Lowe, Christopher Nathan ORCID: 0000-0002-3893-7371 and Butt, Kevin Richard ORCID: 0000-0003-0886-7795 (2014) Cocoon viability and evidence for delayed hatching by the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris in a laboratory-based study. Zeszyty Naukowe, 17 . pp. 61-67. ISSN 1642-3828
Preview |
PDF (Authors Post Print)
- Accepted Version
158kB |
Abstract
Clitellate Lumbricus terrestris, obtained from 5 commercial suppliers (A-E) and also field collected (F) - grassland in Preston, Lancashire, UK, were kept under controlled environmental conditions (15 °C and 24 h darkness) in a sterilised loam soil and surface-fed with horse manure. Survival, biomass and cocoon production was monitored every 4 weeks over 1 y. Collected cocoons were maintained in water-filled Petri dishes on filter paper. Time to hatch and cocoon viability was recorded over a 2 y period. Cocoon production ranged from 15.1 – 32.2 ind.-1 y-1. Cocoon production was initially low followed by a period of high production (12-36 weeks) and then fell (36-52 weeks). Time for cocoon hatching ranged from 132-731 days. Hatching success after 2 years was 58–90% across treatments, with a total viability (including cocoons dissected after the 2 year period) of 88-94%. Evidence of 2 distinct hatching peaks was recorded, separated by a period of approximately 12 months in treatments of most of the commercially obtained earthworms. Cocoon incubation periods are in excess of those previously recorded under similar laboratory conditions (e.g. 90–280 days). Furthermore, viability is also higher than previously recorded (e.g. 67.9–83%). These differences are mainly attributable to the extended length of cocoon observation. Origin, age, unknown pre-treatment (in A-E) and experimental conditions (e.g. a constant temperature regime) may have influenced incubation times. However, it is suggested that asynchronous and delayed hatching within cohorts and ability for cocoons to remain viable for extended periods allows this K-selected species to maximise reproductive potential. This proposed “bet-hedging” strategy is worthy of further laboratory and field-based investigation.
Repository Staff Only: item control page