VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF EARTHWORMS IN

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM OF MIZORAM, INDIA

Lalthanzara, Hmar and *Ramanujam, Sunkam Narayan

Department of Zoology
Pachhunga University College, College Veng, Aizawl-796001, Mizoram, India
*
North Eastern Hill University, Mawlai, Shillong-793022, Meghalaya, India

Short running title: Earthworm vertical distribution

Corresponding author:
Name: H. Lalthanzara
Email: hzara.puc@gmail.com
Phone: +919436195549

Postal Address:
Department of Zoology
Pachhunga University College,
College Veng, Aizawl - 796001,
Mizoram (India)

Total number of Tables and Figures in the paper

Table - 1
Figures- 11
Title

Vertical Distribution of Earthworms in Agro-forestry System Of Mizoram,

India

Abstract

Vertical distributions of earthworms in two agro-forestry systems viz. SKT and PUC have
been studied for 18 months (2003-2004) in tropical region of Aizawl district, Mizoram, north
east India. Species-wise and age-wise distribution in three different soil strata (0-10cm, 10-
20cm and 20-30cm depth) has been assessed. Sampling was carried out in five random
(25x25x30cm) plots at monthly intervals by digging, hand sorting and wet sieving methods.
Five species of earthworms belonging to three families have been recorded (viz. Perionyx
excavatus, P. macintoshi, Metaphire houlleti, Eutyphoeus mizoramensis and Drawida sp.).
The strata-wise population density is more or less similar in the two study sites. The upper
stratum (0-10 cm) has the highest population density (61.4%) followed by 10-20 cm
(33.22%) and 20-30 cm (5.38%) depths. During dry period earthworm population density
was highest in the 10-20 cm depth. Earthworm biomass varies at different depths and season
following the density variation patterns. The number of juvenile and immature earthworms in
the deepest layer (20-30 cm) was negligible as compared to the number of adults. As many as
76.7% of juveniles, 55.6% of immature and 55.38% of adult worms were recorded at 0-10cm
depth. In the second stratum, 21.6% of juveniles, 40.3% of immature and 35.77% of adult
worms were found while only 1.7% of juveniles, 4.09% of immature worms and 8.85% of
adult worms live in the deepest stratum. Species-wise vertical distribution study showed that
Drawida sp. is most versatile, recorded in all three strata. E. mizoramensis and M. houlleti are
found in 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm depths, while both the epigeic species P. excavatus and P.
macintoshi are found at the surface (0-10 cm) only.

Keywords
Earthworm, Mizoram, soil strata, vertical distribution, density, biomass
 Introduction

Earthworms are the large megadrile annelids of the class Oligochaeta which constitute more
than 80% of the soil invertebrate biomass in many ecosystems (Nainawat and Nagendra,
2001). They form the major group of soil invertebrates in subtropical and tropical as well as
in temperate zones (Kale, 1997). The distribution of earthworms within the soil profile is
known to be determined by both abiotic and biotic factors (Martin and Lavelle, 1992). Soil
moisture is one essential factor for earthworm distribution (Lavelle, 1983; Lee, 1985).
Edwards and Lofty (1977) pointed that the two factors influencing movement of earthworms
to deeper soil seemed to be very cold or very dry surface soil. Irannezhad and Rahmani
(2009) opined that the most important factors determining earthworm abundance and vertical
distribution were soil pH, moisture, C/N ratio, phosphate amount and soil texture.

Vertical distribution of earthworm species in the soil is used as a criterion for their
classification into ecological categories (Bouché, 1972, Lavelle, 1988, Lee, 1985). Thus
earthworm can be classed in one of three morpho-ecological groupings, epigeic, endogeic,
anecics (Bouché, 1977). Epigeic (Greek for “upon the earth”) species live in organic horizons
and ingest large amounts of un-decomposed surface litter, serving as efficient agents of
fragmentation of leaf litter. They are small, pigmented with rapid generation times. These
worms can be classified as phytophagous (Ismail, 1997). Endogeic (Greek for “within the
earth”) species forage below the surface, ingest large quantities of soil with a preference
towards organic rich soil, and build continuously ramifying burrows that are mostly
horizontal and are geophagous (Ismail, 1997). Anecic (Greek for “up from” or “out of the
earth”) species are known to build permanent burrows into the deep mineral layers of the soil,
drag organic matter from the soil surface into their burrows for food (Card et al., 2006),
Ismail (1997) named them as geophytophagous. Werner (1990) recognized the anecic species
as those worms that build permanent, vertical borrows that penetrate the soil deeply and they
are detritivores.

Sufficient amount of information on earthworm seasonal and spatial distribution as well as

distribution in relation to soil nutrients is available (Kaushal and Bisht, 1994; Lavelle et al.,
1994; Kaushal et al. 1995; Bhadauria et al., 1997; Baker, 1998; Kale, 1998; Whalen et al.,
1998; Aroujo and Hernandez, 1999; Scullion and Malik, 2000; Tian et al., 2000; Didden
2001; Jimènez et al. 2001; Shuster et al., 2002; Bisht et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2003;
Hernández et al. 2003; Decaëns et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2004; Tripathi and Bhardwaj, 2004;
Whalen, 2004; Sathianarayanan and Khan, 2006; Karmegam and Daniel, 2007; Chamberlain
and Butt, 2008; Ghafoor et al. 2008; Joshi and Aga, 2009; Somniyam and Suwanwaree, 2009;
Kale and Karmegam, 2010; Joshi et al., 2010). In regard to north east India, literature on
distribution of earthworm is scanty, including recent works of Chaudhuri et al. (2008) from
Tripura; Lalthanzara et al. (2011) from Mizoram and Haokip and Singh, (2012) from
Manipur.

Meanwhile, only limited reports are available on the vertical distribution of earthworms. The
vertical distribution of earthworms has been less studied in tropical than in temperate
ecosystems (Jiménez and Decaëns, 2000). Works on earthworm vertical distribution includes
Satchell (1955), Gerard (1967), Lavelle (1978), Nemeth and Herrera (1982), Pierce (1983),
Mato et al. (1988), Fragosso (1993), Garnsey (1994), Bennour and Nair (1996), Jiménez and
Decaëns (2000), Kooch et al. (2008), Irannezhad and Rahmani (2009). And from Indian
region Senapati (1980) studied earthworm vertical distribution in grazed and ungrazed plots,
and Reddy and Pasha (1993) in semi-arid grassland soils. Description and explanation of the
vertical distribution of earthworm communities are necessary parts of studies of population
patterns in order to have as many tools as possible if future management of natural resources,
i.e., earthworms, is to be pursued (Jiménez and Decaëns, 2000). In view of this and the scanty
literature on earthworm vertical distribution elsewhere in India and of no information from
the state, the present study was taken up to investigate the vertical distribution of earthworms
in two agroforestry systems of Mizoram in terms of number, biomass, species-wise and age-
wise.

Materials and Methods

Study site

The state of Mizoram, located in northeastern India, lies between 21o 56 ' N - 24 o 31' N
latitude, and 92o16'E - 93 o 26 ' E longitude. It has international borders with Bangladesh in
the west and Myanmar in the east and south (Fig. 1). The hilly state has steep gorges with
north-south trending mountains, covered with tropical and subtropical forest with an annual
rainfall of 2500 mm. Mizoram experiences four seasons, viz. summer (April–June), monsoon
(July–October), winter (November–February) and spring (March) with the least rainfall in
winter and maximum rainfall in monsoon period. The dry season starts by November and
ends in March. The annual average minimum and maximum temperatures are 18.37°C and
27.19°C, respectively.

Two agroforestry-based sites were selected for the study, with a distance between sites of 16
km. One site was located near a small village named Sakawrtuichhun (SKT) ( 92o 40E
'
and
23o 45' N), 650 m above mean sea level, with slopes that vary from 40% to 65%. The soil is
brown to dark brown in colour with a clay to clay loam texture. The land was left fallow for
four years after shifting cultivation practices. Grasses, including Imperata cylindrica and
Saccharum (=Erianthus) longisetosus, were present in the area before it was converted to
agroforestry. Another site was located within the Pachhunga University College (PUC)
campus, Aizawl ( 92 o 44 ' E and 23o 43 ' N) at an elevation of 825 m above mean sea level,
with slopes ranging from 50% to 67%. The soil is brown in colour and the texture varies from
sandy to clay loam. Both the sites have an acidic soil. Prior to the establishment of an
agroforestry system, the area was dominated by I. cylindrica, and trees including Schima
wallichii, Albizia sp., and Sapium baccatum. The area adjacent to the PUC site is covered by
semi-dense forest. Plants including a hedge (Leucaena leucocephala – Hawaiian Giant), a
horticultural plant (pineapple – Ananas comosus) and a tree species (Mandarin orange –
Citrus reticulata) were introduced in both sites. No agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizer,
pesticides, herbicides) were applied at either site. But manual weeding was carried out
manually when required, using a hand hoe.

Earthworm sampling
Earthworms were collected in the morning hours from five random samples of 25×25×30 cm,
at least 5 m apart at monthly (June 2003 to December 2004) intervals as per Tropical Soil
Biology and Fertility Programme (Anderson and Ingram, 1993). Sampling was done in the
morning, in the second week of every month. The soil was segregated to three parts 0-10 cm,
10-20 cm and 20-30 cm depths. The soil samples were transferred to an enamel tray; the
earthworms were collected by the hand sorting and wet sieving method and placed in a 4%
formalin solution. Each earthworm specimen was counted as age-wise and species-wise. For
age-wise counting, earthworms were classified in to three age-groups, viz. Juvenile (<2 mm),
Immature (2 mm) but lacking spermathecae and adult for small sized species; and for large
species Juveniles <4 cm, immature >4 cm <8 cm and adults >8 cm length, clitellate (Senapati
and Dash 1984, Mishra and Ramakrishnan, 1988). Earthworm specimens are sent to J.M.
Julka for identification. Density of earthworms was calculated as the number of individuals
per meter square. Biomass was determined on fresh weight basis. For biomass estimation two
sets of five individuals of each age class were weighed every month after removal of gut
contents (kept half-immersed in glass Petriplate containing 30 ml of tap water at 25±20C for
24 h) and oven dried at 850C for 48 h (Dash and Patra, 1977).

Results and Discussion

Five species of earthworm belonging to three families have been recorded from the two sites,
viz. Perionyx excavates (Perrier), P. macintoshi (Stephenson), Metaphire houlleti (Perrier),
Eutyphoeus mizoramensis (Julka et al.) and Drawida sp. Although four species are common
to both SKT and PUC, P. excavatus and E. mizoramensis were found in lesser number as
compared to Drawida sp. and M. houletti. This may be attributed to the habitat preference of
the Drawida sp. and M. houletti which makes them better adaptable as they exhibit
geophytophagous feeding habit. P. macintoshi is recorded once from PUC site. A single
record of this epigeic species after rainfall during rainy season might be migration from the
nearby forest area.
Species-wise analysis
Species-wise data analysis (Table 1) indicates that Drawida sp. is most versatile in temporal
and vertical distribution. It is found in all three strata and found almost throughout the
seasons of the year. But during dry season, they burrowed in a deeper layer to avoid dry
surface soil. Aestivating Drawida sp. has been dug out from 25 cm depth at PUC. The higher
density of Drawida sp. in the lower strata during the dry season shows the vertical
movements of the anecic species. In line with our result, Jimènez and Decaëns (2000)
observed different patterns of vertical stratification for all species with a migration of
populations to deeper layers in the dry season. They also added that mature worms of one
anecic species were located deeper than immature ones in the soil (P<0.01). According to
Reddy and Pasha (1993) earthworms migrated to deeper layers during winter and summer
when the top soil undergoes extreme conditions. Both Perionyx species, being epigeic, are
found at the uppermost stratum but during rainy season only. Meanwhile, M. houlleti and E.
mizoramensis are found in the two upper strata (0-10 cm and 10-20 cm depth). E.
mizoramensis is supposed to inhabit deep soil, but it was recorded in the top soil. During and
after raining the worms crawl out of their burrows over the top soil. This may be due to
flooded condition of their burrows or vertical upward movement of the endogeic species to
the surface during the rainy season as reported by Card et al. (2006).

Strata-wise analysis
The strata-wise density and biomass of earthworm population in SKT and PUC for the period
June 2003 to December 2004 are presented in figures 2–5. The general pattern of strata wise
population density was similar in both study sites. Maximum density was found in 0-10 cm
followed by 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm respectively. As many as 76.7% of juvenile worms (i.e.
135 nos.), 55.6% of immature worms (i.e. 109 nos.) and 55.3% of adult worms (i.e. 144 nos.)
are found in the uppermost stratum (0-10cm) (fig. 11). That is 61.4% of the total earthworms
collected are found in the uppermost layer. 33.3% of the earthworms are collected from the
middle stratum (10-20cm). The second layer (10-20 cm depth) harbors 21.6% of juvenile,
40.3% of immature and 35.77% of adult worms (fig. 11). This high density and biomass of
earthworms at the upper stratum (0–10 cm) may be attributed to higher percentage of organic
matter, moisture and the availability of food for the earthworm species present. The finding
of decreased earthworm density and biomass with increasing soil depth in study sites is
supported by Kaushal et al. (1995), Bisht et al. (2003) who found the highest density and
biomass in the top (0-10 cm layer) soil. In compliance with the present finding Irannezhad
and Rahmani (2009) observed 88% of earthworm density and 82% of biomass in 0-10 cm
depth. But contradictory to our result, Kooch et al. (2008) recorded highest density and
biomass in the third layer i.e. 20-30 cm depth and least in second layer (10-20cm) from their
study in Hornbeam forest of Iran. In support to our observation, Doblas-Miranda et al. (2009)
observed a gradual decrease of soil macro-invertebrate population with soil depth with small
differences between microhabitat.

During dry periods (March-May) density was higher in 10-20 cm depth compared to 0-10
cm. This may be due to presence of relatively higher soil moisture content and the downward
migration of earthworm to avoid drastic environment in the top layer. Similar observation
was made by Jiménez and Decaëns (2000). According to some authors in tropical systems
where environmental conditions are characterized by a strong seasonality, earthworms
migrate deeply to aestivate in different ways, i.e., quiescence or diapauses (Lavelle, 1978;
Fragoso 1985, 1993; Jiménez et al. 1998). The depth of soil has been shown to be a
significant factor governing earthworm distribution in both temperate soil and tropical forest
soil (Philipson et al., 1976; Fragoso and Lavelle, 1992).
The deepest stratum (20-30cm) is found to harbor about 5.3% of the total earthworms. A very
low density of earthworms in the lower most stratum (20-30 cm) indicates that the soil in the
lower strata is not suitable for majority of the earthworm species recorded in the study sites.
Only Drawida sp. is collected from this deepest layer during dry season when they are
usually in resting stage. Out of 632 total worms collected during study period, only 34 of
them (5.3%) are found in this stratum. These 34 worms comprise of 3 (1.7%) juvenile, 8
(4.09%) immature and 23 (8.84%) adult earthworms. Thus, the deepest layer is dominated by
the adults. Similar result has been reported by Satchell (1955) from his studies on some
European lumbricid species and Gerard (1967) from British pastures worms. Jiménez and
Decaens (2000) stated that the size of earthworms is one feature related to vertical pattern.
Piearce (1983) reported that the larger the earthworm the deeper it burrows.

Biomass in both SKT and PUC was highest in upper soil strata (0-10 cm) followed by middle
strata (10-20 cm) and lowest strata (20-30 cm) (fig. 3&4). However, in dry season (March to
May), 10-20 cm strata carried higher population biomass as compared to the other two strata
(fig. 4&5). Strong migration of earthworm population to deeper layers in the dry season had
been reported by Jiménez and Decaëns (2000). There is a sudden increase in biomass in the
month of June 2003 when the monsoon sets in. This is attributed to more favorable habitat in
terms of food and moisture after raining.

In SKT the peak biomass in 0-10 cm reached in August 2003, whereas it was in September
2003 for 10-20 cm (fig. 3). In PUC the peak biomass in 0-10 cm was seen in the month of
September 2003, where as it was in October 2003 for 10-20 cm strata (fig. 4). These
differences in peak biomass in the two soil strata at the two sites may be related to the type of
dominant earthworm species. In SKT, M. houletti is dominant in terms of number while at
PUC, Drawida sp. is most numerous. The relatively higher earthworm biomass at SKT as
compared to PUC may be related to size of the dominant species. M. houletti being larger
than Drawida sp. must have higher biomass than Drawida sp. The cocoon production and
hatching time of these two species seems to be different, because the top soil is dominated by
juvenile worms and there is a chance that the newly hatched worms grows and migrate down
to the next deeper layer after a month. However, this needs further studies. The larger worms
of the same species may burrows deeper than the smaller ones. Anecics and endogeics are
more resistant to environmental change compared to epigeics because their habitats are well
buffered, however their dispersal rate is probably slow.

Age-wise analysis
The age-wise seasonal variation in density and biomass of earthworms is given in figures 9
and 10. The difference in density of adult earthworm population between first and second
year of study was higher as compared to differences in juvenile and immature age groups.
The adult worm showed a peak density in month of June 2003 and highest biomass in the
month of September 2003 at SKT. The possible explanation of adult worm peak density and
biomass that were not coinciding may be the juvenile and immature worms grows in size to
reach maximum weight after two months of peak density. Whereas in PUC the peak density
coincides with peak biomass during September – October 2003 (fig. 9 & 10).

The number of juvenile and immature earthworms collected in the lowest strata (20-30 cm) in
SKT was negligible as compared to the adults whereas in PUC the immature earthworms
were equal in number with that of adults (figure 8 A&B). Highest juvenile density at the
surface layer (0-10cm) in June-August at PUC (fig. 9B) may be due to hatching of cocoons
which were produced during pre-monsoon rainy months (May - July), which is an active
breeding period. The other reason may be the loose nature of soil and better access to food
and moisture for the young worms. Evans and Guild (1948) reported that during the active
breeding period there were a larger proportion of juvenile and immature populations
compared to mature ones. Sahu et al. (1988) have reported restricted availability of juvenile
and immature worms in 0-5 cm soil depth. Others like Mato et al. (1988) observed similar
pattern of juvenile distribution from Spain, and Garnsey (1994) from Tasmania. A very low
density and low biomass of juvenile and immature worms at 20-30 cm depth as compared to
upper layers (fig. 6&7) may also be due to more compact structure of soil profile in deeper
soils. The reasons generally given to explain this juvenile distribution pattern are the depth at
which cocoons are laid and, as a result, juveniles hatch, subsequently the weak burrowing
ability of those very young worms in comparison with adults (Jiménez and Decaëns, 2000).
Different species of lumbricids earthworms inhabit different depth zones in the soil, but the
vertical distribution of each species changes considerably with the time of year (Edwards and
Lofty, 1977).
 Acknowledgements
This work was carried out within a research grant of ICAR, New Delhi (Ref. F.No.5(37)/97-
SW&DF Dt.9/1/2002). We want to thank Dr. J.M. Julka, Solan, India for identification of the
earthworm specimens. We also express our sincere thanks to Principal, Pachhunga University
College for support in all possible ways.

References
Anderson, J.M. and Ingram, J.S.I. 1993. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility. 2nd Ed. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK, Pp. 221.
Aroujo, Y. and Lopez-Hernandez, D. 1999. Earthworm populations in a savanna-agroforestry system
of Venezuelan Amazonia. Biol Fertil Soils, 29(4), 413-418.
Baker, G.H. 1998. The ecology, management and benefits of earthworms in agricultural soils, with
particular reference to southern Australia. In: Earthworm Ecology (ed. Edward,
C.A.), Soil and water conservation society, Ankeny, Iowa, pp. 229-258.
Bennour, S.A. and Nair, G.A. 1996. Density, biomass and vertical distribution of Aporrectodea
caliginosa (Savigny 1826) (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) in Benghazi, Libya. Biol
Fertil Soils 24(1), 102-105.
Bhadauria, T., Ramakrishnan, P.S. and Srivastava, K.N. 1997. Population dynamics of earthworms
during crop rotation under rainfed agriculture in Central Himalayas, India. Appl. Soil
Ecol., 6, 205-215.
Bisht, R., Pandey, H., Bharti, D. and Kaushal, B.R. 2003. Population dynamics of earthworms
(Oligochaeta) in cultivated soils of central Himalayan tarai region. Trop. Ecol., 44(2),
227-232.
Bouché, M.B., 1972. Lumbriciens de France. Ecologie et systematique. INRA, Paris, p.671.
Bouché, M.B., 1977. Strategies lumbriciennes. In: Lohm, U and T. Persson (eds). Soil Organisms as
components of Ecosystems. Biol. Bull. (Stockholm) 25, 122-132.
Brown, G.G., Benito,N.P., Pasini, A., Sautter, S.D., Guimarães, Maria De F. and Torres, E. 2003. No
tillage greatly increases earthworm population in Parana Satae, Brazil. Pedobiologia,
47, 764-771.
Card, A., Whiting, D. and Wilson, S. 2006. Earthworms, Colorado State University Extension pp.
212-214.
Chamberlain, E.J. and Butt, K.R. 2008. Distribution of earthworms and influence of soil properties
across a successional sand dune ecosystem in NW England. Eur J Soil Biol, 44(5-6),
554-558.
Chaudhuri, P.S., Nath, S. and Paliwal, R. 2008. Earthworm population of rubber plantations (Hevea
brasiliensis) in Tripura, India. Trop. Ecol., 49, 225-234.
Dash, M.C. and Patra, U.C. 1977. Density, biomass and energy budget of a tropical earthworm
population from a grassland site in Orissa, India. Rev. Ecol. Biol. Soil, 14, 461-471.
Decaëns, T., Bureau, F. and Margerie, P. 2004. Earthworm communities in a wet agricultural
landscape of the Seine Valley (Upper Normandy, France). Pedobiologia, 47(5-6),
479-489.
Didden, W.A.M. 2001. Earthworm communities in grasslands and horticultural soils. Biol Fertil Soils.
33, 111–117.
Doblas-Miranda, E., Sánchez-Piñero, F. and González-Megías, A. 2009. Vertical distribution of soil
macrofauna in an arid ecosystem: Are litter and belowground compartmentalized
habitats. Pedobiologia, 52(6), 361-373.
Edwards, C.A. and Lofty, J.R. 1977. The Biology of earthworms. 2nd Ed. Chapman and Hall, London,
UK.
Evans, A.C. and Guild, W.J.Mc.L. 1948. Studies on the relationship between earthworms and soil
fertility, V. field populations; An. Appl. Biol., 35, 485-493.
Fragoso, C, and Lavelle, P. 1992. Earthworm communities in tropical rain forests. Soil Biol Biochem.,
24, 1397-1409.
Fragoso, C. 1985. Ecologia general de las lombrices terrestres (Oligochaeta: Annelida) de la region
Boca del Cahjul, Selva Lacandona (Chiapas, Mexico). Tesis de grado, UNAM,
Mexico.
Fragoso, C. 1993. Les peuplements de vers de terre dans l’est et sud-est du Mexique. These de
Doctorat, Universite’ Paris 6. 228 p+annexes.
Garnsey, R.B. 1994. Seasonal activity and aestivation of lumbricid earthworms in the midlands of
Tasmania. Aust. J Soil Res. 32, 1355-1367.
Gerard, B.M. 1967. Factors affecting earthworms in pastures. J. Anim. Ecol., 36, 235-252.
Ghafoor, A., Hassan, M. and Alvi, Z.H. 2008. Biodiversity of earthworm species from various
habitats of district Narowal, Pakistan. Int. J. Agri. Biol., 10, 681–4
Haokip, S. and Th. Binoy Singh, Th. B. 2012. Diversity and distribution of earthworms in a natural
reserved and disturbed subtropical forest ecosystem of Imphal-West, Manipur, India.
Intl Multi Res J. 2(2), 28-34.
Hernández, P., Gutiérrez, M., Ramajo, M., Trigo, D. and Díaz Cosín, D.J. 2004. Horizontal
distribution of an earthworm community at El Molar, Madrid (Spain), Pedobiologia
47(5-6), 568-573.
Irannejad, E. and Rahmani, R. 2009. Evaluation of earthworm abundance and vertical distribution
pattern in some forest types of Shast-Kolateh. J For Wood Prod. 62(2), 145-157.
Ismail, S.A. 1997. Vermicology: The Biology of earthworms. Orient Longman Ltd. Hyderabad, A.P.
India. Pp. 1-92.
Jiménez, J.J. and Decaëns, T. 2000. Vertical distribution of earthworms in grassland soils of the
Colombian Llanos. Biol Fertil Soils 32(6), 463-473.
Jiménez, J.J., Moreno, A.g., Lavelle, P. and Deceans, T. 1998. Population dynamics and adaptive
strategies of Mortiodrilus carimaguensis (Oligochaeta, Glossoscolecidae), a native
species from the well-drained savannas of Colombia. Appl Soil Ecol. 9, 153-160.
Jiménez, J.J., Rossi, J.P. and Lavelle, P. 2001. Spatial distribution of earthworms in acid-soil savannas
of the eastern plains of Colombia, Appl Soil Ecol. 17, 267–278.
Joshi, M. and Aga, S. 2009. Diversity and distribution of earthworms in a subtropical forest
ecosystem in Uttarakhand, India. The Natl. Hist. J Chulalongkarn Univ., 9, 21-25.
Joshi, M., Dabral, M. and Maikhuri, R.K. 2010. Density, Biomass and Species Richness of
Earthworms in Agroecosystems of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Trop Nat Hist 10(2),
171-179.
Kale, R.D. 1997. Earthworms and soil. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences India, 67(B),
Spl. Issue. p. 13-24.
Kale, R.D. 1998. Earthworm: Cinderella of organic farming. Prism Books Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, India.
Kale, R.D. and Karmegam, N. 2010. The role of earthworms in tropics with emphasis on Indian
ecosystems. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., 56, 41-43.
Karmegam, N. and Daniel, T. 2007. Effect of physico-chemical parameters on earthworm abundance:
A quantitative approach. J. Appl. Sci. Res., 3, 1369-1376.
Kaushal, B.R. and Bisht, S.P.S. 1994. Population dynamics of the earthworm Amynthas alexandri in a
Kumaun Himalayan pasture soil. Biol Fertil Soils, 17, 9-13.
Kaushal, B.R., Bisht, S.P.S. and Kalia, S. 1995. Population dynamics of the earthworm Amynthas
alexandri (Megascolecidae: Annelida) in cultivated soils of the Kumaun Himalayas.
Appl soil Ecol, 2(2), 125-130.
Kooch, Y., Jalilvand, H., Bahmanyar, M.A. and Pormajidian, M.R. 2008. Abundance, Biomass and
Vertical Distribution of Earthworms in Ecosystem Units of Hornbeam Forest. J Biol
Sci, 8, 1033-1038.
Lalthanzara, H., Ramanujam, S.N. and Jha, L.K. 2011. Population dynamics of earthworms in relation
to soil physico-chemical parameters in agroforestry systems of Mizoram, India. J.
Environ. Biol. 32, 599-605.
Lavelle, P. 1978. Ivoire Les Vers de terre de la savane de Lamto, (Cote d’Ivoire): peuplements,
population et fonctions dans l’ecosysteme; These de Doctorat, Paris VI. Pub. Lab.
Zool. E.N.S., 12, 301.
Lavelle, P. 1983. The soil fauna of tropical savannas. II. The earthworms. In : Bourliere F, ed.
Tropical savannas. Elsevier, Amsterdam. p.485-504.
Lavelle, P. 1988. Earthworm activities and the soil system. Biol Fertil Soils 6, 237-251.
Lavelle, P., Dangerfield, M., Fragoso, C., Eschenbrenner, V., Lopez Hernandez, D., Pashanasi, B. and
Brussard, L. 1994. The relationship between soil macrofauna and soil tropical
fertility. In: The Biological Management of tropical Soil Fertility (eds. Woomer, P.L.
and Swift, M.J.), John Wiley. West Sussex, New York, Toronto, pp. 137-170.
Lee, K.E. 1985. Earthworms, Their Ecology & Relationships with Soils and Land Use. Academic
Press, London, Pp. 411.
Liu, M., Hu, F., Chen, X., He, Y. and Li, H., 2004. Effects of different vegetation res torat ion of
degraded red soi l on ear thworm populat ion dynamics. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue
Bao, 15, 2152-2156.
Martin, S. and Lavelle, P. 1992. A simulation model of the vertical movements of an earthworm
population (Millsonia anomala, Omodeo, Megascolecidae) in an African savvana
(Lamtoo, Ivory Coast). Soil Biol Biochem. 24(12), 1419-1424.
Mato, S., Mascato, R., Trigo, D, and Diaz-Cosin, D.J. 1988. Vertical distribution in soil of
earthworms in Sierra del Caurel 1. Species and vegetation types. Pedobiologia 32(3-
4), 193-200.
Mishra, M.C. and Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1988. Earthworm population dynamics in different jhum
fallows developed after slash and burn agriculture in north-eastern India. Proc Indian
Acad Sci (Anim Sci), 97, 309-318.
Nainawat, R. and Nagendra, B. 2001. Density and distribution of earthworms in different localities of
Jaipur. J Eco-Physiol 4, 9-13.
Nemeth, A. and Herrera, R. 1982. Earthworm population in Venezuelan rain forest. Pedobiologia 32,
437-200.
Phillipson, J., Abel, R., Steel, J. and Woodell, S.R.J. 1976. Earthworms and the factors governing
their distribution in an English beechwood. Pedobiologia, 16, 258-285.
Piearce, T.G. 1983. Functional morphology of lumbricid earthworms with special reference to
locomotion. J. Nat. Hist. 17(1), 95-111.
Reddy, M.V. and Pasha, M. 1993. Influence of rainfall, temperature and some soil physico-chemical
variables on seasonal population structure and vertical distribution of earthworms in
two semi-arid tropical grassland soils. Int. J. Biometeorol., 37(1), 19-26.
Sahu, S.K., Mishra, S.K. and Senapati, B.K. 1988. Population biology and reproductive strategy of
Dichogaster bolaui (Oligochaeta: Octochaetidae) in two tropical agroecosystems.
Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci.), 97(5), 239-250.
Satchell, J.E. 1955. Some aspects of earthworm ecology. In: Kevan DKMcE, ed. Soil Zoology.
Butterworth, London, UK. p 180-201.
Sathianarayanan, A. and Khan, A.B. 2006. Diversity, distribution and abundance of earthworms in
Pondicherry region. Trop. Ecol., 47, 139-144.
Scullion, J. and Malik, A. 2000. Earthworm activity affecting organic matter, aggregation and
microbial activity in soils restored after opencast mining for coal. Soil Boil. Biochem.,
32, 119-126.
Senapati, B.K. and Dash, M.C. 1984. Influence of Soil temperature and moisture on the reproductive
activity of tropical pasture earthworms of Orissa. J Soil Biol Ecol, 4, 13-21.
Senapati, B.K. 1980. Aspects of ecophysiological studies on tropical earthworms. Distribution,
population dynamics, production, energetic and their role in the decomposition
process. Ph.D Thesis, Sambalpur University, India. 154p.
Shuster, W.D., Subler, S. and McCoy, E.L. 2002. The influence of earthworm community structure on
the distribution and movement of solutes in a chisel-tilled soil. Appl Soil Ecol., 21,
159-167.
Somniyam, P. and Suwanwaree, P. 2009. The Diversity and Distribution of Terrestrial Earthworms in
Sakaerat Environmental Research Station and Adjacent Areas, Nakhon Ratchasima,
Thailand, World Appl Sci J 6(2), 221-226.
Tian, G., Olimah, J.A., Adeoye, G.O. and Kang, B.T., 2000. Regeneration of earthworm population in
a degenerated soil by natural and planted fallows under humid tropical conditions.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64, 222-228.
Tripathi, G. and Bardwaj, P. 2004. Earthworm diversity and habitat preferences in Arid regions of
Rajasthan. Zoos print j, 19(7), 1515-1519.
Werner, M. R. 1990. Earthworm ecology and sustainable agriculture. Components 1(4).
Whalen, J.K. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of earthworm patches in corn field, hayfield and
forest systems of southwestern Quebec, Canada, Appl Soil Ecol.27, 143–151.
Whalen, J.K., Parmelee, R.W. and Edwards, C.A. 1998. Population dynamics of earthworm
communities in corn agroecosystems receiving organic or inorganic fertilizer
amendments. Biol Fertil Soils, 27(4), 400 – 407.
Table1: Species-wise distribution of earthworm in different soil strata

Depth SKT PUC

(cm) Sp.1 Sp.2 Sp.3 Sp.4 Sp.1 Sp.2 Sp.3 Sp.4 Sp.5
0-10 + + + + + + + + +
10-20 - + + + - + + - -
20-30 - - + - - - + - -
+ present, - absent; sp.1 P. excavatus, sp. 2 M. houlleti, sp.3 Drawida sp. Sp.4 E.
mizoramensis, sp. 5 P. macintoshi

Fig.1. Map showing location of study sites.

 120
0-10 cm
10-20 cm
100 20-30 cm
Density(no./m2)

80

60

40

20

0
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
Month

Figure 2: Monthly variation of earthworm density (no./m2) (strata-wise) in SKT (June 2003 –
December 2004)

120
0-10 cm
10-20 cm
100
20-30 cm
Density(no./m2)

80

60

40

20

0
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Month

Figure 3: Monthly variation of earthworm density (no./m2) (strata-wise) in PUC (June 2003
– December 2004)
 0-10 cm
400 10-20 cm

20-30 cm
350

300
Biomass(g/m )
2

250

200

150

100

50

0
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Month

Figure 4: Biomass (g/m2) of earthworm (strata-wise) in SKT (June 2003 – December 2004)

300
0-10 cm
10-20 cm
250 20-30 cm
Biomass(g/m )

200
2

150

100

50

0
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Month

Figure 5: Biomass (g/m2) of earthworm (strata-wise) in PUC (June 2003 – December 2004)
 No. of individual No. of individual No. of individual

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
12
14
16

0
2
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
16
18

Jun-03
Jun-03 Jun-03 14
Jul-03
Jul-03 Jul-03
Aug-03
Aug-03 Aug-03
Sep-03
Sep-03 Sep-03
Oct-03
Oct-03 Oct-03
Nov-03
Nov-03 Nov-03
Dec-03
Dec-03 Dec-03
Jan-04
Jan-04 Jan-04
Feb-04
Feb-04 Feb-04

(A)
(A)

(A)
Mar-04

Time
Mar-04

Time
Mar-04

Time
Apr-04
Apr-04 Apr-04
May-04
May-04 May-04
Jun-04
Jun-04 Jun-04
Jul-04
Jul-04 Jul-04
Aug-04
Aug-04 Aug-04
Sep-04
Sep-04 Sep-04
Oct-04
Oct-04 Oct-04

Juv.

Adu
Nov-04
Juv.

Adu

Juv.

Imm.
Adu
Nov-04
Imm.

Nov-04

Imm.
Dec-04
Dec-04 Dec-04

No. of individual No. of individual No. of individual

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
18
20

0
2
4
6
8

0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5

1
Jun-03 Jun-03 Jun-03

Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03

Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03

Sep-03 Sep-03 Sep-03

Oct-03 Oct-03 Oct-03

Figure 6: Number of earthworms (age-wise) at 0-10 cm, (A)-SKT, (B)-PUC

Figure 8: Number of earthworms (age-wise) at 20-30 cm, (A)-SKT, (B)-PUC

Nov-03 Nov-03 Nov-03

Figure 7: Number of earthworms (age-wise) at 10-20 cm, (A)-SKT, (B)-PUC.

Dec-03 Dec-03 Dec-03

Jan-04 Jan-04 Jan-04

(B)
(B)
(B)

Feb-04 Feb-04 Feb-04

Mar-04 Mar-04 Mar-04
Time

Time
Time
Apr-04 Apr-04 Apr-04
May-04 May-04 May-04
Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04
Jul-04 Jul-04 Jul-04
Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-04
Sep-04 Sep-04 Sep-04
Oct-04 Oct-04 Oct-04

Juv.
Juv.

Adu
Adu

Imm.
Imm.

Juv.

Adu

Nov-04 Nov-04 Nov-04

Imm.

Dec-04 Dec-04 Dec-04

 600 450

500 Juvenile 400

350
Immature Juvenile
400 300
Density (No./m2)

Immature
Adult 250

Density (No./m2)
300
200 Adult
200 150

100
100
50
0 0
Aug-03

Aug-04
Jul-03

Sep-03

Nov-03

Feb-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

Nov-04
Jun-03

Jun-04
Oct-03

Dec-03
Jan-04

Mar-04

May-04

Oct-04

Dec-04
Apr-04

Feb-04

Sep-04
Jul-03
Aug-03
Sep-03

Nov-03

Jul-04
Aug-04

Nov-04
Jun-03

Jan-04

Mar-04

Jun-04
Dec-03

Dec-04
Oct-03

Oct-04
Apr-04
May-04
Time
Time

A B
2
Figure 9: Age-wise monthly variation of earthworm density (no./m ) in (2003-2004) (A) SKT and (B) PUC

700 400
Juvenile Juvenile
600 350
Immature Immature
500 Adult 300 Adult
Biomass (g/m2)

Biomass (g/m2)

250
400
200
300
150
200
100

100 50

0 0
Aug-03

Aug-04
Jul-03

Sep-03

Nov-03

Feb-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

Nov-04
Jan-04
Jun-03

Oct-03

Dec-03

Mar-04

Jun-04

Oct-04

Dec-04
May-04
Apr-04
Aug-03

Aug-04
Jul-03

Sep-03

Nov-03

Feb-04

Jul-04

Sep-04

Nov-04
Jun-03

Oct-03

Jun-04
Dec-03

Mar-04
Jan-04

Oct-04

Dec-04
May-04
Apr-04

Time Time

A B
Figure 10: Age-wise monthly variation of earthworm biomass (g/m 2) (2003-2004) in (A) SKT and (B) PUC

160 0-10cm 10-20cm 20-30cm

144
140 135

120 109
No. of individuals

100 93
79
80

60
38
40
23
20 8
3
0
Juvevile Immature Adult
Earthworm age group

Figure 11: Vertical distribution of different age group of earthworm (in number).