Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
In the past few decades, some specifically soil ecotoxicity-oriented research programs have
been developed or initiated. At the national level, in the Netherlands there was the Netherlands
Integrated Soil Research Program (NISRP), and there is the current System-Oriented Ecotoxico-
logical Research Program. In Sweden, there was the MATS program (Soil Biological Variables in
Environmental Hazard Assessment), succeeded by ISA (Integrated Soil Analysis). In a general
European context, there was the network SERAS (Soil Ecotoxicity Risk Assessment Systems) and
the European Union (E.U.) SECOFA-SE (development, improvement, and standardization of test
systems for assessing sublethal effects of chemicals on fauna in the soil ecosystem) (L¾kke and
Van Gestel 1998). All these programs included earthworm testing.
The present interest in ecotoxicological research with earthworms, when reviewed by screening
the programs of the annual Conferences of the Society for Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry
(SETAC), reveals a somewhat different picture. In the SETAC conference in Sheffield, U.K. (1991),
7 papers on earthworm toxicity were presented of a total of 142 presentations (5%) and were combined
with other soil ecotoxicological aspects (Donkers et al. 1994). Later SETAC conferences had lower
percentages of earthworm papers: Lisbon, Portugal (1993), had 2%; and Houston, TX (1994), had
only 5 of over 1500 contributions. During the most recent SETAC-Europe Symposium in Vienna
(2002), of approximately 1400 presentations were 10 papers on earthworms. By contrast, the Earth-
worm Ecotoxicology Workshop that was organized in rhus, Denmark, during the summer of 2001
brought together many world specialists on earthworm toxicity from the research, consultancy, indus-
try, and government fields. For earthworm research in general, there is a world audience; at the Seventh
International Symposium on Earthworm Ecology in Cardiff, Wales, in 2002 was the latest example
of bringing together some 200 earthworm specialists, with earthworm ecotoxicology well represented.
Thus, earthworm research is a permanent element in environmental assessment studies.
Much effort has been put into the development of earthworm tests; the European Union, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the International Organiza-
tion for Standardization (ISO) have all organized a number of international ring tests and standard-
ization studies. In a study for OECD on the selection of a set of laboratory ecotoxicity tests, Van
Gestel et al. (1997) observed that the earthworm tests scored at a relatively low level. It was rated
6th (of 44 tests in total) for the OECD tests, 13th for the tests of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and 18th for the ISO test. Standardization was the main factor of criticism, but this was
underrated in comparison with aquatic tests. Consequently, new tests developed by the International
Organization for Biological Control and the National Institute for Human Health and Environmental
Protection, which have a higher ecological relevance than the artificial soil/
test, also
scored at a very low level (38th, 39th, 40th). Hence, there is still a lot to do, as there is with respect
to earthworm toxicity testing both in the laboratory and the field.
When the recommendations of the three International Workshops on Earthworm Ecotoxicology
Ð held in Sheffield in 1991 (Greig-Smith et al. 1992), Amsterdam in 1997 (Sheppard et al. 1998),
and rhus in 2001 (Van Gestel and Weeks 2004) Ð are compared, a number of recommendations
came up each time:
Eisenia fetida
¤The need to develop proper end-point effect criteria
¤The development of specialized earthworm tests, especially for effects on juvenile growth
¤The necessity to define the effects of fluctuating environments related to exposure in a
dynamic world
¤The relevance of including earthworm behavioral ecology in testing, covering behavioral
responses to contaminants, as well as mobility and dispersal capabilities in general
The extensive recommendations of the International Earthworm Ecotoxicology Workshop in
rhus (Van Gestel and Weeks 2004) were discussed further, confirmed by a number of world
specialists in earthworm toxicity research in Cardiff, and are summarized as follows:
