4 ms·

I think the article a bit understates how hard it is to go from arid to fertile soil, which is where those early earthworms did a lot of work. Earthworms are al

by oooyay 2y ago

I think the article a bit understates how hard it is to go from arid to fertile soil, which is where those early earthworms did a lot of work. Earthworms are also really good at spreading out from their initial source. When I bought my house the land in the back was turning to dust and nothing would really grow on it. I introduced chickens and vermicomposting, as well as Scottish moss (which I saw a lot of in this article!) The combination of a fertilization source, composting worms, and a dense heat resistant turf cannot be understated.

tharkun__ 2y ago
An article found on the same site also shows how these worms are also foreign to North America for example and can be a problem: https://theconversation.com/earthworms-are-our-friends-but-they-will-make-the-climate-crisis-worse-if-were-not-careful-217227 https://theconversation.com/earthworms-are-our-friends-but-t...
- oooyay 2y ago
  The original meta-analysis from UC Davis is a lot better than the paper they cite on Boreal forests: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/global-worming-earthworms-contribute-climate-change https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/global-worming-earthworms-contr... > They found that the presence of earthworms increased nitrous oxide emissions from soil by 42 percent and carbon dioxide emissions from soil by 33 percent. But they found no indications that earthworms affect soil organic carbon stocks — the carbon stored within the soil. I'm not actually sure what to make of that statement. It seems like they're claiming worms disturb "not yet sunk" nitrogen and carbon dioxide but don't really affect anything deep in the soil. That tracks for what I know about what worms prefer compaction and temperature wise. That said, there are other organisms like mites that are far more efficient than worms - they just don't produce compost. I guess my naive question here is wouldn't that nitrogen and carbon already have high potential for release?

by oooyay 2y ago

tharkun__ 2y ago

An article found on the same site also shows how these worms are also foreign to North America for example and can be a problem: https://theconversation.com/earthworms-are-our-friends-but-they-will-make-the-climate-crisis-worse-if-were-not-careful-217227 https://theconversation.com/earthworms-are-our-friends-but-t...

oooyay 2y ago
The original meta-analysis from UC Davis is a lot better than the paper they cite on Boreal forests: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/global-worming-earthworms-contribute-climate-change https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/global-worming-earthworms-contr... > They found that the presence of earthworms increased nitrous oxide emissions from soil by 42 percent and carbon dioxide emissions from soil by 33 percent. But they found no indications that earthworms affect soil organic carbon stocks — the carbon stored within the soil. I'm not actually sure what to make of that statement. It seems like they're claiming worms disturb "not yet sunk" nitrogen and carbon dioxide but don't really affect anything deep in the soil. That tracks for what I know about what worms prefer compaction and temperature wise. That said, there are other organisms like mites that are far more efficient than worms - they just don't produce compost. I guess my naive question here is wouldn't that nitrogen and carbon already have high potential for release?