Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Earthworm research in Austria: current status, knowledge gaps and future directions Cover

Earthworm research in Austria: current status, knowledge gaps and future directions

Open Access
|Feb 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

(a) Proportion of different land uses in the 20 reviewed studies. (b) Distribution of studies over time based on publication year, with land uses also indicated by colour. Search conducted in September 2025.
Abbildung 1. (a) Anteile von verschiedenen Landnutzungstypen in den 20 behandelten Studien. (b) Zeitliche Verteilung der Studien basierend auf dem Jahr der Veröffentlichung, die Landnutzungstypen sind auch hier farblich ausgewiesen. Literatursuche im September 2025.
(a) Proportion of different land uses in the 20 reviewed studies. (b) Distribution of studies over time based on publication year, with land uses also indicated by colour. Search conducted in September 2025. Abbildung 1. (a) Anteile von verschiedenen Landnutzungstypen in den 20 behandelten Studien. (b) Zeitliche Verteilung der Studien basierend auf dem Jahr der Veröffentlichung, die Landnutzungstypen sind auch hier farblich ausgewiesen. Literatursuche im September 2025.

Overview of earthworm species found in all Austrian earthworm studies since 2000, listed per land use type_ Total number of studies including species-specific information = 13_ Outdated species nomenclature was updated whenever necessary according to Csuzdi (2012)_ Tabelle 1_ Übersicht über die Regenwurmarten, die in allen österreichischen Regenwurmstudien seit 2000 gefunden wurden, gelistet für den jeweiligen Landnutzungstyp_ Die Gesamtanzahl der Studien, die Informationen auf Artniveau enthalten = 13_ Veraltete Artnamen wurden anhand von Csuzdi (2012) aktualisiert_

Earthworm speciesArable land (n = 5)Grassland (n = 6)Vineyard (n = 1)Forest (n = 1)References
Allolobophora chlorotica (Savigny, 1826)311-Buchholz et al., 2017; Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Euteneuer et al., 2024; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Simon et al., 2025
Allolobophora georgii (Michaelsen, 1890)-1--Kerschbaumer et al., 2024
Aporrectodea caliginosa (Savigny, 1826)531-Buchholz et al., 2017; Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Euteneuer et al., 2020; Euteneuer et al., 2024; Geitner et al., 2014; Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001; Simon et al., 2025
Aporrectodea handlirschi (Rosa, 1897)-1--Geitner et al., 2014
Aporrectodea longa (Ude, 1885)11--Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024
Aporrectodea rosea (Savigny, 1826)5411Behringer et al., 2025; Buchholz et al., 2017; Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Euteneuer et al., 2020; Euteneuer et al., 2024; Geitner et al., 2014; Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001; Seeber et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2025
Aporrectodea smaragdina Rosa, 1892-1--Geitner et al., 2014
Bimastos rubidus (Savigny, 1826)-1-1Behringer et al., 2025; Geitner et al., 2014
Dendrobaena depressa (Rosa, 1893)11-1Behringer et al., 2025; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001
Dendrobaena octaedra (Savigny, 1826)-5--Geitner et al., 2014; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Seeber et al., 2005; Steinwandter et al., 2017; Steinwandter et al., 2018
Dendrobaena platyura (Fitzinger, 1883)1---Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001
Eiseniella tetraedra (Savigny, 1826)-1--Geitner et al., 2014
Lumbricus castaneus (Savigny, 1826)-3--Geitner et al., 2014; Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024
Lumbricus polyphemus Fitzinger, 183312--Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001
Lumbricus rubellus Hoffmeister, 1843261-Behringer et al., 2025; Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Geitner et al., 2014; Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001; Seeber et al., 2005; Steinwandter et al., 2017; Steinwandter et al., 2018
Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 175832-1Buchholz et al., 2017; Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Euteneuer et al., 2024; Geitner et al., 2014; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Simon et al., 2025
Octodrilus argoviensis (Bretscher, 1899)-1--Geitner et al., 2014
Octolasion cyaneum (Savigny, 1826)12--Euteneuer and Butt, 2025; Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024
Octolasion lacteum (Örley, 1881)1611Behringer et al., 2025; Buchholz et al., 2017; Geitner et al., 2014; Jernej et al., 2019; Kerschbaumer et al., 2024; Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001; Seeber et al., 2005; Steinwandter et al., 2017; Steinwandter et al., 2018
Proctodrilus antipai (Michaelsen, 1891)---1Buchholz et al., 2017
Proctodrilus tuberculatus (Černosvitov, 1935)1---Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001

Overview of studies investigating different environmental and management patterns in grasslands_ A = abundance, B = biomass, S = species richness, N/A = not available, n_ s_ = no significant differences reported, ↑ = positive effect/relationship, ↓ = negative effect/relationship_ Tabelle 3_ Übersicht über Studien zu verschiedenen Umwelt- und Managementeinflüssen im Grünland_ A = Abundanz, B = Biomasse, S = Artenzahl_ N/A = Information nicht vorhanden, n_ s_ = keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede berichtet, ↑ = positiver Effekt/Zusammenhang, ↓ = negativer Effekt/Zusammenhang_

StudyTypeComparisonResponseSignificanceEffect
Kerschbaumer et al., 2024Lowland grasslandMowing frequencyA, B, Sn. s.
Vegetation types (dry, fresh, moist)B, Sp < 0.05↓ Moist meadow

Jernej et al., 2019Montane grasslandMowing versus abandonmentAp < 0.1↓ Abandoned
Vegetation characteristicsAn. s.

Steinwandter et al., 2017Alpine grasslandMowing versus pasturingAp < 0.01↓ Pasture
Managing versus abandonmentAn. s.

Seeber et al., 2005Alpine grasslandMowing versus pasturing, managing versus abandonmentA,p < 0.01↑ Managed and abandoned meadows, abandoned pasture
Bn. s.↓ Managed pasture

Geitner et al., 2014Alpine grasslandMowing versus pasturingA,n. s.,
Bn. s.
Site characteristicsA (endogeic, epigeic, hemiedaphic groups)Several significant ones↑ Humus, pH, parent rock, altitude
↓ Thickness litter layer

Steinwandter et al., 2018Alpine grasslandGrazing intensity (sheep)AN/ATendency: highest A at medium grazing intensity, lowest A at high grazing intensity

Overview of studies investigating different environmental and management patterns in arable soils_ A = abundance, B = biomass, S = species richness, N/A = not available, n_ s_ = no significant differences reported_ Tabelle 2_ Übersicht über Studien zu verschiedenen Umwelt- und Managementeinflüssen in Ackerböden_ A = Abundanz, B = Biomasse, S = Artenzahl, N/A = Information nicht vorhanden, n_ s_ = keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede berichtet_

StudyComparisonResponseSignificanceEffect
Simon et al., 2025No-tillage cultivation, ploughA, B, Sp < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.045High tillage intensity decreases all tested earthworm parameters
Euteneuer and Butt, 2025Conservation, conventionalA, B, Sp < 0.05, p < 0.05, p < 0.05Conservational land use positively impacts earthworms in terms of all three tested parameters
Rampazzo and Mentler, 2001Undisturbed non-agricultural land, conventional tillageA, B, SN/A
Euteneuer et al., 2024Plough, cultivation, no-tillA, Bp = 0.006, p = 0.024No-till increases B and A
Jeanneret et al., 2021European study that includes Austria. Organic farming, conventional farmingSn. s.
Euteneuer et al., 2020Different cover crops, irrigation versus rainfed, different seasonsA, B, Sp < 0.01, n. s., n. s.Under rainfed conditions, higher earthworm A in bare fallow compared to black oat and Sudan grass Cover crops are supporting earthworm B in winter
Euteneuer et al., 2019Cover crops, sclerotia, different seasonsA, Bp = 0.007, n. s.Higher A under oil seed compared to bare fallow and oat. No effect of sclerotia
Spiegel et al., 2018Organic fertilisation, organic–mineral fertilisation, mineral fertilisation, controlA, Bn. s., n. s.
Schneider et al., 2014European study that includes Austria. Organic farming, conventional farmingA, Sn. s., n. s.

Overview of studies investigating environmental and management patterns in vineyards_ A = abundance, B = biomass, S = species richness, N/A = not available, n_ s_ = no significant differences reported, ↑ = positive effect/relationship, ↓ = negative effect/relationship_Tabelle 4_ Übersicht über Studien zu verschiedenen Umwelt- und Managementeinflüssen in Weingärten_ A = Abundanz, B = Biomasse, S = Artenzahl_ N/A = Information nicht vorhanden, n_ s_ = keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede gefunden, ↑ = positiver Effekt/Zusammenhang, ↓ = negativer Effekt/Zusammenhang_

StudyComparisonResponseSignificanceEffect
Zaller et al., 2018Within rows: herbicides versus mechanical weedingA, Bn. s., n. s.
Buchholz et al., 2017Inter-rows: permanent green cover versus tillageA, B, SN/ANone
Site characteristicsA, B, SN/A↑ Soil quality and plant biomass
Faber et al., 2017Inter-rows: different tillage methodsA, Bn. s.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/boku-2025-0008 | Journal eISSN: 2719-5430 | Journal ISSN: 0006-5471
Language: English
Page range: 110 - 120
Submitted on: Oct 16, 2025
|
Accepted on: Nov 20, 2025
|
Published on: Feb 16, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2026 Marion Mittmannsgruber, Dmytro Monoshyn, Edith Gruber, Elisabeth Wiedenegger, Rajasekaran Murugan, Johann G. Zaller, published by Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.