That certainly sounds like the reporter may not have done thorough
research and may very well have started out with a bias, a big no-no in
professional journalism.

Yes, I will try to remember to read the article, but I doubt it will
convince me that all earthworms are good for is attracting moles. I also
doubt it will change anything I've said here; reading will tell.

Glenna -- The poster failed to give the details of the article. In fact, it
was well supported. The article was not in reference to gardening or
farming though -- it referred to a specific ecosystem, namely native
forests, where earthworms disturb a balance that has been in place for
millenia. I quoted a few bits from the article in my response to the
original poster.

Hi All,
yes it is true that the planarian came to England in a pot plant from New
Zealand. it was in the news at the time, but I do not know if they found a
cure for it. hope this helps you.

Richard M. Watkin.

Salty Thumb wrote in message
...
(Glenna Rose) wrote in
news:fc.003d0941019e889d3b9aca0083c53104.19e8971@p mug.org:

I read sometime last year that Australia has a crisis building. They
have been invaded by a tapeworm that eats earthworms and is becoming a
major problem. Without the earthworms, the soil is not being "worked"
and the agricultural industry is in jeopardy. Perhaps some of our
Aussie friends on the group can fill us in about the particulars of
that; I have lost track of the current status of that problem. Seems
logical to me that moles are not so discriminating in their food
supply that they would ignore tapeworms and starve, ya think?

don't know if this is what you are thinking of, but I saw on PBS (i think
it was Nova special on the origins of life, but it could have been
Nature) that England was invaded by a planarian (a flatworm?) from New
Zealand. Might have also hit the US. Details about it hunting
earthworms is similar.

-- Salty

Glenna,
I like your idea with the concrete blocks. SOmeday when I get some land I
am going to do just this! Imagine the wonderful fertile beds!
Roz
az usa

The message
from "rmw" contains these words:

Hi All,
yes it is true that the planarian came to England in a pot plant from New
Zealand. it was in the news at the time, but I do not know if they found a
cure for it. hope this helps you.

Richard M. Watkin.

It`s also not quite the death to all earthworms as we did the same back
and there`s more of our earthworms in NZ than Flatworms in England.

"JNJ" wrote in message ...

To summarize all of this -- the article is sound as is the journalist's
research HOWEVER it is a directed topic. This has absolutely NOTHING to do
with gardens or farming -- it is STILL recognized that earthworms are highly
beneficial to gardens and farming. It has, however, been found that when
earthworms are transplanted to a different ecosystem, such as native
forests, they have an undesirable effect on existing life-forms in that
ecosystem. In the case at hand, that effect is on plant and animal life
that rely on "duff". This is to be expected whenever an alien species is
introduced to a new environment.

Noting Darwinian theory, these life-forms may well be selected for
extinction now that another has invaded their ecosystem. Alternatively,
they may adapt and survive. Either way, homeostasis will be achieved.

James

Moreover, the worms are generally beneficial to all plants, including
trees in the forest. That is good for humans and fights global
warming. Ecological disasters are rated mostly in terms of how they
can affect our long term survival. Possibly the worst, at least in our
country, was the disappearance of a few billion chestnut trees, and
the attendant disappearance of 100 billion pounds of quality and free
food at the onset of each winter (as well as the choice timber tree in
the East). But the worms is one of those rare things, together with
dandelions or zebra mussels, where we have done ourselves and many
other species a favor.

Also of note is the fact that earthworms propagate very slowly, no
more than 20-30 feet per year if they have to do it themselves. There
are large tracts of not previously farmed land where they have not
appeared yet.

JNJ wrote:

That certainly sounds like the reporter may not have done thorough
research and may very well have started out with a bias, a big no-no in
professional journalism.

Yes, I will try to remember to read the article, but I doubt it will
convince me that all earthworms are good for is attracting moles. I also
doubt it will change anything I've said here; reading will tell.


Glenna -- The poster failed to give the details of the article. In fact, it
was well supported. The article was not in reference to gardening or
farming though -- it referred to a specific ecosystem, namely native
forests, where earthworms disturb a balance that has been in place for
millenia. I quoted a few bits from the article in my response to the
original poster.


Don't you hate it when Mother Nature changes thingsG?

Don't you hate it when Mother Nature changes thingsG?

Can definitely be a bit disruptive.

FWIW, in this case it isn't momma nature that made the issues crop up -- it
was man. The earthworms were added to the system by anglers dropping bait,
in tire treads, soil dropped, and so forth.

It is amazing though what something as simple as a worm can do to an entire
ecosystem when introduced and unchecked.

James

Moreover, the worms are generally beneficial to all plants, including
trees in the forest. That is good for humans and fights global
warming. Ecological disasters are rated mostly in terms of how they
can affect our long term survival. Possibly the worst, at least in our
country, was the disappearance of a few billion chestnut trees, and
the attendant disappearance of 100 billion pounds of quality and free
food at the onset of each winter (as well as the choice timber tree in
the East). But the worms is one of those rare things, together with
dandelions or zebra mussels, where we have done ourselves and many
other species a favor.

Hmmm...I dunno about this one. As the author of the article notes, there
are a number of species of plants and animals that are suffering as a direct
result of the earthworms eating the fallen leaves and such. I would expect
that most will adapt however.

Also of note is the fact that earthworms propagate very slowly, no
more than 20-30 feet per year if they have to do it themselves. There
are large tracts of not previously farmed land where they have not
appeared yet.

If enough colonies form though, this has an obviously multplicative effect.
It is definitely an interesting problem.

I'm not quite sure why the original poster has such an issue with
earthworms, especially in farms and gardens, but this article certainly does
not support his assertion that earthworms are such evil creatures.

Either way, I'm still hitting the local bait shop in the next few weeks to
get some earthworms for my new perennial bed.

James

(simy1) writes:
Also of note is the fact that earthworms propagate very slowly, no
more than 20-30 feet per year if they have to do it themselves. There
are large tracts of not previously farmed land where they have not
appeared yet.

Wouldn't the earthworm eggs get widely distributed by rainwater runoff
and soil carried on vehicles and the roots of transported seedlings and
on the muddy hooves of native, feral, and introduced animals?
--
John Savage (news reply email invalid; keep news replies in newsgroup)

John Savage wrote in message news:030720000111252.20Jul03$rookswood@suburbian. com...
(simy1) writes:
Also of note is the fact that earthworms propagate very slowly, no
more than 20-30 feet per year if they have to do it themselves. There
are large tracts of not previously farmed land where they have not
appeared yet.

Wouldn't the earthworm eggs get widely distributed by rainwater runoff
and soil carried on vehicles and the roots of transported seedlings and
on the muddy hooves of native, feral, and introduced animals?

I do not know - good question though. It is a fact that there are
places in this country and Canada which are earthworm-free.

"John Savage" wrote in message
om...
(simy1) writes:
Also of note is the fact that earthworms propagate very slowly, no
more than 20-30 feet per year if they have to do it themselves. There
are large tracts of not previously farmed land where they have not
appeared yet.

Wouldn't the earthworm eggs get widely distributed by rainwater runoff
and soil carried on vehicles and the roots of transported seedlings and
on the muddy hooves of native, feral, and introduced animals?
--
John Savage (news reply email invalid; keep news replies in
newsgroup)


Probably not as much as you might imagine.

First of all, earthworms deposit their "cocoons" beneath or right at the
litter layer, not on top of the litter layer or in places without litter.
In doing so, the movement of eggs by rainwater is inhibited. In fact, worms
are rarely found in erosional habitats because the organic matter that they
consume is in limited supply; the highest densities of worms always occur in
deep, moist litter.

Second, the likelihood of worm eggs being transported on tires is pretty
low. If you can successfully drive your vehicle where there are a lot of
earthworms, then I need you to come work for me - and your lawn doesn't
count! The fact is, worms don't persist very well in compacted soil (road
substrata) or in areas that are real dry (think of the gravel and other
material at the side of most roads). ... Even more important than the
preceding points is the fact that the eggs, which are deposited in a cocoon,
are more likely to get squished than transported any meaningful distance.

Third, animals, even the largest ones, have pretty well defined home ranges
or territories. I'm not talking about the entire biogeographic range of a
species, but the area occupied and/or utilized by a single animal in its
lifetime. With a few notable exceptions like migrating birds, animals only
ever use a few square miles at the most. In fact, many animals never use
much more than a few square feet. (There are a *lot* more small animals out
there than big animals.) Deer, which I presume you were referring to with
the words "muddy hooves" often occupy the same area are their whole lives,
making a circuit every 1-5 days depending on the age, gender, a reproductive
status of the animal. Other large ungulates may have larger territories,
but they are still not too likely to transport worm cocoons very far. Oils
in the fur and on the skin of the animal help to prevent mud from sticking,
and water that the animal walks through has a rinsing effect. .... In case
you're wondering, worm eggs that manage to hatch in water won't survive very
long unless the worm is one of the handful of aquatic species that exist.

Invasion fronts may move very fast (think of zebra mussels) or very slowly
(as in the case of earthworms). It may be that earthworms will never
successfully invade all of North America, but even their slow movement into
areas that were previously earthworm-free holds serious implications for the
native flora and fauna of invaded habitats. For more information on why
invasive species are harmful, email me. I have a lot of resources I can
share with you (I'm a conservation biologist).

One final thought: Part of the original post read "if they have to do it
themselves".... It might be worth noting that getting stuck to a car's tire
is not natural.

(simy1) writes:
John Savage wrote in message news:030720000111252.20Jul03$rookswood@suburbian. com...
Wouldn't the earthworm eggs get widely distributed by rainwater runoff
and soil carried on vehicles and the roots of transported seedlings and
on the muddy hooves of native, feral, and introduced animals?

I do not know - good question though. It is a fact that there are
places in this country and Canada which are earthworm-free.

I'd expect to find no earthworms in soil with little humus, such as in
clay regions, or sandy or rocky soil where there is little vegetation
to contribute humus, or soil where there is insufficient moisture.
--
John Savage (news reply email invalid; keep news replies in newsgroup)

That's a good point. How do we know that worms are exotic? Just
because there are areas without worms doesn't mean worms were solely
imported during the colonial times.

I agree that worms can cause erosion in some forest environs but it
seems hard to believe that North America was devoid of worms.

John Savage wrote in message news:030724000112505.24Jul03$rookswood@suburbian. com...
(simy1) writes:
John Savage wrote in message news:030720000111252.20Jul03$rookswood@suburbian. com...
I'd expect to find no earthworms in soil with little humus, such as in
clay regions, or sandy or rocky soil where there is little vegetation
to contribute humus, or soil where there is insufficient moisture.

(Pen) wrote in message . com...
That's a good point. How do we know that worms are exotic? Just
because there are areas without worms doesn't mean worms were solely
imported during the colonial times.

I agree that worms can cause erosion in some forest environs but it
seems hard to believe that North America was devoid of worms.


no, what you have is that there are european and american earthworms
south of the Mason-Dixon line, but only european - or nothing - nortn
of that. That line is also the glaciation line during the last Ice
Age. Obviously, earthworms north of there were exterminated.