Slimeless Spring or...Can global worming save the

Earth?By Robert J. Blakemore PhD, VermEcology Yokohama. November, 2015

Is there a direct link between worms and weather? With a little help from Rachel Carson, Lady Eve Balfour and especially my fellow Salopian Charles Darwin, I hope to explain in this article why I, for one, think so.

But first, who amongst us knows that 2015 is the UN’s designated “International Year of Soil”? It also marks exactly one hundred years since Nobel laureate Dr Fritz Haber developed poison gas (killing my great-grandfather in the trenches of WW1) and synthetic nitrogen for munitions that can both be used as simple agricultural pesticides and soil fertilizers. As Robin McKie summarized in The Observer newspaper (Nov., 2013): “It's 100 years since Fritz Haber found a way to synthesise ammonia – helping to feed billions but also to kill millions, and contributing to the pollution of the planet”. Yet one gruesomely practical outcome in response to industrial scale slaughter of the Great War of 1914-1918 was development of TRIAGE which is rational prioritizing of casualties in order to treat the most urgent first.

Figure 1 (courtesy Wikipedia). Triage as implemented in WW1 often uses a four-level scale: Can wait, Has to wait, Cannot wait an Lost or No longer matters (i.e., extinct).

Time is now opportune for a Global Triage to help sift through the complexities of conflicting environmental issues vying for our attention and action. As a starting point I consider economic issues subordinate to ecological issues since without Ecology there

is no Economy and I provide the sterile Moon or lifeless Mars as examples of this. Fortunately, Earth’s environmental issues have been evaluated by a consortium in a recent report by Rockström et al. (2009) with nine planetary boundaries already critically exceeded for “Biodiversity loss”. Unfortunately these researchers do not suggest remedies, but they do indicate that “Nitrogen cycle” and “Climate Change” are lesser concerns than the biodiversity issue, and I agree. So too does Harvard’s Dr E.O. Wilson who has famously provided the acronym HIPPO to highlight the actual threats to biodiversity which, in their correct order of magnitude, are: Habital loss, Invasive alien species, Pollution, Population explosion and Overharvesting. Human-mediated species extinction loss is thus the most urgent, irreversible and destructive event; it is clearly “Code Red” urgent.

Figure 2. Nine planetary boundaries that are already exceeded by “Biodiversity loss” and by “Nitrogen cycle”; modified from Rockström et al. 2009; Nature 461: 472–475.

All three major environmental issues (Fig. 2) as well as most of Wilson’s threats may yet be resolved by the simple expedient of natural ORGANIC FARMING or the modern, post-industrial, application of what is increasingly called AGROECOLOGY. This single solution will help fix species biodiversity loss and, coincidentally, resolve most other lesser, interlinked issues. My view is even more simple, just aiming to “Save the Worm” is the most expeditious way to achieve the same goal. The foundational reasoning to support this claim is that organic agriculture preserves topsoil and the best way to do this is to encourage earthworms. As Lady Eve Balfour stated in her Introduction to Dr Tomas J. Barrett’s (1947) book “Harnessing the Earthworm”: “When the question is asked, ‘Can I build top-soil?’ the answer is ‘Yes’, and when the first question is followed by a second question, ‘How?’ the answer is ‘Feed

earthworms’”. She also posits that a properly managed task-force of earthworms can restore as much as an inch (2.5 cm) of nutrient rich topsoil in as little as 5 years.

My other contribution to the triage debate is to dispute the hugely overfunded distractions of Marine Science and Astronomical research. If our house is on fire – we need to fix this problem first; it simply makes no sense to save just the goldfish bowl nor to aimlessly stargaze. Don’t worry about the oceans or the stars that will still be there tomorrow (maybe even a few more of them), rather realize that daily we are sacrificing our precious topsoil upon which all human civilization (including livelihoods of all marine biologists and astronomers) relies. Let’s hope that funding agency assessors soon find a rationale to apply their own version of triage when determining most urgent priorities that need not, as the expression goes, “cost the Earth”.

Despite massive propaganda hype, the argument for marine influence flounders on environmental grounds and is easy to dismiss. The UN’s FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) data shows just 0.03% of human food comes from the oceans and aquaculture combined; in fact, seafood’s contribution is paltry. It is literally about the same as the global supply of poultry that Wikipedia gives as 148 Gt per year compared to “World fisheries production” of just 142 Gt per year. (Please check these basic data for yourself for confirmation).

So 99.7% food plus all our fibers and building materials come from Soil and, regardless of whether you are a beer, whisky, wine or sake drinker, you will realize that all grapes and grain are also soil-based and without which we have no celebrations for marine nor astronomical indulgences. Neither is the Ocean particularly biodiverse – a 10 year, $1 billion “Census of Marine Life” (http://www.coml.org/) came up with an abysmal 250,000 species of animals, plants and microbes which, since described species now total over 2 million, represents just about 12%. Thus the remaining biodiversity (>88%) is terrestrial and it is the land that faces the largest actual threats. Marine species drift around with the currents and nobody knows for sure how many risk local extinction, but undoubtedly it is the soil species that require the most urgent attention. Surely common sense dictates that risks to the waterways and seas (such as chemical or nutrient pollution) come from terrestrial issue due mainly to soil mismanagement. Fresh water quality depends entirely upon filtering through soil channels constructed by earthworms. Assessing river purity is like taking blood samples to test health – whatever the result, treatment is required for the body’s tissue fabric which on this

planet is the living mantle of soil and its subterranean inhabitants not the water medium.

Also questionable is whether oceans truly make up 70% of the Earth’s surface. Unlike the ocean, the Earth’s surface is not flat; rather obviously it is hilly, thus the topographical terrain exposed to sunlight is at least doubled, and at smaller scale intervals (of say height of earthworm castings mounds of 10 cm3) probably doubled again, to give at least 50 : 50 surface ratio of soil : sea. And whilst the sea-floor is exquisitely mapped, extensive enquiries by this author has surprisingly failed to yet extricate such basic information on global land topological surface area AMSL (above mean sea level) from the NASA-USGS Landsat program in operation since 1972. This despite deserted deep undersea topography being irrelevant to photosynthesis and thus to any meaningful ecological argument. Moreover, the often quoted fact about global oxygen recycling that every second breath is supplied by the ocean’s phytoplankton (~135 Gt O2 per yr) also implies that every first breath is produced by land plants (~165 Gt O2 per yr) yet again proving that we should care for soil just as much, if not more so, than we do for the sea.

Nevertheless, our precious and vital soil biodiversity is particularly poorly known: not one dedicated SOIL ECOLOGY INSTITUTE exists anywhere on Earth compared to myriad MARINE or ASTRONOMICAL INSTITUTES. Nor are there any peak bodies promoting interest such as the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in USA, Australian CSIRO’s Oceans & Atmosphere flagship, Japan’s Atmosphere & Ocean Research Institute (AORI) or New Zealand’s NIWA - National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, all who seem to advocate everything but soil.

This is especially perplexing since much of the world’s topsoil is critically degraded. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that half of the topsoil on the planet has been lost in the last 150 years and some observers estimate that only another 50-60 harvests are possible under the current farming regimes. What agricultural research is conducted mainly supports these failing intensive agrichemical or industrial agriculture models.

IFOAM President Andre Leu (quoted from Lappé, 2014) points out that “Fifty-two billion dollars is spent annually on agriculture research worldwide, but less than 0.4 percent [i.e., ca. $200 million] is spent on organic farming systems”. An OECD report (https://www.rt.com/usa/199480-space-budget-nasa-report/) estimates the annual space

research budget of the US and China is nearly the same amount at ca. US$51 billion; and just one of the many marine institutes, JAMSTEC in Yokohama, receives about twice as much as global organic research at ca. $400 million. Such disparity partly explains why such basic information on the capabilities and properties of organic soils are still relatively obscure and unappreciated, hence this review. What is indisputable is that from the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic 10,000 years ago up to the last 50-60 years farming was mostly natural or traditional without the adverse health effects associated with synthetic chemicals, hence we survived thus far mainly due to Nature’s organic resources. Fig 3 show these resources face severe constraints in most areas, the most extreme being desertification, itself often exacerbated by human activities.

Figure 3. Climate and soil/terrain constraints from Fischer et al. (2008: fig. 4), corresponding to global triage (with grey areas lost to desertification or permafrost).

What soil ecology research there is as currently practiced usually concerns microbes or ineffectual invertebrates, such as springtail collembola or mites, or the relatively slight losses to natural capital from a few ‘pest’ species. However, neither the immobile microbes nor tiny mites move soil. They are dependent on transforming organisms best represented by field earthworms that form extensive networks of burrows throughout the soil matrix acting as super-highways and avenues for passage of air, water, plant roots and all other soil organisms and, at the same time, raising primary productivity (compare Fig. 4). Given the importance of earthworms, I am also totally baffled as to

why there is not one full-time earthworm taxonomic specialist remaining at any institution anywhere in the world compared, for example, to the legion of marine worm specialists who seem to somehow justify their grant applications. Somewhere along the line priorities have been seriously skewed with an obvious need for a ‘sea change’ to ground us in the proper direction – study of the vital soil fabric beneath our feet.

Figure 4. Left-hand side control – no worms; right-hand side – four worms added.

Graphically demonstrated in Fig. 4 are the kind of effects earthworms freely and naturally provide on soil structure, drainage and plant growth (in just two weeks) – if such growth responses were achieved by synthetic chemicals or mechanical devices rather than by a mere earthworm this too would likely merit the Nobel Prize!

Some pessimists extend the debate ridiculously to say that since chemists and physicists have destroyed this planet irretrievably we must now go colonize Mars. Good luck with that. It would make more sense to try to recolonize the deserts, which, incidentally, is entirely possibly through application of Permaculture principals as capably demonstrated in Jordan by Geoff Lawton’s “Greening the Desert” project that also uses earthworms most effectively (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Lawton).

Meanwhile grounding ourselves back to solid reality and regarding the immediate carbon sequestration problem, the soil sink (2,300 Gt) is a much greater global preserve than both oceans (1,000 Gt) and vegetation such as forests or mangroves (550 Gt) combined. This summary based ironically on data from NASA/NOAA (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Global carbon cycle from NASA (2011 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/).

From Fig. 5 we may note that excessive claims and huge funding for marine research are misplaced since ocean carbon exchanges (90 Gt) are substantially less important than annual terrestrial soil exchanges (120 Gt) as are manageable fluxes (shown in red).

Regarding carbon, and rather obviously despite many pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering delusions, the only practical and proven way to remove excess of 800 Gt atmospheric carbon is conversion of CO2 via plant photosynthesis. From the data in Fig. 5 it is patently clear that of the 123 Gt of atmospheric carbon taken up by plants each year, half (60 Gt) is recycled through respiration and the other half (60 Gt) is microbially respired after processing by earthworms when they consume leaf-litter to build topsoil humus. We may also calculate that an average carbon atom currently recycles through the intestines of earthworms, and is potentially buried at depth in the soil for longer periods, at intervals of about a dozen years (800 Gt / 60Gt yr-1 = 13.3 yr).

Soil organic matter (SOM = humus) contains substantial natural nitrogen in the root zone relating to soil organic carbon (SOC) by conversion formula SOM = 1.72 x SOC. Thus, from Fig. 5, we may estimate global SOM as 1.72 x 2,300 = 3,956 Gt. (Note 1 Gt = 1 x 109 tonnes = 1 km3 water). This then would be the approximate amount of topsoil humus remaining (~4,000 Gt) which is around the same mass as the total annual human appropriation of freshwater (~4,430 km3 according to www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater_supply/freshwater.html). From these data it may easily be argued that topsoil is a more valuable renewable resource even than water which is replenished annually by rainfall. Furthermore, worm-worked soils absorb much greater moisture, increasing water storage capacity by as much as 90%. What oceans actually store is erosion run-off of the land’s precious carbon and nitrogen-rich topsoil due to poor management of soil biota.

Ecological problems interlink and are wholly biological thus only natural remedies are appropriate. As with climate change that mechanical geo-engineering will fail to fix, should earthworms be lost then there is no technical alternative able to drill innumerable small drainage channels to depth (ca. 400–500 m of galleries per m2 in grasslands), to thoroughly mix subsoils with surface litter, nor to operate mini piston pumps continuously circulating air and water throughout the soil profile. These services are freely provided by the underappreciated and overlooked earthworms, that are also the basis of most food-webs, not just for the early bird and as bait for fishes but also the ultimate detritivore recycling all decaying matter, including all of our ancestors. Surely earthworms are the most versatile and important amongst all organisms and entirely worthy of contemplative study. As Rachel Carson said “..probably none is more important than the earthworm”.

Figure 6. Charles Darwin considering the worm from satiric Punch magazine in 1881.

Charles Darwin, the evolutionary biologist and ecological naturalist, also my fellow Shropshire countryman (we both grew up appreciating Nature of rural Grinshill village), realized the earthworm’s contributions to beneficial soil processes and thus to civilization. In 1881, Darwin (who spent 40 years of his professional life considering the humble earthworm) published his “Worms and Vegetable Mould” book in which he conservatively estimated about 17-40 t ha-1 yr-1 of earthworm casts. If average wormcast SOM is ca. 12% then x 0.58 carbon conversion factor = 1.2-2.8 t ha-1 yr-1 C that for 3.6 Gha pastures globally would be ≈10 Gt C yr-1 or ca. 100 Gt yr-1 every 10 yrs for organically converted grasslands. It seems the great scientist had already unintentionally provided us with a simple solution to unanticipated CO2 carbon sequestration, food security and unforeseen excesses of fossil fuels, biocides and the Haber-Bosch synthetic fertilizer problems too.

My own studies (Blakemore 2000, 2015 and currently unpublished data) have found proliferations or rather the preservation of +57-122% earthworm abundance and greater species diversity under organic versus adjacent conventional fields co-relating to beneficial soil characteristics and to enhanced crop yields of +12-80% in each of winter wheat (at the pioneering Haughley organic farm in UK established by Lady Eve Balfour in 1930’s, see Fig. 7), tropical paddy rice and broadacre sugarcane (in Philippine Ils.). Total extra carbon equivalents sequestered (53.1 Gt CO2e) under the three crops if all land given over to them were fully converted organic on a global scale, equals ca. 7.3 ppm atmospheric C reduction.

Figure 7. Haughley 1981 worm survey: highest in old pasture and organic arable (O),

lowest in agrichemical arable (M=mixed; S=stockless) from Blakemore (2000).

Moreover, when all organic ‘wastes’ are entirely recycled then environmental pollution and contamination are removed as downstream externalities. Other social, economic and ecological impacts are lower rural unemployment (thus reducing urbanization rates) with no harm to farmworkers and their families nor to consumers and the environment from poisonous biocides. Runoff pollutants and eutrophication of waterways are reduced in coastal areas that are considered important in places like Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and dive sites in the Philippines. My surveys (Blakemore 1994) of the agrichemical canefields in Queensland (Qld) found few if any worms, confirmed in a story told me by veteran local grower Frank Tarditi of flocks of ibis he saw as a child foraging behind the plow that no longer bother searching the sterile soil for locally extinct earthworms – ‘Silent Spring’ indeed. These soils and worms are poisoned by persistent biocides and volatile nitrogen fertilizers directly linked to coral reef decline and indirectly contributing to global warming: It takes ten units of fossil fuel to produce synthetic nitrogen for just one unit of food energy. My Filipino studies indicated that broadacre organic sugarcane has more beneficial soil criteria with an abundance of endemic earthworms plus higher yields. Ironically, huge funds to conserve Qld’s GBR see it as only as an ocean problem and are blind to such a simple land-based solution.

The humble earthworm may thus be viewed as the most vital monitor and mediator of healthy soil processes (and of all food-webs) with the challenge now to scientifically reconfirm these higher organic yields, greater soil carbon storage capacities and earthworm abundances on a broader scale and in greater depth in different regions.

As with Rachel Carson’s 1963 book “Silent Spring” that helped to highlight poisoning of the Planet and initiate environmental movements, we need now to unite to redress the extinction issue and carbon challenge. Geothermal energy (also overlooked because it is underground) can help reduce carbon emissions, but for remediation it is timely to reconsider organic farming and topsoil conservation to avoid, with my apologies to Rachel Carson, a “Slimeless Spring” due to the demise of earthworms. People feel helpless when confronted with massive global issues, yet the solution to species loss, climate change and food safety is quite simple and entirely achievable: We must require our basic staples – rice, maize and wheat – are produced chemical-free and organically. We should recycle all our organic ‘wastes’ through composting earthworms too to produce the best natural vermicompost fertilizers. Problem solved; now let’s have a

well deserved (cool and organic) beer and then get onto other, less crucial, matters.

ReferencesBalfour, E.B. (1959). Introduction to "Harnessing the Earthworm" by Dr. Thomas J.

Barrett, Humphries, 1947; Wedgewood Press, Boston, 1959; Bookworm Publishing Co. (http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/oliver/balfour_intro.html).

Blakemore, R.J. (1994). Earthworms of south-east Queensland and their agronomic potential in brigalow soils. PhD. Thesis, University of Queensland. Pp 605. (http://www.annelida.net/earthworm/PhD%20Thesis/PhDThesis.DOC).

Blakemore, R.J. (2000). Ecology of earthworms under the 'Haughley experiment' of organic and conventional management regimes. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 18: 141—159. DOI: 10.1080/01448765.2000.9754876. (Available online: www.annelida.net/earthworm/Haughley/Haughley.doc).

Blakemore, R.J. (Submitted 2015). Veni, Vidi, Vermi – the rôle of the humble earthworm in global climate change. Organic Farming Journal.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin. http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Silent_Spring-Rachel_Carson-1962.pdf.

Darwin, C.R. 1881. The formation of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits. John Murray, London. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_VegetableMouldandWorms.html).

Fischer, G., Shah, M. vanVelthuizen, H.T., Nachtergaele, F. (2008). Agro-ecological Zones Assessments. In: Land use, Land cover and Soil Sciences, Vol. III. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy. (http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c19/E1-05-03-02.pdf).

Lappé, A. (2014). 5 Questions for an International Organics Expert: IFOAM’s Andre Leu. Online article by Anna Lappé at Civil Eats (http://civileats.com/2014/11/13/5-questions-for-an-international-organics-expert-ifoams-andre-leu/#sthash.ui76b7O2.dpuf).

McKie, R. (2013). From fertiliser to Zyklon B: 100 years of the scientific discovery that brought life and death. The Observer (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/03/fritz-haber-fertiliser-ammonia-centenary).

Rockström J., Steffen W., Noone K., Persson Å., Chapin III F.S., Lambin E.F., Lenton

T.M., Scheffer M., Folke C., Schellnhuber H.J., Nykvist B., de Wit C.A., Hughes T., van der Leeuw S., Rodhe H., Sörlin S., Snyder P.K., Costanza R., Svedin U., Falkenmark M., Karlberg L., Corell R.W., Fabry V.J., Hansen J., Walker B., Liverman D., Richardson K., Crutzen P. & Foley J.A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461: 472–475. (http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Rockstrom_Nature_Boundaries.pdf).

UN’s FAO (Food & Agriculture Organization) website on Soil Biodiversity, Soil Conservation & Agriculture: www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-biodiversity/soil-conservation-and-agriculture/en/.