Skip to main content

This site is using cookies to collect anonymous visitor statistics and enhance the user experience. OK | Find out more

PEO header
Main content

News

Earthworms show evolution in action

28 June 2010, by Adele Walker

Earthworms are clever creatures. Any gardener will tell you they are vital for the health of our soils. But scientists can also tell you they have evolved to live with pollution levels that would give you or me a serious headache.

Lumbricus rubellus

Lumbricus rubellus.

Earthworm populations in polluted soils can tolerate 'phenomenally high internal body loads' of certain metal contaminants, like lead and zinc. In fact they thrive in levels of contamination that would eventually kill off earthworms that are used to clean soils.

What scientists didn't know for sure was whether the worms had actually evolved in response to this environmental stress, or whether they had learned to 'switch on' different genes that would help them to survive.

In a new study, published in Soil Biology and Biochemistry, researchers studied the worms' genes as well as their coping strategies.

They took samples of the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus from two disused lead and zinc-mine sites in Wales, together with samples of a 'control' population of worms from clean soil. The worms from the mine sites were kept in their own soils, and the control worms were exposed to the contaminated soils.

After 10 weeks the researchers used special chemical techniques to determine where the metals were occurring within the worms' cells.

'It's a great example of evolution in action.' Professor Mark Hodson, Reading University

They found distinct differences in the abilities of the two populations to deal with the contamination. Not only did the worms native to the mine sites accumulate more metal in their tissues, but they were able to convert a much higher proportion into an insoluble form which is no longer toxic.

They do this by combining the metals with phosphorus (and, for zinc, with sulphur as well) in special 'compartments' in their cells. This locks the metals into tiny pellets that come out in the worms' poo.

Next came the genetics. 'The romantic days of determining species from bristles and segments are long gone,' says Professor Mark Hodson of Reading University. 'These days it's all about numbers.' The analysis indeed revealed the worms came from two distinct genetic lineages, with the metal-adapted ones almost exclusively belonging to a different group from the control sample. The differences were distinct – a 13 per cent variation – which was enough to tell the scientists they were looking at two different species.

All this suggests that we're looking at evolution in action. When the worms first encountered the contaminated soils most would have died, but those that could tolerate the harsh conditions would have had less competition and their particular qualities would have been favoured through natural selection over successive generations. The result? A new species.

'Though there's no definitive link between their genes and their ability to partition the metals,' says Hodson, 'it looks like the proteins are modified in the adapted population to bind more effectively with the lead. It's a great example of evolution in action.'

The discovery of these distinct genetic types is important because worms are important biomarkers – indicators of the health of an ecosystem. But unless you are sure what species you're looking at you can't be sure how it's going to behave. 'Comparing the health of Lumbricus rubellus between clean and polluted soils could be like comparing apples and pears,' says Hodson.

The research was carried out as part of Jane Andre's NERC-funded PhD work with Mark Hodson together with Professor John Morgan and Dr Pete Kile of Cardiff University and Dr Stephen Stürzenbaum of King's College London.


Andre, J et al, Metal bioaccumulation and cellular fractionation in an epigeic earthworm (Lumbricus rubellus): The interactive influences of population exposure histories, site-specific geochemistry and mitochondrial genotype. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 2010, doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.029


Keywords: , , ,


Interesting? Spread the word using the 'share' menu on the top right.


Your comments

It is interesting to read about these earthworms who are able to survive in polluted soil. This is merely adaptation for survival. There has probably been natural selection , those able to cope with the contamination surviving to breed. But of course the worms are still worms! This should not be quoted as an example of 'evolution'. Evolution is the change from one type of organism to another eg fish to amphibia or even worms to say, insects. One variety of earthworm changing to another should not be extrapolated to show that evolution has or could occur. Worms always have been and always will be worms!!
This is just another example of wooly thinking which states that these examples of adaptation for survival show 'evolution in action'.
Wendy Sharpless

Wendy Sharpless, Gorran Haven Cornwall
Tuesday, 6 July 2010 - 22:05

Adaptation and natural selection are intimately linked with evolution, they are the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Thus if the earthworms have adapted via natural selection they have evolved. Yes the "worms are still worms", similarly mammals are still mammals but clearly there has been some evolutionary divergence between humans and chipmunks or humans and chimpanzees. The worms may still be worms but crucially they are genetically different, they have become a different worm!

Mark Hodson, Reading University
Thursday, 8 July 2010 - 16:21

Natural selection, even if it eventually leads to speciation, can't bring about evolution because evolution depends on adding completely new information to the genome. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this has happened in these worms.

Instead, the ability to survive high levels of pollution was probably already present in a few individuals, who therefore survived and multiplied.

Perhaps the resistant population possessed several different kinds of resistant genes between them. Worms with a larger variety of resistant genes would probably be even better at surviving, and would gradually predominate in the population.

But other genetic variation that happened to be present in the non resistant worms would be lost.

So the net result in the resistant population is gene-pool impoverishment, not enrichment.

Natural selection can "sort" genetic information according to which organisms survive best in a given environment or ecological niche, but it doesn't produce NEW information, and is therefore not a mechanism for evolution.

It is also quite possible (and would be interesting to find out) that pollution-resistant worms are less healthy and/or successful than their non-resistant peers in a "clean" environment. Resistance to disease or pollution in an organism often comes at a genetic price - as in the incidence of the gene causing sickle-cell anaemia in humans.

J Parry, Wales, UK
Wednesday, 4 August 2010 - 20:48

The statement that "evolution depends on adding completely new information to the genome" and that therefore natural selection is somehow completely distinct from evolution simply isn't true.

New information is added by random mutations, creating variation among individuals of the same species. Natural selection then works on this variation, selecting for beneficial traits and against harmful ones. Over time, evolution is the result. It does not depend on "completely new information" being magically added to the genome.

Richard Scott, Cumbria
Thursday, 5 August 2010 - 10:40

Hi,

Found this article following an interesting discussion about the TV item based on it. Well done for getting your ground breaking (pun intended!) research aired. The media certainly seem hungry for any kind of proof of evolution in action.

Any idea why?

Mark Wright, Nottinghamshire, UK
Sunday, 6 March 2011 - 23:01

Share

Social bookmarking:  ()