earthworm (Photo credit: Dodo-Bird)

WAGENINGEN- Forget the whole debate around global warming. Because it is all the fault of the worm.

Organic farming cause more greenhouse gases, but also what can of worms. Right earthworms, which improve soil fertility, the greenhouse gas emissions from soil to speed up. And not such a bit as well. Note that research teams of four different international universities, including those of Wageningen. The study was made public Sunday.

Earthworms increase emissions of carbon dioxide from soil on average by 33% and that of nitrous oxide by 42%. That’s because of the hustle and bustle of the critters, preventing the gases can more easily escape to the atmosphere.

“The new of this study, therefore, is that they show that in the bottoms the earthworms that cycle speed up”, reacts Guido van der Werf, scientist at the free University in Amsterdam. “What the exact implications of this are I cannot say.”

The researchers from Wageningen thinking an important mechanism in global warming on the track.

According to Meindert Naca of the Association for the preservation of Boer and Environment, however, it is a pretty useless research. “It is not looked at the usefulness of worms and only to the adverse consequences that were found in the 57 literature studies in which one has shopped selectively,” he says. “That in the conversion of plant waste and manure in and at the bottom help the worms to promote conversion is right and that this conversion gases is also correct, but that this subserve at the global warming trying in.”

Agricultural lands are by far the largest source of nitrous oxide, especially by yielding large amounts of manure. The researchers want to dive even further into the file. “We have particularly but experiments needed for we know to what extent global verworming leads to global heating”, concludes PhD student Ingrid Lubbers of Wageningen University.

Source website URL reference: http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21264007/__Wormen_schuldig_aan_klimaatprobleem__.html

========================================================================

Main points:

  • Earthworms, by burrowing through the soil and making it more porous, make it easier for greenhouse gases in the soil to escape into the atmosphere.
  • Earthworms mix organic plant residues in the soil, which may increase decomposition and carbon dioxide emissions.
  • The earthworm gut acts as a microbial incubator, boosting the activity of nitrous oxide-producing microbes.

The paper: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1692.html

Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms

Ingrid M. Lubbers, Kees Jan van Groenigen, Steven J. Fonte, Johan Six, Lijbert Brussaard & Jan Willem van Groenigen

Abstract

Earthworms play an essential part in determining the greenhouse-gas balance of soils worldwide, and their influence is expected to grow over the next decades. They are thought to stimulate carbon sequestration in soil aggregates, but also to increase emissions of the main greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Hence, it remains highly controversial whether earthworms predominantly affect soils to act as a net source or sink of greenhouse gases. Here, we provide a quantitative review of the overall effect of earthworms on the soil greenhouse-gas balance. Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions.

Introduction here: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate1692

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff
February 3, 2013 9:46 pm

Global worming

John F. Hultquist
February 3, 2013 9:53 pm

crosspatch says:
February 3, 2013 at 7:47 pm
“There were no earthworms in North America . . .

That’s not quite true but in the context of the study referenced it might be. The invasive ones have changed the ecology of those areas where they are now abundant. There are species native to the SE and PNW** of the USA.
————–
**Giant Palouse being one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Palouse_earthworm
Better image
http://radiofreemoscow.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Giant-Palouse-Earthworm-300×200.jpg

Louis
February 3, 2013 9:53 pm

Finally a way for me to offset my carbon footprint without buying carbon credits. Dig up some nightcrawlers, son, we’re going fishing!

davidmhoffer
February 3, 2013 10:02 pm

So to stop global warming we have to do a global de-worming?
How long after the de-worming will the de-warming take?

John F. Hultquist
February 3, 2013 10:06 pm

Steve Vandorne says:
February 3, 2013 at 9:29 pm
“. . . they just laugh at me.

That can’t be good! Point them at this link:
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/
It even has a nice image, namely
CAPTION:
““Phytoplankton are microscopic ocean plants that form the base of ocean ecosystems; they are so abundant that they are visible from space. Here, average chlorophyll from 1998 through 2006 is shown in green and indicates areas of high biological productivity. Courtesy SeaWiFS Project/NASA GSFC and GeoEye, Inc.””

Mike McMillan
February 3, 2013 10:16 pm

Gone fishin’

February 3, 2013 10:28 pm

Do they do it deliberately?

February 3, 2013 10:37 pm

Solar minimum cured global warming and is now killing earth worms. Dam you solar cycle 24.

Patrick
February 3, 2013 10:40 pm

This is brilliant. We need more studies like this to prove the point that these studies are beyond rediculous! I bet they wore straight faces when they published their “findings”! SHEESH!

Rhys Jaggar
February 3, 2013 10:49 pm

This is an obvious storyline for GM crop merchants and chemical fertiliser companies.
‘Earthworms are bad for the earth! Buy nitrates, buy potassium sulphate, buy chemicals!’
If earthworms increase carbon dioxide, they also increase plant growth through increasing bioavailability to roots. That should mean that the plants ingest more carbon dioxide to grow more.
The other thought that comes to mind is that the next round of agri-research funding must link crop research to ‘global warming’ and ‘carbon cycles’.
I’ll take my chances with more earth worms and suggest that the solution is not banishing earthworms but growing more trees.

Chris H
February 3, 2013 11:23 pm

How will they wriggle out of this one?

Goldie
February 3, 2013 11:31 pm

Someone needed a research grant for this?!

Nigel S
February 4, 2013 12:04 am

Nobody likes me, everybody hates me,
I think I’ll go eat worms!
Big fat juicy ones,
Eensie weensy squeensy ones,
See how they wiggle and squirm!

February 4, 2013 12:19 am

So we’re now looking at the danger of global worming?
Back in the 1970’s if you wanted to make money from noise; you’d form a rock band. But since the mid-1980’s, (proxy-)climatology seems to be the land of plenty for those trying to make money from noise.

High Treason
February 4, 2013 12:25 am

All those wing flapper/pants wetter types who worship all that is organic and eschew modern agricultural techniques will now have to eat humble worm pie. If they can no longer eat organic food because the worms are producing GHG, they will just have to starve. Boo-hoo.

February 4, 2013 12:28 am

I don’t see a problem here: what earthworms produce as CO2 is the result of digesting fallen leaves and small stems from organics, which have used CO2 directly from the atmosphere into their structure in the previous growing season(s). That is one part of the natural biological carbon cycle, which shows a net deficit of 1.0 +/- 0.6 GtC over the period 1993–2002. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Thus whatever the amount emitted by worms, insects, bacteria and animals (including humans) the total contribution to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is negative: more sink than source, as part of the carbon cycle is left as more permanent storage in humus, peat and ultimately (brown)coal.
Worms indeed contribute to the local, near-ground, CO2 levels, which may get to thousands of ppmv. Reason why organic farmers use “mulching”, that is covering the soils inbetween the crops with organic debris: leaves, grass cuts, etc. That is good for moisture regulation and produces more CO2 immediately where the crops grow…

February 4, 2013 12:34 am

That’s not quite true but in the context of the study referenced it might be. The invasive ones have changed the ecology of those areas where they are now abundant. There are species native to the SE and PNW** of the USA.

The species that most people recognize these days as the earthworms in their yards are introduced. Yes, there are all sorts of native nematodes but the ones a person would most likely use for fish bait came from Europe. It really did change the ecology of the forests and it actually took a considerable amount of time for them to spread. Well, there were several things that changed the forest ecology of the eastern US, the worms being only one of them (the loss of the chestnut forests being the another major change). The worms have resulted in a much faster breakdown of forest floor leaf litter.

Lewis P Buckingham
February 4, 2013 1:05 am

Perhaps earthworms are part of the life of Gaia and are actually beneficial to the nitrogen and carbon cycle.After all they make soil more porous reducing runoff and associated erosion.
Fragile root systems may derive better nutrition enhancing plant growth and creating a natural carbon sink.
The warmists and Lovelock followers should be all in favour of organic enhanced farming.

February 4, 2013 2:21 am

They are doing a great job, the more worms the better. The CO2 released will be immediately available for plant takeup and use as food.
Another stupid bit of ”research” proving that governments squander our money on useless work.

oldfossil
February 4, 2013 2:22 am
Kelvin Vaughan
February 4, 2013 2:26 am

crosspatch says:
February 3, 2013 at 7:47 pm
There were no earthworms in North America until the European settlers brought them over in the root balls of their fruit trees. Maybe that explains it.
You couldn’t go fishing with a rod and line then?

February 4, 2013 3:50 am

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

Dave in Delaware
February 4, 2013 4:54 am

from the cartoon strip Back to BC (from memory, date unknown)
Little earthworm in the ground
you see no sight, you hear no sound.
You bore out tunnels underneath
without the benefit of teeth.
Without no eye, no arm, no hand,
we are behooved to understand
just how with attributes so few –
they named a planet after you.

Bill Marsh
February 4, 2013 5:42 am

So, when I go fishing with a box of nightcrawlers, I’m fighting ‘Climate disruption’? Excellent.

Doug Huffman
February 4, 2013 5:52 am

Consensus is building, “Note that research teams of four different international universities, including those of Wageningen. The study was made public Sunday.” And of peer review?