SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY​


SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

IMPROVING BIODIVERSITY: MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN A SMALL-SCALE MARKET GARDEN,
MULLUMBIMBY, NSW, AUSTRALIA

ERIN MARSH

This report has been prepared by an undergraduate student and may not have been corrected
according to the comments of University staff. The report should be cited in the following
format:

Marsh, E. (2018). Improving biodiversity: Macroinvertebrate community response to sustainable 

agricultural land use in a small-scale market garden, Mullumbimby, NSW. Unpublished Third 
Year Undergraduate Report. School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross 
University, Lismore.​
  
 2018

IMPROVING BIODIVERSITY:
MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO
PERMACULTURE LAND USE IN A SMALL-SCALE MARKET
GARDEN, MULLUMBIMBY, NSW, AUSTRALIA

Prepared by Erin Marsh

Integrated Project prepared as partial fulfilment​


of the requirements of the Bachelor of Environmental Science

 Southern Cross University

2018

I, Erin Marsh, consent to this report being made available for photocopying and loan, provided
that my work is fully acknowledged and that the granting of such a licence in no way inhibits me
from exercising any of my exclusive rights under the ​Copyright Act 1968​. I understand this
licence is granted in the interests of education and research and that no royalties are payable.

Erin Marsh

February 26, 2018

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Joel Orchard and the team at Future Feeders in Mullumbimby for their
interest in getting a student involved with researching their work in improving agricultural
sustainability in the Northern Rivers Region. Recognition is also due to Maxine Dawes for her
assistance during the laboratory components of this study.

I would especially like to thank Dr. Jonathan Parkyn from Southern Cross University, Lismore
for enthusiastically assisting me with each aspect of this research project, and for offering
invaluable advice throughout the duration of the project.
 Abstract

Conventional agricultural practices can cause negative environmental outcomes and

adversely impact upon soil macroinvertebrate biodiversity. Soil macroinvertebrates
play an important role in the ecological functioning and agricultural productivity at a
site through nutrient cycling and improving soil structure and condition. Sustainable
agricultural management practices are therefore required to maximise
macroinvertebrate biodiversity and consequently improve agricultural productivity and
sustainability. This study compared the macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness,
abundance and diversity across three sites, two that were used for pasture and grazing
and one market garden that utilizes sustainable management strategies including crop
integration excluding chemical inputs and fertilisers. A total of 111 macroinvertebrate
specimens were sampled and identified. It was found that the sustainable managed
market garden had the highest taxonomic diversity (12 families) and had a
significantly higher abundance of earthworms (F=8.155, d.f.=14, p=0.006). High
earthworm abundance correlates with high soil organic matter and play an important
role in improving soil structure and facilitating nutrient cycling. The market garden
also had the highest Shannon’s diversity index (1.688) when compared to the recently
grazed (1.04) and bailage (0.8125) sites. The most abundant macroinvertebrate family
at both pasture sites was potworm, which is more tolerant of adverse soil conditions
than earthworms. Recommendations for improving the sustainability and biodiversity
of the pasture sites include reestablishing native vegetation and improving the soil
condition to allow the reestablishment of a variety of soil macroinvertebrates.
Observations were made about the need for further soil research and environmental
and biodiversity protection through prioritising policy and legislation that supports
sustainable agriculture.
Key words
Abundance, agriculture, biodiversity, diversity, taxonomic richness, macroinvertebrate,
sustainable.

Table of contents
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
Key words 5
1. Introduction 6
1.1​ S​ oil macroinvertebrates 6
1.2 Sustainable agriculture 6
1.3​ ​Maintaining biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems 7
1.4​ ​Definition of problem 7
1.5​ ​Aim and objectives 8
2. Literature Review 8
2.1 Sustainable agriculture 8
2.2 Factors that impact on macroinvertebrate communities 9
2.2.1 Changes in vegetation and land cover 9
2.2.2 Agricultural land use and pasture 10
2.2.3 Soil conditions 11
2.3 Methodology study 11
3. Methods 12
3.1 Site selection 12
 3.2 Macroinvertebrate sampling 15
3.3 Macroinvertebrate identification 15
3.4 Statistical analysis 15
4. Results 16
5. Discussion 19
5.1 Comparing potworm and earthworm abundance 19
5.2 Impact of pasture land use on macroinvertebrate biodiversity 20
5.3 Benefits of implementing sustainable agricultural management practices 20
5.4 Limitations of the study 21
5.5 Recommendations 21
6. Conclusion 22
7. References 22
8. Appendix 24
Appendix A: Images of macroinvertebrate specimens 24

1. Introduction

1.1 Soil macroinvertebrates

The macroinvertebrates within the soil are extremely diverse, complex and consist of millions of
species (Gohlami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017). In Australia, macroinvertebrate
biodiversity is much greater than plant biodiversity with over 300,000 species compared to
20,000 species (Paoletiti, Thomson & Hoffmann, 2007). As such, soil macroinvertebrates are of
major importance for soil health and for the functioning of natural and cultivated ecosystems
(Wu, Zhang & Wang, 2015). They have the effect of fragmenting organic matter through the
consumption of litter and debris, facilitating nutrient cycling down the soil profile and
influencing soil structure, thus, contributing to the improvement of soil health and plant
productivity (Coulis & Joly, 2017; Gholami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017).
Macroinvertebrates also offer an important food source for predator species which further
increases biodiversity within the ecosystem (Coulis & Joly, 2017).

1.2 Sustainable agriculture

The demand for high yielding agricultural practices in order to feed an increasing population has
resulted in the degradation of natural environments through the overexploitation of natural
resources, and through the addition of chemical fertilisers and pesticides (Yadav, 2013). In
particular, direct exposure to herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilisers can affect
macroinvertebrate communities by changing species composition and affecting population sizes
(Dalzochio, Baldin, Stenert & Maltchik, 2016). Furthermore, changes in land use and the plant
community associated with deforestation to create agricultural land and ongoing agricultural
activities also affect soil macroinvertebrate populations by altering soil nutrients and structure
and vegetation cover (Wu, Zhang & Wang, 2015).

One of the main aims of sustainable agriculture is to ensure practices favor both food production
and biodiversity conservation. The most important component in implementing sustainable
agricultural practices is to prioritise limiting environmental impacts associated with conventional
agriculture (Papadopoulos et al., 2015). Indeed, by supporting ecosystem services the
environmental impact of agriculture can be minimised whilst maximising food production and
biodiversity conservation (Huerta & van der Wal, 2012; Dalzochio et al., 2016). This can be
achieved through implementing sustainable and environmentally conscious management
practices, reduction of chemical inputs and improving soil condition to preserve
macroinvertebrate communities (Papadopoulos, Karelakis, Zafeiriou & Koutroumanidis, 2015;
Meng, Qiau, Wu, Smith & Scott, 2017). This may include the adoption of alternative agricultural
practices and cropping regimes in order to achieve more sustainable environmental outcomes
(Pelosi & Romboke, 2016). Furthermore, organic agriculture has also been proposed as a means
of reducing agricultural pressures on biodiversity (Dalzochio et al., 2016).

1.3 Maintaining biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems

Intensive agricultural land use alters the natural landscape and results in the establishment of
agroecosystems that function differently from regular ecosystems due to intensive land use
(Paoletiti, Thomson & Hoffmann, 2007). Agrobiodiversity includes all biological components
within an agroecosystem that contribute to productivity through their particular ecological
functions including soil aeration, decomposition of organic matter and nutrient cycling (Huerta
& van der Wal, 2012). For instance, increased biodiversity of soil macroinvertebrates has been
shown to help reduce the instance of pests and disease in agricultural landscapes, which in turn
benefits agricultural production (Paoletiti, Thomson & Hoffmann, 2007).

Cattle grazing in particular can impact upon soil macroinvertebrates through causing soil
compaction which decreases soil porosity that macroinvertebrates require to function (Schon et
al., 2010). Agricultural land use can further harm soil macroinvertebrate populations through
changing the soil condition as a result of intensive land use activities (Pelosi & Romboke, 2016).
Consequently, the soil macroinvertebrate community can be used as a bio indicator of ecosystem
health and can infer the impact that stressors and disturbances such as agricultural land use may
have on a particular ecosystem (Habashi & Waez-Mousavi, 2017). For instance, the abundance,
diversity and richness of soil macroinvertebrate populations can provide an indication of soil
health and the ecosystem functions operating at a site (Wu, Zhang & Wang, 2015; Coulis & Joly,
2017; Gholami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017).

1.4 Definition of problem

Mullumbimby Community Garden is a not for profit community based project in northern New
South Wales. Since 2014, Future Feeders have transformed an acre of neglected pasture into a
successful market garden by utilising the principles of permaculture to grow produce using
sustainable methods for profitable market sale. Permaculture is a form of sustainable organic
agriculture that offers a practical means of conserving natural resources and increasing
biodiversity through integrating activities with the surrounding environment and natural
processes (Akhtar, Lodhi, Khan & Sarwar, 2016). By incorporating a variety of plant species
with a range of purposes into the landscape, Future Feeders have been able to limit pests and
diseases without the use of chemicals, create a habitat for native wildlife and pollinators, and
improve the soil condition.

In contrast, land adjacent to the Mullumbimby Community Garden is underutilised pasture and
consists of introduced grasses and weeds, whereas the permaculture activities have created
diverse habitats that increase local biodiversity. Future Feeders will collaborate with Southern
Cross University to assess the influence of small-scale permaculture based food production on
the community composition and taxonomic richness of soil macroinvertebrates to compare the
soil biodiversity between permaculture and adjacent land uses. Future Feeders intend to approach
the adjoining landholder regarding expanding their permaculture project and would like to
provide a quantitative measure of biodiversity through their activities.

1.5 Aim and objectives

The focus of this study is to demonstrate how the activities of Future Feeders at Mullumbimby
Community Garden could increase local biodiversity in order to encourage Byron Shire Council
to repurpose underutilised agricultural land for small-scale, sustainable agriculture and food
production.

The objectives of this study are to:

● Conduct a literature review of the correlations between land use, soil health and
macroinvertebrate diversity
● Collect, identify, classify and compare macroinvertebrates present in samples taken from
Future Feeders market garden and the adjacent pasture
● Compare the soil macroinvertebrate diversity between conventional pasture and cattle
grazing land use and small-scale sustainable crop production land use

The aim of this study is to quantitatively determine the macroinvertebrate species richness,
abundance and diversity response to Future Feeders sustainable crop production land use. It is
hypothesised that areas undergoing sustainably managed agricultural activities would be
occupied by macroinvertebrate community with higher species richness, abundance and diversity
than underutilised council pasture land.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Comparing conventional and sustainable agriculture

Globally, agriculture is a principle cause of land degradation and declining biodiversity

(Magnabua, Townsend, Blackwell, Phillips & Matthaei, 2010). Traditional agricultural practices
that utilise chemically intensive substances negatively impact on the environment and local
biodiversity resulting in the need to utilise sustainable agricultural practices that focus on
improving environmental outcomes (Papadopoulos, Karelakis, Zafeiriou & Koutroumanidis,
2015; Dalzochio et al., 2016). Organic agriculture removes the use of fertilisers, pesticides and
other chemicals and is one method of sustainable agriculture that has been suggested as a viable
option in reducing the environmental and biodiversity related impacts associated with traditional
agriculture (Papadopoulos et al., 2015). Yadav et al. (2013) conducted a review of the efficiency
and sustainability of alternative farming practices in India, where large populations and high
food demand have resulted in environmental degradation and negative impacts on biodiversity.
The study found that organic agriculture provided a means of ensuring food and economic
security with long term sustainability in mind when compared to conventional agricultural
practices that provided a short term monetary gain coupled with negative environmental and
biodiversity impacts. Further studies (Giovannucci, 2005; Papadopoulos et al., 2015; Meng et al.,
2017) identified that sustainable agriculture eliminates the use of synthetic fertilisers and
pesticides and relies on an understanding of the local environment and ecosystems in order to
increase farming productivity whilst maintaining profitable agricultural practices.

It is important to ensure that agricultural practices are sustainable for both the environment and
economical beneficial for the farmer as a business. This has been assessed by Meng et al., (2017)
who compared the monetary value of traditional farming inputs (fertilisers, pesticides etc.) and
compared the associated increases in yield and productivity to the resulting environmental
impacts. Although organic crop yields were found to be around 10-15% lower than crops grown
using fertilisers and pesticides, the environmental benefits of organic agriculture included
improved soil conditions, increased soil biodiversity and decreased greenhouse gas emissions.
The study concluded that the environmental benefits, costs saved from not purchasing and
applying chemicals and the prospect of long term sustainability of organic agriculture
compensated for the short term decrease in yield (Meng et al., 2017). Furthermore, Magnabua et
al. (2010) compared the macroinvertebrate community response in areas used for conventional,
organic and integrated agriculture and found the strongest adverse effects on macroinvertebrate
abundance and diversity was seen in soils used for conventional agriculture whilst organic and
integrated agriculture were both identified as sustainable.

Furthermore, alternative methods of improving the sustainability of agriculture have also been
provided. Paoletiti, Thomson & Hoffmann (2007) suggested ecological engineering that
incorporates management of tillage, rotation, intercropping, crop resistance and utilising margin
vegetation to reduce weed invasion as a suitable method of sustainable pest and pathogen
management that improves the soil condition and favours macroinvertebrate biodiversity.
Similarly, Huerta & van der Wal (2012) found that small-scale gardens that integrate a variety of
multipurpose trees and crops are among the most biodiverse agroecosystems on earth. This type
of agriculture was shown to be sufficient in providing food and resources for rural and poorer
communities globally whilst ensuring environmental sustainability (Huerta & van der Wal,
2012).

2.2 Factors that impact on macroinvertebrate communities

2.2.1 Changes in vegetation and land cover

Changes in the plant community affect soil macroinvertebrate populations through creating
variations in soil nutrients and structure (Wu, Zhang & Wang, 2015). This is evident in Franco,
Cherubin, Cerri & Guimaraes (2017) who found that sugar cane cropping land use impacted the
abundance of groups within macroinvertebrate communities when compared to pasture land use.
The most notable impact of changing land use was seen in termite populations that comprised
58% of total macroinvertebrates sampled from pasture sites compared to only 1% of the
macroinvertebrate population in sugarcane fields suggesting that pasture type land use is more
sustainable than conventional monoculture cropping (Franco et al., 2017).

Furthermore, Fierro et al. (2017) studied macroinvertebrate assemblages across a variety of land
uses in Chile and found that macroinvertebrate diversity was lowest in exotic forest plantations
and agricultural land and highest in native forests. Similarly, Benito, Brossard, Pasini, Guimaraes
& Bobillier (2004) compared the soil macroinvertebrate biodiversity from different regions
including native forest, land previously used for pasture and land currently used for grazing. It
was found that biodiversity was highest in the native uncleared forest and lowest in the region
current being used for pasture, and that the land that had previously been used for pasture
supported a comparatively large amount of macroinvertebrate biomass compared to land
currently being used for pasture. Mackay, Schon & Minor (2011) found that unfertilized,
ungrazed pasture land had a distinctively different macroinvertebrate biodiversity consisting of
more endemic species when compared to conventional pasture land in New Zealand.

Soil macroinvertebrates play an important role in ecosystems by increasing the rate of plant
material and leaf litter decomposition and nutrient cycling down the soil profile (Habashi &
Waez-Mousavi, 2017). Consequently, Hunter, Adl, Pringle & Coleman (2002) determined that
the chemistry of leaf litter (concentrations of lignin, tannin, cellulose, hemicellulose, nitrogen,
and carbon) changes based on the dominant plant species present at a site and these changes
attract different types of macroinvertebrate decomposers, and encourage decomposition at
varying rates. Furthermore, Gohlami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad (2017) suggested that tree
density and diversity influence soil macroinvertebrate diversity within an area by providing
microhabitats and favorable conditions including light, moisture, soil structure and litter quality.
Conversely, Huerta & van der Wal (2012) found weak indicators of correlations between
macroinvertebrate and tree species diversity except for coastal regions, which showed a strong
correlation between the abundance of palm trees (​Coco nucifera​), arachnida and isopteran
morphospecies.

In home gardens, Huerta & van der Wal (2012) studied the relationship between the composition
of soil macroinvertebrates communities and vegetation type and found that macroinvertebrate
species abundance was heavily influenced by regional topography. Whereas, in forest Marichal
et al. (2014) tested the hypothesis that soil macroinvertebrate community abundance and
diversity is expected to decrease with landscape degradation.It was found that density and
diversity of soil macroinvertebrates decreased as the percentage of deforestation in a particular
area increased. Macroinvertebrate density and diversity was also found to be higher in deforested
areas used for crop production when compared to pasture and grazing (Mariachal et al, 2014).

2.2.2 Agricultural land use and pasture

Agricultural land use affects soil macroinvertebrate biodiversity by changing soil conditions and
vegetation cover, and through the application of chemicals and intensive land use activities.
Yadav et al. (2013) identified that agricultural land use impacts upon soil biophysiochemical
properties, and that organically farmed land has conditions more suited to soil macroinvertebrate
communities. Similary, Barros, Pashanasi, Constantino & Lavelle (2001) conducted studies
comparing the macroinvertebrate communities across a variety of agricultural and natural land
uses and found that macroinvertebrate biodiversity is optimal when systems have a structure and
product similar to the natural ecosystems in the region. Conversely, Dalzochio et al. (2016),
compared macroinvertebrates from organic and conventional managed rice fields and found
similar taxonomic richness and abundance of both communities. However, organic management
of rice fields was ultimately recommended as it facilitated the establishment of predatory
macroinvertebrate populations which play a beneficial role in pest and disease control
(Dalzochio et al., 2016).

Pasture land use has been found to cause an increase in earthworm abundance, but reduce the
overall diversity of macroinvertebrate species present in the soil (Barros, Pashanasi, Constantino
& Lavelle, 2001; Schon et al. 2010). Schon et al. (2010) studied the impact that pasture land use
has on soil macroinvertebrate diversity and determined that pasture land use causes a decrease in
abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates except for earthworm species that are not affected
by compaction of soils associated with grazing. Similarly, Peloti & Romboke (2016) reviewed
literature surrounding Lumbriciidae (earthworm) species and found that their community
abundance and diversity is sensitive to changes in soil conditions caused by agricultural land use.
This studied concluded that due to this, earthworm species can perform as bioindicators of
ecologically threatening processes that may occur due to agriculture.

2.2.3 Soil conditions

Soil structure and composition impacts on abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrate
communities within the soil. Huerta & van der Wal (2012) found that soil conditions also
influenced macroinvertebrate communities, organic matter in particular was associated with
earthworm abundance, whereas hymenoptera abundance was associated with silt content.
Similarly, Franco et al. (2017) found that macroinvertebrate abundance, in particular termite and
coleopteran abundance was positively correlated with well-structured soils. Likewise, Renaud et
al. (2017) found that the addition of organic matter into the soil caused an increase in the
biomass of earthworm species and determined that organic matter in the soil correlates with
earthworm abundance.

2.3 Methodology study

The methodology for this study was derived by assessing a variety of journal articles that
focused their research on soil macroinvertebrates including site selection, sampling methods, the
specimen identification process and statistical analysis. Site selection was influenced by
Magnabua et al. (2010) who suggested that when conducting macroinvertebrate sampling to
compare the impact of land use that sample sites should be located relatively near to eliminate
the any influence of climate, soil type and weather on the samples. Therefore, all sample sites in
this report were selected for their close proximity to restrict the analysis to land use on soil
macroinvertebrate biodiversity.

The sampling and macroinvertebrate method was influenced by a variety of macroinvertebrate

studies (Barros et al., 2001; Huerta & van der Wal, 2012; Mehring et al., 2016; Gohlami,
Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017). Habashi & Waez-Mousavi (2017) observed that the
maximum amount of macroinvertebrate diversity was found in the first 0-10cm of a soil profile
due to better soil structure, aeration and food availability. Therefore, soil samples in this report
were taken from the upper 0-10cm of the soil profile.

For the taxa identification process, varying evidence was found comparing time efficiency versus
achieving conclusive results in order to compare soil macroinvertebrate biodiversity across
differing land uses. Soil macroinvertebrate studies tended to identify individuals to the class
(Habashi & Waez-Mousavi, 2017; Gohlami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017) or order (Barros
et al., 2001; Huerta & van der Wal, 2012) level rather than family level. This may have been
more time efficient when sorting through larger sample sizes. Similarly, Paoletiti, Thomson &
Hoffmann (2007) suggested through their studies that sorting and identifying to order level is
more time efficient, however, it was found to be insufficient when comparing macroinvertebrate
biodiversity in grazed and non-grazed dry eucalypt forests. However, the same samples showed
statistically different results in macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity when specimens were
identified to the family level or lower. It is appropriate for this study to identify
macroinvertebrates to family level to assist in identifying the biodiversity impacts associated
with grazed pasture land compared to sustainable agricultural land use. In addition to statistical
analysis, the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index is recommended for comparing the diversity of
soil macroinvertebrates between sites undergoing differing land use (Schon, Mackay, Yeates &
Minor, 2010; Huerta & van der Wal, 2012).

3. Methods

3.1 Site selection

Sampling took place on 17​th​ of December 2017 and 6​th​ February 2018 at 156 Stuart Street,
Mullumbimby in the subtropical climate of northern New South Wales (28​o​33’38’’S,
153​o​29’58’’E) (Figure 1). The mean monthly rainfall for Mullumbimby is 147.9mm and in the 6
months prior to sampling received 624.1 mm of rain (Bureau of Meteorology, 2018). The mean
temperature for December 2017 in Mullumbimby was 23.9​o​c​.​ A soil profile report taken from
nearby the site classified the area as having Vertisol soils according to the Australian Soil
Classification (NSW Soil and Land Information System, 1999).

Three sites were chosen that represented a variety of land use types and management practices
from which to sample soil macroinvertebrates. The Future Feeders market garden at site C is 1
hectare located within the 5 hectare Mullumbimby Community Garden and is undergoing
sustainable agricultural land use for small-scale market crop production (Mullum S.E.E.D Inc.,
n.d.) (Figure 2). Pasture land sample sites A (Figure 3) and B (Figure 4) are located on the
adjacent council land that is largely covered with grassy weeds and is intermittently leased to
farmers for cattle grazing. Cattle had been excluded from Site A for some time and grass was
being grown for bailage. Site B had very recently been grazed.

.
Figure 1 Location of Future Feeders and council land sites where macroinvertebrate and
soil samples were taken, Mullumbimby, NSW.
Figure 2 Future Feeders market garden site C undergoing sustainable agricultural land use,
Mullumbimby, NSW.

Figure 3 Pasture site A where cattle have been excluded for some time and vegetation is
being grown for bailage.
Figure 4 Pasture site B recently grazed by cattle, Mullumbimby, NSW.

3.2 Macroinvertebrate sampling

Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted on December 17​th​ 2017 and the 6​th​ of February 2018
during summer. On each sample occasion, 5 samples were taken from each of the 3 sample sites
for a total of 30 soil samples. Each quasi-random sampling location within the market garden
was chosen due to their likelihood of having high macroinvertebrate activity e.g. within worked
plant beds or nearby the integrated compost to demonstrate changes in macroinvertebrate
biodiversity as a direct result of permaculture activities. Sample locations within both pasture
sites A and B were also selected to incorporate variety into the samples and included different
topography, substrate and vegetation that was evident across the site. For pasture sites A and B,
no sample was taken within 10 metres of another sample location to try and diversify results and
accurately represent macroinvertebrate biodiversity across the landscape. The capacity of the
hand-auger (708cm​3​) was determined prior to sampling and all soil samples were taken with the
same volume. Surface vegetation and debris was removed from each sample location and a core
sample of the soil with a 10cm depth was taken using the hand-auger. Each sample was placed in
a separate resealable zip-lock bag and labelled with the site and sample replicate number. Each
zip lock bag was filled with 150mL of methylated spirits diluted with distilled water to a 70%
concentration to preserve the macroinvertebrates, and transported to the laboratory at Southern
Cross University, Lismore.

3.3 Macroinvertebrate identification

In the laboratory, one sample bag at a time was emptied into 500µm mesh sifting tray with a
large plastic tray underneath to capture water and methylated spirits. Any plant material or debris
was first removed with forceps. The soil was observed through a magnification lamp, ensuring to
break up any soil clumps whilst not damaging macroinvertebrate specimens. Macroinvertebrates
were removed from the soil sample and stored in a small plastic container labelled with the
respective sample site. After all soil samples had been sorted, the specimens from each sample
were examined under a OlympusSZ40 stereomicroscope and identified to the family level or as
close as possible using a variety of taxonomic keys. The abundance and diversity of
macroinvertebrates from each sample site was recorded for statistical analysis. One specimen
from each family group within the samples were placed under a SZ-CTV Olympus
stereomicroscope with a OLYMPUS SC50 5mp camera attached and their image was captured
using Olympus CellSens V1.18 software.

3.4 Statistical analysis

All results were quantitatively tallied and organised by family level (excluding gastropoda) and
the site they were sampled from. Their total count was tallied and their relative abundance at the
sample site was determined. Statistical analysis was performed on the macroinvertebrate data
using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The species richness and abundance was compared
between the 3 sample sites.

4. Results
A total of 111 macroinvertebrate specimens were sampled and identified from 13 taxonomic
families and one taxonomic order (gastropoda), of which 13 specimens were photographed (see
Appendix). The most abundant macroinvertebrates across all sites were from the oligochaete
(worms) class. The most abundant macroinvertebrates from pasture sites A and B were
potworms, whereas earthworms where sampled in greater numbers from the market garden site C
(Table 1). The highest relative abundance was seen at Site A where potworms were the dominant
species (80%). Site B also had a high relative abundance of potworms 61.1%. Site C had a more
even relative abundance of earthworms (36.5%) and potworms (32.4%). Formicidae was notably
more abundant at Site C (11) when compared to Sites A (1) and B (0).

Site C had the highest diversity as evident through exhibiting the highest variety of
macroinvertebrate families (12) and having the highest Shannon’s diversity index (1.688). Site B
samples identified the lowest number of macroinvertebrate families (4), although had a higher
Shannon’s diversity index (1.04) than Site A (0.8125) due to the abundance of
macroinvertebrates from different taxa being more even (Table 2).

There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.175) between the average number of
potworms identified in each sample across the three sample sites (Figure 5). However, there was
a statistically significant difference in Earthworm abundance between sites (F=8.155 , d.f.=14,
p=0.006) (Figure 6).

Taxonomic group Site A Site B Site C

(grown for bailage) (recently grazed) (market garden)

Count Relative Count Relative Count Relative

abundance abundance abundance
(%) (%) (%)

Enchytraeidae (potworm) 24 80% 11 61.1 24 32.4

Lumbricidae (earthworm) 2 6.7 4 22.2 27 36.5

Tenebrionidae (beetle) 1 3.3 0 0 2 2.7

Ceinidae (crustacean) 1 3.3 0 0 2 2.7

Ecnomidae (caddisfly) 0 0 2 11.1 1 1.4

Blattidae (cockroach) 0 0 0 0 1 1.4

Gastropoda (slug)* 0 0 0 0 1 1.4

Halcyonidae (snail) 0 0 0 0 1 1.4

Isotomidae (springtail) 1 3.3 0 0 0 0

Formicidae (ants) 1 3.3 0 0 11 14.9

Archipsocidae 0 0 1 5.6 0 0

Lithobiidae 0 0 0 0 2 2.7

Campodeidae 0 0 0 0 2 2.7

Chilopoda 0 0 0 0 1 1.4

Total 30 18 74

Table 1 Total macroinvertebrate specimen sorted into taxonomic families and their
relative abundance at all sites after two rounds of sampling (*denotes specimen
identified to order level).
Site Family richness Total number of Shannon’s
macroinvertebrates diversity index

A 6 30 0.8125

B 4 18 1.04

C 12 74 1.688

Table 2 Family richness and measurement of Shannon’s Index for taxa diversity across all
sample sites using combined data from both rounds of sampling (A= grown for
bailage, B= recently grazed, C= market garden).
Figure 5 Mean number of potworms (±SD) per sample including standard deviation across
sample sites in Mullumbimby, NSW (A= grown for bailage, B= recently grazed,
C= market garden).

Figure 6 Mean number of earthworms (±SD) across sample sites in Mullumbimby, NSW
(A= grown for bailage, B= recently grazed, C= market garden).

5. Discussion

5.1 Impact of pasture land use on macroinvertebrate biodiversity

The intent of this study was to determine if changes in land use activity that included pasture
land and sustainably managed agriculture sites in Mullumbimby, NSW would impact on soil
macroinvertebrate biodiversity. It was determined that less macroinvertebrate biodiversity was
evident at the sites where land use was predominately pasture and grazing when compared to the
market garden that is undergoing sustainable agricultural management. It has been found that
higher instances of land degradation due to agricultural and pasture land use are correlated with
lower abundance and diversity of soil macroinvertebrates (Franco et al., 2017). The lack of
predatory species at the pasture sites is indicative of lower soil macroinvertebrate diversity and
may have been caused by reduced soil porosity and lack of physical niches including substantial
litter. Lack of predatory species may have important implications for soil functioning (Schon et
al., 2010).

In this study, macroinvertebrates at the bailage site where cattle had been excluded for some time
was more diverse than at the recently grazed site. This can be accounted for due to the changes in
soil structure and greater vegetation cover (Mackay, Schon & Minor, 2011). Although some
pasture land may have higher nutrient availability due to the application of fertilisers, any short
term benefits to soil macroinvertebrates are quickly negated by the impact of stock compaction
on soil porosity (Schon et al., 2010). Differences in soil biodiversity can therefore be found on
pastures where stock have been excluded when compared to sites where stock are currently
grazing.

5.2 Comparing potworm and earthworm abundance

Enchytraeids (potworms) and Lumbricidae​ (​earthworms) were the most abundant

macroinvertebrates sampled across all sites, potworms being highest at the grazing sites and
Earthworms being highest in the market garden. Potworms and earthworms have similar
ecological functions in assisting in decomposition of organic matter and the cycling of nutrients
(Polosi & Romboke, 2017). Their distribution depends on soil moisture, organic matter content
and soil pH (Mehring et al., 2016). Potworms are smaller in size than earthworms but often have
a larger biomass in the soil and can tolerant a variety of soil conditions including low pH that
earthworms cannot tolerate (Polosi & Romboke, 2017). Potworms were identified as important
in conventional cropping systems as they are less susceptible to pressure caused by chemical
additions and soil disturbances than earthworms (Polosi & Romboke, 2017). Potworm species
are consequently more abundant under agricultural land use as was evident in this study
(Mehring et al., 2016).

The grazing sites had a lower species diversity and Shannon’s diversity index than the market
sustainably managed market garden. Pasture land use can have a range of impacts on soil health,
including reduced porosity which in turn negatively impacts the growth rate of pasture
vegetation and increased compaction as a consequence of stock treading (Pelosi & Romboke,
2016). These factors typically negatively impact on the biodiversity of soil macroinvertebrates in
pasture environments that rely on soil structural integrity to create habitable conditions.
Potworms however are less impacted by compaction and tend to increase in abundance on
intensively grazed land (Schon et al., 2010). Furthermore, the continued burrowing of
earthworms and potworms can have the effect of repairing damage to soils caused by cattle
compaction (Schon et al., 2010).

Earthworm abundance in this study was highest in the sustainably managed market garden.
Higher earthworm abundance is indicative of the site possessing characteristics that are favorable
to earthworms including high organic matter content and soil water when compared to both
pasture sites which had lower earthworm abundance indicates more degraded soils (Pelosi &
Romboke, 2016). Furthermore, increased earthworm abundance is seen to increase the ecosystem
services functioning at a site due to increased soil structure and nutrient cycling associated with
earthworm activities (Marichal et al., 2014). The higher earthworm abundance at the market
garden is therefore indicative of an ecosystem with greater soil health and ecological functioning
when compared to the pasture sites that had lower earthworm counts.

5.3 Benefits of implementing sustainable agricultural management practices

The higher abundance, richness and diversity of macroinvertebrates present in the market garden
is indicative of the ecologically sustainable agriculture management practices taking place at that
site when compared to the pasture sites. The diverse vegetation community integrated into the
market garden landscape is advantageous to macroinvertebrate communities and positively
impacts on ecosystem health. Sustainable agriculture practices utilised in the market garden
include excluding the addition of chemicals, fertilisers and pesticides and solely relying on
organic inputs such as an integrated compost heap to improve soil condition and the integration
of a variety of plant species and crop rotation. These practices allow for improved
macroinvertebrate biodiversity on the site (Huerta & van der Wal, 2012).

Furthermore, the land cover at the market garden includes a variety of integrated plant species,
which has been shown to improve soil macroinvertebrate diversity within an area by providing
microhabitats and favorable conditions including light, moisture, soil structure and litter quality
(Gohlami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017). This type of crop production encourages a wider
variety of ecosystem functions to act at the site including increased biodiversity resulting in
increased predatory species presence on site. This in turn limits the negative impacts of pest
species on crops and in turn negates the need for chemical pesticides (Paoletiti, Thomson,
Hoffmann, 2007). Similarly, Magnabua et al. (2010) highlighted that organically managed sites
and sites with high plant species integration had higher soil macroinvertebrate biodiversity that
sites with conventional grazing land use. It can be deduced that sustainable agricultural
management at the market garden is key to ensuring that soil conditions are optimal for
improved macroinvertebrate biodiversity.

5.4 Study limitations

In this study, samples were collected at the beginning of summer, however, it was suggested by
Gohlami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad (2017) that soil macroinvertebrate sampling should take
place during spring when moisture levels and temperature are suitable and most
macroinvertebrate species are active. Similarly, Hunter et al. (2002) conducted sampling every
three months for a period of twelve months to account for seasonal variations in
macroinvertebrate activity. Within the scope of this study, it was not practical to conduct
sampling during spring nor was it practical to sample over the course a calendar year to account
for seasonal variation in species, which may have impacted upon the biodiversity of
macroinvertebrates present within samples.

The sample sizes in this study consisted of a total of 30 samples being collected across 3 sample
sites over 2 separate sampling days using a 9.5cm x 10cm cylindrical hand auger. Soil samples
taken from other studies (Barros et al., 2001; Huerta & van der Wal, 2012; Mehring et al., 2016;
Gohlami, Sheikhmohamadi & Sayad, 2017) were much larger (from 25x25x30cm and up to
50x50x10cm monoliths). Similarly, the amount of sample locations and sample replicates were
much higher than what was achievable within the permitted timeframe of this study (Barros et
al., 2001; Huerta & van der Wal, 2012; Mehring et al., 2016). Soil profiles taken by Barros et al.
(2001) and Habashi & Waez-Mousavi (2017) also included a variety of depths (litter layer,
shallow 0-10cm and deep 10-20cm). The higher sample pool size and varied sampling methods
of other similar studies may have allowed for a more representative determination of the impacts
of differing land use on macroinvertebrate biodiversity.

5.5 Recommendations

It is recommended that increased pastoral management is required in order to increase

biodiversity at the pasture sites. This includes focusing on improving soil condition and
increasing habitable soil pore space to benefit soil macroinvertebrate communities. This will in
turn increase macroinvertebrate biodiversity and improve ecosystem services at the site including
increased predatory species to lessen the impact of soil pests and reduce the need for pesticides
(Schon et al., 2010). Furthermore, Barros et al., 2001 recommended that reintroducing native
species to a site that has been cleared to make way for pasture is an effective means of beginning
to remediate the site, improve soil health and re-establish macroinvertebrate biodiversity. The
exclusion of cattle was also seen as means of improving soil biodiversity as site A that had had
cattle excluded for some time and consequently had higher vegetation cover also had higher
macroinvertebrate richness and abundance than site B that had been recently grazed (Mackay,
Schon & Minor, 2011).

At a broader scale, it is favourable that the environmental impacts associated with agricultural
production are fully assessed to ensure the food needs of local communities are met while
ensuring to prioritise the maintenance of biodiversity (Powlson, 2011). Further soil and
agriculture research is required in order to ensure adequate food and resource production whilst
prioritising environmental protection and biodiversity through policy and legislation that
supports sustainable agriculture (Powlson, 2011). This will help in encouraging farmers to
implement more sustainable agricultural practices resulting greater soil macroinvertebrate
biodiversity, improved soil condition and positive environmental outcomes whilst maintaining
production and economic benefit (Meng et al., 2017).

6. Conclusion
Macroinvertebrate biodiversity was seen to be influenced by land use in this study. Land used for
conventional pasture and grazing at Sites A and B was seen to have lower macroinvertebrate
abundance, diversity and richness when compared to soil samples taken from the market garden
at Site C which was utilising sustainable agricultural management practices. The market garden
also exhibited the highest Shannon’s Diversity index which represented a further indicating of
the superior ecosystem health at this site. Furthermore, the market garden also had the highest
abundance of earthworm species while the grazing sites had higher abundance of potworm. This
acted as a further indicator of superior soil quality within the sustainably managed market garden
as earthworm abundance corresponds with soil organic matter and potworms are more likely to
inhabit areas where conditions are not tolerable for earthworms. Reasons for grazing sites having
less soils biodiversity include compaction and reduced porosity associated with cattle and
grazing land use and less diverse vegetation due to clearing and grazing.

Recommendations for increased agricultural sustainability include improving soil quality and
limiting cattle activity at sites A and B in order to improve soil conditions and result in greater
soil biodiversity. The introduction of more sustainable management practices into sites being
used for conventional agriculture including limiting chemical inputs and reintroducing a variety
of native plant species is also recommended as a means of increasing macroinvertebrate diversity
in areas where the soil condition has become degraded. Further soil research and improved
policy and legislation is required into the future to improve agricultural sustainability and soil
biodiversity.
7. References
Akhtar, F., Lodhi, S. A., Khan, S. S., Sarwar, F. (2016). Incorporating permaculture and strategic
management for sustainable ecological resource management. ​Journal of Environmental
Management, 179, ​31-37. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.051

Barros, E., Pashanasi, B., Constantino, R., Lavelle, P. (2001). Effects of land-use system on soil
macrofauna in western Brazilian Amazonia. ​Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35​(5), 338-347.
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-002-0479-z

Benito, N., Brossard, M., Pasini, A., Guimaraes, F., Bobillier, B. (2004). Transformations of soil
macroinvertebrate populations after native vegetation conversion to pasture cultivation
(Brazilian Cerrado). ​European Journal of Soil Biology,40​(3-4), 147-154. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2005.02.002

Bureau of Meteorology. (2018). ​Daily Rainfall: Mullumbimby (Fairview Farm).​ Accessed on

12/02/2018 from
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type
=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=058040

Coulis, M., Jolly. F. (2017). Allometric equations for estimating fresh biomass of five soil
macroinvertebrates species from neotropical agroecosystems. ​European Journal of Soil
Biology, 83,​ 18-26. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.09.006

Dalzochio, M. S., Baldin, R., Stenert, C., Maltchik, L. (2016). Can organic and conventional
agricultural systems affect wetland macroinvertebrate taxa in rice fields? ​Elsevier, 17​(3),
220-229. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.10.009

Fierro, P., Bertan, C., Tapia, J., Hauenstein, E., Pena-Cortes, F., Vergara, C., Cerna, C.,
Vargas-Chacoff, L. (2017). Effects of local land-use on riparian vegetation, water quality,
and the functional organization of macroinvertebrate assemblages. ​Science of the Total
Environment, 609​, 724-734. DOI:
https://doi-org.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.197

Franco, A., Cherubin, M., Cerri, C., Guimaraes, R. (2017). Relating the visual soil structure
status and the abundance of soil engineering invertebrates across land use change. ​Soil and
 Tillage Research, 173​, 49-52. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.08.016

Gholami, S., Sheikhmohamadi, B., Sayad, E. (2017). Spatial relationship between soil
macrofauna biodiversity and trees in Zagros forests, Iran. ​CATENA, 159​, 1-8. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.07.021

Giovannucci, D. (2005). ​Organic Agriculture and Poverty Reduction in Asia: China and India
Focus.​ IFAD Office of Evaluation: Rome.

Habashi, H., Waez-Mousavi, S. (2017). Single-tree selection system effects forest soil
macrofauna biodiversity in mixed oriental beech stands. ​Applied Soil Ecology. ​DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.09.023

Harvey, M., Yen, A. (1990). ​Worms to wasps: An illustrated guide to Australia’s terrestrial
invertebrates​. Oxford University Press.

Huerta, E., van der Wal, H. (2012). Soil macroinvertebrates’ abundance and diversity in home
gardens in Tabasco, Mexico, vary with soil texture, organic matter and vegetation cover.
European Journal of Soil Biology, 50​, 68-75. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.12.007

Hunter, M., Adl, S., Pringle, C., Coleman, D. (2003). Relative effects of macroinvertebrates and
habitat on the chemistry of litter during decomposition. ​Pedobiologia, 47​(2), 101-115. DOI:
https://doi-org.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/10.1078/0031-4056-00174

Renaud, M., Chelinho, S., Alvarenga, P., Mourinha, C., Palma, P., Sousa, J., Natal-da-Luz, T.
(2017). Organic wastes as soil amendments – Effects assessment towards soil invertebrates.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 330, ​149-156. DOI:
https://doi-org.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.01.052

Mackay, A., Schon, N., Minor, M. (2011). Soil fauna in sheep-grazed hill pastures under organic
and conventional livestock management and in an adjacent ungrazed pasture. ​Pedobiologia,
54​(3), 161-168. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2011.01.001

Marichal, R., Grimaldi, M., Feijoo, A., Oszwald, J., Praxedes, C., Cobo, D., Hurtado, M.
Desjardins, T., Junior, M., Costa, L. Miranda, I., Oliveira, M., Brown, G., Tselouiko, S.,
Martins, M., Decaens, T., Velasquez, E., Lavelle, P. (2014). Soil macroinvertebrate
communities and ecosystem services in deforested landscapes of Amazonia. ​Applied Soil
Ecology, 83, ​177-185. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.05.006

Magnabua, F., Townsend, C., Blackwell, G., Phillips, N., Matthaei, C. (2010). Response of
stream macroinvertebrates and ecosystem function to conventional, integrated and organic
farming. ​Journal of Applied Ecology, 47​(5), 1014-1025. DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01859.x
Mehring, A., Hatt, B., Kraikittikun, D., Orelo, B., Rippy, M., Grant, S., Gonzalel, J., Jiang, S.,
Ambrose, R., Levin, L. (2016). Soil invertebrates in Australian rain gardens and their
potential roles in storage and processing of nitrogen. ​Ecological Engineering, 97, ​138-143.
DOI:​ ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.05.014

Meng, F., Qiau, Y., Wu, W., Smith, P., Scott, S. (2017). Environmental impacts and production
performances of organic agriculture in China: A momentary valuation​. Journal of
Environmental Management, 188, ​49-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.080

NSW Soil and Land Information System. (1999). ​Soil Profile Report​. Retrieved from
fromhttp://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/espade2webapp/report/profile/31319
Papadopoulos, S., Karelakis. C., Zafeiriou, E., Koutroumanidis, T. (2015). Going sustainable or
conventional? Evaluating the CAP’s impacts on the implementation of sustainable forms of
agriculture in Greece. ​Land Use Policy, 47, ​90-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.005

Paoletiti, M., Thomson, L., Hoffmann, A. (2007). Using invertebrate nioindicators to assess
agricultural sustainability in Australia: proposals and current practices. ​Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture, 47​, 379-383. DOI: ​10.1071/EA05288

Pelosi, C., Romboke, J. (2017). Enchutraeids as bioindicators of land use and management.
Applied Soil Ecology. ​DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.05.014

Pelosi, C., Remboke, J. (2016). Are Enchytraeidae (Oligochaeta, Annelida) good indicators of
agricultural management practices? ​Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 100, ​255-263. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.06.030

Powlson, D., Gregory, P., Whalley, W., Quniton, j., Hopkins, D., Whitmore, A., Hirsch, P.,
Goulding, K. (2011). Soil management in relationto sustainable agriculture and ecosystem
services. ​Food Policy, 36, ​72-87. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.025

Schon, N. Mackay, A., Yeates, G., Minor, M. (2010). Separating the effects of defoliation and
dairy cows treading pressure on the abundance and diversity of soil invertebrates in pastures.
Applied Soil Ecology, 46​(2), 209-221. DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.08.011
Wu, P., Zhang, H., Wang, Y. (2015). The response of soil macroinvertebrates to alpine meadow
degradation in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. ​Applied Soil Ecology, 90​, 60-67. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.02.006
Yadav, S., Babu, S., Yadav, M., Singh, K., Yadav, G., Pal, S. (2013). A review of organic
farming for sustainable agriculture in Northern India. ​International Journal of Agronomy.
DOI: ​http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/718145
8. Appendix

Appendix A: Images of macroinvertebrate specimens

Figure 7: Enchytraeidae Figure 8: Ecnomidae

Figure 9: Ceinidae
Figure 10: Blattidea
Figure 11: Gastropoda Figure 12: Halcyonidae

Figure 13: Lumbricidae Figure 14: Tenebrionidae

Figure 15: Archipsocidae Figure 16: Campodeidae

Figure 17: Lithobiidae Figure 18: Formicidae

Figure 19: Isotomidae