own existence and that of every other animal of the land. Without soil, land plants as we know
them could not grow, and without plants no animals could survive.
Yet if our agriculture-based life depends on the soil, it is equally true that soil depends on life,
its very origins and the maintenance of its true nature being intimately related to living plants
and animals. For soil is in part a creation of life, born of a marvelous interaction of life and
nonlife long eons ago. The parent materials were gathered together as volcanoes poured them
out in fiery streams, as waters running over the bare rocks of the continents wore away even
the hardest granite, and as the chisels of frost and ice split and shattered the rocks. Then living
things began to work their creative magic and little by little these inert materials became soil.
Lichens, the rocks’ first covering, aided the process of disintegration by their acid secretions and
made a lodging place for other life. Mosses took hold in the little pockets of simple soil—soil
formed by crumbling bits of lichen, by the husks of minute insect life, by the debris of a fauna
beginning its emergence from the sea.
Life not only formed the soil, but other living things of incredible abundance and diversity now
exist within it; if this were not so the soil would be a dead and sterile thing. By their presence
and by their activities the myriad organisms of the soil make it capable of supporting the earth’s
green mantle. The soil exists in a state of constant change, taking part in cycles that have no
beginning and no end. New materials are constantly being contributed as rocks disintegrate, as
organic matter decays, and as nitrogen and other gases are brought down in rain from the
skies. At the same time other materials are being taken away, borrowed for temporary use by
living creatures. Subtle and vastly important chemical changes are constantly in progress,
converting elements derived from air and water into forms suitable for use by plants. In all
these changes living organisms are active agents.
There are few studies more fascinating, and at the same time more neglected, than those of
the teeming populations that exist in the dark realms of the soil. We know too little of the
threads that bind the soil organisms to each other and to their world, and to the world above.
Perhaps the most essential organisms in the soil are the smallest—the invisible hosts of
bacteria and of threadlike fungi. Statistics of their abundance take us at once into astronomical
figures. A teaspoonful of topsoil may contain billions of bacteria. In spite of their minute size,
the total weight of this host of bacteria in the top foot of a single acre of fertile soil may be as
much as a thousand pounds. Ray fungi, growing in long threadlike filaments, are somewhat less
numerous than the bacteria, yet because they are larger their total weight in a given amount of
soil may be about the same. With small green cells called algae, these make up the microscopic
plant life of the soil. Bacteria, fungi, and algae are the principal agents of decay, reducing plant
and animal residues to their component minerals. The vast cyclic movements of chemical
elements such as carbon and nitrogen through soil and air and living tissue could not proceed
without these microplants. Without the nitrogen-fixing bacteria, for example, plants would
starve for want of nitrogen, though surrounded by a sea of nitrogen-containing air. Other
organisms form carbon dioxide, which, as carbonic acid, aids in dissolving rock. Still other soil
microbes perform various oxidations and reductions by which minerals such as iron,
manganese, and sulfur are transformed and made available to plants.
Also present in prodigious numbers are microscopic mites and primitive wingless insects called
springtails. Despite their small size they play an important part in breaking down the residues of
plants, aiding in the slow conversion of the litter of the forest floor to soil. The specialization of
some of these minute creatures for their task is almost incredible. Several species of mites, for
example, can begin life only within the fallen needles of a spruce tree. Sheltered here, they
digest out the inner tissues of the needle. When the mites have completed their development
only the outer layer of cells remains. The truly staggering task of dealing with the tremendous
amount of plant material in the annual leaf fall belongs to some of the small insects of the soil
and the forest floor. They macerate and digest the leaves, and aid in mixing the decomposed
matter with the surface soil.
Besides all this horde of minute but ceaselessly toiling creatures there are of course many
larger forms, for soil life runs the gamut from bacteria to mammals. Some are permanent
residents of the dark subsurface layers; some hibernate or spend definite parts of their life
cycles in underground chambers; some freely come and go between their burrows and the
upper world. In general the effect of all this habitation of the soil is to aerate it and improve
both its drainage and the penetration of water throughout the layers of plant growth.
Of all the larger inhabitants of the soil, probably none is more important than the earthworm.
Over three quarters of a century ago, Charles Darwin published a book titled The Formation of
Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, with Observations on Their Habits. In it he gave
the world its first understanding of the fundamental role of earthworms as geologic agents for
the transport of soil—a picture of surface rocks being gradually covered by fine soil brought up
from below by the worms, in annual amounts running to many tons to the acre in most
favorable areas. At the same time, quantities of organic matter contained in leaves and grass
(as much as 20 pounds to the square yard in six months) are drawn down into the burrows and
incorporated in soil. Darwin’s calculations showed that the toil of earthworms might add a layer
of soil an inch to an inch and a half thick in a ten-year period. And this is by no means all they
do: their burrows aerate the soil, keep it well drained, and aid the penetration of plant roots.
The presence of earthworms increases the nitrifying powers of the soil bacteria and decreases
putrefaction of the soil. Organic matter is broken down as it passes through the digestive tracts
of the worms and the soil is enriched by their excretory products. This soil community, then,
consists of a web of interwoven lives, each in some way related to the others—the living
creatures depending on the soil, but the soil in turn a vital element of the earth only so long as
this community within it flourishes.
The problem that concerns us here is one that has received little consideration: What happens
to these incredibly numerous and vitally necessary inhabitants of the soil when poisonous
chemicals are carried down into their world, either introduced directly as soil ‘sterilants’ or
borne on the rain that has picked up a lethal contamination as it filters through the leaf canopy
of forest and orchard and cropland? Is it reasonable to suppose that we can apply a broad-
spectrum insecticide to kill the burrowing larval stages of a crop-destroying insect, for example,
without also killing the ‘good’ insects whose function may be the essential one of breaking
down organic matter? Or can we use a nonspecific fungicide without also killing the fungi that
inhabit the roots of many trees in a beneficial association that aids the tree in extracting
nutrients from the soil?
The plain truth is that this critically important subject of the ecology of the soil has been largely
neglected even by scientists and almost completely ignored by control men. Chemical control
of insects seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the soil could and would sustain
any amount of insult via the introduction of poisons without striking back. The very nature of
the world of the soil has been largely ignored. From the few studies that have been made, a
picture of the impact of pesticides on the soil is slowly emerging. It is not surprising that the
studies are not always in agreement, for soil types vary so enormously that what causes
damage in one may be innocuous in another. Light sandy soils suffer far more heavily than
humus types. Combinations of chemicals seem to do more harm than separate applications.
Despite the varying results, enough solid evidence of harm is accumulating to cause
apprehension on the part of many scientists. Under some conditions, the chemical conversions
and transformations that lie at the very heart of the living world are affected. Nitrification,
which makes atmospheric nitrogen available to plants, is an example. The herbicide 2,4-D
causes a temporary interruption of nitrification. In recent experiments in Florida, lindane,
heptachlor, and BHC (benzene hexachloride) reduced nitrification after only two weeks in soil;
BHC and DDT had significantly detrimental effects a year after treatment. In other experiments
BHC, aldrin, lindane, heptachlor, and DDD all prevented nitrogen-fixing bacteria from forming
the necessary root nodules on leguminous plants. A curious but beneficial relation between
fungi and the roots of higher plants is seriously disrupted. Sometimes the problem is one of
upsetting that delicate balance of populations by which nature accomplishes far-reaching aims.
Explosive increases in some kinds of soil organisms have occurred when others have been
reduced by insecticides, disturbing the relation of predator to prey. Such changes could easily
alter the metabolic activity of the soil and affect its productivity. They could also mean that
potentially harmful organisms, formerly held in check, could escape from their natural controls
and rise to pest status.
One of the most important things to remember about insecticides in soil is their long
persistence, measured not in months but in years. Aldrin has been recovered after four years,
both as traces and more abundantly as converted to dieldrin. Enough toxaphene remains in
sandy soil ten years after its application to kill termites. Benzene hexachloride persists at least
eleven years; heptachlor or a more toxic derived chemical, at least nine. Chlordane has been
recovered twelve years after its application, in the amount of 15 per cent of the original
quantity.
Seemingly moderate applications of insecticides over a period of years may build up fantastic
quantities in soil. Since the chlorinated hydrocarbons are persistent and long-lasting, each
application is merely added to the quantity remaining from the previous one. The old legend
that ‘a pound of DDT to the acre is harmless’ means nothing if spraying is repeated. Potato soils
have been found to contain up to 15 pounds of DDT per acre, corn soils up to 19. A cranberry
bog under study contained 34.5 pounds to the acre. Soils from apple orchards seem to reach
the peak of contamination, with DDT accumulating at a rate that almost keeps pace with its
rate of annual application. Even in a single season, with orchards sprayed four or more times,
DDT residues may build up to peaks of 30 to 50 pounds. With repeated spraying over the years
the range between trees is from 26 to 60 pounds to the acre; under trees, up to 113 pounds.
Arsenic provides a classic case of the virtually permanent poisoning of the soil. Although arsenic
as a spray on growing tobacco has been largely replaced by the synthetic organic insecticides
since the mid-40s, the arsenic content of cigarettes made from American-grown tobacco
increased more than 300 per cent between the years 1932 and 1952. Later studies have
revealed increases of as much as 600 per cent. Dr. Henry S. Satterlee, an authority on arsenic
toxicology, says that although organic insecticides have been largely substituted for arsenic, the
tobacco plants continue to pick up the old poison, for the soils of tobacco plantations are now
thoroughly impregnated with residues of a heavy and relatively insoluble poison, arsenate of
lead. This will continue to release arsenic in soluble form. The soil of a large proportion of the
land planted to tobacco has been subjected to ‘cumulative and well-nigh permanent poisoning’,
according to Dr. Satterlee. Tobacco grown in the eastern Mediterranean countries where
arsenical insecticides are not used has shown no such increase in arsenic content.
We are therefore confronted with a second problem. We must not only be concerned with
what is happening to the soil; we must wonder to what extent insecticides are absorbed from
contaminated soils and introduced into plant tissues. Much depends on the type of soil, the
crop, and the nature and concentration of the insecticide. Soil high in organic matter releases
smaller quantities of poisons than others. Carrots absorb more insecticide than any other crop
studied; if the chemical used happens to be lindane, carrots actually accumulate higher
concentrations than are present in the soil. In the future it may become necessary to analyze
soils for insecticides before planting certain food crops. Otherwise even unsprayed crops may
take up enough insecticide merely from the soil to render them unfit for market. This very sort
of contamination has created endless problems for at least one leading manufacturer of baby
foods who has been unwilling to buy any fruits or vegetables on which toxic insecticides have
been used. The chemical that caused him the most trouble was benzene hexachloride (BHC),
which is taken up by the roots and tubers of plants, advertising its presence by a musty taste
and odor. Sweet potatoes grown on California fields where BHC had been used two years
earlier contained residues and had to be rejected. In one year, in which the firm had contracted
in South Carolina for its total requirements of sweet potatoes, so large a proportion of the
acreage was found to be contaminated that the company was forced to buy in the open market
at a considerable financial loss. Over the years a variety of fruits and vegetables, grown in
various states, have had to be rejected. The most stubborn problems were concerned with
peanuts. In the southern states peanuts are usually grown in rotation with cotton, on which
BHC is extensively used. Peanuts grown later in this soil pick up considerable amounts of the
insecticide. Actually, only a trace is enough to incorporate the telltale musty odor and taste.
The chemical penetrates the nuts and cannot be removed. Processing, far from removing the
mustiness, sometimes accentuates it. The only course open to a manufacturer determined to
exclude BHC residues is to reject all produce treated with the chemical or grown on soils
contaminated with it. Sometimes the menace is to the crop itself—a menace that remains as
long as the insecticide contamination is in the soil. Some insecticides affect sensitive plants such
as beans, wheat, barley, or rye, retarding root development or depressing growth of seedlings.
The experience of the hop growers in Washington and Idaho is an example. During the spring of
1955 many of these growers undertook a large-scale program to control the strawberry root
weevil, whose larvae had become abundant on the roots of the hops. On the advice of
agricultural experts and insecticide manufacturers, they chose heptachlor as the control agent.
Within a year after the heptachlor was applied, the vines in the treated yards were wilting and
dying. In the untreated fields there was no trouble; the damage stopped at the border between
treated and untreated fields. The hills were replanted at great expense, but in another year the
new roots, too, were found to be dead. Four years later the soil still contained heptachlor, and
scientists were unable to predict how long it would remain poisonous, or to recommend any
procedure for correcting the condition. The federal Department of Agriculture, which as late as
March 1959 found itself in the anomalous position of declaring heptachlor to be acceptable for
use on hops in the form of a soil treatment, belatedly withdrew its registration for such use.
Meanwhile, the hop growers sought what redress they could in the courts.
As applications of pesticides continue and the virtually indestructible residues continue to build
up in the soil, it is almost certain that we are heading for trouble. This was the consensus of a
group of specialists who met at Syracuse University in 1960 to discuss the ecology of the soil.
These men summed up the hazards of using ‘such potent and little understood tools’ as
chemicals and radiation: ‘A few false moves on the part of man may result in destruction of soil
productivity and the arthropods may well take over.’
No comments:
Post a Comment