Talk:Invasive earthworms of North America

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karenryceballos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

General "Chicken Little" tone and POV.

I started to try to correct some the POV framing and "sky is falling" general tone. But it is too pervasive and I give up!  :-) 108.7.172.60 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Specifically, trees like populus, birch, and maples suffer greatly in the changing habitats, as well as many forest herbs like aralia, viola, and botrychium. These plants are commonly eradicated from the temperate forests after only months of the invasives' presence." This reads like it was paraphrased (badly) from a source. It implies that the maples are dead within months of these worms' arrival. The maples, birches, and poplars seem to be doing just fine around here, does that mean the worms in question haven't made it to NH yet? Huw Powell (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a 'POV section' for the solutions section (Hopefully I got it in the right place). Statements that require references are: "One way to help reduce their migration would be to reduce the number of worms released during fishing practices." "Releasing them increases the number of available mates for the worms, assisting their proliferation and migration efforts." "Additionally, low pH and high carbon to nitrogen ratio plant material may assist in resistance of forest ecosystems to invasive earthworms." "Alternatively, high pH, and low C:N ratios appear to be more susceptible." "Some have advocated the introduction of the New Zealand Flatworm" "but such 'cures' often prove worse than the disease" Other sections have similar problems need references to support startling claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pityo (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I made a start on NPOV issues in the earlier pgrafs, & also fixed some inaccuracies, but it needs more.Gould363 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Any objection to deleting the Solutions section? A Solutions section is certainly not necessary in a Wikipedia article -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to say "go for it", but I was afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I made a stab instead at conserving some of the existing material, but substantially reworked it and placed it in the context of a more neutrally titled Prevention section. See what you think. Also did a bunch more work elsewhere in the article. Again, it still needs more, so I left the Essay tag.Gould363 (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I added an Essay tag to the article. This is more an issue of poor writing than blatant NPOV, which is the other tag I considered. Alarmist phrasing, suggestive that this is a more extensive problem than it actually is, this is just one aspect of the poor writing here. -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one of the main things it needs is some quantification of the extent of the problem. [If it doesn't have #s, it ain't science.] What % of forest area is already colonized (probably broken down by biome); how fast is it spreading; of areas that are colonized, what % shows degradation, & how severe is that degradation; etc.Gould363 (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Worm nonsense

People that know worms should immediately disbelieve stories about worms making soil unsuitable for tree growth. The claim is that worms eat all the organic duff and mix what is left deep in the ground leaving the soil compacted and bare. While it is common knowledge that worms eat organic matter and ingest mineral soils and the supposed worst culprits tunnel about 6 feet into the ground, it is well known that on balance worms improve growing conditions. Worms do not leave the earth compacted and unsuitable for plant growth. The common night crawler that supposedly causes all this mayhem in fact deposits it's waste products on the surface and the worms are largely agreed to improve fertility and subsequent leaf production as well as both improving drainage and soil moisture holding capacity. The only possible viable claim is that the worms might improve growing conditions enough to disfavor some wildflowers that rely on poorer growing conditions. The methods used to study the issue were far more detrimental to fragile wildflowers than any worm population.

All this nonsense was generated by a nearly $400,000 Federal grant to warn about the dangers of earthworms based on initial studies that are so faulty as to be incredible. Scientific American even published what can only be described as a piece. All of these reports lead back to the University of Minnesota doctorate thesis that marked off an area of study with stakes and a grid. They then proceeded to study the area by using mustard to draw worms to the surface and looking through the duff to find and collect the worms. They concluded that the more worms per section resulted in more compaction and more disturbed duff. I would contend that common sense would dictate that the more activity involved in collecting more worms and the un natural foot traffic or worse explains the compaction.

The night crawler they spent so much money warning about has been in place a lot longer than a few decades ago. One fisherman releasing worms introduces them to all riparian environments downstream in the watershed. By land earthworms rarely migrate more than a kilometer in one hundred years. The very idea of regulating earthworm expansion is moot and there is no known way to eradicate them that closely resembles sane. The Scientific community owes an explanation on this one. The great scourge of European earthworms has yet to devastate any forests in Europe.Ken Woodstock (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ken Woodstock: I don't have any scientific credentials, but I'll give my reaction to what you say.

Worms causing compaction makes sense to me as a gardener, because of the consistencies of worm feces and leaf mold. Worm feces are black blobs like clay, while leaf mold (decomposed mainly through bacteria and fungi rather than worms) is light and airy. Worms remove the leaf mold and replace it with worm feces, replacing fluffy stuff with gooey stuff. Even though they're digging tunnels, the overall consistency of the soil would become more compactible through their work. I much prefer compost that hasn't been eaten by worms when I'm potting up plants.

I haven't seen the article you're talking about, but the researchers would have been incompetent if they were unable to distinguish between their disturbance of the duff and the action of worms. Worms pull leaves and dead plants down into their tunnels, while humans just move them around on the surface. I'd be surprised if researchers didn't know that.

European worms are native to Europe, so it is likely that they are better adapted to Europe than they are to North America. Perhaps, for instance, there are more diseases, pests, and predators in Europe to control European earthworm populations. Introducing species to new areas often results in imbalance and problems. — Eru·tuon 10:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This article about invasive earthworms of North America is from the same people that have been spreading this nonsense for 20 years. I have found hundreds of articles and they all source back to the University of Minnesota, great lakes worm watch and the like. There is no other source that came to the conclusion that earthworms cause soil compaction. You find a story and I will source it back for you. Earthworms do not cause compaction and no other scientific source suggests they do. You have adopted their faulty "facts" because you undoubtedly have read their articles. They spent $400,000 to give you the impression that worms are invasive and are ruining our forests, neither of which is true. The notion that worms that have inhabited the earth for about a billion years are new or invasive because the last glacier displaced them for a while is also nonsense. The trees that are supposedly subject to invasion by worms were also of course displaced by the last glacier as they must have been numerous times over the last thousand million years. The night crawlers do not normally inhabit compost and they do not make leaf litter disappear. They do bring it right back to the surface where in any but the shortest amount of time increase the health and decrease compaction of the soil. You can search forever and you will find tons of articles tracing back to Minnesota to support this claim and none from any other scientific source.Ken Woodstock (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ken Woodstock: I'm sorry, but actually I'm not sure if I read any articles on this or not. Maybe something in a local newspaper, but I can't remember.

The European earthworm was not present in North America before European colonization. Therefore it is a new species. There are native North American earthworms, but they are different species from the European earthworm, just as the American bittersweet vine is native while the Oriental bittersweet is a newly introduced and invasive species. It's therefore plausible that the European earthworm is badly adapted to North America, just as the Oriental bittersweet is.

Don't nightcrawlers eat leaf litter and convert it to feces? That means they do remove leaf litter, by changing it into something else. If plants are adapted to growing in leaf litter, not worm feces, then they will be harmed by worms. Yes, worms are good for, say, vegetable gardens. That doesn't mean they are also good for North American woodland plants. Different plants have different culture requirements. — Eru·tuon 01:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we can be confident that this is a "real" phenomenon. The issue or soil organic matter loss, compaction, and consequent erosion is confined to woodlands with a history of continental glaciation. The mechanisms and consequences make sense to me. -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Eru-tuon, thank you for taking the time to address this. It's well said, & I don't have much to add. I would just note that the idea that European forests aren't harmed by earthworms is a red herring. European forests evolved in the presence of earthworms & are adapted to them. Understory plants in northern American forests, by contrast, are adapted to deep detritus. I also don't find it particularly plausible that the many professional ecologists who consider this a valid concern (see Refs. and External Links) have been led astray by one poor study and have been unable to discern the supposed methodological flaws in that study. Gould363 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Worms don't have teeth. They don't chew up leaf litter. Before worms can process it, leaf litter has to be broken down by bacteria and fungi.

MrDemeanour (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This page is a joke. Worms are not bad for the soil. LOL. Someone fix this article please? Obviously the trees in North America evolved with worms in the soil just like the ones in europe did. We had glaciers in Europe also, and that was tens of thousands of years ago. Not millions like you need to evolve trees. Worms are not an invasive species. LOL. MrN9000 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Updates and Adding section specifically about invasive Asian worms (also known as jumping worms or crazy worms)

I am considering adding a new section specifically focusing on invasive Asian worms, aka Jumping worms (Amynthas and Metaphire spp), particularly because they are currently perceived as one of the most concerning invasive worm species. The section would include their identifying characteristics, along with life history characteristics that have made them especially invasive (for instance they reproduce more quickly, mature twice as fast, and are more competitive than introduced European species.) I would note how 'jumping worms' actually refer to at least three species: Amynthas agrestis (which is most often cited as the culprit) Amynthas tokioensis, and Metaphire hilgendorfi, and how these species co-occur, but there is little information on the distribution of each species and their respective impacts.

In addition to this section, I would like to update the reported range of invasive worms (as of 2016, Amynthas has been found in Oregon).

Thoughts on any of these additions/edits? --Karenryceballos (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zenturaa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zenturaa (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Conservation Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goober 6223 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chromagrion.

— Assignment last updated by Otter246 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)