Consequences of subtropical land-use intensity for the abundance and diversity of earthworm ecological categories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Organic amendments alleviate the negative impacts of land-use intensity on earthworm communities. • Anecic and endogeic earthworms are more sensitive to intensive land-use than epigeic earthworms. • Higher soil pH and improved food resource promoted earthworm abundance. • Earthworm ecological adaptation increased with agricultural intensification. Understanding how soil biodiversity, especially of macrofauna like earthworms, responds to land-use intensity is crucial for developing sustainable land-use strategies. This work is a two-year field investigation of earthworm community responses to increasing land-use intensity, from undisturbed fallow land to actively cultivated agricultural lands (including fallow land, tea plantation, orange plantation, camphora plantation, synthetic fertilizer-amended cropland, compost-amended cropland, and vermicompost-amended cropland) in a subtropical region. Earthworm abundance and diversity increased with land-use intensity, likely due to the compensatory effects of organic amendments, which improve the habitat and resource availability, thereby alleviating the potential negative impacts of tillage and harvesting. Notably, earthworm abundance was higher in cropland (70 ind. m −2 ) than in other land-use types, such as fallow (4 ind. m −2 ) and plantation (22 ind. m −2 ). Greater earthworm abundance was associated with higher soil pH and more food resources, as indicated by high microbial biomass carbon (C), the humification index, and the particulate organic C fraction. Anecic and endogeic earthworms increased more than epigeic earthworms from fallow lands to plantations and croplands, reflecting their ecological adaptability to the soil conditions in managed lands with higher land-use intensity. This suggests that soil ecological restoration practices may enhance the role of earthworms related to soil structure dynamics and carbon sequestration. Our study provides empirical evidence that soil macrofauna have ecological adaptations to cope with agricultural intensification across landscapes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".