Next Article in Journal
Identifying Effective Fugitive Dust Control Measures for Construction Projects in Korea
Next Article in Special Issue
Adsorption Characteristics of Ammonium Nitrogen and Plant Responses to Biochar Pellet
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Venture Capital Investments: An Enabler Investigation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Three Types of Exogenous Organic Carbon on Soil Organic Matter and Physical Properties of a Sandy Technosol
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Efficacy of the Vermicomposts of Different Organic Wastes as “Clean” Fertilizers: State-of-the-Art

Centre for Pollution Control & Environmental Engineering, Pondicherry University, Chinnakalapet, Puducherry 605014, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 1205; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041205
Submission received: 15 February 2018 / Revised: 11 April 2018 / Accepted: 11 April 2018 / Published: 16 April 2018
(This article belongs to the Collection Organic Waste Management)

Abstract

:
Vermicomposting is a process in which earthworms are utilized to convert biodegradable organic waste into humus-like vermicast. Past work, mainly on vermicomposting of animal droppings, has shown that vermicompost is an excellent organic fertilizer and is also imbibed with pest-repellent properties. However, there is no clarity whether vermicomposts of organic wastes other than animal droppings are as plant-friendly as the manure-based vermicomposts are believed to be. It is also not clear as to whether the action of a vermicompost as a fertilizer depends on the species of plants being fertilized by it. This raises questions whether vermicomposts are beneficial (or harmful) at all levels of application or if there is a duality in their action which is a function of their rate of application. The present work is an attempt to seek answers to these questions. To that end, all hitherto published reports on the action of vermicomposts of different substrates on different species of plants have been assessed. The study reveals that, in general, vermicomposts of all animal/plant based organic wastes are highly potent fertilizers. They also possess some ability to repel plant pests. The factors that shape these properties have been assessed and the knowledge gaps that need to be bridged have been identified.

1. Introduction

For sustaining soil fertility and boost crop production, organic wastes such as cattle droppings, rejects from the kitchen, sewage sludge or anaerobically digested animal manure have been used in agriculture for a long time [1,2,3]. These substances provide nutrients and organic carbon to the soil, but not very efficiently [4]. Moreover, some of these substances can undergo anaerobic decomposition in the soil, and generate methane, which is a major global warming gas [5,6,7]. Vermicomposting is believed to offer a route by which organic waste can be stabilized to a significant extent, converting it into a finished fertilizer [8]. Similar ends can be achieved with composting but composting is an energy-intensive process and the fertilizer value of the composts is known to be inferior to that of vermicomposts [9,10,11,12].
Both composting and vermicomposting involve biological decomposition of organic waste to produce a stabilized organic fertilizer. However, vermicomposting is distinguished from all other pollution control processes, including composting, in that an animal—an earthworm—facilitates the microbial action on the waste. This occurs because the waste is exposed to certain bacteria and enzymes present in the earthworm gut which are not available during composting or other biological degradation processes and which bestow special attributes to a vermicompost (VC). During ingesting bits of waste, earthworms comminute them with their gizzards, thereby enhancing their surface area manifold and making them much more amenable to microbial and enzymatic action than they otherwise were [8]. As the masticated waste passes through an earthworm’s gut, it is acted upon by enzymes and microorganisms present in the gut to become extensively biodegraded [13,14,15,16]. The substrate also acquires some of the enzymes and microorganisms, as well as some of the hormones, present in the earthworm gut, as it is excreted by the earthworm in the form of vermicast. During this vermicomposting, 50 ± 10% of the organic carbon present in the parent substrate is mineralized and is emitted in the form of carbon dioxide. Due to this, the concentration of nitrogen, phosphorous, and other major, medium, and trace nutrients is enhanced in the VC relative to the parent substrate. The mineralization caused by the biodegradation also makes these nutrients more bioavailable than they were in the parent substrate.
However, even as several reports exist which have shown that VC stimulated seed germination [17,18,19], supported plant growth and enhanced the yield and the quality of fruits [20,21] of several plant species, there are also reports describing that VC either had no beneficial effect or had a detrimental effect [19,22,23,24,25]. Likewise, there are reports which show that VC can induce resistance in plants against pests and diseases [26,27,28,29] but it is not known whether the opposite effect also occurs.
This assessment of the state-of-the-art was performed to determine the balance of evidence for and against the virtues of VC. It is aimed to identify the different reasons advanced so far to explain the different types of impacts of VC as witnessed during different ways of VC application. Additionally, it is aimed to locate knowledge gaps that have to be filled up if we are to realize the true potential of VC as an organic fertilizer and biopesticide.

2. Methodology

We began by exploring all potential sources for material on the effect of VC derived from different substrates on different species of plants. All papers/reports available on Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were considered. Abstracts from conferences, book reviews, editorials, letters, and news stories were excluded. The material was classified based on: (1) studies showing stimulatory effect at all levels of VC applications; (2) studies showing stimulatory effect depending on the concentrations of the VC applied; (3) studies showing no effect; and (4) studies showing inhibitory effect of VC application. The role of VC in inducing resistance in plants against pests and diseases was also assessed. The possible reasons for the differences in the nature of impacts of VC, as advanced by different authors, were then identified and classified.
When the study was initiated, we had aimed at a meta-analysis in which we would have tried to quantify cause–effect relationships, assess the weight of different influences, and carry out tests of significance. However, it was not possible because of great non-uniformity in the data that have been reported in the past. The effect of vermicomposts derived from different substrates has been assessed often in combination with other fertilizers on many different botanical species, with widely differing soils and container media, and irrigation with water of widely differing quality, under highly diverse agroclimatic conditions. This extent of variability made it impossible to quantify responses beyond computation of percentages under broad classifications.

3. State-of-the-Art

A total of 252 reports were located in primary literature. A summary is provided in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. The bulk of these studies have been published during the last 10 years and more studies have been published during 2011–2015 than in any earily five-year span (Figure 1). These statistics reveal the world’s increasing interest in VC. The relative proportion of studies on VC derived from manure, phytomass, manure-phytomass blends, and substrates other than manure and phytomass are presented in Figure 2. As may be seen, there is predominance of studies which involve manure, either alone or in combination with phytomass. Studies on phytomass are less than 1/3 of all, even though by far much greater quantities of waste phytomass are generated in the world than of animal manure. The reasons for much lesser utilization of phytomass than animal manure for VC until now was explained by us recently [30].

3.1. Effect of Vermicompost on Seed Germination

As shown in Table 1, seeds of several plant species have been used to evaluate the influence of VC on their germination. The findings present a mixed picture: in the majority of cases VC was found to promote germination but no effect or negative effect was also reported. The relative proportion of studies reporting different types of impacts of VC on seed germination is reflected in Figure 3a. Enhancement was reported in 40% of the studies while 37% reported stimulation up to certain VC concentrations and inhibition beyond those concentrations. In 9% of reports, only inhibition was shown, and 14% reported no impact. Thus, 77% of studies claimed that VC facilitates seed germination, at least up to certain levels of application.
The nature of the effect VC exerts seems to depend on plant species and VC concentration. Seed germination is essentially an internally regulated process, which is influenced mainly by the genotype of plants. However, external factors such as temperature, humidity, light period, soil moisture, and presence of certain chemical compounds can also alter this process through either promotion or inhibition [31,32]. All these factors are intertwined and are facilitated by signaling through multiple hormones that either promote or inhibit seed germination [33].
The first study reporting the duality in behavior of VC—increased germination success up to certain concentrations and inhibition at higher levels—was reported by Wilson and Carlile [34]. They found that duck waste VC in the range 2–8% increased the germination success of tomato (S. lycopersicum), lettuce (L. sativa), and pepper (Capsicum sp.), while 10–20% VC treatments reduced the germination success significantly. In a recent series of extensive investigations, Hussain et al. [35,36,37,38,39] found that VC derived from salvinia (Salvinia molesta), lantana (Lantana camara), parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus), and ipomoea (Ipomoea carnea) enhanced the germination success of ladies finger, green gram and cucumber when used in the concentration range of 2–8% but hindered it at higher levels of application. The possible reasons for the dual behavior of VC, culled from reports in Table 1, are summarized below:
(a)
As mentioned in the Introduction, during vermicomposting, a substrate loses 50 ± 10% of its carbon in the form of emitted CO2 which is produced from worm-mediated aerobic biodegradation. On the other hand, nitrogen is not lost; rather some nitrogen gets added in the form of earthworm mucus. The combined effect is a reduction in the substrate mass with the consequent enhancement in the concentration of nitrate and ammonium in the vermicast relative to that in the substrate. All other nutrients also get enriched. As both nitrate and ammonium are efficient breakers of seed dormancy [40,41], their enrichment in VC makes the latter a facilitator of germination. Indeed, nitrate and ammonium are known to be especially effective when present together. Even though several attempts have been made to explain this individual and collective action of nitrate and ammonium on germination, no clear picture has emerged yet [42,43].
(b)
Breaking of seed dormancy is facilitated by several organic chemicals as well. Such compounds include relatively simple aliphatics, e.g., methanol, ethanol, acetone and ethyl ether; aromatics, e.g., phenol and hydroxyquinoline; and complex growth regulators, e.g., gibberellins and cytokines [44]. As VC is rich in organic chemicals [45,46,47,48], it is likely to contain one or more of these compounds which enhance germination success. It has already been shown that plant growth hormones that are present in VC facilitate seed germination [49,50].
(c)
Most of the chemicals which promote germination up to certain concentrations are known to inhibit it when present in higher concentration [50,51,52]. Chemical fertilizers also display this dichotomy—facilitating germination and growth up to certain levels of application and hindering the same at higher levels [53,54,55].
(d)
Elevated salinity, caused by the higher mineral content of VC, perhaps slows down water uptake by seeds, thereby inhibiting their germination and root elongation [56,57,58]. Neamatollahi et al. [59] suggested that salinity may also affect germination by facilitating intake of toxic ions, which may change certain enzymatic or hormonal activities in seeds to the detriment of seed germination [60].

3.2. Effect of Vermicompost on Plant Growth and Yield

The studies are summarized in Table 2. Of these, 84% of studies reported stimulation, 11% reported stimulation or inhibition based on the rate of application, 2% reported only inhibition and 3% reported no impact (Figure 3b). In other words, 95% of the studies showed that VC exerts a beneficial influence on plants, at least up to certain concentrations. This general surmise is significant, considering the great variability in the past studies in terms of plant species tested, types of soils and other container media used, and the manner of fertilization which ranged from exclusive use of a VC to the deployment of complex mixtures of VCs, chemical fertilizers, and other amendments. The reports also cover widely varying agroclimatic regions and agricultural practices.
Given the extent of coverage of various possibilities, and the very large fraction of the studies which indicate that VC exerts beneficial influence, it can be generalized that VCs are good organic fertilizers. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists on what levels of VC applications are beneficial for which stage of plant growth. It is also not totally clear as to how a VC exerts its beneficial impacts and why it begins harming the growth of plants beyond certain concentrations—even as a good deal of understanding of the possible factors does exist. It is almost certain that VC improves the nutrient content of the soil or the container media to which it is applied [61,62,63,64,65]. Several other reports also suggest that the increase in the growth and yield of plants is a result of the increased nutrient levels in the VC amended soil/media [66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75].
The improvement in the physical properties of soil caused by the VC application, discussed in the following section, may also be a factor supporting plant growth and fruit yield.
A VC carries rich and diverse microbial populations, particularly fungi and bacteria [76,77]. It has been suggested that this could result in the production of significant quantities of plant growth regulators such as indole acetic acid, gibberellins and cytokinins by microorganisms [78], besides an increase in the enzymatic activities. Hussain et al. [35,36,37,38,39] reported an increase in the microbial biomass carbon in soil amended with the VCs derived from L. camara, I. carnea, P. hysterophorus, and S. molesta. Pointing to the importance of the role of microorganisms, Arancon et al. [49] suggested that the enhanced plant growth in the VC amended media cannot be attributed entirely to the physical and chemical amelioration by the VC. They found that plant growth was better in the VC amended media, compared to the control media, even when all the nutrients equivalent to those contained in the VC were given to the plants growing in the control media [79]. They postulated that it was the plant growth hormones and humic acids in the VC that, in conjunction with better nutrient availability, exerted the beneficial effect. Canellas et al. [80] and Zandonadi et al. [81] reported that the humic substances extracted from earthworm’s compost were capable of inducing lateral root growth in maize plants by stimulation of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase activity, thus producing an effect similar to the one achieved by exogenous application of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA). Another perspective is the induction of lateral root initiation by VC-derived humic substances which has been related to the activation of the transcription of some auxin responsive genes [82]. The hypothesis of the auxin activity of the VC-based humic substances is reinforced by the presence of exchangeable auxin groups in their macrostructure [80].
The ability of VC to suppress plant pests and pathogens may also contribute to better growth and yield of the VC fertilized plants. This aspect is elaborated in Section 3.4.

3.3. Effect of Vermicompost on Soil Health

Several studies reported the positive impact of VC on soil health (Table 3). The possible ways by which VC is reported to improve soil health are:
(1)
Addition of VC to the soil elevates the organic matter content in the latter. The vermicast particles, which tend to slowly dissolve in water, contribute to an increase in the overall pore space and water holding capacity of the soil, with concomitant decrease in the soil’s bulk and particle density [17,34,83].
(2)
VC is known to contain high concentrations of plant-available nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, exchangeable calcium and soluble potassium. These when supplemented to the soil enhance the nutrient content of the soil [84,85,86].
(3)
Earthworms excrete polysaccharides, proteins and other nitrogenous compounds creating resource heterogeneity that ultimately increases microbial diversity [45,46,47,48]. During the gut transit, the pore space between organic and mineral particles is altered and packing void is created in the deposited castings. The structural rearrangement of the organic matter in the intestine of the earthworm results in more fine pores and fewer macropores in the castings. This enhances the availability of both water and nutrients to microorganisms, thus enhancing the microbial population in the soil. This, in turn, increases the activity of beneficial enzymes, hormones and plant growth regulators in the VC, and hence in the soil.

3.4. Effect of Vermicompost on Pests and Disease

As can be seen in Table 4, several studies showed that VCs can suppress a wide range of microbial diseases, insect pests and plant parasitic nematodes. Szczech [87] and Szczech and Smolinska [88] reported significant reduction in the infection caused by Fusarium lycopersici and Phytophthora nicotianae in tomato grown in VC−amended soil. Arancon et al. [89] found that tomato, pepper and cabbage plants grown in VC amended media have significantly lesser infections caused by Myzus persicae, Pseudococcus spp. and Peiris brassicae. Yardim et al. [26] reported reduction in the Manduca quinquemaculata, Acalymma vittatum, and Diabotrica undecimpunctata infestations in the cucumber and tomato plants grown in pig manure VC. Several other reports also suggest that VC amendment significantly reduces pathogen attacks on plants [90,91,92,93,94,95,96].
Several studies have indicated that better nutrient availability and the presence of antimicrobial compounds such as flavonoids, phenolics and humic acids in the VC may have induced resistance to pathogens in the plants [27,97,98,99,100]. According to Cardoza [93], the resistance against the diseases and pests may be influenced more by the microbial flora than the chemical compounds in the VC [39]. This premise is supported by the studies of Ershehin et al. [91] and Szczech and Smolinska [88] who found that the autoclaved vermicasts were no longer effective in suppressing the plant pathogens. Gopalakrishnan et al. [101] reported that actinomycete isolates from vermicasts were found to be effective in the biocontrol of the fusarium wilt in chick pea (Cicer arietinum). Out of 137 tested isolates, 33 were reported to show an antagonistic potential against fusarium wilt and, hence, could help to control it in the C. arietinum plant.

4. A Summary of the Nature and Causes of Different Effects

The possible reasons for the beneficial effects of VCs are summarized as:
(1)
VCs have higher nutritional value than traditional composts. This is due not only to the increased mineralization but also greater degree of humification caused in them by the action of earthworms [21,102].
(2)
VCs contain higher concentrations of plant-available nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates, exchangeable calcium, soluble potassium, and trace metals. When a VC is supplemented in soil, it enhances the relative proportion of these micro, semi-micro, and macro nutrients, thereby promoting pant growth and yield [84,85,86,103,104].
(3)
VCs contain humus which plays an important role in regulating the retention and release of plant nutrients. Humus contains negatively charged components in large numbers and is thus capable of holding many cations. This gives a VC the ability to act as a slow release fertilizer [105,106].
(4)
VCs are rich in organic matter, which, when added to the soil, increases the soil’s porosity, aeration, and water-holding capacity, with concomitant reduction of soil’s bulk and particle density. The resulting overall improvement in the physical properties of the soil contributes significantly to better plant growth and yield [76,106,107,108].
(5)
VCs contain large and diverse microbial population, which produces plant growth regulators, enzymes, and hormones beneficial to the plant growth [77,109,110]. There is also production of cytokinins and auxins [78,111].
The possible reasons why VCs exert a negative effect when applied at higher-than-desirable concentrations can be summarized as:
(1)
As happens with germination, the growth of plants is adversely affected if nutrients are supplied in excess of the plant’s needs [35,112,113].
(2)
If VC application is excessive, the resulting salinity may also inhibit plant growth [114,115,116]. Elevated salinity slows down water uptake by the seeds, thereby inhibiting their germination and root elongation as well as subsequent plant growth [56,57,58,59,60].
(3)
High levels of active substances of both phenolic and humic nature may suppress plant growth [115,117]. Phenolic compounds are among the secondary metabolites implicated in plant allelopathy and affect the plants in the following ways:
(a)
They increase the permeability of cell membranes, causing the cell contents to spill out leading to increased lipid peroxidation. Consequently, the growth of cells slows down and causes the death of the plant tissues. In addition, excessive phenolic compounds interfere with the absorption of the nutrients by the plants, thereby restricting the growth of the plants.
(b)
They are also known to impede the elongation of roots, plant cell division, and disturb the cell ultra-structure. In this manner, they interfere with the normal growth and development of the entire plant.
(c)
They tend to weaken the oxygen absorption capacity of plants, causing hindrance in the respiratory process. In addition, phenolic compounds adversely affect photosynthesis by reducing the chlorophyll content of the leaves. Consequently, the rate of photosynthesis is slowed down. Patterson [118] reported that caffeic acid, coumaric acid, ferulic acid, cinnamic acid, and vanillic acid in the concentration range 10–30 µmol/L could significantly inhibit the growth of soybean (Glycine max). Photosynthetic products and chlorophyll content of G. max were also strongly reduced.
(d)
They enter the plants through the plant’s cell membrane and change the activity and function of certain enzymes. Rice [119] demonstrated that chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid and catechol can inhibit activities of phosphorylase, while cinnamic acid and its derivatives can inhibit the hydrolysis activities of ATPase.
(e)
Phenolic compounds can hinder, even stop, the physiological activity of plant hormones, in turn inhibiting the normal physiological processes in the plants. Hydroxyl benzoic acid, polyphenols, and other compounds have been shown to suppress the decomposition of indole acetic acid and gibberellin.
(f)
While some phenolics (i.e., ferulic acid and cinnamic acid) have been seen to inhibit protein synthesis [120], all phenolics have the potential to reduce integrity of DNA and RNA [121,122,123].
(4)
Elevated concentrations of heavy metals alongside the elevated salinity and nutrient contents may also be the cause of suppression of plant growth when excessive levels of VC are applied [17]. Heavy metals induce growth inhibition, structure damage, and a decline in physiological and biochemical activity when present above certain concentrations [122].
The possible reason why some authors found no impact of VC on plant growth and yield may be due to the use of such doses of VCs which may not have been sufficient to satisfy the nutrient demand of plant species studied, leading to no impact on growth and yield [124].

5. Summary and Conclusions

Extensive assessment of past studies on the effect of vermicompost (VC) on plants and soils was carried out. A summary of the 252 reports, located in primary literature, is presented. The reports reveal that, in general, VC is beneficial to germination, growth and yield of plants. It also improves the physical and chemical properties of soil vis-à-vis agriculture productivity. These effects are seen irrespective of whether the VC is derived from animal manure, phytomass, or manure-phytomass blends. The reports also reveal that, in general, VC may become detrimental if applied in concentrations far greater than the ones found beneficial. All possible reasons for this dual behavior of VC were culled from the reports and catalogued in the review. Future work should focus on determining the ranges of beneficial VC concentrations under typical soil–water plant–micrometeorological regimes.

Acknowledgments

Shahid A. Abbasi thanks the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, for the Emeritus Scientist grant (21(1034)/16/EMR-II).

Author Contributions

The collection of data was mainly done by NH and its reporting by SAA. The two authors shared the workload evenly in interpreting the data. Overall the contribution of the two authors is equivalent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sinha, R.K.; Herat, S.; Chauhan, K.; Valani, D. Special Issue: Vermiculture & sustainable agriculture. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2009, 5, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sim, E.Y.S.; Wu, T.Y. The potential reuse of biodegradable municipal solid wastes (MSW) as feedstocks in vermicomposting. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2153–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Quilty, J.R.; Cattle, S.R. Use and understanding of organic amendments in Australian agriculture: A review. Soil Res. 2011, 49, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Palm, C.A.; Gachengo, C.N.; Delve, R.J.; Cadisch, G.; Giller, K.E. Organic inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: Application of an organic resource database. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 83, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å.; Klemedtsson, L.; Berglund, K.; Martikainen, P.; Silvola, J.; Oenema, O. Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: A review. Soil Use Manag. 1997, 13, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Benbi, D.K. Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils: Sources and mitigation potential. J. Crop Improv. 2013, 27, 752–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oertel, C.; Matschullat, J.; Zurba, K.; Zimmermann, F.; Erasmi, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils—A review. Chem. der Erde-Geochem. 2016, 76, 327–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Edwards, C.A.; Norman, Q.A.; Sherman, R. Vermiculture Technology, Earthworms, Organic Waste and Environmental Management; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gajalakshmi, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Solid waste management by composting: State of the art. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 38, 311–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abbasi, T.; Gajalakshmi, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Towards modelling and design of vermicomposting systems: Mechanisms of composting/vermicomposting and their implications. Indian J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 177–182. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shanmugasundaram, R.; Jeyalakshmi, T.; Saravanan, M.; Mohan, S.S.; Goparaju, A.; Murthy, P.B. Influence of some biological wastes and their combination on growth and reproduction potential of earthworm, Eisenia fetida and their effect on plant growth. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 2013, 11, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duggan, T.; Jones, P. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa ‘Webb’s Wonderful’) shoot and root growth in different grades of compost and vermicomposted compost. Acta Horticult. 2016, 1146, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lattaud, C.; Zhang, B.G.; Locati, S.; Rouland, C.; Lavelle, P. Activities of the digestive enzymes in the gut and in tissue culture of a tropical geophagous earthworm, Polypheretima elongata (Megascolecidae). Soil Biol. Biochem. 1997, 29, 335–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pathma, J.; Sakthivel, N. Microbial diversity of vermicompost bacteria that exhibit useful agricultural traits and waste management potential. SpringerPlus 2012, 1, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ravindran, B.; Contreras-Ramos, S.M.; Sekaran, G. Changes in earthworm gut associated enzymes and microbial diversity on the treatment of fermented tannery waste using epigeic earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 74, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dadkhah, A.; Dashti, M.; Rassam Gh Fatemi, F. Effect of organic and biological fertilizers on growth, yield and essential oil of Salvia Leriifolia. Zeitschrift fur Arznei- und Gewurzpflanzen 2017, 22, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  17. Atiyeh, R.M.; Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Metzger, J.D. Influence of earthworm-processed pig manure on the growth and yield of greenhouse tomatoes. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 75, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zaller Johann, G. Vermicompost as a substitute for peat in potting media: Effects on germination, biomass allocation, yields and fruit quality of three tomato varieties. Sci. Horticult. 2007, 112, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lazcano, C.; Dominguez, J. Effects of vermicompost as a potting amendment of two commercially-grown ornamental plant species. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 1260–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, R.; Sharma, R.R.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, R.K.; Patil, R.T. Vermicompost substitution influences growth, physiological disorders, fruit yield and quality of strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.). Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 8507–8511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Doan, T.T.; Henry-des-Tureaux, T.; Rumpel, C.; Janeau, J.L.; Jouquet, P. Impact of compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility, maize yield and soil erosion in Northern Vietnam: A three-year mesocosm experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Roberts, P.; Edwards, C.A.; Edwards-Jones, G.; Jones, D.L. Responses of common pot grown flower species to commercial plant growth media substituted with vermicomposts. Compost Sci. Util. 2007, 15, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Doan, T.T.; Ngo, P.T.; Rumpel, C.; Nguyen, B.V.; Jouquet, P. Interactions between compost, vermicompost and earthworms influence plant growth and yield: A one year greenhouse experiment. Sci. Horticult. 2013, 160, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Karthikeyan, M.; Gajalakshmi, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Comparative efficacy of vermicomposted paper waste and inorganic fertilizer on seed germination, plant growth and fruition of Cyamopsis tetragonoloba. J. Appl. Horticult. 2014, 16, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  25. Luján-Hidalgo, M.C.; Gómez-Hernández, D.E.; Villalobos-Maldonado, J.J.; Abud-Archila, M.; Montes-Molina, J.A.; Enciso-Saenz, S.; Ruiz-Valdiviezo, V.M.; Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A. Effects of vermicompost and vermiwash on plant, phenolic content, and anti-oxidant activity of Mexican Pepperleaf (Piper auritum Kunth) cultivated in phosphate rock potting media. Compost Sci. Util. 2017, 25, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yardim, E.N.; Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Oliver, T.J.; Byrne, R.J. Suppression of tomato hornworm (Manduca quinquemaculata) and cucumber beetles (Acalymma vittatum and Diabotrica undecimpunctata) populations and damage by vermicomposts. Pedobiologia 2006, 50, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Edwards, C.A.; Arancon, N.Q.; Bennett, M.V.; Askar, A.; Keeney, G.; Little, B. Suppression of green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) (Sulz.), citrus mealybug (Planococcus citri), and two spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) (Koch.) attacks on tomatoes and cucumbers by aqueous extracts from vermicomposts. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Serfoji, P.; Rajeshkumar, S.; Selvaraj, T. Management of rootknot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita on tomato cv Pusa Ruby. by using vermicompost, AM fungus, Glomus aggregatum and mycorrhiza helper bacterium, Bacillus coagulans. J. Agric. Technol. 2010, 6, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
  29. Carr, E.A.; Nelson, E.B. Disease-suppressive vermicompost induces a shift in germination mode of Pythium aphanidermatum zoosporangia. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abbasi, S.A.; Nayeem-Shah, M.; Abbasi, T. Vermicomposting of phytomass: Limitations of the past approaches and the emerging directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 93, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kucera, B.; Cohn, M.A.; Leubner-Metzger, G. Plant hormone interactions during seed dormancy release and germination. Seed Sci. Res. 2005, 15, 281–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Najar, I.A.; Khan, A.B.; Hai, A. Effect of macrophyte vermicompost on growth and productivity of brinjal (Solanum melongena) under field conditions. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2015, 4, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Finkelstein, R.R. Hormones in seed development and germination. In Plant Hormones: Biosynthesis, Signal Transduction and Action; Davies, P.J., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 513–537. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson, D.P.; Carlile, W.R. Plant growth in potting media containing worm-worked duck waste. Acta Horticult. 1989, 238, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Vermicomposting eliminates the toxicity of lantana (Lantana camara) and turns it into a plant friendly organic fertilizer. J. Hazardous Mater. 2015, 298, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Vermicomposting transforms allelopathic parthenium into a benign organic fertilizer. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 180, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Toxic and allelopathic ipomoea yields plant-friendly organic fertilizer. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Generation of highly potent organic fertilizer from pernicious aquatic weed Salvinia molesta. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 4989–5002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hussain, N. Gainful Utilization of Toxic and Allelopathic Weeds for the Generation of Biofertilizer through Vermicomposting: An Assessment of the Fertilizer Value of the Resultant Vermicompost. Ph.D. Thesis, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bewley, J.D.; Black, M. Physiology and Biochemistry of Seeds in Relation to Germination; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hilhorst, H.W.M.; Karssen, C.M. Effect of chemical environment on seed germination. In Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities; Fenner, M., Ed.; CABI publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2000; pp. 293–310. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bradford Kent, J.; Hiroyuki, N. Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lammatina, L.; Polacco, J. Nitric Oxide in Plant Growth, Development and Stress Physiology; Plant Cell Monographs; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jones, R.L.; Stoddart, J.L. Gibberellins and seed germination. In The Physiology and Biochemistry of Seed Dormancy and Germination; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Transformation of toxic and allelopathic lantana into a benign organic fertilizer through vermicomposting. Spectrochim. Acta Part A 2016, 163, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Vermicomposting-mediated conversion of the toxic and allelopathic weed ipomoea intoa potent fertilizer. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 103, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Transformation of a highly pernicious and toxic weed parthenium into an eco-friendly organic fertilizer by vermicomposting. Int. J. Environ Sci. 2016, 73, 731–745. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Vermiremediation of an invasive and pernicious weed salvinia (Salvinia molesta). Ecol. Eng. 2016, 91, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Bierman, P.; Metzger, J.D.; Lee, S.; Welch, C. Effects of vermicomposts on growth and marketable fruits of field-grown tomatoes, peppers and strawberries. Pedobiologia 2003, 47, 731–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Atiyeh, R.M.; Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Metzger, J.D. The influence of earthworm-processed pig manure on the growth and productivity of marigolds. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 81, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A.; Llaven, M.A.O.; Nazar, P.M.; Sesma, B.R.; Álvarez-Solís, J.D.; Dendooven, L. Optimization of vermicompost and worm-bed leachate for the organic cultivation of radish. J. Plant Nutr. 2011, 34, 1642–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Reigosa, M.J.; Souto, X.C.; Gonzalez, L. Effect of phenolic compounds on the germination of six weed species. Plant Growth Regul. 1999, 28, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bremner, J.M.; Krogmeier, M.J. Evidence that the adverse effect of urea fertilizer on seed germination in soil is due to ammonia formed through hydrolysis of urea by soil urease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1989, 86, 8185–8188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Pérez-Fernández, M.A.; Calvo-Magro, E.; Montanero-Fernández, J.; Oyola-elasco, J.A. Seed germination in response to chemicals: Effect of nitrogen and pH in the media. J. Environ. Biol. 2006, 27, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  55. Toledo, M.Z.; Garcia, R.A.; Merlin, A.; Fernandes, D.M. Seed germination and seedling development of white oat affected by silicon and phosphorus fertilization. Sci. Agricola 2011, 68, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Uhvits, R. Effect of osmotic pressure on water absorption and germination of alfalfa seeds. Am. J. Bot. 1946, 33, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Simon, E.W. Early Events in Germination 1984. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125119023500087 (accessed on 16 April).
  58. Werner, J.E.; Finkelstein, R.R. Arabidopsis mutants with reduced response to NaCl and osmotic stress. Physiol. Plant. 1995, 93, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Neamatollahi, E.; Bannayan, M.; Darban, A.S.; Ghanbari, A. Hydropriming and osmopriming effects on cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) seeds germination. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009, 57, 526–529. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kaveh, H.; Nemati, H.; Farsi, M.; Jartoodeh, S.V. How salinity affect germination and emergence of tomato lines. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2011, 5, 159–163. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jayakumar, M.; Sivakami, T.; Ambika, D.; Karmegam, N. Effect of turkey litter (Meleagris gallopavo L.) vermicompost on growth and yield characteristics of paddy, Oryza sativa (ADT-37). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 15295–15304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Z. Organic amendment application influence soil organism abundance in saline alkali soil. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2013, 54, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Uz, I.; Sonmez, S.; Tavali, I.E.; Citak, S.; Uras, D.S.; Citak, S. Effect of vermicompost on chemical and biological properties of an alkaline soil with high lime content during celery (Apium graveolens L. var. dulce Mill.) production. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. ClujNapoca 2016, 44, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Verma, S.K.; Pankaj, U.; Khan, K.; Singh, R.; Verma, R.K. Bioinoculants and vermicompost improve Ocimum basilicum yield and soil health in a sustainable production system. CLEAN Soil Air Water 2016, 44, 686–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhao, H.T.; Li, T.P.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, J.; Bai, Y.C.; Shan, Y.H.; Ke, F. Effects of vermicompost amendment as a basal fertilizer on soil properties and cucumber yield and quality under continuous cropping conditions in a greenhouse. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 17, 2718–2730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tognetti, C.; Laos, F.; Mazzarino, M.J.; Hernández, M.T. Composting vs. vermicomposting: A comparison of end product quality. Compost Sci. Util. 2005, 13, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Parthasarathi, K.; Balamurugan, M.; Ranganathan, L.S. Influence of vermicompost on the physico-chemical and biological properties in different types of soil along with yield and quality of the pulse crop-black gram. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2008, 5, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  68. Paradelo, R.; Moldes, A.B.; Barral, M.T. Amelioration of the physical properties of slate processing fines using grape marc compost and vermicompost. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 1251–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pramanik, P.; Ghosh, G.K.; Chung, Y.R. Changes in nutrient content, enzymatic activities and microbial properties of lateritic soil due to application of different vermicomposts: A comparative study of ergosterol and chitin to determine fungal biomass in soil. Soil Use Manag. 2010, 26, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mahanta, K.; Jha, D.K.; Rajkhowa, D.J. Manoj Kumar, Microbial enrichment of vermicompost prepared from different plant biomasses and their effect on rice (Oryza sativa L.) growth and soil fertility. Biol. Agric. Horticult. 2012, 28, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Verma, R.K.; Verma, R.S.; Rahman, L.U.; Yadav, A.; Patra, D.D.; Kalra, A. Utilization of distillation waste based vermicompost and other organic and inorganic fertilizers on improving production potential in geranium and soil health. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maie Mohsen, M.A.; Abo Kora, H.A.; Abeer Kassem, H.M. Effect of vermicompost and calcium silicate to reduce the soil salinity on growth and oil determinations of marjoram plant. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2016, 9, 235–262. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sujatha, S.; Bhat, R. Impact of organic and inorganic nutrition on soil–plant nutrient balance in arecanut (Areca catechu L.) on a laterite soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 714–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tombion, L.; Puerta, A.V.; Barbaro, L.A.; Karlanian, M.A.; Sangiacomo, M.A.; Garbi, M. Substrate characteristics and lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) seedling quality depending on the vermicompost dose. Chil. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2016, 32, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Das, S.; Hussain, N.; Gogoi, B.; Buragohain, A.K.; Bhattacharya, S.S. Vermicompost and farmyard manure improves food quality, antioxidant and antibacterial potential of Cajanus cajan (L. mill sp.) leaves. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 956–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Edwards, C.A.; Burrows, I. The potential of earthworm composts as plant growth media. In Earthworms in Environmental and Waste Management; Neuhauser, C.A., Ed.; SPB Academic Publ. B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 211–220. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tomati, U.; Grappelli, A.; Galli, E. The hormone-like effect of earthworm casts on plant growth. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1988, 5, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Krishnamoorthy, R.V.; Vajrabhiah, S.N. Biological activity of earthworm casts: An assessment of plant growth promoter levels in casts. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 1986, 95, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Bierman, P.; Metzger, J.D.; Lucht, C. Effects of vermicomposts produced from cattle manure, food waste and paper waste on the growth and yield of peppers in the field. Pedobiologia 2005, 49, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Okorokova-Façanha, A.; Façanha, A.R. Humic acids isolated from earthworm compost enhance root elongation, lateral root emergence, and plasma membrane H+ -ATPase activity in maize roots. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 1951–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Zandonadi, D.B.; Canellas, L.P.; Façanha, A.R. Indolacetic and humic acids induce lateral root development through a concerted plasmalemma and tonoplast H+ pumps activation. Planta 2007, 225, 1583–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Trevisan, S.; Francioso, O.; Quaggiotti, S.; Nardi, S. Humic substances biological activity at the plant-soil interface from environmental aspects to molecular factors. Plant Signal. Behav. 2010, 5, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Babenko, A.; Cannon, J.; Galvis, P.; Metzger, J.D. Influences of vermicomposts, produced by earthworms and microorganisms from cattle manure, food waste and paper waste, on the germination, growth and flowering of petunias in the greenhouse. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 39, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Orozco, S.H.; Cegarra, J.; Trujillo, L.M.; Roig, A. Vermicomposting of coffee pulp using the earthworm Eisenia fetida: Effects on C and N contents and the availability of nutrients. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1996, 22, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Moreno-Reséndez, A.; Solís-Morales, G.; Blanco-Contreras, E.; Vásquez-Arroyo, J.; Guzmán-Cedillo, L.M.P.; Rodríguez-Dimas, N.; Figueroa-Viramontes, U. Development of huizache (Acacia farnesiana) seedlings in substrates with vermicompost. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Cienc. For. Ambiente 2014, 20, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Luján-Hidalgo, M.C.; PérezGómez, L.E.; AbudArchila, M.; MezaGordillo, R.; RuizValdiviezo, V.M.; Dendooven, L.; GutiérrezMiceli, F.A. Growth, phenolic content and antioxidant activity in chincuya (annona purpurea moc and sesse ex dunal) cultivated with vermicompost and phosphate rock. Compost Sci. Util. 2015, 23, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Szczech, M.M. Suppressiveness of vermicompost against Fusarium wilt of tomato. J. Phytopathol. 1999, 147, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Szczech, M.; Smolińska, U. Comparison of suppressiveness of vermicomposts produced from animal manures and sewage sludge against Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan var. nicotianae. J. Phytopathol. 2001, 149, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Arancon, N.Q.; Galvis, P.A.; Edwards, C.A. Suppression of insect pest populations and damage to plants by vermicomposts. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 1137–1142. [Google Scholar]
  90. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Yardim, E.N.; Oliver, T.J.; Byrne, R.J.; Keeney, G. Suppression of two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae), mealy bug (Pseudococcus sp.) and aphid (Myzus persicae) populations and damage by vermicomposts. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ersahin, Y.S.; Haktanir, K.; Yanar, Y. Vermicompost suppresses Rhizoctonia solani Kühn in cucumber seedlings. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2009, 116, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Choudhary, S.; Pareek, S.; Saxena, J. Management of dry root rot of greengram (Vigna radiata) caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 80, 988–992. [Google Scholar]
  93. Cardoza, Y.J. Arabidopsis thaliana resistance to insects, mediated by an earthworm-produced organic soil amendment. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Cardoza, Y.J.; Buhler, W.G. Soil organic amendment impacts on corn resistance to Helicoverpa zea: Constitutive or induced? Pedobiologia 2012, 55, 343–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rostami, M.; Olia, M.; Arabi, M. Evaluation of the effects of earthworm Eisenia fetida-based products on the pathogenicity of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne javanica) infecting cucumber. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2014, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Xiao, Z.; Liu, M.; Jiang, L.; Chen, X.; Griffiths, B.S.; Li, H.; Hu, F. Vermicompost increases defense against root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) in tomato plants. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 105, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Graham, R.D.; Webb, M.J. Micronutrients and disease resistance and tolerance in plants. In Micronutrients in Agriculture, 2nd ed.; Mortvedt, J.J., Cox, F.R., Shuman, L.M., Welch, R.M., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1991; pp. 329–370. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hill, W.J.; Clarke, B.B.; Murphy, J.A. Take-all suppression in creeping bentgrass with manganese and copper. Hortscience 1999, 34, 891–892. [Google Scholar]
  99. Haviola, S.; Kapari, L.; Ossipov, V.; Rantala, M.J.; Ruuhola, T.; Haukioja, E. Foliar phenolics are differently associated with Epirrata autumnata growth and immune competence. J. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 33, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Sahni, S.; Sarma, B.K.; Singh, D.P.; Singh, H.B.; Singh, K.P. Vermicompost enhances performance of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in Cicer arietinum rhizosphere against Sclerotium rolfsii. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gopalakrishnan, S.; Pande, S.; Sharma, M.; Humayun, P.; Kiran, B.K.; Sandeep, D.; Vidya, M.S.; Deepthi, K.; Rupela, O. Evaluation of actinomycete isolates obtained from herbal vermicompost for the biological control of Fusarium wilt of chickpea. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 1070–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Albanell, E.; Plaixats, J.; Cabrero, T. Chemical changes during vermicomposting (Eisenia fetida) of sheep manure mixed with cotton industrial wastes. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1988, 6, 266–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yadav, A.; Garg, V.K. Influence of vermifortification on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) growth and photosynthetic pigments. Int. J. Recycl. Organ Waste Agric. 2015, 4, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Singh, R.; Singh, M.; Srinivas, A.; Rao, E.P.; Puttanna, K. Assessment of organic and inorganic fertilizers for growth, yield and essential oil quality of industrially important plant patchouli (Pogostemon cablin) (Blanco) Benth. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plant. 2015, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kumar, R.; Singh, M.K.; Kumar, V.; Verma, R.K.; Kushwah, J.K.; Pal, M. Effect of nutrient supplementation through organic sources on growth, yield and quality of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.). Indian J. Agric. Res. 2015, 49, 278–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Karthikeyan, M.; Hussain, N.; Gajalakshmi, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Effect of vermicast generated form an allelopathic weed lantana (Lantana camara) on seed germination, plant growth, and yield of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 12539–12548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Abduli, M.A.; Amiri, L.; Madadian, E.; Gitipour, S.; Sedighian, S. Efficiency of vermicompost on quantitative and qualitative growth of tomato plants. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2013, 7, 467–472. [Google Scholar]
  108. Moreno-Reséndez, A.; CarreónSaldivar, E.; RodríguezDimas, N.; ReyesCarrillo, J.L.; CanoRíos, P.; VásquezArroyo, J.; FigueroaViramontes, U. Vermicompost management: An alternative to meet the water and nutritive demands of tomato under greenhouse conditions. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2013, 25, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ahmad, R.; Azeem, M.; Ahmed, N. Productivity of ginger (Zingiber officinale) by amendment of vermicompost and biogas slurry in saline soils. Pak. J. Bot. 2009, 41, 3107–3116. [Google Scholar]
  110. Belda, R.M.; Mendoza Hernández, D.; Fornes, F. Nutrient rich compost versus nutrient poor vermicompost as growth media for ornamental plant production. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 827–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mendoza Hernández, D.; Fornes, F.; Belda, R.M. Compost and vermicompost of horticultural waste as substrates for cutting rooting and growth of rosemary. Sci. Horticult. 2014, 178, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Silva, J.A.; Uchida, R. Plant Nutrient Management in Hawaii’s Soils Approaches for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture; College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii at Manoa: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  113. Jones, J.B., Jr. Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility Manual; CRC Press, Tylor and Francis Group: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  114. Atiyeh, R.M.; Edwards, C.A.; Subler, S.; Metzger, J.D. Pig manure vermicompost as a component of a horticultural bedding plant medium: Effects on physicochemical properties and plant growth. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 78, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Manivannan, K.; Selvamani, P. Influence of organic inputs on the yield and quality of fruits in banana cultivar ‘Poovan’ (syn. Mysore AAB). Acta Horticult. 2014, 1018, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Singh, A.; Jain, A.; Sarma, B.K.; Abhilash, P.C.; Singh, H.B. Solid waste management of temple floral offerings by vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1113–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ievinsh, G. Vermicompost treatment differentially affects seed germination, seedling growth and physiological status of vegetable crop species. Plant Growth Regul. 2011, 65, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Patterson, D.T. Effects of allelopathic chemicals on growth and physiological response of soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 1981, 29, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  119. Rice, E.L. Allelopathy; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; p. 353. [Google Scholar]
  120. He, H.Q.; Lin, W.X. Studies on allelopathic physiobiochemical characteristics of rice. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2001, 9, 56–57. [Google Scholar]
  121. Leslie, C.A.; Romani, R.J. Inhibition of ethylene biosynthesis by salicylic acid. Plant Physiol. 1998, 88, 833–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ni, H.W. Present status and prospect of crop allelopathy in China. In Rice Allelopathy; Kim, K.U., Shin, D.H., Eds.; Kyunpook National University: Kyungpook, Korea, 2000; pp. 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  123. Zeng, R.S.; Luo, S.M.; Shi, Y.H. Physiological and biochemical mechanism of allelopathy of secalonic acid on higher plants. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Cheng, S. Effects of heavy metals on plants and resistance mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2003, 10, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Makkar, C.; Singh, J.; Parkash, C. Vermicompost and vermiwash as supplement to improve seedling, plant growth and yield in Linum usitassimum L. for organic agriculture. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2017, 6, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Enhancement in the productivity of ladies finger (Abelmoschus esculentus) with concomitant pest control by the vermicompost of the weed salvinia (Salvinia molesta, Mitchell). Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Detoxification of parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) and its metamorphosis into an organic fertilizer and biopesticide. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2017, 4, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Ge, C.; Radnezhad, H.; Abari, M.F.; Sadeghi, M.; Kashi, G. Effect of biofertilizers and plant growth promoting bacteria on the growth characteristics of the herb Asparagus officinalis. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2016, 14, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Truong, H.D.; Wang, C.H. Studies on the effects of vermicompost on physicochemical properties and growth of two tomato varieties under greenhouse conditions. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2015, 46, 1494–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Kadam, D.; Pathade, G. Effect of tendu (Diospyros melanoxylon RoxB.) leaf vermicompost on growth and yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2014, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Suthar, S.; Sharma, P. Vermicomposting of toxic weed Lantana camara biomass: Chemical and microbial properties changes and assessment of toxicity of end product using seed bioassay. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 95, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Sivasankari, B.; Anitha Reji, W.; Daniel, T. Effect of application of vermicompost prepared from leaf materials on growth of Vigna unguiculata L. Walp. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 4, 895–898. [Google Scholar]
  133. Roy, S.; Arunachalam, K.; Dutta, B.K.; Arunachalam, A. Effect of organic amendments of soil on growth and productivity of three common crops viz. Zea mays, Phaseolus vulgaris and Abelmoschus esculentus. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 45, 78–84. [Google Scholar]
  134. Roberts, P.; Jones, D.L.; Edwards-Jones, G. Yield and vitamin C content of tomatoes grown in vermicomposted wastes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 1957–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Atiyeh, R.M.; Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Metzger, J.D. Earthworm-processed organic wastes as components of horticultural potting media for growing marigold and vegetable seedlings. Compost Sci. Util. 2000, 8, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Karlsons, A.; Osvalde, A.; Andersone Ozola, U.; Ievinsh, G. Vermicompost from municipal sewage sludge affects growth and mineral nutrition of winter rye (Secale cereale) plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 765–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Xu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Li, F. Germination, growth and rhizosphere effect of Setaria viridis grown in iron mine tailings. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE 2010), Chengdu, China, 18–20 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
  138. Warman, P.R.; AngLopez, M.J. Vermicompost derived from different feedstocks as a plant growth medium. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 4479–4483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Ribeiro, H.M.; Freire, C.; Cabral, F.; Vasconcelos, E.; Brito, L.M. Production of lettuce seedlings in coconut coir amended with compost and vermicompost. Acta Horticult. 2013, 1013, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Melgar-Ramirez, R.; Pascual-Alex, M.I. Characterization and use of a vegetable waste vermicompost as an alternative component in substrates for horticultural seedbeds. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 1174–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Bachman, G.R.; Metzger, J.D. Growth of bedding plants in commercial potting substrate amended with vermicompost. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 3155–3161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Mupambwa, H.A.; Lukashe, N.S.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. Suitability of fly ash vermicompost as a component of pine bark growing media: Effects on media physicochemical properties and ornamental marigold (Tagetes spp.) growth and flowering. Compost Sci. Util. 2016, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Amooaghaie, R.; Golmohammadi, S. Effect of vermicompost on growth, essential oil, and health of Thymus Vulgaris. Compost Sci. Util. 2017, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Rodriguez-Quiroz, G.; Valenzuela-Quiñonez, W.; Nava-Pérez, E. Vermicomposting as a nitrogen source in germinating kidney bean in trays. J. Plant Nutr. 2011, 34, 1418–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zhang, J.; Xu, Y.; Li, F. Influence of cow manure vermicompost on plant growth and micrbes in rhizosphere on iron tailing. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE 2009), Beijing, China, 11–13 June 2009. [Google Scholar]
  146. Siddiqui, Y.; Meon, S.; Mohd, R.I.; Rahmani, M.; Ali, A. Efficient conversion of empty fruit bunch of oil palm into fertilizer enriched compost. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci. 2009, 11, 247–252. [Google Scholar]
  147. Buckerfield, J.C.; Flavel, T.C.; Lee, K.E.; Webster, K.A. V earthworms and waste management-Vermicompost in solid and liquid forms as a plant-growth promoter. Pedobiologia 1999, 43, 753–759. [Google Scholar]
  148. Yadav, L.P.; Malhotra, S.K.; Singh, A. Effect of intercropping, crop geometry and organic manures on growth and yield of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var italica). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 87, 318–324. [Google Scholar]
  149. Truong, H.D.; Wang, C.H.; Trung Kien, T. Effects of continuously applied vermicompost on media properties, growth, yield, and fruit quality of two tomato varieties. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Trivedi, P.; Singh, K.; Pankaj, U.; Verma, S.K.; Verma, R.K.; Patra, D.D. Effect of organic amendments and microbial application on sodic soil properties and growth of an aromatic crop. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 102, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Pireh, P.; Yadavi, A.; Balouchi, H. Effect of cadmium chloride on soybean in presence of arbuscular mycorrhiza and vermicompost. Legume Res. Int. J. 2016, 40, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  152. Muktamar, Z.; Sudjatmiko, S.; Chozin, M.; Setyowati, N.; Fahrurrozi, F. Sweet corn performance and its major nutrient uptake following application of vermicompost supplemented with liquid organic fertilizer. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2017, 7, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Mengistu, T.; Gebrekidan, H.; Kibret, K.; Woldetsadik, K.; Shimelis, B.; Yadav, H. The integrated use of excreta-based vermicompost and inorganic NP fertilizer on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit yield, quality and soil fertility. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2017, 6, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Maji, D.; Misra, P.; Singh, S.; Kalra, A. Humic acid rich vermicompost promotes plant growth by improving microbial community structure of soil as well as root nodulation and mycorrhizal colonization in the roots of Pisum sativum. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 110, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Kovshov, S.V.; Iconnicov, D.A. Growing of grass, radish, onion and marigolds in vermicompost made from pig manure and wheat straw. Indian J. Agric. Res. 2017, 51, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Jabeen, N.; Ahmad, R. Growth response and nitrogen metabolism of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) to vermicompost and biogas slurry under salinity stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Islam, M.A.; Islam, S.; Akter, A.; Rahman, M.H.; Nandwani, D. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and the growth, yield and quality of tomato in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Agriculture 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Hosseinzadeh, S.R.; Amiri, H.; Ismaili, A. Nutrition and biochemical responses of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to vermicompost fertilizer and water deficit stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 2259–2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Goswami, L.; Nath, A.; Sutradhar, S.; Bhattacharya, S.S.; Kalamdhad, A.; Vellingiri, K.; Kim, K.H. Application of drum compost and vermicompost to improve soil health, growth, and yield parameters for tomato and cabbage plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 200, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Cabanillas, C.; Tablada, M.; Ferreyra, L.; Pérez, A.; Sucani, G. Sustainable management strategies focused on native bio-inputs in Amaranthus cruentus L. in agro-ecological farms in transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Broz, A.; Verma, P.; Appel, C.; Yost, J.; Stubler, C.; Hurley, S. Nitrogen dynamics of strawberry cultivation in vermicompost-amended systems. Compost Sci. Util. 2017, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Amiri, H.; Ismaili, A.; Hosseinzadeh, S.R. Influence of vermicompost fertilizer and water deficit stress on morpho-physiological features of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. cv. karaj). Compost Sci. Util. 2017, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Alhajhoj, M.R. Effects of different types of vermicompost on the growth and rooting characteristics of three rose rootstocks. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2017, 15, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  164. Zacarías-Toledo, R.; González-Mendoza, D.; Rodriguez Mendiola, M.A.; Villalobos-Maldonado, J.J.; Gutiérrez-Oliva, V.F.; Dendooven, L.; Abud-Archila, M.; Arias-Castro, C.; Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A. Plant growth and sugars content of Agave americana L. cultivated with vermicompost and rock phosphate and inoculated with Penicillium sp. and Glomus fasciculatum. Compost Sci. Util. 2016, 24, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Xu, C.; Mou, B. Vermicompost affects soil properties and spinach growth, physiology, and nutritional value. HortScience 2016, 51, 847–855. [Google Scholar]
  166. Shivran, A.C.; Jat, N.L.; Singh, D.; Rajput, S.S.; Mittal, G.K. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and economics of fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum). Legume Res. 2016, 39, 279–283. [Google Scholar]
  167. Sharif, F.; Danish, M.U.; Ali, A.S.; Khan, A.U.; Shahzad, L.; Ali, H.; Ghafoor, A. Salinity tolerance of earthworms and effects of salinity and vermi amendments on growth of Sorghum bicolor. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2016, 62, 1169–1181. [Google Scholar]
  168. Sasikala, P.; Intarak, R.; Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, M. Impact of vermicompost on lemon grass (Cymbopogan flexuosus) production and oil contents. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2016, 7, 870–877. [Google Scholar]
  169. Salehi, A.; Tasdighi, H.; Gholamhoseini, M. Evaluation of proline, chlorophyll, soluble sugar content and uptake of nutrients in the German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) under drought stress and organic fertilizer treatments. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 886–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Ramachandran, S.; Biswas, D.R. Nutrient management on crop productivity and changes in soil organic carbon and fertility in a four–year-old maize-wheat cropping system in Indo-Gangetic plains of India. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 1039–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Paul, J.; Choudhary, A.K.; Sharma, S.; Bohra, M.; Dixit, A.K.; Kumar, P. Potato production through bio-resources: Long-term effects on tuber productivity, quality, carbon sequestration and soil health in temperate Himalayas. Sci. Horticult. 2016, 213, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Pandey, V.; Patel, A.; Patra, D.D. Integrated nutrient regimes ameliorate crop productivity, nutritive value, antioxidant activity and volatiles in basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 87, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Nurhidayati, N.; Ali, U.; Murwani, I. Yield and quality of cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. Capitata) under organic growing media using vermicompost and earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus inoculation. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 11, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Mafakheri, S.; Hajivand, S.; Zarrabi, M.M.; Arvane, A. Effect of bio and chemical fertilizers on the essential oil content and constituents of Melissa officinalis (Lemon Balm). J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plant. 2016, 19, 1277–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Lal, G.; Singh, R. Comprehensive evaluation of coriander (Coriandrum sativum) varieties under different organic modules. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 86, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  176. Iheshiulo, E.M.A.; Abbey, L.; Asiedu, S.K. Response of Kale to single-dose application of k humate, dry vermicasts, and volcanic minerals. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2017, 23, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Hosseinzadeh, S.R.; Amiri, H.; Ismaili, A. Effect of vermicompost fertilizer on photosynthetic characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress. Photosynthetica 2016, 54, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Hossaini, S.M.; Aghaalikhani, M.; Sefidkon, F.; Ghalavand, A. Effect of Vermicompost and planting pattern on oil production in Satureja sahendica L. under Competition with pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plant. 2016, 19, 606–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Hayawin, Z.N.; Astimar, A.A.; Rashyeda, R.N.; Faizah, J.; Idris, J.; Ravi, N. Influence of frond, stem and roots of oil palm seedlings in vermicompost from oil palm biomass. J. Oil Palm Res. 2016, 28, 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Haghighi, M.; Barzegar, M.R.; da Silva, J.A.T. The effect of municipal solid waste compost, peat, perlite and vermicompost on tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) growth and yield in a hydroponic system. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2016, 5, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Indikumari Devi, T.; Haripriya, K.; Rajeswari, R. Effect of organic nutrients and biostimulants on yield characters of beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.). Plant Arch. 2016, 16, 399–402. [Google Scholar]
  182. Das, S.; Teja, K.C.; Duary, B.; Agrawal, P.K.; Bhattacharya, S.S. Impact of nutrient management, soil type and location on the accumulation of capsaicin in Capsicum chinense (Jacq.): One of the hottest chili in the world. Sci. Horticult. 2016, 213, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Beykkhormizi, A.; Abrishamchi, P.; Ganjeali, A.; Parsa, M. Effect of vermicompost on some morphological, physiological and biochemical traits of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under salinity stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 883–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Bajeli, J.; Tripathi, S.; Kumar, A.; Upadhyay, R.K. Organic manures a convincing source for quality production of Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis L.). Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 83, 603–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Babu, S.; Singh, R.; Avasthe, R.K.; Yadav, G.S.; Chettri, T.K.; Rajkhowa, D.J. Productivity, profitability and energetics of buckwheat (Fagopyrum sp.) cultivars as influenced by varying levels of vermicompost in acidic soils of Sikkim Himalayas, India. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 86, 844–852. [Google Scholar]
  186. Alwaneen, W.S. Effect of cow manure vermicompost on some growth parameters of alfalfa and Vinca rosa plants. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2016, 15, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Song, X.; Liu, M.; Wu, D.; Griffiths, B.S.; Jiao, J.; Li, H.; Hu, F. Interaction matters: Synergy between vermicompost and PGPR agents improves soil quality, crop quality and crop yield in the field. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015, 89, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Saxena, J.; Choudhary, S.; Pareek, S.; Choudhary, A.K.; Iquebal, M.A. Recycling of organic waste through four different composts for disease suppression and growth enhancement in mung beans. CLEAN Soil Air Water 2015, 43, 1066–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Packialakshmi, N.; Mahalakshmi, C. Effect of earthworm vermicompost and coelomic fluid treating on unfertile soil. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 1630–1636. [Google Scholar]
  190. Oo, A.N.; Iwai, C.B.; Saenjan, P. Soil properties and maize growth in saline and nonsaline soils using cassava-industrial waste compost and vermicompost with or without earthworms. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Akhzari, D.; Attaeian, B.; Arami, A.; Mahmoodi, F.; Aslani, F. Effects of vermicompost and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on soil properties and growth of Medicago polymorpha. Compost Sci. Util. 2015, 23, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Xu, Y.; Wang, C.; Bi, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, W.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lv, Z.; Guo, X. Influence of cow manure vermicompost soil mixtures on two flowers seedling cultivation. Acta Horticult. 2014, 1018, 583–588. [Google Scholar]
  193. Gupta, R.; Yadav, A.; Garg, V.K. Influence of vermicompost application in potting media on growth and flowering of marigold crop. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2014, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Ghosh, S.N.; Bhattacharyya, A.; Bera, B.; Roy, S.; Kundu, A. Effects of crop management factors on pomegranate cultivation in West Bengal. Acta Horticult. 2012, 940, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Dinani, E.T.; Asghari, H.R.; Gholami, A.; Masoumi, A. Replacement of vermicompost for nitrogen fertilizer as a source of nitrogen on two cultivars of coriander (Coriandrum sativum). Acta Horticult. 2014, 1018, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Castoldi, G.; Freiberger, M.B.; Pivetta, L.A.; Pivetta, L.G.; Echer, M.D.M. Alternative substrates in the production of lettuce seedlings and their productivity in the field. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2014, 45, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Ayyobi, H.; olfati, J.A.; Peyvast, G.A. The effects of cow manure vermicompost and municipal solid waste compost on peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) in Torbat-e-Jam and Rasht regions of Iran. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2014, 3, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Atmaca, L.; Tüzel, Y.; Öztekin, G.B. Influences of vermicompost as a seedling growth medium on organic greenhouse cucumber production. Acta Horticult. 2014, 1041, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Acosta Durán, C.; Vázquez Benítez, N.; Villegas Torres, O.; Vence, L.B.; Acosta Peñaloza, D. Vermicompost as a substrate component in Ageratum houstonianum Mill. and Petunia hybrida E. Vilm in container culture. Bioagro 2014, 26, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  200. Mokhtari, S.; Ismail, M.R.; Kausar, H.; Musa, M.H.; Wahab, P.E.M.; Berahim, Z.; Omar, M.H.; Habib, S.H. Use of organic enrichment as additives in coconut coir dust on development of tomato in soilless culture. Compost Sci. Util. 2013, 21, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  201. Mafakheri, S.; Omidbaigi, R.; Sefidkon, F.; Rejali, F. Effect of biofertilizers, vermicompost, azotobacter and biophosphate on the growth, nutrient uptake and essential oil content of dragonhead (Dracocephalum moldavica L.). Acta Horticult. 2013, 1013, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Joshi, R.; Singh, J.; Vig, A.P. Vermicompost as an effective organic fertilizer and biocontrol agent: Effect on growth, yield and quality of plants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 14, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Gardezi, A.K.; Márquez Berber, S.R.; Figueroa Sandoval, B.; Larqué Saavedra, U.; Almaguer Vargas, A.V.; Escalona Maurice, M.J. Organic matter effect on glomus intrarradices in beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) growth cultivated in soils with two sources of water under greenhouse conditions. In Proceedings of the WMSCI 2013-17th World Multi Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, FL, USA, 9–15 July 2013; Volume 1, pp. 46–51. [Google Scholar]
  204. Fornes, F.; Mendoza-Hernandez, D.; Belda, R.M. Compost versus vermicompost as substrate constituents for rooting shrub cuttings. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 11, 518–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. De Souza, M.E.P.; de Carvalho, A.M.X.; de Cássia Deliberali, D.; Jucksch, I.; Brown, G.G.; Mendonça, E.S.; Cardoso, I.M. Vermicomposting with rock powder increases plant growth. Appl. Soil Ecology 2013, 69, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Berova, M.; Pevicharova, G.; Stoeva, N.; Zlatev, Z.; Karanatsidis, G. Vermicompost affects growth, nitrogen content, leaf gas exchange and productivity of pepper plants. J. Elementol. 2013, 18, 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Argüello, J.A.; Seisdedos, L.; Goldfarb, M.D.; Fabio, E.A.; Núñez, S.B.; Ledesma, A. Anatomophysiological modifications induced by solid agricultural waste (vermicompost) in lettuce seedlings (Lactuca sativa L.). Phyton Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 82, 289–295. [Google Scholar]
  208. Amalraj, E.L.D.; Kumar, G.P.; Ahmed, S.M.H.; Abdul, R.; Kishore, N. Microbiological analysis of panchagavya, vermicompost, and FYM and their effect on plant growth promotion of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) in India. Org. Agric. 2013, 3, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Alsiņa, I.; Dubova, L.; Šteinberga, V.; Gmizo, G. The effect of vermicompost on the growth of radish. Acta Horticult. 2013, 1013, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Albaho, M.; Bhat, N.; Thomas, B.M.; Isathali, S.; George, P.; Ghloum, D. Alternative growing media for production of cucumber cultivar ‘Banan’ for soilless culture in Kuwait. Acta Horticult. 2013, 1004, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Achsah, R.S.; Lakshmi Prabha, M. Potential of vermicompost produced from banana waste (Musa paradisiaca) on the growth parameters of Solanum lycopersicum. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2013, 5, 2141–2153. [Google Scholar]
  212. Srivastava, P.K.; Gupta, M.; Upadhyay, R.K.; Sharma, S.; Shikha; Tewari, S.K.; Singh, B. Effects of combined application of vermicompost and mineral fertilizer on the growth of Allium cepa L. and soil fertility. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Singh, R.; Divya, S.; Awasthi, A.; Kalra, A. Technology for efficient and successful delivery of vermicompost colonized bioinoculants in Pogostemon cablin (patchouli) Benth. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 28, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Paradelo, R.; Moldes, A.B.; González, D.; Barral, M.T. Plant tests for determining the suitability of grape marc composts as components of plant growth media. Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Papathanasiou, F.; Papadopoulos, I.; Tsakiris, I.; Tamoutsidis, E. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and quality of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 10, 677–682. [Google Scholar]
  216. Omar, N.F.; Hassan, S.A.; Yusoff, U.K.; Abdullah, N.A.P.; Wahab, P.E.M.; Sinniah, U.R. Phenolics, flavonoids, antioxidant activity and cyanogenic glycosides of organic and mineral-base fertilized cassava tubers. Molecules 2012, 17, 2378–2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Mahmoud, E.K.; Ibrahim, M.M. Effect of vermicompost and its mixtures with water treatment residuals on soil chemical properties and barley growth. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012, 12, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. López-Gómez, B.F.; Lara-Herrera, A.; Bravo-Lozano, A.G.; Lozano-Gutiérrez, J.; Avelar-Mejía, J.J.; Luna-Flores, M.; Llamas-Llamas, J.J. Improvement of plant growth and yield in pepper by vermicompost application, in greenhouse conditions. Acta Horticult. 2012, 947, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Fernández-Gómez, M.J.; Quirantes, M.; Vivas, A.; Nogales, R. Vermicomposts and/or arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculation in relation to metal availability and biochemical quality of a soil contaminated with heavy metals. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 2707–2718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Dintcheva, T.; Tringovska, I. Growth response of tomato transplants to different amounts of vermicompost in the potting media. Acta Horticult. 2012, 960, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Baldotto, L.E.B.; Silva, L.G., Jr.; Canellas, L.P.; Olivares, F.L.; Baldotto, M.A. Initial growth of maize in response to application of rock phosphate, vermicompost and endophytic bacteria. Rev. Ceres 2012, 59, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Abbey, L.; Young, C.; Teitel-Payne, R.; Howe, K. Evaluation of proportions of vermicompost and coir in a medium for container-grown Swiss chard. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2012, 18, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Tejada, M.; Benitez, C. Organic amendment based on vermicompost and compost: Differences on soil properties and maize yield. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1185–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Singh, B.; Pathak, K.; Verma, A.; Verma, V.; Deka, B. Effects of vermicompost, fertilizer and mulch on plant growth, nodulation and pod yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Veg. Crop. Res. Bull. 2011, 74, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Rodriguez-Canche, L.G.; Cardoso-Vigueros, L.; Carvajal-Leon, J.; Dzib, S.D.P. Production of habanero pepper seedlings with vermicompost generated from sewage sludge. Compost Sci. Util. 2010, 18, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Van Rensburg, L.; Claassens, S.; Blumenstein, O. Effect of vermicompost on soil and plant properties of coal spoil in the Lusatian region (Eastern Germany). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 1945–1957. [Google Scholar]
  227. McGinnis, M.S.; Bilderback, T.E.; Warren, S.L. Vermicompost amended pine bark provides most plant nutrients for Hibiscus moscheutos ‘Luna Blush’. Acta Horticult. 2011, 891, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Kalantari, S.; Ardalan, M.M.; Alikhani, H.A.; Shorafa, M. Comparison of compost and vermicompost of yard leaf manure and inorganic fertilizer on yield of corn. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. León-Anzueto, E.; Abud-Archila, M.; Dendooven, L.; Ventura-Canseco, L.M.C.; Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A. Effect of vermicompost, worm-bed leachate and arbuscular mycorrizal fungi on lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus (DC) stapf.) growth and composition of its essential oil. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Lazcano, C.; Revilla, P.; Malvar, R.A.; Dominguez, J. Yield and fruit quality of four sweet corn hybrids (Zea mays) under conventional and integrated fertilization with vermicompost. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1244–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  231. Jouquet, E.P.; Bloquel, E.; Doan, T.T.; Ricoy, M.; Orange, D.; Rumpel, C.; Duc, T.T. Do compost and vermicompost improve macronutrient retention and plant growth in degraded tropical soils? Compost Sci. Util. 2011, 19, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Hadi, M.; Darz, M.T.; Ghandehari, Z.; Riazi, G. Effects of vermicompost and amino acids on the flower yield and essential oil production from Matricaria chamomile L. J. Med. Plant. Res. 2011, 5, 5611–5617. [Google Scholar]
  233. Ghehsareh, M.G.; Khosh-Khui, M.; Nazari, F. Comparison of municipal solid waste compost, vermicompost and leaf mold on growth and development of cineraria (Pericallis × hybrida ‘Star Wars’). J. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2011, 5, 55–58. [Google Scholar]
  234. Begum, A. Evaluation of municipal sewage sludge vermicompost on two cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2011, 3, 1184–1188. [Google Scholar]
  235. Wang, D.; Shi, Q.; Wang, X.; Wei, M.; Hu, J.; Liu, J.; Yang, F. Influence of cow manure vermicompost on the growth, metabolite contents, and antioxidant activities of Chinese cabbage (Brassica campestris sp. chinensis). Biol. Fertil. Soils 2010, 46, 689–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Singh, B.K.; Pathak, K.A.; Boopathi, T.; Deka, B.C. Vermicompost and NPK fertilizer effects on morpho-physiological traits of plants, yield and quality of tomato fruits (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Veg. Crop. Res. Bull. 2010, 73, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Sangwan, P.; Garg, V.K.; Kaushik, C.P. Growth and yield response of marigold to potting media containing vermicompost produced from different wastes. Environmentalist 2010, 30, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Prasanna Kumar, G.V.; Raheman, H. Volume of vermicompost-based potting mix for vegetable transplants determined using fuzzy biomass growth index. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2010, 16, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Niranjan, R.K.; Pal, A.; Gupta, H.K.; Verma, M.K.; Gond, D.P. Performance of different vermicomposts on yield and yield components of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) in major soils of Bundelkhand region, India. J. Ecophysiol. Occup. Health 2010, 10, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
  240. Nehvi, F.A.; Khan, M.A.; Lone, A.A. Impact of microbial inoculation on growth and yield of saffron in Kashmir. Acta Horticult. 2010, 850, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Moreno-Reséndez, A.; Meza-Morales, H.; Rodríguez-Dimas, N.; Reyes-Carrillo, J.L. Development of muskmelon with different mixtures of vermicompost: Sand under greenhouse conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2010, 33, 1672–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Kirad, K.S.; Barche, S.; Singh, D.B. Integrated nutrient management in papaya (Carica papaya L.) cv. Surya. Acta Horticult. 2010, 851, 377–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Ansari, A.A.; Sukhraj, K. Effect of vermiwash and vermicompost on soil parameters and productivity of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) in Guyana. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 1794–1798. [Google Scholar]
  244. Suthar, S. Impact of vermicompost and composted farmyard manure on growth and yield of garlic (Allium stivum L.) field crop. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2009, 3, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
  245. Manivannan, S.; Balamurugan, M.; Parthasarathi, K.; Gunasekaran, G.; Ranganathan, L.S. Effect of vermicompost on soil fertility and crop productivity--beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). J. Environ. Biol. 2009, 30, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  246. Lazcano, C.; Arnold, J.; Tato, A.; Zaller, J.G.; Domínguez, J. Compost and vermicompost as nursery pot components: Effects on tomato plant growth and morphology. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 7, 944–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Hashemimajd, K.; Golchin, A. The effect of iron-enriched vermicompost on growth and nutrition of tomato. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2009, 11, 613–621. [Google Scholar]
  248. Azarmi, R.; Giglou, M.T.; Hajieghrari, B. The effect of sheep-manure vermicompost on quantitative and qualitative properties of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) grown in the greenhouse. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 4953–4957. [Google Scholar]
  249. Yadav, S.K.; Prasad, R.; Khokhar, U.U. Optimization of integrated nutrient supply system for strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa duch. ‘chandler’) in Himachal Pradesh (India). Acta Horticult. 2009, 842, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Peyvast, G.; Olfati, J.A.; Madeni, S.; Forghani, A.; Samizadeh, H. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth and yield of parsley. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 14, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Padmavathiamma, P.K.; Li, L.Y.; Kumari, U.R. An experimental study of vermi-biowaste composting for agricultural soil improvement. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 1672–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Llaven, M.A.O.; Jimenez, J.L.G.; Coro, B.I.C.; Rincón-Rosales, R.; Molina, J.M.; Dendooven, L.; Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A. Fruit characteristics of bell pepper cultivated in sheep manure vermicompost substituted soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 1585–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A.; Moguel-Zamudio, B.; Abud-Archila, M.; Gutiérrez-Oliva, V.F.; Dendooven, L. Sheep manure vermicompost supplemented with a native diazotrophic bacteria and mycorrhizas for maize cultivation. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 9, 7020–7026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Babaj, I.S.; Kaçiu, S.K.; Sallaku, G.L.; Balliu, A. The influence of different substrate composition on growth parameters and dry mass partitioning of cucumber (Cucumis sativum L.) seedlings. Acta Horticult. 2009, 830, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Azarmi, R.; Ziveh, P.S.; Satari, M.R. Effect of vermicompost on growth, yield and nutrition status of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2008, 11, 1797–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  256. Roberts, P.; Edwards-Jones, G.; Jones, D.L. Yield responses of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to vermicompost applications. Compost Sci. Util. 2007, 15, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A.; Santiago-Borraz, J.; Montes Molina, J.A.; Nafate, C.C.; Abud-Archila, M.; Oliva Llaven, M.A.; Dendooven, L. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2781–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  258. Umamaheswari, S.; Vijayalakshmi, G.S. Influence of vermicompost on the growth and yield of black gram (Phaseolus mungo). Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2006, 12, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
  259. Hidalgo, P.R.; Matta, F.B.; Harkess, R.L. Physical and chemical properties of substrates containing earthworm castings and effects on marigold growth. HortScience 2006, 41, 1474–1476. [Google Scholar]
  260. Golchin, A.; Nadi, M.; Mozaffari, V. The effects of vermicomposts produced from various organic solid wastes on growth of pistachio seedlings. Acta Horticult. 2006, 726, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Paul, L.C.; Metzger, J.D. Impact of vermicompost on vegetable transplant quality. HortScience 2005, 40, 2020–2023. [Google Scholar]
  262. Athani, S.I.; Ustad, A.I.; Prabhuraj, H.S.; Swamy, G.S.K.; Patil, P.B.; Kotikal, Y.K. Influence of vermicompost on growth, fruit yield and quality of guava cv. Sardar. Acta Horticult. 2007, 735, 381–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Reddy, M.V.; Ohkura, K. Vermicomposting of rice-straw and its effects on sorghum growth. Trop. Ecol. 2004, 45, 327–331. [Google Scholar]
  264. Hashemimajd, K.; Kalbasi, M.; Golchin, A.; Shariatmadari, H. Comparison of vermicompost and composts as potting media for growth of tomatoes. J. Plant Nutr. 2004, 27, 1107–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Gajalakshmi, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Neem leaves as a source of fertilizer-cum-pesticide vermicompost. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 92, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Atiyeh, R.; Metzger, J.D. Effects of vermicomposts produced from food waste on the growth and yields of greenhouse peppers. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 93, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  267. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Bierman, P.; Welch, C.; Metzger, J.D. Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries: 1. Effects on growth and yields. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 93, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Acevedo, I.C.; Pire, R. Effects of vermicompost as substrate amendment on the growth of papaya (Carica papaya L.). Interciencia 2004, 29, 274–279. [Google Scholar]
  269. Hidalgo, P.R.; Harkess, R.L. Earthworm castings as a substrate amendment for chrysanthemum production. HortScience 2002, 37, 1035–1039. [Google Scholar]
  270. Hidalgo, P.R.; Harkess, R.L. Earthworm castings as a substrate for poinsettia production. HortScience 2002, 37, 304–308. [Google Scholar]
  271. Mba, C.C. Treated-cassava peel vermicomposts enhanced earthworm activities and cowpea growth in field plots. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1996, 17, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Soobhany, N.; Mohee, R.; Garg, V.K. A comparative analysis of composts and vermicomposts derived from municipal solid waste for the growth and yield of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 11228–11239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  273. Chaudhuri, P.S.; Paul, T.K.; Dey, A.; Datta, M.; Dey, S.K. Effects of rubber leaf litter vermicompost on earthworm population and yield of pineapple (Ananas comosus) in West Tripura, India. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2016, 5, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Pączka, G.; Kostecka, J. The influence of vermicompost from kitchen waste on the yield-enhancing characteristics of peas Pisum sativum L. Var. Saccharatum ser. Bajka variety. J. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 14, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Ma, L.; Yin, X.-Q. Effects of sewage sludge vermicompost on the growth of marigold. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 21, 1346–1350. [Google Scholar]
  276. Lazcano, C.; Sampedro, L.; Zas, R.; Domínguez, J. Assessment of plant growth promotion by vermicompost in different progenies of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). Compost Sci. Util. 2010, 18, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Arouiee, H.; Dehdashtizade, B.; Azizi, M.; Davarinejad, G.H. Influence of vermicompost on the growth of tomato transplants. Acta Horticult. 2009, 809, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Azizi, P.; Khomame, A.M.; Mirsoheil, M. Influence of cow manure vermicompost on growth of Dieffenbachia. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2008, 14, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  279. Hameeda, B.; Harini, G.; Rupela, O.P.; Reddy, G. Effect of composts or vermicomposts on sorghum growth and mycorrhizal colonization. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 6, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  280. Ali, M.; Griffiths, A.J.; Williams, K.P.; Jones, D.L. Evaluating the growth characteristics of lettuce in vermicompost and green waste compost. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2007, 43, 316–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Allardice, R.P.; Kapp, C.; Botha, A.; Valentine, A. Optimizing vermicompost concentrations for the N nutrition and production of the legume Lupinus angustifolius. Compost Sci. Util. 2015, 23, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Aksakal, E.L.; Sari, S.; Angin, I. Effects of vermicompost application on soil aggregation and certain physical properties. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 983–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Tejada, M.; Gómez, I.; Hernández, T.; García, C. Utilization of vermicomposts in soil restoration: Effects on soil biological properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 525–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Saha, S.; Mina, B.L.; Gopinath, K.A.; Kundu, S.; Gupta, H.S. Organic amendments affect biochemical properties of a sub temperate soil of the Indian Himalayas. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 80, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Dass, A.; Lenka, N.K.; Patnaik, U.S.; Sudhishri, S. Integrated nutrient management for production, economics, and soil improvement in winter vegetables. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 14, 104–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Mondal, T.; Datta, J.K.; Mondal, N.K. Influence of indigenous inputs on the properties of old alluvial soil in a mustard cropping system. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2015, 61, 1319–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Bejbaruah, R.; Sharma, R.C.; Banik, P. Split application of vermicompost to rice (Oryza sativa L.): Its effect on productivity, yield components, and N dynamics. Org. Agric. 2013, 3, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Gopinath, K.A.; Mina, B.L. Effect of organic manures on agronomic and economic performance of garden pea (Pisum sativum) and on soil properties. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 81, 236–239. [Google Scholar]
  289. González, M.; Gomez, E.; Comese, R.; Quesada, M.; Conti, M. Influence of organic amendments on soil quality potential indicators in an urban horticultural system. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8897–8901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  290. Tejada, M.; García-Martínez, A.M.; Parrado, J. Effects of a vermicompost composted with beet vinasse on soil properties, soil losses and soil restoration. Catena 2009, 77, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Gopinath, K.A.; Saha, S.; Mina, B.L.; Pande, H.; Srivastva, A.K.; Gupta, H.S. Bell pepper yield and soil properties during conversion from conventional to organic production in Indian Himalayas. Sci. Horticult. 2009, 122, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Gopinath, K.; Saha, S.; Mina, B.; Pande, H.; Kundu, S.; Gupta, H. Influence of organic amendments on growth, yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties during transition to organic production. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 82, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Hashemimajd, K.; Kalbasi, M.; Golchin, A.; Knicker, H.; Shariatmadari, H.; Rezaei-Nejad, Y. Use of vermicomposts produced from various solid wastes as potting media. Eur. J. Horticult. Sci. 2006, 71, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
  294. Hernández, R.S.; Chaparro, V.O.; Valdés, G.S.B.; Moreno, C.H.; López, D.P. Changes of physical properties of clay soil by adding filter cake vermicompost and bovine manure. Interciencia 2005, 30, 121–130. [Google Scholar]
  295. Chaoui, H.I.; Zibilske, L.M.; Ohno, T. Effects of earthworm casts and compost on soil microbial activity and plant nutrient availability. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Romero, E.; Fernández-Bayo, J.; Díaz, J.M.C.; Nogales, R. Enzyme activities and diuron persistence in soil amended with vermicompost derived from spent grape marc and treated with urea. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 44, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Mohamadi, P.; Razmjou, J.; Naseri, B.; Hassanpour, M. Humic Fertilizer and Vermicompost Applied to the Soil Can Positively Affect Population Growth Parameters of Trichogramma brassicae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) on Eggs of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2017, 46, 678–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  298. Strauss, S.L.; Stover, J.K.; Kluepfel, D.A. Impact of biological amendments on Agrobacterium tumefaciens survival in soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015, 87, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Singh, R.; Singh, R.; Soni, S.K.; Singh, S.P.; Chauhan, U.K.; Kalra, A. Vermicompost from biodegraded distillation waste improves soil properties and essential oil yield of Pogostemon cablin (patchouli) Benth. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 70, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Rakshit, A. Pest and disease tolerance in rice cv Pusa Basmati as related to different locally available organic manures grown in new alluvail region of West Bengal, India. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 16, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  301. Singh, R.; Soni, S.K.; Awasthi, A.; Kalra, A. Evaluation of vermicompost doses for management of root-rot disease complex in Coleus forskohlii under organic field conditions. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2012, 41, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Razmjou, J.; Vorburger, C.; Mohammadi, M.; Hassanpour, M. Influence of vermicompost and cucumber cultivar on population growth of Aphis gossypii Glover. J. Appl. Entomol. 2012, 136, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Kayalvily, T.D.; Jegathambigai, V.; Karunarathne, M.D.; Svinningen, A.; Mikunthan, G. Prevalence of Erwinia soft rot affecting cut foliage, Dracaena sanderiana ornamental industry and solution towards its management. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2012, 77, 265. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  304. Renčo, M.; Sasanelli, N.; Kováčik, P. The effect of soil compost treatments on potato cyst nematodes Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pallida. Helminthologia 2011, 48, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Nath, G.; Singh, K. Combination of vermicomposts and biopesticides against nematode (Pratylenchus sp.) and their effect on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). IIOAB J. 2011, 2, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  306. Pandey, R.; Kalra, A. Inhibitory effects of vermicompost produced from agro-waste of medicinal and aromatic plants on egg hatching in Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) Chitwood. Curr. Sci. 2010, 98, 833–835. [Google Scholar]
  307. Asciutto, K.; Rivera, M.C.; Wright, E.R.; Morisigue, D.; López, M.V. Effect of vermicompost on the growth and health of Impatiens wallerana. Phyton 2006, 75, 115–123. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Number of papers published on the effect of vermicompost (VC) on germination, growth, yield, disease control and soil health, during 1989–2017.
Figure 1. Number of papers published on the effect of vermicompost (VC) on germination, growth, yield, disease control and soil health, during 1989–2017.
Sustainability 10 01205 g001
Figure 2. Fractions of studies describing impact of vermicompost derived from manure Sustainability 10 01205 i001, phytomass Sustainability 10 01205 i002, manure-phytomass mixture Sustainability 10 01205 i003, other substrates Sustainability 10 01205 i004, and with no mention of source of VC Sustainability 10 01205 i005 on (a) seed germination; (b) growth and yield, and (c) soil health.
Figure 2. Fractions of studies describing impact of vermicompost derived from manure Sustainability 10 01205 i001, phytomass Sustainability 10 01205 i002, manure-phytomass mixture Sustainability 10 01205 i003, other substrates Sustainability 10 01205 i004, and with no mention of source of VC Sustainability 10 01205 i005 on (a) seed germination; (b) growth and yield, and (c) soil health.
Sustainability 10 01205 g002aSustainability 10 01205 g002b
Figure 3. Relative fractions of studies on the effect of vermicompost on (a) seed germination; and (b) plant growth and yield: Sustainability 10 01205 i006 no effect, Sustainability 10 01205 i007 stimulation, Sustainability 10 01205 i008 inhibition, and Sustainability 10 01205 i009 stimulation at lower concentrations and inhibition at higher.
Figure 3. Relative fractions of studies on the effect of vermicompost on (a) seed germination; and (b) plant growth and yield: Sustainability 10 01205 i006 no effect, Sustainability 10 01205 i007 stimulation, Sustainability 10 01205 i008 inhibition, and Sustainability 10 01205 i009 stimulation at lower concentrations and inhibition at higher.
Sustainability 10 01205 g003
Table 1. Effect of vermicompost (VC) on seed germination.
Table 1. Effect of vermicompost (VC) on seed germination.
Source of VCImpacted Plant SpeciesType of ExperimentMain FindingsReference
Studies showing the stimulation of seed germination
Cattle dungFlax (Linum usitassimum var LC-54 and LC-2063)In commercial potting media (perlite, peat and coconut coir) VC was mixed in proportions 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% (v/v). In addition, the effect of vermiwash and inorganic fertilizers was also explored.Substituting soil with 60% VC in LC-54 and with 40% VC in LC-2063 improved the performance of seeds. Further increase in the VC concentration had no significant effect. [125]
Salvinia (Salvinia molesta)Ladies finger (Abelmoschus esculentus)Seeds were sown in soil fortified with VC to the extent of 2.5, 3.75 and 5 t/ha. Unamended soil served as control.An increase in the germination success was recorded in plants grown in VC amended soil. [126]
Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus)Ladies finger (A. esculentus)Plants were germinated and grown in soil fortified with VC to the extent of 2.5, 3.75 and 5 t/ha. Unamended soil served as control.VC stimulated the germination success compared with the controls. Higher the VC concentration in the soil better was the performance. [127]
Cow dung and agriculture residueAsparagus (Asparagus Officinalis)In separate treatments, VC and cow manure were supplemented alone or in combination with Nitroxin in the sand and soil mixture to the extent of 0%, 15% and 30%.VC treatments have shown higher germination rate and mean germination time then controls and cow manure treatments.[128]
Rice wasteTomato (Solanum spp.)VC, rice hush ash (RHS) and coconut fiber (CF) were mixed in the following proportions (v/v): 3/3 VC (control treatment) (T1), 2/3 VC: 1/3 RHS (T2), 2/3 VC: 1/3 CF (T3), 1/3 VC: 2/3 RHS (T4), 1/3 VC: 2/3 CF (T5), and 1/3 VC: 1/3 RHS: 1/3 CF (T6).Mixture containing equal proportions of VC, rice hush ash and coir fiber significantly influenced the seedling emergence.[129]
Macrophytes and cow dungBrinjal (Solanum melongena)Macrophyte based VC was applied to the soil at the rate of 0 (control), 2, 4, and 6 t/ha.Incorporation of VC increased the germination success compared to the controls. Maximum germination was reported in 6 t/ha followed by 4 and 2 t/ha treatments.[32]
Lantana leavesCluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)Seeds were sown in soil amended with VC at concentration 0, 5, 7.5, and 10 t ha−1.VC substitution enhanced the germination percentage.[106]
Tendu leavesFrench bean (P. vulgaris)VC was supplemented in soil at the concentration equivalent of 0%, 50%, 75% and 100% of recommended dose of nitrogen and in combination with urea. VC amendments enhanced the germination percentage significantly over the controls.[130]
Cow dung and lantana leavesMaize (Z. mays)Seeds were germinated in soil amended with 75 g of VC derived from mixture of cow dung (CD) and lantana leaves (LL) in proportions 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% lantana leaves. Unamended garden soil acted as control.The germination index was highest in VC containing a proportion of 80:20 (LL: CD), followed by VC having 40, 60 and 20% LL.[131]
Domestic waste, goat and cow manure Bhendi (A. esculentus)VC and compost were added to the soil in 1:1 ratio.Seed germination was higher in VC treatments then in composts.[11]
Leaves of cassia and leucaena mixed with cow dungCowpea (Vigna unguiculata)VC generated by using earthworm species Eudrilus eugenia and Eisenia foetida was used. VC derived from E. fetida showed more germination success in comparison to the VC derived by using E. eugenia.[132]
Rice straw and chick weed residues and cow dungMaize (Zea mays), beans (P. vulgaris) and okra (A. esculentus)Seeds were germinated in soil, amended with VC to the extent of 1 t/ha.VC substitution enhanced the germination success of all the species studied.[133]
Rabbit manure Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster)Seeds were sown in pots, containing perlite with a layer of sand, amended with VC to the extent of 50% (v/v). Unamended potting media was set as control.Amalgamation of VC in the growing media increased the germination by 16%, compared with controls. [19]
Cattle manure, food and paper wastePetunias (Petunia hybrida)Seeds were sown in soilless commercial bedding plant container medium (Metro-Mix 360) substituted with VC to the extent of 0, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% (v/v).VC substitutions at all the concentrations enhanced the germination success of petunias.[83]
Food and cotton wasteTomato (L. esculentum)VC was added to the commercial peat substrate at the rate of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% (v/v).VC substitution enhanced the germination success of tomato.[18]
ManuresTomatoes (L. esculentum)VC was added to peat-based compost at rates 0%, 10%, 20%, 40%, and 100% (v/v).VC increased germination rates to the extent of 176%.[134]
Pig manureTomato (L. esculentum), pepper (Capsicum sp.), lettuce (L. sativa) and marigold (Calendula officinalis)Seeds were sown in standard commercial soilless plant growth medium (Metro-Mix 360), and in coir/perlite and peat/perlite-based container media substituted with 10% or 20% (v/v) of VC. VC substitution enhanced the germination percentage of all the species studied.[135]
Studies showing the inhibition of seed germination
Municipal sewage sludgeWinter rye (Secale cereale)Pure sand or mineral-enriched sand was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% (v/v).VC inhibited the seed germination at all the concentrations. Maximum germination success was observed in controls. [136]
Cow manureGarden beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), peas (Pisum sativum), beet root (Beta vulgaris), radish (R. sativus), cabbage (Brassica oleracea) and Swedish turnip (Brassica napobrassica)Sphagnum peat was substituted with VC at the rates 0, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and 100% (v/v), successively.In case of cabbage, onion and Swedish turnip seeds, 10–20% VC did not produce any effect, however 30–50% VC treatment reduced the germination percentage up to 50%. Contradictorily, 5–10% VC treatment inhibited the seed germination in beetroot, beans, and peas, whereas higher VC concentrations boosted the germination.[117]
Cow manureBristle grass (Setaria viridis)Seeds were germinated in pots, containing iron mine tailings amended with 0% (control), 10%, 20% and 30% VC (v/v).With increasing VC concentration, the germination rate reduced. Maximum germination was recorded in controls.[137]
Cattle manureRadish (R. sativus), marigold (C. officinalis), and upland cress (Barbarea verna)VC was mixed in Pugwash sandy loam soil to the extent of 5% and 10% compost–soil combinations.The percent germination of all three species was depressed in soil mixes with 5% or 10% VC compared to the control soil. [138]
Studies showing no effect of VC on seed germination
Cow dungChickpea (Cicer arietinum)Seeds were germinated in soil fortified with 0% (control), 10% and 20% VC. VC fortification had no significant impact on seed germination.[103]
Dairy manureLettuce (L. sativa)VC was supplemented in coconut coir to the extent of 20%, 40% and 60% (v/v). Coconut coir without fertilization was set as control.VC supplementation had no impact on seed germination.[139]
Tomato crop wasteMarigold (C. officinalis), and horned pansy (Viola cornuta)VC was mixed with sphagnum peat in proportions 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100 (peat control) by volume.VC supplementation did not affect seed germination.[110]
Coconut coir dust and pepper remainsTomato (S. lycopersicum)In separate treatments, mixture of commercial blonde sphagnum peat, coconut coir dust, perlite and VC were studied. The proportion of VC was 0%, 25%, and 50%.VC supplementation had no impact on the seed germination.[140]
Pig manureTomato (L. esculentum), marigold (Tagetes patula, and pepper (Capsicum annuum)Seeds were sown in commercial potting substrate (Metro Mix 360), amended with VC to the extent of 0%, 10%, and 20% (v/v).VC supplementation had no impact on the germination of any of the species studied.[141]
Green wasteSunflower (Helianthus annuus), garden cosmos (Cosmos bipinnatus) and golden poppy (Eschscholzia californica)VC was supplemented in peat based growing media to the extent of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% (v/v).VC addition had no significant effect on the germination rates within individual species groups.[22]
Studies showing the stimulation at lower concentration and inhibition at higher
Fly ashMarigold (Tagetes spp.)Seeds were sown in media composed of pine bark compost and VC. The proportion of VC was 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Additionally, in one set of treatments chemical fertilizers were added, while keeping another treatment without fertilizer fortification. VC treatments up to 75% significantly enhanced the germination percentage, while inhibiting at 100%.[142]
Ipomoea Green gram (Vigna radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus)Seedlings were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).When supplemented to soil in the range of 2–4%, VC enhanced the germination. Further increase in VC concentration inhibited the germination success.[37]
Salvinia Green gram (V. radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (C. sativus)Seedlings were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).VC concentration in the range of 4–20% enhanced the germination. Further increase in VC concentration inhibited the germination success.[38]
Cow solidsThyme (Thymus vulgaris)Seeds were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rate 0, 25, 50, and 75%.VC enhanced the seedling germination indices when added to the extent of 25%; with further increase in VC proportion, the impact was reversed.[143]
Fly ash and cow dungMarigold (Tagetes spp.)Mixture of VC and pine bark compost was used as media, with VC added to the extent of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Seeds were sown in media with or without fertilizer.VC treatment up to 75% of the media composition enhanced the germination percentage significantly. Further increase in VC proportion reduced the germination success.[142]
Parthenium leavesGreen gram (V. radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (C. sativus)Seedlings were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).VC enhanced the germination of all the species when used up to 2% and inhibited germination thereafter.[36]
Lantana leavesGreen gram (V. radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (C. sativus)In separate treatments seeds were sown in plastic trays containing soil, amended with 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight) VC.In all cases lantana VC enabled greater success in seed germination compared to control when used in concentration range 0.75–2%. At VC concentrations above 2%, germination was inhibited in comparison to controls.[35]
Temple floral waste, yard waste, cow dungChickpea (Cicer arietinum)Seed germination test was conducted by substituting the VC of each of the three substrates at concentrations 5%, 10%, and 25% (v/v), successively. VC derived from each of the substrates enhanced germination at lower concentrations, while 25% VC inhibited the seedling emergence.[116]
Cow manure and vegetable wasteKidney bean (P. vulgaris)Seeds were sown in trays containing barren soil, substituted with VC to the extent of 0%, 25%, 50%, 80%, and 100% (v/v).VC incorporation up to 50% improved the germination success, thereafter with increased VC concentration the germination inhibited significantly.[144]
Sheep manureRadish (R. sativus)Seeds were sown in bags containing peat moss, substituted with VC to the extent of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% (v/v).Maximum seed germination was recorded in treatment containing minimum (10%) VC. Further increase in VC concentration reduced the germination rate linearly.[51]
Cow manureAlfalfa (Medicago sativa) and white clover (Trifolium repens)VC was added to the iron tailing at concentrations 0% (control), 5%, 10%, 20% (v/v).The germination success of white clover was highest in the treatment containing maximum (20%) VC. In case of alfalfa maximum germination was recorded in 10% VC treatment, while it reduced significantly in 20% VC.[145]
Empty fruit bunch of oil palm and chicken manureOkra (A. esculentus)VC was amended with peat in ratios of 0:100 (control), 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, and 100:0 (VC: peat).An increase in seed germination was reported on substitution of VC in the 25–75% range; 100% VC treatment inhibited the seedling emergence significantly. [146]
Organic food and cotton wasteTomato (L. esculentum)Commercial peat was amended with VC at concentrations 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% (v/v). VC substitution at the concentration range 20–40% enhanced the germination success. Further increase in VC treatments (60–100%) reduced the germination success.[18]
Pig manureTomatoe (L. esculentum)Seeds were germinated in a standard commercial greenhouse container medium (Metro-Mix 360), substituted with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (by volume) pig manure VC. Unfertilized media was set as control.Substitution of VC in the container medium at concentration 20–90% enhanced the germination rate; 100% VC treatment inhibited the seedling emergence.[17]
Animal manure and plant wastesRadish (R. sativus).In pots, VC was mixed with sand at concentration ranging from 0, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (v/v).Maximum seed germination was recorded in treatments containing minimum (10%) VC. Further increase in VC concentration reduced the germination success.[147]
Duck wasteTomato (S. lycopersicum), lettuce (L. sativa) and pepper (Capsicum sp.)Seeds were sown in peat-based media, substituted with worm-worked duck waste at concentrations 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 15%, and 20% (v/v).An increase in seed germination was reported on substitution of VC in the 2–8% range. Further increase in VC proportions reduced the germination success.[34]
Table 2. Effect of vermicompost (VC) on growth and yield.
Table 2. Effect of vermicompost (VC) on growth and yield.
Source of VCImpacted Plant SpeciesType of ExperimentMain FindingsReference
Studies showing the stimulation of plant growth and yield
Chicken manureCucumber (C. sativus)Cucumber was grown on sandy loam soil under four soil amendment conditions: inorganic compound fertilizer (750 kg/ha), replacement of 150 kg/ha of inorganic compound fertilizer with 3000 kg/ha of organic fertilizer or VC, and untreated control.VC amendment maintained higher fruit yield and quality under continuous cropping conditions.[65]
Not statedBroccoli (B. oleracea)VC, farmyard manure and poultry manure were applied to soil at the rate 5, 8 and 5 tonnes/ha, respectively. VC led to the earliest first and 50% harvesting, maximum number of leaves, most weight of main head, girth of head, largest number of sprouts/plant, yield of sprouts/plant, greatest yield of sprouts (main head + sprouts)/plant, highest total yield, and plant biomass compared with the FYM and poultry manure treatments.[148]
Rice wasteTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)VC, rice husk ash (RHS), and coconut fiber (CF) at the following proportions (by volume) were used. 0% VC + 50% RHS + 50% CF (control treatment-T1); 20% VC + 40% RHS + 40% CF (T2); 40% VC + 30% RHS + 30% CF (T3); 60% VC + 20% RHS + 20% CF (T4); 80% VC + 10% RHS + 10% CF (T5); and 100% VC (T6).In treatments containing 60% and 80% of VC, the yield was higher than in the controls and other treatments.[149]
Distillation waste of aromatic cropsBasil (Ocimum basilicum)VC and tannery sludge were added to a sodic soil to the extent of 5 t/ha. In addition, two bacterial strains isolated from the same sodic soil were also mixed in the soil. Unamended soil served as control.VC, tannery sludge and microbial inoculants enhanced the height, number of branches, biomass, root expansion, yield and oil quality.[150]
Not statedSoybean (Glycine max)VC was added to the soil at the rate of 0 and 5% of soil weight along with the inoculation and non-inoculation of arbuscular mycorrhizal. In addition, cadmium chloride was added at five levels: 0, 20, 40, 80 and 160 mg per kg of soil.VC and mycorrhiza decreased the toxic effects of cadmium chloride with concomitant increase in the grain weight per plant, number of pods per plant and seed oil percentage, and root weight and photosynthetic rate.[151]
Cattle manureSweet corn (Zea mays)Treatments include main plots consisting of five VC application rates (5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 Mg ha−1) and subplots consisted of five liquid organic fertilizer application rates (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%, initial concentration).VC noticeably increased the NPK uptake and plant height, plant leaf area, shoot weight, weight of the husked and the unhusked ears, diameters of the ears, and weight of the husked ear per plot. Higher the VC concentration greater was the impact.[152]
Excreta-basedTomato (Solanum lycopersicum)The experiment consisted of eight treatments where the mineral fertilizer (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) and the VC (0, 3.75, 7.5, 11.25, and 15 t/ha) were combined in different proportions, arranged in a completely randomized block design replicated three times.Combined treatment of mineral fertilizer (75%) and VC (11.25 t/ha) showed maximum growth, yield and quality, compared with sole application of VC or mineral fertilizers and other treatments. [153]
Cattle dungFlax (Linum usitassimum var LC-54 and LC-2063)In commercial potting media (perlite, peat and coconut coir) VC was mixed in proportions 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% (v/v). In addition, the effect of vermiwash and inorganic fertilizers was also explored.Substituting soil with 60% VC in LC-54 and with 40% VC in LC-2063 improved the performance of seeds, root morphology, and stem growth. Further increase in the VC concentration had no significant effect on the recorded variables. Combined treatment of vermiwash and VC outperformed the chemical fertilizer treatments and controls.[125]
Rice straw and cow dungPea (Pisum sativum)Normal VC and humic acid rich VC were added to the soil to the extent of 9 g/kg of soil. In separate treatments, chemical fertilizer in the form of urea, diammonium phosphate and muriate of potassium was added to the extent of 37.5, 60, 50 kg/ha, respectively. Unamended soil was studied as control.Compared with the chemical fertilizer treatments and controls, an increase in the height, fresh weight, and dry weight of plants were recorded in VC amended soil. In addition, VC increased the root nodulation and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization; the increment being higher in the humic acid rich VC.[154]
Pig manure and wheat strawRadish (R. sativus), onion (Allium cepa), marigolds (Tagetes spp.) and grass (Trifolium spp.).Plants were grown in soil mixed with VC in concentrations of 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 10%, and 12.5%. In another set of greenhouse outdoor experiment VC was added to the soil to the extent of 0, 1, 3, 5, and 7 kg/m2. In both, the pot as well as the plot experiments VC improved the growth of all the plants studied.[155]
Cow dung and Leucaena leucocephala leavesSunflower (Helianthus annuus)In a randomized complete block design plants were grown in three sets, which comprise of set 1: recommended dose of NPK; set 2: 1 kg/plant VC and set 3: 1 L/plant biogas slurry. In addition, five pots from each set were irrigated with 0.5, 4.8 8.6 dS/m EC levels of saline water.VC and biogas slurry improved the growth, yield, nitrate and protein content and decreased sodium induced inhibitory effects on sunflower. An increase in the nitrogen assimilating enzymes was also recorded.[156]
Not statedTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)The fertilization treatments included T1, VC (12 t/ha); T2, compost (10 t/ha); T3, integrated plant nutrient system (IPNS) or mixed fertilizers (organic 2/3 part and inorganic 1/3 part); T4, inorganic fertilizers; and a control (T5).Integrated plant nutrient system resulted in higher growth and yield compared to controls and other treatments.[157]
SalviniaLadies finger (A. esculentus)Plants were germinated and grown in soil fortified with VC to the extent of 2.5, 3.75 and 5 t/ha. Unamended soil served as control.VC stimulated the germination, growth, yield and quality of fruits, compared with the controls. Higher the VC concentration on the soil better was the performance. [126]
PartheniumLadies finger (A. esculentus)Seeds were sown in soil fortified with VC to the extent of 2.5, 3.75 and 5 t/ha. Unamended soil served as control.An increase in the germination success, growth and yield was observed in plants grown in VC amended soil. [127]
Not statedChickpea (C. arietinum)VC at the rate of 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% was added in soil subjected to a water deficit stress level of 0, 25 and 75%.VC reduced the negative effects of water stress by increasing the absorption of calcium and potassium and decreasing the absorption sodium.[158]
Vegetable waste, agriculture crop residue, weeds and cow dungTomato (L. esculentum) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea)In field experiment, VC, compost, farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizers were supplemented to the soil to make the NPK 75-60-60 for tomato and 120-60-60 t/ha for cabbage soil. Combined treatment of VC, compost and inorganic fertilizers stimulated the growth, yield, quality, and storage longevity of both tomato and cabbage. [159]
Not statedPigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)In randomized block design, experiment was conducted with six treatments: Control, recommended dose of NPK for the crop, recommended dose + farmyard manure, recommended dose + VC, farmyard manure only and VC only.VC enhanced the crude protein, soluble carbohydrate, ash content and total flavonoid content in leaves. In addition, significant impact of VC on the antioxidant and antibacterial properties of the leaves was also recorded. [75]
Not statedSalvia (Salvia Leriifolia)VC and compost were added to the soil at the rates 3 and 6 t/ha and 10 and 20 t/ha respectively. One set of each was inoculated with phosphate dissolving bacteria Pseudomonas putidam while another set was not inoculated. Control plants were not applied with either organic fertilizers or the bacteria.Combined treatment of VC (3 t/ha) and phosphate dissolving bacteria P. putida led to significantly higher leaf area index, plant height, plant dry weight, seed yield and essential oil yield. Lowest growth and yield was observed in the controls.[16]
Horse and rabbit manureAmaranthus (Amaranthus cruentus)VC was applied at the rate 100 cm3 per stroke. Alongside biodigester effluent and Trichoderma sp. were applied for comparison. Unamended soil served as controls.No significant differences were detected between the average growth of effluent-treated plants and those treated with Trichoderma sp., and these averages were significantly higher than those obtained with VC and control treatments. VC, however increased the yield to a significant level, compared with the controls.[160]
Dairy manureStrawberry (Fragaria ananassa)Media composed of (1) a peat: perlite soil-less mix and (2) a fine sand soil, was amended with VC to the extent of 0%, 10%, and 25% by weight. Additionally, a biweekly synthetic fertilizer treatment of 150 mg N-P-K L−1 was also used.VC treatments enhanced the vegetative biomass of strawberry, compared with the controls and synthetic fertilizers.[161]
Not statedChickpea (Cicer Arietinum)VC at the rate of 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% was added to soil subjected to water deficit stress levels of 0%, 25% and 75%. VC treatments under all water deficit stress levels increased plant height, number of pods, leaf area, stem and leaf dry weight, and pod dry weight. In addition, the chlorophyll and carotenoid content, CO2 assimilation rate, internal CO2 concentration, and water-use efficiency in the no stress level were improved in 20% and 30% VC treatments.[162]
Tea, twig and food wasteRoses (Rosa indica Thory., Rosa chinensis Jacq. and Rosa damascena Dieck.)Treatments included: T1, Sand + Tea waste VC (1:1 v/v); T2, Sand + Tea waste VC (1:2 v/v); T3, Sand + Tea waste VC (1:3 v/v); T4, Sand + Twigs VC (1:1 v/v); T5, Sand + Twigs VC (1:2 v/v); T6, Sand + Twigs VC (1:3 v/v); T7, Sand + Food waste VC (1:1 v/v); T8, Sand + Food waste VC (1:2 v/v) and T9, Sand + Food waste VC (1:3 v/v).All plant growth and rooting characteristics were significantly affected by different VC treatments. The response, however, differed with different sources of VC.[163]
Cow manureAmerican aloe (Agave Americana)In separate treatments, VC (0 or 10 g per plant), rock phosphate (0 or 1 g per plant), G. fasciculatum (0 or 1 × 106 spores per plant), and Penicillium sp. (0 or 1 × 109 spores per plant) were used.VC affected stem dry weight, the fructan, glucose, and fructose in stem and mycorrhization content in the roots.[164]
Not statedSpinach (Spinacia oleracea)In separate treatments VC to the extent of 5% and 10% (v/v) and VC extract at the rate 40 mL was added to the soil.VC increased leaf number, area biomass, shoot and root biomass, and water use efficiency. It also increased the chlorophyll content, and photochemical efficiency, yield, and electron transport rate of mature leaves. Additionally, it increased the leaf succulence, and the carotenoid, protein, and amino acid content. [165]
De-oiled waste of ocimum and cow dungSweet basil (Ocimum basilicum)VC at the rate of 5 t/ha alone or in combination with bioinoculants was added to the soil. In separate treatments, formally recommended dose of NPK (80:60:60 kg ha−1) was used. Unamended soil was considered as control.Consortium of VC and bioinoculants significantly improved the biomass, essential oil content, and essential oil yield over control.[64]
Not statedLettuce (Lactuca sativa)VC was added to the mixture of peat and perlite at rates 0% (control), 20%, and 40%.VC amendments resulted in 20% increase in the size of plants.[74]
Arecanut plantation leavesArecanut (Areca catechu)VC alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers was supplemented to the extent of equivalent or twice of the recommended dose of nitrogen (100 g) for the growth of arecanut.VC increased the yield, leaf N and K content compared with the controls. [73]
Not statedFenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum)VC, farmyard manure, poultry manure, neem cake, and inorganic fertilizer were supplemented to the soil alone or in combinations equivalent to the 40 kg/ha N. Unamended soil was used as control.All treatments, organic or inorganic, singly or in combination, significantly increased the growth and yield of fenugreek. Among all the treatments, the VC-inorganic combinations gave the best response.[166]
Cattle manureSorghum (Sorghum bicolor)VC (25 g/pot/month) and vermiwash (l L/pot/week) were used separately and in their combinations in saline and nonsaline soils. Unamended pots were considered as controls.Combined treatments of VC and vermiwash enhanced the growth under both saline and nonsaline conditions. [167]
Cow dung, plant wastages and lemongrass spentLemon grass (Cymbopogan flexuosus)The plants were treated at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 g per plant of VC.VC increased the height, number of tillers per plant, herb production and oil content of the plants. The best response was reported in 10 g treated plants.[168]
Not statedGerman chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla)Soil was amended with VC at the rate 0, 5, and 10 t/ha in different drought stress conditions (no stress, moderate stress and severe stress).Application of VC enhanced the nutrient percentages and leaf chlorophyll content in all the drought conditions.[169]
Crop residues and cattle dungMaize (Z. mays) and wheat (Triticum aestivum)VC, compost and farmyard manure were added to the soil at the rate of 5 t ha−1, alone and in combination with half of the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer (6:30:30 kg ha−1 NPK). In addition, a treatment was set with 100% inorganic fertilizer (12:60:60 kg ha−1). Unamended soil was used as control.Organic fertilizers when used alone or in combination with mineral fertilizers increased the yields and nutrient uptake compared with the control.[170]
Mixture of cow and buffalo dung plus bedding material (oak leaves, pine needles and Fingermillet strawPotato (Solanum tuberosum)VC, farmyard manure (FYM), and chicken manure were supplemented alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers equivalent to the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers (IF) (N150P75K75). In addition, microbial consortia were added in each treatment. Unamended soil served as control.All the treatments performed better in terms of growth, tuber productivity, profitability, tuber quality, and nutrient uptake than controls; however combined application of FYM and IF outperformed all other treatments. [171]
Not statedBasil (Ocimum basilicum)VC, farmyard manure, and poultry manure were added to the soil to the extent of 10, 20, and 5 t ha−1, respectively. In addition, a treatment with recommended dose of NPK (100:60:60 kg ha−1) was also set. Unamended soil served as control.Application of organic manure alone or in combination with chemical fertilizer had a positive effect on the crop, essential oil yield, antioxidant activity, nutritional quality, and nutraceutical attributes of basil.[172]
Mushroom culture waste, vegetable residue, leaf litter, and cow manureCabbage (Brassica oleracea)VC was added to the media (mixture of soil and cow dung) to the extent of 200 g per 10 kg of media. In addition, earthworm species P. corethrurus was added in each pot to the extent of 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 worms per m2. Pots treated with inorganic fertilizers were considered as control.VC significantly increased the yield compared to the controls. Co-application of earthworms and VC improved the yield and quality significantly.[173]
Not statedMarjoram (Majorana hortensis)Marjoram was grown in soil supplemented with VC to the extent of 0, 6, 8 and 10 m3/fed and calcium silicate at the rate 0, 10, 15 and 20 kg/fed.VC increased the plant height, number of branches, biomass, essential oil percentage, fruit yield and total carbohydrates. [72]
Not statedLemon balm (Elissa officinalis)In separate treatments, VC at the rate 0%, 15% and 30% (V/pot), two levels of biophosphate (treated and untreated) and three levels of chemical fertilizers (0, 250 and 500 mg/pot) were used.VC and biophosphate have stimulatory effects on the quantity and quality of the essential oil in lemon balm.[174]
Not statedCoriander (Coriandrum sativum)Three growth media combinations were tested: M1 [VC (5 t/ha), foliar spray of garlic extract (5% @ 2.0 kg/ha) + neem oil (2% @ 5 L/ha], M2 [FYM (10 tonnes/ha), foliar spray of garlic extract (5% @ 2.0 kg/ha) alone] and M3 [sheep manure (10 tonnes/ha), foliar spray of karanj oil (2% @ 5 L/ha)]. In addition, all the modules were supplemented with neem cake (150 kg/ha) and Trichoderma (2.5 kg/ha).M1 treatment exhibited maximum number of primary and secondary branches, number of umbels and seeds, and highest seed yield.[175]
Municipal sewage sludgeWinter rye (Secale cereale)Pure sand or mineral-enriched sand was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% (v/v).VC inhibited the growth at early stages, however at later stages enhancement in leaf chlorophyll content and mineral uptake was observed. [136]
Not statedKale (Brassica oleracea)In separate treatments, VC, humate and volcanic minerals were added to the growth media (Pro-mix BX) to the extent of 50 g, 47.5 g and 100 g per pot, respectively. Pro-mix BX alone served as the control.Application of single-dose C had shown the highest productivity compared to the other treatments. [176]
Not statedChickpea (Cicer arietinum)VC was mixed with soil in the proportions of 0:100, 10:90, 20:80, and 30:70. In addition the soil was maintained at three levels of drought stress (no stress, moderate drought, and severe drought).VC treatment under no stress conditions significantly increased the chlorophyll content, intercellular CO2 concentration, net photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and maximal quantum yield of PSII photochemistry (Fv/Fm). However, these impacts were not seen under moderate and severe stress conditions.[177]
Not statedSahendi savory (Satureja sahendica)In separate treatments, VC (4 t/ha), inorganic fertilizers (NPK 100-50-25 kg per ha) plus foliar application of micronutrients, and vermitea (40 liters/ha), were used individually and in combination with each other.No significant effect on the essential oil percentage was reported. However, the relative superiority of essence belonged to the combined treatment of VC and vermitea. Individual supplementation of VC increased the thymol content.[178]
Oil palm empty fruit bunchOil palm (Elaeis guineensis)In separate treatments mixture of OPEFB (VC cultivated in a media comprising oil palm empty fruit bunch) and POME (anaerobically digested palm oil mill effluent) alone, and in combination with chemical fertilizer at a ratio of 70:30, were applied to the soil at the rate 3 Kg per plant. In addition, a treatment (control) was set with 100% chemical fertilizer. Mixture of OPEFB and POME alone or in combination with chemical fertilizer gave the best results in terms of stem growth and frond production compared with the controls.[179]
Not statedTomato (L. esculentum)VC was used to the extent of 25%, 50% and 75% in peat and perlite mixture. In addition, a treatment was set using 25% VC and 25% compost and perlite mixture.Among several ratios of VC, compost, peat, and perlite, VC with 25% compost increased the number of red fruits in the harvest period significantly more than the control. The use of VC, peat and perlite increased root fresh and dry weight, root volume, mean photosynthesis, and the number of fruits at all physiological stages compared to the control.[180]
Cow dung and agriculture residueAsparagus (Asparagus Officinalis)In separate treatments, VC and cow manure were supplemented alone or in combination with nitroxin in the sand and soil mixture to the extent of 0%, 15% and 30%.VC enhanced the length and weight of the roots and shoots compared to the controls.[128]
Horse manureLettuce (Lactuca sativa)VC and compost was added to the peat-based growing medium to the extent of 0%, 10%, 20%, 50%, and 75% (v/v).VC significantly increased the mean shoot fresh and dry weights compared with the compost and controls. VC also resulted in larger plants with reduced conductivity stress and root/shoot ratio, especially at higher amendment concentrations.[12]
Not statedBeetroot (Beta vulgaris)VC, farmyard manure (FYM), and a consortium of biofertilizers were supplemented in the soil to the extent of 5 t ha−1, 25 t ha−1, and 2 kg ha−1, respectively. In addition, biostimulants were supplemented as foliar spray once in 10 days.VC and consortium of biofertilizers led to higher root length, root girth root weight, and shoot: root ratio per plant, yield per plot and yield per hectare compared with the FYM.[181]
Vegetable waste, crop residue, cow dung and weedsChili (Capsicum chinense)VC was supplemented to the soil in equivalence to the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus content of 120:80:80; either fully or half of it along with inorganic fertilizers. VC when supplemented alone or in combination with the inorganic fertilizers increased the fruit yield, and the content of soluble sugar, protein, fiber, and lycopene.[182]
Not statedBean (Phaseolus vulgaris)VC was added to the soil at proportions of 0:100; 10:90; 25:75; 50:50 and 75:25. In addition four levels of salinity stress (20, 40, 60 and 80 mmol L−1 sodium chloride) were maintained in the soil. Untreated soil was used as control.VC significantly increased the photosynthetic rate and concentrations of potassium (K+) and calcium (Ca2+) in leaf and root tissues. [183]
Not statedJapanese mint (Mentha arvensis)Farmyard manure (FYM), VC, and poultry manure (PM) were added to the soil to the extent of 30, 15, and 7.5 Mg ha−1, respectively. Unamended soil was considered as control.Combined application of FYM, VC and PM resulted in highest yield attributes compared with individual treatments and controls.[184]
Not statedBuckwheat (Fagopyrum sp.)Two cultivars of buckwheat (Meethey and Teethey) were grown in soil supplemented with VC to the extent of 0 (control), 1, 1.5 and 2.5 t/ha.Application of VC at the rate 2.5 t/ha recorded higher values of grains/plant, test weight, grain yield and haulm yield resulting in highest gross returns, in comparison to the controls and other VC treatments.[185]
Cow manureAlfalfa (Medicago sativa) and vinca rosa (Catharanthus roseus)VC was added to the sandy soil to the extent of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%.Plant height and fresh biomass increased significantly with increasing proportion of the VC.[186]
Cow dungChickpea (Cicer arietinum)Soil fortified with 10% and 20% VC was used as potting media. Unfertilized soil was set as control.Plant height, shoot biomass, number of pods and photosynthetic pigments were significantly higher in plants grown in media fortified with VC.[103]
Rice wasteTomato (Solanum spp.)VC, rice hush ash (RHS) and coconut fiber (CF) were mixed in the following proportions (v/v): 3/3 VC (control treatment) (T1), 2/3 VC:1/3 RHS (T2), 2/3 VC:1/3 CF (T3), 1/3 VC:2/3 RHS (T4), 1/3 VC:2/3 CF (T5), and 1/3 VC:1/3 RHS:1/3 CF (T6).Mixture containing equal proportions of VC, rice hush ash and coir fiber significantly influenced the emergence, elongation and biomass allocation of tomato.[129]
Cow manureTomato (Solanum spp.) and spinach (Spinacia oleracea)VC enriched with or without PGPR, was added to the soil to the extent of 0 (control), 15 and 30 Mg/ha.PGPR enriched VC enhanced the yield of tomato and spinach.[187]
Distillation waste of geranium and ocimumPatchouli (Pogostemon cablin)VC was added to the soil @ 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% in combination with 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% of recommended dose of NPK, respectively. Unfertilized soil was considered as control.VC treatments when used alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers enhanced the plant height and spread, number of branches, fresh herb yield, oil content and oil yield, compared with the control. [104]
Cow ungMung bean (Vigna radiata)VC pretreated with Trichoderma viride (0.1% and 0.2%), was incorporated in soil infested with plant pathogen Macrophomina phaseolina to the extent of 25 g kg−1. Soil containing only M. phaseolina served as a control.Growth of mung bean in terms of root length, weight of root and shoots was higher in soil containing T. viride augumented VC, than in controls.[188]
Coir waste, paddy husk and cow dungBlack gram (Vigna mungo)VC was added to the soil alone and in combination with earthworms’s coelomic fluid. Unfertilized soil was used as control.VC treatments when used alone or in combination with earthworms’s coelomic fluid enhanced the growth of black gram. [189]
Cassava industrial wasteMaize (Z. mays)Efficacy of VC and compost as soil conditioners in alleviating salt affected soils was assessed. Treatments included: (1) control (unfertilized soil); (2) earthworms only; (3) compost at the rate 10 Mg ha−1); (4) compost + earthworms; (5) VC at the rate 5 Mg ha−1); (6) VC + earthworms; and (7) recommended dose of chemical fertilizers.VC exhibited better plant height and total dry matter of maize, compared with the control.[190]
Macrophytes and cow dungEggplant (S. melongena)VC was added to the soil at the rates 0 (control), 2, 4 and 6 t/ha.VC enhanced the number of fruits per plant, fruit weight, yield per plant, and marketable fruits of eggplant. Maximum growth and yield was reported in treatment containing 6 t/ha, followed by 4 and 2 t/ha.[32]
Chicken manureBlue lupin (Lupinus angustifolius)VC was added to the soil at the rates 5 and 7.5 Mg ha−1 along with varying concentrations of farmyard manure.Combined treatment of VC and farmyard manure significantly enhanced the growth in terms of number of leaves per plant, leaf area per plant, and fresh and dry leaf biomass per plant.[105]
Buffalo manureMaize (Z. mays)VC at the rate 20 t ha−1 was added to soil pretreated with chemical fertilizers. Soil amended with only fertilizers was taken as control.VC improved the growth (plant biomass) and yield of maize.[21]
Cow manureBur-clover (Medicago polymorpha)Pots containing soil were fortified with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 15%, 30%, 45%, 60%, and 75% (w/w), in combination with and without arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AM fungi).With increasing concentration of VC in the soil, the growth of bur-clover in terms of shoots and root dry weight and leaf area, increased. The total nitrogen content, potassium, and relative water content was also higher in leaves, in all the VC treated plants compared to the controls. [191]
Cow manureIvy morning glory (Pharbitis nil) and red chilli (Capsicum frutescens)VC was added to the soil at the rate 0% (control), 10%, 20%, and 30% (by volume).VC enhanced the plant height, stem width, and dry weight of both the plant species observed. Maximum growth was recorded in 20% VC treatment.[192]
Geranium distillation wasteGeranium (Pelargonium graveolens)VC alone and in combination with inorganic fertilizers (NPK) were supplemented in plots to the extent of 5 t ha−1. Unfertilized soil was taken as control.Combined treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizers exhibited better plant growth, in terms of plant height, plant canopy and biomass, and oil yield, then controls.[71]
Mixture of horse, goat and rabbit manureHuizache (Acacia farnesiana)Five VC-sand mixtures with proportions of 10:90, 20:80, 30:70, 40:60 and 50:50 (v/v), were assessed. Unfertilized soil was used as control.No uniform growth trend was recorded among different VC amendments; however, 10:90 VC-sand mixture had the best variable response in terms of plant height, number of branches and fresh and dry weight.[85]
Tomato crop wasteRosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis)VC added to the peat in the proportions 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100 (control).VC increased the rooting and shoot dry weight of cuttings, compared with the control.[111]
Not statedBanana (Musa sp.)In separate treatments farmyard manure (25 and 12.5 kg plant−1), VC (3 and 6 kg plant−1), neem cake (1.5, 1.0 and 3 kg plant−1) and their mixture were used. In addition, 100 g vesicular aurbuscular mycorhizal (VAM) and 50 g phosphate solubilizing bacteria and Azospirillum plant−1 were also supplemented.Combined treatment of organic fertilizers and inorganic fertilizers enhanced the fruit yield and quality of banana in comparison with the exclusive application of inorganic fertilizers; 100% organic manures gave moderate fruit yield and higher quality.[115]
Lantana leavesCluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)Soil was amended with VC at concentrations 0 (control), 5, 7.5, and 10 t ha−1.VC supported better plant growth in terms of stem diameter, shoot length and mass, number of leaves, and leaf pigments, nodulation and fruit yield, compared with controls.[106]
Tendu leafFrench bean (P. vulgaris)Soil was amended with VC at the concentrations equivalent of 0%, 50%, 75% and 100% of recommended dose of nitrogen. VC enhanced the shoot and root length, shoot and root weights, thousand grain weight and grain weight per plant, in comparison to controls.[130]
Cow dungMarigold (Tagetes erecta)VC was mixed with soil to the extent of 0% (control), 5%, 10%, 20%.Addition of VC has significantly positive impact on the plant biomass, plant height, number of buds and flowers.[193]
Not statedSweet orange (Citrus sinensis)VC was supplemented to the extent of 10 and 10 kg/plant. Plants given N:P:K (400:300:400 g/plant/year) were considered as controls.VC enhanced the plant growth in terms of height and its spread. Total soluble solids and vitamin C content was also higher in VC amended plants.[194]
Not statedCoriander (Coriandrum sativum)VC alone and in combination with urea was used in the proportions: 100% VC, 66.6% VC + 33.3% urea, 66.6% urea + 33.3% VC and 100% urea. Untreated soil was considered as control.VC when used alone or in combination with urea increased seed yield and total dry weight.[195]
Cattle manureLettuce (Lactuca sativa)VC was used alone, and in combination with rice husk, basalt powder, and sand in the proportion of 50:25:15:10, 60:15:15:10, and 60:15:10:15 (w/w).). Commercial substrate (Plantmax HA) was considered as controls.VC when used alone or in combination with rice husk, basalt powder and sand, enhanced the growth of the lettuce in comparison to controls.[196]
Cow manurePeppermint (Mentha piperita)In separate treatments, VC at the rate 7 Mt ha−1, chemical fertilizers (50, 0, 300 kg NPK) and vermiwash prepared from 100 kg of VC, leachate VC + vermiwash and municipal solid waste compost (50 Mt ha−1) was amended in soil. Soil with no fertilization regime was considered as control.Organic fertilizers significantly enhanced the chlorophyll, carotenoids, essential oil yield, lateral branches, fresh and dry weight, fresh and dry yield, leaf area index of plants, in comparison to those of controls. [197]
Not statedCucumber (C. sativus)Seeds were germinated in peat containing VC to the extent of 0% (control), 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%. Addition of VC increased the yield of cucumber. Maximum yield was reported in 40% VC treatment.[198]
Garden wasteBluemink (Ageratum hustonianum) and petunia (Petunia hybrid)Mixture of forest soil, pine sawdust and coconut fiber, was amended with VC at the concentrations 25%, 50% and 75%. Unfertilized soil mixture and 100% VC was considered as control.VC at the rate 100% enhanced the growth of each of the species studied significantly, compared with unfertilized soil. Other VC treatments, too, exhibit positive impact on plant growth, but was not statistically significant from controls. [199]
Domestic waste, goat and cow manureBhendi (A. esculentus)VC and compost were added to the soil in 1:1 ratio.Plant height and number of leaves were higher in VC treatments then in composts.[11]
Mixture of goat, horse, and rabbit manureTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)VC was mixed in the river sand in the proportions 0:1 (control), 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3.Plants grown in 1:1 VC -sand mixtures produced the best yield and quality, in terms of polar diameter, number of fruits, number of locules, soluble solids, pulp thickness, fruit weight, and yield. [108]
Rice strawTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)Mixture of empty fruit bunch (EFB) and coconut coir dust (CD) was fortified with VC to the extent of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%; 100% CD served as control.VC increased the crop growth rate, leaf area index, total fruit number, fresh fruit weight, and fruit dry matter, compared with the controls. Maximum growth however was reported in 20% VC treatment.[200]
Not statedDragonhead (Dracocephalum moldavica)VC was added to the soil to the extent of 0% (control), 15% and 30% of pot volume. VC enhanced the shoot weight, plant height, seed weight per plant and essential oil content. Maximum growth was observed in 30% VC treatment.[201]
Cattle dungWheat (Triticum aestivum)VC was amended in the soil to the extent of 0 (control), 5, 10, and 20 t/ha.Growth, yield and quality of wheat in terms of plant height, stem diameter, number of leaves per plant, number of spikes per plant, spike length per plant, number of spikelets per spike per plant, and yield per acre was positively impacted by addition of VC.[202]
Mixture of bovine manure, melon waste, and wheat straw.Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)VC was added to the soil at the rates 0 (control), 28.86, 57.7, and 86.46 g.VC enhanced the plant height, leaf area, number of pods, grain dry weight, root length, root volume, root dry weight, pod dry weight, grain number, biomass dry weight, and nodule number.[203]
Tomato crop wasteEvergreen spindle (Euonymus japonicas) and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia)In separate treatments, compost and VC were mixed with coir fiber at proportions 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, 0:100 (v/v).Plants grown in VC amended media performed better in terms of rooting.[204]
Cattle manure and rock phosphateMaize (Z. mays)In separate treatments, non-enriched VC and VC enriched with 5% or 20% of rock phosphate were used. Soil enriched with manure was considered as controls. VC enhanced the height and biomass of the plants when used with rock phosphate powder.[205]
Cattle manurePepper (Capsicum Sp.)VC was supplemented at the rate of 50 and 100 cm3 per plant. Thirty days after planting, some of the plants fertilized with 50 cm3 VC were additionally fed with a solution of VC (200 cm3 per plant). Unfertilized soil was used as control.Feeding the pepper plants with VC increased their vegetative mass and improved the development of their generative organs. VC treatments also raised the nitrogen content of leaves of pepper plants.[206]
Solid waste from industry fridgeLettuce (Lactuca sativa)VC was added to the soil to the extent of 0% (control) and 50% (v/v).VC increased the growth of lettuce. A greater height and number of chlorenchyma layers were observed in the leaf blade of plants in VC treatments.[207]
Crop residue, dry leaves and cow dungPigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)VC and farmyard manure were added to the soil to the extent of 50 g.VC enhanced the length of roots and shoot and increased the dry mass and chlorophyll content.[208]
Not statedRadish (R. sativus)VC was mixed with the peat at proportions 1:1, 1:2, 1:4 and 1:8 (by volume). Peat containing inorganic fertilizer (NPK 11:11:22) at 50 g m−2 was set as control.Mixture of VC and peat stimulated the accumulation of assimilates in the radish leaves and enhanced the root dry weight. The best treatment was 1:1.[209]
Not statedCucumber (C. sativus)Four growth media combinations were tested: (M1) 35:40:25 peat moss: perlite: VC; (M2) 25:25:25:25 peat moss: perlite: VC: coco peat; (M3) 100% coco peat; and (M4) 50:50 perlite: peat moss as control.Addition of VC to the peat moss, perlite, and coco peat enhanced the performance of cucumbers measured in terms of vegetative growth, reproductive growth, and fruit-quality.[210]
Mixture of cow dung and banana wasteTomato (S. Lycopersicum)In separate test plots, VC, inorganic fertilizers (IF) and VC+IF was added to the soil. Unfertilized soil was set as control.VC increased the shoot length, root length and number of leaves, compared with control and chemical fertilizer treatments.[211]
Cow manureTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)In separate treatments, VC was mixed in the soil in the proportions 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4.Significant rise in growth and yield of tomato plants was reported with increasing ratio of VC to soil. Vitamin C and total sugar content in tomatoes, too, increased with increasing VC concentration in the soil.[107]
Farm waste and cow dungOnion (Allium cepa)In separate treatments, VC at the rate 10 Mg ha−1, 100% recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer and their combination was added to the soil. Plots that were not amended were considered as controls.Combined treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizer produced higher plant growth, as measured by the vegetative growth of bulbs, number and length of tillers per bulb, and fresh weight of bulbs, compared with the control. Biochemical characteristics (total chlorophyll, carotenoids, protein, and total sugar contents) of onion leaves/tillers, too, exhibit the same trend as the growth.[212]
Spent aromatic grassesPatchouli (Pogostemon cabli)VC alone (control) and in combination with bioinoculants (Pseudomonas fluorescens, Bacillus Subtilis, Azotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus megaterium, Glomus aggregatum, G. fasciculatum, G. intraradices, G. mosseae, Trichoderma harzianum) was used.Except Trichoderma harzianum, VC when used along with bioinoculants, substantially improved the root and shoot biomass of nursery raised rooted cuttings.[213]
Grape marcBarley (Hordeum vulgare)VC and compost were added to the peat and commercial sphagnum peat to the extent of 25% and 50% (v/v). VC enhanced the growth and the productivity of barley.[214]
Cattle manureLettuce (Lactuca sativa)In separate treatments, inorganic fertilizer and VC at the rates 0% (control), 10%, and 20% (w/w) were added to the soil. VC increased the leaf number, leaf dry weight, root biomass, photosynthetic rate and lettuce yield, in comparison to controls.[215]
Vegetable wasteCassava (Manihot esculenta)Soil was supplemented with VC, empty fruit bunch compost and inorganic fertilizer.Phenolic and flavonoid content were significantly enhanced in the plants grown in VC amended soil.[216]
Rice straw and animal wastesBarley (Hordeum aestivm)VC at the rates 5 and 10 g per kg soil, alone or in combination with water treatment residual (WTR) at mixed ratios of 2:1 and 1:1 wet weight (VC: WTR), was added to the saline sodic soil. Unamended soil was taken as control.Combined application of VC and WTR (2:1) at concentration of 10 g kg−1 soil produced the highest grain weight of barley plants, compared to other treatments.[217]
Rice straw, water hyacinth, Ipomoea and cow dungRice (O. sativa)Soil was amended with 500 g of each of the substrate’s VC inoculated with A. chroococcum, A. brasilense, P. fluorescens, and consortium of azotobacter, azospirillum, and pseudomonas. Soil amended with VC without microbial inoculation was set as control.VC enriched with A. chroococcum produced the highest plant growth, grain yield, leaf chlorophyll content and nitrate reductase activity of rice, followed by enrichment with A. brasilense.[70]
Not statedChilli (Capsicum annuum)VC was added to the perlite at the rate of 0% (control), 15%, 30%, 45%, and 60% (by volume). Controls were treated with Steiner nutritive solution.With increase in VC concentration the plant height, number of leaves, flowers and fruits, weight, diameter and length of fruits, leaf dry weight, root dry weight, limb dry weight increased significantly.[218]
Tomato waste mixed with sheep manureWhite clover (Trifolium repens)VC was added to soil and sand mixture (contaminated with heavy metals) to the extent of 5% (w/w).Shoot and root dry matter of T. repens was enhanced by the addition of VC. There is also an increase in the uptake of P, K, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn.[219]
Cow and horse manureTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)Tomato transplants were grown in 1:1 (v/v) peat moss and perlite mixture, in which the VC constituted from 10% to 50% of the mixture’s volume. Unfertilized peat moss and perlite mixture served as control.The positive effect of the VC in terms of shoot fresh weight, shoot length, leaf area, and number of leaves increased with the increase of its concentration in the peat moss and perlite mixture.[220]
Cattle manure and filter cakeMaize (Z. mays)VC was added to the pots containing commercial media (Plantmax Hortaliças HA) at the rate of 5 g/plant.VC enhanced the growth and the N and P content in leaves of the maize.[221]
Kitchen scraps, garden waste, coffee grounds, and strawSwiss chard (Beta vulgaris)VC was added to coir mix in proportion of 2:1, 1:1, and 1:2 (w/w).VC increased the number of leaves, leaf expansion and harvest weight. A ratio of 2:1 VC–coir mix showed maximum productivity.[222]
Green forage, cow manureMaize (Z. mays)VC was fortified in soil at the concentrations 1780 and 3560 kg fresh organic matter ha−1.VC enhanced the leaf N, P and K, pigments, soluble carbohydrates and yield of maize. [223]
Crop residue and cow dungFrench bean (P. vulgaris)VC was added to the soil @ 0, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, and 5 t·ha−1 in combination with 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% of recommended dose of NPK.Combined treatment of VC at the rate 3.75 t ha−1 + 25% of recommended dose of NPK, exhibited better growth in terms of shoot length, number of primary branches, shoot fresh and dry weight than other treatments.[224]
Cow manure and vegetable wasteKidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)Soil was substituted with VC to the extent of 0%, 25%, 50%, 80%, and 100% (v/v).Plants grown in soil fortified with VC were taller and appeared to be healthier looking.[225]
WoodchipsGrass seed mixture (Festuca ovina, Festuca rubra, and Lolium perenne).Coal-spoil-contaminated tertiary sand was fortified with VC at rates 0% (control), 3%, 12.5%, and 25% (w/w).VC significantly increased the fresh- and dry-matter yield, compared with controls.[226]
Pig manureRose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos)VC, NPK and pine bark mixture (pine bark, 11% sand, 1.8 kg·m−3 dolomitic limestone, and 0.9 kg·m−3 Micromax) were used in following proportions: 20VC + NPK (20% VC and 17-6-12), 20VC + NK (20% VC and 17-0-10), 20VC + N (20% VC and 17-0-0). Controls included PBS + NPK (PBS and 17-6-12).VC increased the dry weight and flower production in comparison with the controls.[227]
Yard leafCorn (Z. mays)VC treatments at the rates 1%, 3%, 6%, and 9%, were substituted alone or in combination with synthetic Fe fertilizers. A positive control received Hoagland’s solution.Combined treatment of VC and Fe sulfate was found as suitable potting mixtures with the recommended mixing rate of 3%.[228]
Cow manureLemongrass (Cymbopogon citrates)VC was added to sand and soil mixture to the extent of 0 (control), 5, and 10 g per plant.VC increased the essential oil content of lemongrass leaves; however, no significant effect on shoot dry weight was reported.[229]
Rabbit manureSweet corn (Z. mays)Three treatments were compared: (i) inorganic (N, P and K) fertilizers 100%; (ii) 75% N, P and K mineral fertilizers and 25% rabbit manure; and (iii) 75% N, P and K and 25% VC.VC significantly increased the plant growth and yield.[230]
Buffalo DungWater spinach (Ipomoea aquatic)In separate treatments, VC and compost were added to the soil at the concentration 90.5 g (20 t ha−1) in the soil. In another treatment, inorganic fertilizer was applied.Highest plant productivity was obtained with VC and synthetic fertilizers, with no significant difference between two treatments. [231]
Turkey litter and cow dungPaddy (Oryza sativa)Soil was amended with VC at the concentrations 0 (control), 10, 20, 30, and 40 kg.VC enhanced the growth and yield of paddy in terms of plant height, root length, shoot length, productive tillers, weight of panicle, weight of spikelet, number of grains per panicle, number of grains per spikelet, number of filled grains per panicle, number of unfilled grains per panicle, grain weight per hill, straw weight per hill, and straw weight per plot. [61]
Cow dungChamomile (Matricaria chamomilla)VC was added to the soil at the rates of 0 (control), 5, 10, 15, and 20 t ha−1. In each of the treatment amino acids were sprayed at budding stage, flowering stage and budding + flowering stage. VC enhanced the plant height, flower head diameter, fresh and dry flower yield and essential oil content in comparison to the controls.[232]
Municipal solid wasteCineraria (Jacobaea maritime)Soil, sand and VC were mixed in the proportions of 1:1:1, 1:0:1, 2:1:1, 2:0:1 and 0:0:1, respectively.VC enhanced the shoot fresh and dry weights, number of leaves and flower numbers.[233]
Municipal Sewage sludge and water hyacinthTomato (L. esculentum)Soil was fortified with VC to the extent of 10, 20 and 30 t/ha.VC treatment at the rate 20 tons/ha caused maximum plant height, number of branches, fruits/plant, days to first harvest, and average fruit weight.[234]
Cow manureBristle grass (Setaria viridis)Pots containing iron mine tailings were amended with 0% (control), 10%, 20%, and 30% VC (v/v).VC stimulated the survival rate, plant height, root length and fresh and dry matter accumulation in shoots.[137]
Cow manureChinese cabbage (Brassica rapa)VC–soil mixtures with ratios of 0:7 (control), 1:7, 2:7, 4:7 and 7:0 (w/w) were used.VC significantly increased the marketable yield, nutrient metabolites (soluble sugar, soluble protein, vitamin C, total phenols, and total flavonoids), and antioxidant capacity of Chinese cabbage, in comparison with the controls.[235]
Leaves of cassia and leucaena mixed with cow dungCowpea (Vigna unguiculata)VC generated by using earthworm species Eudrilus eugenia and Eisenia foetida was used. VC derived from E. foetida showed high shoot and root length, and greater number of leaves and biomass, in comparison to the VC derived by using E. eugenia.[132]
Crop residue and cow dungTomato (Solanum lycopersicum)Soil was fortified with VC to the extent of 3.75, 7.50, 11.25, and 15 t ha−1, in combination with different concentrations of NPK. Combined treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizers increased the plant height, leaf area, leaf weight, fruit weight, fruit yield, fruit density, post-harvest life and TSS of tomato, compared with exclusively VC or chemical fertilizers (NPK) treatments.[236]
Filter cake spiked with horse dungMarigold (T. erecta)Soil was fortified with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%. VC enhanced the plant height, total number of buds, fresh root and shoot weight, number and diameter of flowers, and total chlorophyll content, compared with the controls.[237]
Rice straw and chick weed and cow dungMaize (Z. mays), beans (P. vulgaris) and okra (A. esculentus)Plants were grown in soil, amended with VC to the extent of 1 t/ha.VC treated plants exhibited better plant height, basal area, productivity and biomass allocation, compared with control.[133]
Sewage sludgeHabanero pepper (Capsicum chinense)VC was added to the commercial substrate to the extent of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.VC enhanced the height of plants significantly; 100% VC treatment led to maximum plant height.[225]
Agricultural waste mixed with cow dungTomato (S. lycopersicum), eggplant (S. melongena), and chili pepper (Capsicum frutenscens)VC was added to the mixture of sand and soil @ 20%, 25%, 33.33%, and 50%. In separate treatment soil and VC at the proportion 1:1 was used.VC fortification positively impacted the growth of each of the plant species studied.[238]
Cow dung, water hyacinth and strawMung bean (Vigna radiate)Black or red soils were amended with VC to the extent of 5 t ha−1.VC enhanced the growth and yield of mung bean in terms of number and weight of nodules, number of primary branches per plant, plant height, number of pods per plant, number of grains per plant, grain yield per plant and straw yield per plant in both the soil types, however the performance was better in black soil compared to the red soil.[239]
Not statedSaffron (Crocus sativus)VC was used alone at the rate 2.5 t/ha and in combination with azotobacter, azospirilum, pseudomonas, and VAM. Untreated soil was considered as controls.VC when supplemented along with azotobacter enhanced the yield.[240]
Horse, goat, rabbit and cow manureMuskmelon (Cucumis melo)VC was incorporated in the sand to the extent of 25%, 30%, 35%, and 40% (v/v).VC exhibited favorable impact on the yield, fruit weight, equatorial and polar diameters, pulp thickness, placenta cavity, fruits per plant, and days to harvest. [241]
Not statedStrawberry (Fragaria ananassa)VC (5 t/ha), farmyard manure (20 t/ha), poultry manure (5 t/ha), rhizosphere bacteria culture (4 kg/ha) and chemical fertilizers (N:P:K—100:80:60 kg/ha) were used alone or in combination with each other.Combined treatment of VC chemical fertilizer and rhizosphere bacteria had shown maximum plant spread, fruits per plant, fruit yield per hectare, and shelf life of fruits.[242]
Grass and cattle dungOkra (A. esculentus)In separate treatments, VC @ 100 g per plant, vermiwash @ 100 mL per plant and their combined treatments were used.Combined treatments of VC and vermiwash increased the plant growth and yield, compared with their individual supplementation.[243]
Cow manureAlfalfa (Medicago sativa) and white clover (Trifolium repens)Iron mine tailing was supplemented with VC at the rates 0% (control), 5%, 10%, and 20% (v/v).In white clover, VC increased the plant height, shoot and root weights, whereas in case of alfalfa lower VC (5%) had led to maximum height while 10% and 20% VC treatments caused shorter height than that of control. However, the shoot fresh weight was higher in 20% VC treatment. [145]
Farmyard manureGarlic (Allium stivum)In separate treatments, soil was fortified with VC alone and in combination with inorganic fertilizers. The treatments were: (1) recommended dose of NPK; (2) 15 t/ha VC; (3) 20 t/ha VC; and (4) 15 t/ha VC + 50% NPK.Combined treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizer had shown higher growth in terms of root and shoot length, leaf length and number, number of cloves in garlic fruit, and fruit weight.[244]
Sugar mill wastesBeans (Phaseolus vulgaris)Efficacy of VC, in comparison to inorganic fertilizers-NPK, when added in clay loam soil and sandy loam soil was assessed. Treatments consisted of: (1) control (unfertilized soil); (2) 100% recommended dose of NPK; (3) 100% recommended dose of VC (5t ha−1); and (4) 50% VC supplemented with 50% NPKCombined treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizers exhibited better plant growth (shoot and root length, leaf area index and number of root nodules) biochemical properties (sugar, protein and chlorophyll content) and yield (pod length, number of seeds per pod, number of pods per plant, pods weight and sugar and protein contents in the beans), in comparison to their individual treatments and control.[245]
Cow manureTomato (Solanum lycopersicum)Commercial peat substrate was fortified with VC at the concentrations 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (w/w).VC significantly improved the growth of tomato in terms of number of leaves and leaf area, and increased root volume and branching, compared with the pure peat-based substrate (control).[246]
Cow manureTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)Iron-enriched VC (prepared by mixing iron refuse in cow manure at the concentrations 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% by volume) was incorporated in mixture of soil and sand (7:3) to the extent of 37 g pot−1. Unfertilized soil and sand mixture was considered as control.Shoot dry matter of plants grown in soil treated with iron-enriched VC (15–20%), was significantly higher than that of plants produced in the other treatments. Iron uptake by tomatoes grown in iron-enriched VC was also higher compared with normal VC and controls.[247]
Sheep manureCucumber (Cucumis sativus)VC was mixed with soil to the extent of 0 (control), 10, 20 and 30 t ha−1.VC enhanced the leaf area and number, plant height, dry weight of stem and leaf, chlorophyll content, total fruit yield, and number of fruits per plant. VC also led to higher total soluble solids, lower juice acidity and more dry matter of fruits than controls. [248]
Subabul leaves and cow dungGinger (Zingiber officinale)Pots containing saline soil were mixed with VC to the extent of 500 g.VC improved the net yield, biomass of shoot and rhizome yield. Chlorophyll, carbohydrate and protein contents were also increased.[109]
Not statedStrawberry (Fragaria ananassa)Treatments comprised of 100% recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer (80, 40, 40 kg/ha), and combined treatment of inorganic fertilizer and VC or farmyard manure (50% nitrogen requirement substitution through VC or farmyard manure and remaining 50% by inorganic fertilizer). All the treatments were supplemented with azotobacter.Combined treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizer enhanced the number of crowns and runners, length of runners, number of plantlets, number of flowers and berries, fruit yield and net monetary return.[249]
Vegetable wastes mixed with cow dungStrawberry (Fragaria × ananassa)VC was added to the soil at the concentrations 0 (control), 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 t ha−1. All the plots were supplemented with appropriate amount of inorganic fertilizers, to equalize the recommended rate/dose of nutrients 120/170/150 kg NPK ha−1) among the treatments.VC increased the plant spread, leaf area, dry matter, and total fruit yield of strawberry, compared with the control. [20]
Animal manureParsley (Petroselinum crispum)VC-soil mixture in the proportions 0:100, 10:100, 20:100, and 30:100 (v/v; VC: soil) were used.VC enhanced the plant height, number of leaves and root fresh weight of parsley plants. Maximum growth however was reported in 10:100 (VC: soil) treatment.[250]
Banana leaves and cow dungBanana (Musa spp.), cassava (Manihot esculenta) and cow-pea (V. unguiculata)Soil was fortified with VC generated by E. eugineae, E. foetida, Perionyx sansibaricus, Pontoscolex corethrurus and Megascolex chinensis along with inorganic fertilizers (NPK). VC significantly improved the root growth, and the yield, biometric character and quality of banana, cassava and cow-pea. [251]
Sheep manurePeppers (Capsicum annum L)VC was mixed with soil in proportions of 0:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, and 1:5 (VC: soil).VC enhanced the plant height, plant thickness, and the number of leaves, flower and fruits. Additionally, VC enhanced the soluble solids and nitrogen content of the fruits.[252]
Sheep manureMaize (Z. mays) VC was added to peat moss at the rates 0%, 5% and 10% (v/v), along with diazotrophic bacteria and mycorrhiza.VC enhanced the weight of maize plants when applied along with G. fasciculatum and diazotrophic bacteria[253]
Pig manureTomato (L. esculentum), marigold (T. patula), pepper (Capsicum annuum), and cornflower (Centaurea cyanus)VC was added to the commercial potting substrate (Metro Mix 360), to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, and 20% (v/v).VC enhanced the shoot and root weight, leaf area, and shoot: root ratios of tomato and French marigold seedlings; however, VC substitution had little influence on pepper and cornflower growth. [141]
Not statedCucumber (C. sativum)Treatments include peat compost (100%), VC (100%) and their mixture (1:1).VC addition significantly increased the relative growth rate, dry matter per plant, relative stem elongation rate and relative leaf expansion rate.[254]
Sheep manureTomato (L. esculentum)Soil was fortified with VC to the extent of 0 (control), 5, 10, and 15 t ha−1.Significant rise in growth and yield of tomato was reported in 15 t ha−1 VC treatment. Other VC concentrations, too, impacted positively, but not significant to a statistically extent.[255]
Food and paper wastePetunia (Petunia hybrida)Commercial bedding plant container medium (Metro-Mix 360) was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% (v/v).VC enhanced the shoot and root dry weights in comparison to the controls.[83]
Food and cotton wasteTomato (L. esculentum)VC was added to the commercial peat substrate at the rate of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% (v/v).VC increased the biomass of tomato.[18]
ManuresTomato (L. esculentum)VC was added to peat-based compost at rates 0%, 10%, 20%, 40%, and 100% (v/v).VC improved the marketability of fruits at 40% and 100% substitution rates; however, the fruit yield and fruit number remain unaffected by the addition of VC.[134]
Green waste and biosolidsWheat (Triticum aestivum)VC at the rates 1, 10 and 30 t ha−1 was added to the soil alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers (NPK), where the N addition rate was normalized to 150 kg N ha−1. Unfertilized soil was used as control.Co-application of inorganic fertilizers and VC exhibited better plant growth, photosynthetic pigments and yield, than individual VC treatments and control.[256]
Sheep manureTomato (L. esculentum)VC and soil were employed in proportions of 0:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5 (v/v).VC increased the plant height significantly but had no significant effect on the numbers of leaves or yield. VC also enhanced the soluble and insoluble solids in tomato fruits compared to those harvested from plants cultivated in unamended soil.[257]
Sugar mill wasteBlack gram (Vigna mungo)In separate treatments, soil was fortified with recommended dose of VC (5 t/ha), inorganic fertilizer (NPK; 50:25:0 kg/ha) and mixture of VC and NPK (50/50). Unamended soil was considered as controls.VC enhanced the yield and quality (protein and sugar content in seed) of black gram.[258]
Cow dungMarigold (T. erecta)Mixture of peat-perlite and pine bark-sand was mixed with VC in the proportions 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 (v/v). In separate treatments, mixture of peat-perlite (PP), pine bark-sand (PBS) and sunshine mix (SM) was also used.VC increased the plant growth index, stem diameter root growth, dry weight and number of flower of marigold compared with PP, SM and PBS.[259]
Pistachio solid wastes, cotton residues, animal manurePistachio (Pistacia vera)VC enriched with or without Fe sulfate, was added to the soil at the rates 0% (control), 10% and 20% (w/w).Fe enriched VC enhanced the plant height, shoot dry weight, leaf area index, chlorophyll content of the leaves and photosynthesis rate.[260]
Municipal wasteRyegrass (Lolium perenne)VC and compost were added to the degraded volcanic soil to the extent of 20 and 40 g kg−1.VC significantly increased the yield of ryegrass.[66]
Cattle manureTomato (L. esculentum), eggplant (Solanum melongena), and pepper (Capsicum annuum)Seedling transplants were grown in a commercial soilless mix fortified with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, and 20% (v/v).VC improved the transplant quality of peppers and eggplants, whereas tomato transplant quality was slightly reduced.[261]
Not statedGuava (Psidium guajava)Treatments comprised of 30 kg/plant VC, 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF: 100:40:75 g NPK/plant), 75% RDF + 10 kg VC/plant, 50% RDF + 10 kg VC/plant. Untreated plants served as controls.Combined supplementation of VC and inorganic fertilizer (75% RDF and 10 kg VC) enhanced the polar diameter, fruit weight, fruit volume and pulp thickness and its weight. Total soluble solids, ascorbic acid and total sugars were also increased.[262]
Food and paper waste, cattle manurePepper (C. annuum) Soil was fortified with VC at the rate of 10 t ha−1 or 20 t ha−1 in first year and at rates of 5 t ha−1 or 10 t ha−1 in second year.VC increased the leaf areas, plant shoot biomass, and marketable fruit weights.[79]
Rice strawSorghum (Sorghum bicolor)VC generated by using Perionyx excavatus, and Octochaetona phillotti, was added to the soil at concentrations 75% and 25%. Unamended soil served as control.VC increased the growth of sorghum, compared with the controls. [263]
Dairy manureTomato (Lycopersicon sp.)Sand and soil in pots were amended with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 15%, 30%, and 45% of pot volume.VC fortification produced significantly higher biomass than the control.[264]
Neem leavesBrinjal (Solanum melongena)VC was added to the soil at the rate of 1 kg m−2. Unfertilized soil was considered as control. After 2 months, the unfertilized (control) soil was also amended with equal quantity of VC.VC led to better height, root length, biomass per unit time, quicker onset of flowering, and fruit yield in brinjal. [265]
Food wastePepper (C. annum)VC was added to the commercial bedding plant container medium, Metro-Mix 360 (MM360) to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%.Peppers grown in potting mixtures containing 40% food waste VC yielded high fruit weights and mean number of fruits. Mean heights, numbers of buds and numbers of flowers in 10–80% VC treatments although greater did not differ significantly from control.[266]
Food and paper wasteStrawberry (Fragaria ananasa)VC was added to the soil so as to attain the initial fertilizer rates 85/155/125 kg ha −1 NPK.VC increased the leaf area, plant shoot biomass, numbers of flowers, numbers of plant runners and marketable fruit weights significantly.[267]
Cattle manurePapaya (Carica papava).VC was added in proportions of 0% (control), 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% to the mixture of rice hulls, coconut sawdust and thin sand (1:1:1).VC enhanced the leaf area, plant height, stem thickness and total dry weight. The largest growth was found with the highest ratios of VC.[268]
Food and recycled paper waste, cattle manureTomato (L. esculentum), bell pepper (C. anuum), and strawberry (Fragaria spp.)For growing tomato and pepper VC was applied at rates 10 or 20 t ha−1, while for growing strawberry VC was applied to the extent of 5 or 10 t ha−1. One set of plots with recommended rates of inorganic fertilizer: 130–95–95 kg NPK ha−1 for peppers; 80–75–75 kg NPK ha−1 for tomatoes; and 85–155–125 kg NPK ha−1 for strawberries, was also used.VC enhanced the growth and yield of each of the species studied, compared with inorganic fertilizer.[49]
Sheep, cattle, and horse manureChrysanthemum (Dendranthema x grandiflora)Peat-perlite mixture was fortified with each of the substrate’s VC to the extent of 0% (control), 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% (v/v). VC derived from each of the substrate enhanced the growth of chrysanthemum in terms of foliar area, dry weight, flower number, and days to flowering.[269]
Sheep, cattle, and horse manurePoinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima)VCs derived from each of the substrate was mixed in the peat–perlite mixture in the proportions 0:1 (control), 1:3, 1:1, 3:1, and 1:0 (v/v). Growth index, foliar area, bract area and dry weight were higher in plants grown in mixture fortified with each of the substrate’s VC.[270]
Pig manureTomato (L. esculentum), pepper (Capsicum sp.), lettuce (L. sativa) and marigold (Calendula officinalis)In separate treatments, standard commercial soilless plant growth medium (Metro-Mix 360), and coir/perlite and peat/perlite-based container media were substituted with VC to the extent of 10% or 20% (v/v).Substituting coir/perlite and peat/perlite mixtures with 10% or 20% of VC enhanced the growth significantly.[135]
Animal manure and plant wastesRadish (R. sativus).VC was mixed with sand at concentrations 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (v/v).Harvest weights were proportionately increased with the increase of VC. [147]
Cassava peel guava leaves, cow dung and poultry droppings Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)VC added to the soil @ 8 kg fresh compost per plot. Unfertilized plots were considered as control.Significant increased biomass was recorded in VC amended soil.[271]
Cow farmyard manureRadish (R. sativum) and lettuce (Lactuga sativa)Seedlings were grown in pots containing either mixture of dry alluvial soil, peat, and sand or VC.Earthworm casts increased the protein synthesis in both lettuce and radish, however no significant difference was observed.[77]
Studies showing stimulation of plant growth and yield at lower VC concentration and inhibition at higher
Municipal solid waste (food, paper and yard waste)Green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)In plastic pots mineral brown-earth soil was fortified with VC and compost to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 100% (v/v). Compared to the compost and controls, VC at the rate 40% application led to higher growth and yield. With further increase in the compost and VC concentration the growth and yield declined.[272]
Fly ashMarigold (Tagetes spp.)Seeds were sown in media composed of pine bark compost and VC. The proportion of VC was 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Additionally, in one set of treatments chemical fertilizers were added, while keeping another treatment without fertilizer fortification.VC treatment up to 50% was recommended for the effective germination and growth of marigold. With further increase in the VC concentration, deleterious effects were recorded.[142]
Salvinia Green gram (Vigna radiata), ladies finger (Abelmoschus esculentus) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus)Seedlings were raised in soil supplemented with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (w/w).VC in the range of 4–20%, VC enhanced the growth of the seedlings and their biochemicals compared with the controls. Further increase in VC concentration showed an adverse effect on the growth.[38]
Ipomoea Green gram (V. radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (C. sativus)Seedlings were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).When supplemented to soil in the range of 2–4%, VC enhanced the germination, growth and biochemicals compared with the controls. Further increase in VC concentration inhibited the growth.[37]
Cow solidsThyme (Thymus vulgaris)Seeds were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rate 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75%.VC enhanced the length, fresh and dry weights of the aerial parts and the root; chlorophyll and carotenoid contents, photosynthetic efficiency; and essential oil content. Best response was observed in 50% VC substitution. Further increase in VC proportion retarded the growth.[143]
Fly ash and cow dungMarigold (Tagetes spp.)Mixture of VC and pine bark compost was used as media, with VC added to the extent of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Seeds were sown in media with or without fertilizer.VC enhanced the growth of seedlings, with maximum growth, in terms of plant height, leaf area, number of flowers and buds was observed in media containing up to 25 and 50% VC.[142]
Parthenium leavesGreen gram (V. radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (C. sativus)Seedlings were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).VC when applied up to 4, 8, and 20% enhanced the growth (shoot and root length, plant biomass, chlorophyll content) of green gram, ladies finger and cucumber respectively. Further increase in VC concentration inhibited the growth.[36]
Rubber leaf litter and cow dungPineapple (Ananas comosus)VC was added to the soil to the extent of 0 (control), 5, 10, 20 and 30 tons ha−1. VC treatments up to 20 t ha−1 increased the average length and width of leaves, number of leaves per plant, plant girth, fruit weight, fruit yield and fruiting percentage compared to the control. Further increase in the VC concentration declined growth and yield.[273]
Lantana leavesGreen gram (V. radiata), ladies finger (A. esculentus) and cucumber (C. sativus)Soil was amended with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (w/w).VC when applied in the range 0.75–4% enhanced the growth (shoot and root length, plant biomass, chlorophyll content) of all the species studied, compared with control. Further increase in VC concentration inhibited the growth. [35]
Temple floral waste, yard waste, cow dungChickpea (Cicer arietinum)Soil was substituted with each of the three substrate’s VC to the extent of 5%, 10%, and 25% (v/v). VC supplementation to the extent of 10% increased the root length, number of secondary roots, and plant biomass, compared with the controls. Further increases in VC concentration (25%) either exhibited the inhibitory effect or have no significant difference than controls.[116]
Kitchen wasteSugar peas (Pisum sativum)VC was added to garden soil to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 25%, and 50%.VC when used at 10% concentration enhanced the total biomass and height of plants. Further increase in VC concentration had no impact on plant growth.[274]
Tomato crop wasteGarden marigold (C. officinalis) and horned pansy (Viola cornuta)VC was mixed with sphagnum peat in the proportions 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100 (peat control) by volume.VCs treatment at lower proportion (25:75) increased total leaf chlorophyll, shoot and root dry weight, and percentage of flowering plants, compared with controls; 100% VC treatment reduced the growth significantly.[204]
Sheep manureRadish (R. sativus).VC was added to peat moss at the rates 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%. Growth of radish in terms of shoot and root dry weight was higher in 10% VC treatment. Further increase in VC concentration caused an inhibitory effect. [51]
Sewage sludge and cattle dungMarigold (Tagetes erecta)VC was mixed with black soil in the proportions of 10%, 20%, and 30% (dry weight).VC enhanced plant height, stem diameter, leaf number, branch number, aboveground biomass, underground biomass, and ratio of root to shoot, flower bud number, flower yield, flower diameter, and flower biomass. Maximum growth was observed in 20% VC treatment, while 30% had shown a slight inhibition.[275]
Rabbit manureMaritime Pine (Pinus pinaster)Peat and perlite mixture was substituted with VC at the concentrations 0% (control), 2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 25% (v/v).VC treatments up to 10% increased the seedling height and aerial biomass, while 25% VC reduced the growth. [276]
Not statedTomato (L. esculentum)Seeds were sown in pots containing sand amended with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 25%, 50%, and 100%.Addition of VC enhanced the plant height, internode length, shoot diameter and chlorophyll content in all the VC treatments except 100%, which inhibited the growth.[277]
Cattle manurePetunia (Petunia hybrida)Commercial bedding plant container medium (Metro-Mix 360) was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% (v/v).Shoot and root dry weights were increased after substituting container medium with 10–60% VC; thereafter slight decrease was reported with increasing concentration. Number of flowers increased only up to 40% VC treatments.[83]
Cow manureDieffenbachia (Dieffenbachia spp.)Mixture of peat and perlite (2:1) was amended with VC at the rate of 0% (control), 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (v/v).VC enhanced the growth of the dieffenbachia plant when substituted up to 50%. Further increase in VC concentration reduced the growth.[278]
Rice straw and cow dung slurrySorghum (Sorghum bicolor)VC was added to the soil at the rates 2.5, 5 and 10 tonnes (t) ha−1. In one set of VC treatments, arbascular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi were added where as another set left unamended. AM fungi enriched VC at the rate 2.5 t ha−1 led to better shoot length, leaf area, plant biomass, and root volume in sorghum then other treatments. Further increase in VC (amended with AM fungi) decreased the plant biomass.[279]
Green wasteLettuce (L. sativa)Mixture of VC and compost were employed in the proportions 0/100, 50/50 and 20/80, and 100/0 (v/v).Plant biomass was maximum in 20/80 (v/v) compost blend, while pure VC or compost yielded poorer growth. [280]
Pig manureFrench marigold (Tagetes patula)Standard commercial greenhouse container medium (Metro-Mix 360) was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (v/v).The vegetative growth was higher in plants treated with 30% and 40% VC; while the lowest growth was reported in 90% and 100% VC treatments. [50]
Pig manureTomato (L. esculentum)VC was mixed with container media (Metro-Mix 360) to the extent of 0%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, and 100% (v/v).VC enhanced the growth of tomato seedlings when grown in media substituted up to 50% VC; 100% VC treatment reduced the growth. Maximum growth was reported in 25% and 50% VC.[114]
Pig manureTomato (L. esculentum Mill)Standard commercial greenhouse container medium (Metro-Mix 360) was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (v/v).Seedlings grown in 100% VC were significantly shorter, had fewer leaves, and weighed less than those in controls. VC treatments up to 50% enhanced the growth and yield.[17]
Studies showing no effect of VC on plant growth and yield
Cow manurePepperleaf (Piper auritum)Treatments included VC @ 10, 20, and 30 g/plant, vermiwash @ 5, 10, and 15 mL/plant, and rock phosphate @ 1, 2, and 3 g/plant.VC, vermiwash, and rock phosphate rock had no statistically significant effect on plant growth.[25]
Cow and sheep manureChincuya (Annona purpurea)In separate treatments, VC was added to plants at the rate 0, 50, and 100 g plant−1. VC amendment had no significant impact on the plant height and stem diameter. Total phenols in leaves and antioxidant activity decreased, while the flavanones increased on VC addition.[86]
Paper waste spiked with cow dungCluster bean (C. tetragonoloba)VC was added to soil at the rate of 0, 5, 7.5, and 10 t/ha.Application of VC had no beneficial impact on plant growth and yield.[24]
Buffalo manureMaize (Z. mays) and tomato (Lycopersicon sp.)VC was mixed with soil to generate 20 t ha−1 organic substrate concentration (90.5 g pot−1). Controls contained soil amended with NPK equivalent to that of VC. Initially maize was grown followed by tomato and maize in the same pots.VC treatments had no significant impact on the above-ground plant biomass of first maize planting. Plant yields were always highest in controls.[23]
Vegetable wasteTomato (S. lycopersicum)In separate treatments, mixture of commercial blonde sphagnum peat, coconut coir dust, perlite and VC were studied. The proportion of VC was 0%, 25%, and 50%.VC substitution had no impact on the growth of tomato.[140]
Green wasteSunflower (Helianthus annuus)Peat based growing media was supplemented with VC to the extent of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% (v/v).VC produced no significant impact on growth rate, overall height and total biomass, [22]
Studies showing the inhibition of plant growth and yield
Cow manureGarden bean (P. vulgaris), peas (P. sativum), beetroot (Beta vulgaris), radish (R. sativus), cabbage (B. oleracea) and Swedish turnip (B. napobrassica)Commercial sphagnum peat was substituted with VC @ 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and 100% (v/v).VC treatments exhibited inhibitory effects on the early seedling development of all the species studied.[117]
Agriculture waste and pig manure slurryPansy (Viola× wittrockiana) and primula (Primula acaulis)Peat-based conventional greenhouse medium was substituted with VC to the extent of 0% (control), 5%, 15%, and 25% (v/v).VC supplementation had no beneficial effects on the growth and flowering of all the plant species studied; rather the plants grown in VC amended media showed less growth and flowering than controls. [19]
Green wasteSunflower (Helianthus annuus), garden cosmos (Cosmos bipinnatus) and golden poppy (Eschscholzia californica)Peat based growing media was supplemented with VC to the extent of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% (v/v).VC treatments yielded no positive impact on plant growth, flowering and seed production (except flower numbers and seed weight of cosmos), rather VC have a suppressive effect on all the species studied. [22]
Table 3. Effect of vermicomposts on soil.
Table 3. Effect of vermicomposts on soil.
Source of VCType of ExperimentMain FindingsReference
Manure based VCs
Chicken manureCucumber was grown on sandy loam soil under four soil amendment conditions: inorganic compound fertilizer (750 kg/ha,), replacement of 150 kg/ha of inorganic compound fertilizer with 3000 kg/ha of organic fertilizer or VC, and untreated control.VC significantly improved the total nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, microbial nitrogen, organic matter, soluble organic carbon, total phosphorus, available phosphorus, available potassium, water content, and bulk density of the soil. In addition, VC induced a significant change in the rhizosphere soil fungal community compared to the other treatments.[65]
Chicken manure VC in the rate 0% (control), 5%, 10%, and 100% (v/v) was mixed with autoclaved quartz sand supplemented with or without rhizobia. With increases in VC concentrations, the nematode numbers and diversity increased.[281]
Animal waste Mixture of sandy loam, loam and clay textured soils was supplemented with VC at the concentration 0% (control), 0.5%, 1%, 2%, and 4% (w/w).VC supplementation in all three soils significantly increased organic matter content, wet aggregate stability and air permeability–with concomitant decrease in bulk density and penetration resistance.[282]
Cow manurePots containing soil were supplemented with VC at the rate 0%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60%, and 75% (w/w), with and without arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.VC treatments significantly decreased the bulk density of the soil. [191]
Cattle dungPots containing soil were supplemented with 500 g (wet weight) of either VC or cattle dung. Treatment without organic fertilizer was used as a control.Soil nutrient content (total nitrogen, available phosphorus and potassium) and microbial biomass, nematode, and mite abundance was increased with VC amendment.[62]
Rabbit manure In a field study, impact of three types of fertilization regimes was compared: (1) conventional fertilizer regime with inorganic fertilizer; and combined integrated fertilizer regimes in which 25% of the nutrients were supplied by either: (2) rabbit manure; or (3) VC. Integrated fertilizer regimes stimulated microbial growth and increased enzyme activity relative to inorganic fertilization. [230]
Turkey litter and cow dungVC was supplemented at the rate 10, 20, 30 and 40 kg along with farmyard manure (FYM) at the rate 2 t/ha. Plots without any amendment served as control.VC amendment increased the available NPK concentrations in soil amended with VC.[61]
Cow manurePots containing iron mine tailings were amended with 0% (control), 10%, 20%, and 30% VC (v/v).Microbial population was significantly higher in VC amended iron mine tailing than controls.[137]
Cow dung Cow dung VC was applied to the soil at concentrations 3 and 6 Mg C ha−1.Substitution of VC increased the microbial biomass carbon, dehydrogenase, urease, ß-glucosidase, phosphatase, and arylsulfatase activity in soil. [283]
Pig manure slurryVC was substituted in the peat-based conventional greenhouse medium to the extent of 0% (control), 5%, 15%, and 25% (v/v).VC supplementation reduced the bulk density and increased the water holding capacity of the container media. It also increased the ammonium and nitrate content, total nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of media.[19]
Cow dungVC was supplemented in pots containing soil to the extent of 10 t ha−1. Pots without any amendments served as control.The counts of fungi, bacteria and actinomycetes were higher in VC treated pots in comparison to the controls.[92]
Cow manureIron mine tailing was supplemented with 0% (control), 5%, 10%, and 20% (v/v) VC.An increase in the cultural bacteria and actinomyces was reported in the rhizosphere of plants grown in VC amended iron tailings.[145]
Cattle manureVC was supplemented in the soil to maintain 0% (control), 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of recommended dose of nitrogen. In comparison with the controls, VC increased the organic carbon, dehydrogenase, protease, and cellulase activity in the amended soil, while the bulk density was reduced.[284]
Cow manureVC at the rate 2.25 and 5 Mt ha−1 was supplemented in soil, in combination with 50% recommended dose of chemical fertilizers + 5 Mt ha−1 cow manure and 50% recommended dose of chemical fertilizers, respectively.VC substitution increased the soil organic carbon and reduced its bulk density. It also increased the available nitrogen and phosphorus content of the amended soil.[285]
Sheep manureSoil was amended with VC to the extent of 0 (control), 5, 10, 15 t ha−1. A decrease in bulk density and an increase in the porosity and organic carbon content was recorded in VC amended soil. VC also enhanced the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, zinc, and manganese in amended soil.[255]
Sheep manure VC and soil were mixed in the proportions of 0:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5 (VC: soil; v/v).Water holding capacity of the soil amended with VC increased with increasing proportion of VC.[257]
Sheep, cattle, and horse manuresPeat-perlite mixture was substituted with each of the substrate VC to the extent of 0% (control), 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% VC (v/v).The bulk density, percentage of pore space, and water holding capacity increased as VC content increased while the percentage of air space decreased. [269]
Pig manureStandard commercial greenhouse container medium (Metro-Mix 360) was substituted with 0% (control), 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% (v/v) of VC. Substitution of VC produced significant increase in nitrate N concentration.[50]
Pig manure VC was mixed with container media (Metro-Mix 360) to the extent of 0%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% and 100% (v/v).Total porosity and percentage air space of the container medium decreased significantly, whereas its bulk density and container capacity increased with increasing concentration of VC. An increase in nitrate concentration and microbial activity was also observed.[114]
Phytomass and manure-based VCs
Vegetable waste, agriculture crop residue, weeds and cow dungIn field experiment, VC, compost, farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizers were supplemented to the soil to make the NPK 57/60/60 t/ha for tomato and 120/60/60 t/ha for cabbage soil. Application of VC and compost improved the soil nutrient availability, physical stability and microbial diversity. In addition, there was an increase in the soil organic carbon.[159]
Ocimum and cow dungVC was added to the soil at the rate 5 t/ha along with bioinoculants. In addition a treatment was set in which recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers (N, P, K, at 80, 60, and 60 kg/ha) were applied. Unamended soil was considered as control.VC increased the soil organic carbon, NH4+N, NO3–N, available P, and available K when used along with bioinoculants.[64]
Farmyard manureVC and farmyard manure were applied to the extent of 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40 t/ha, alone or their combined treatments (1:1). In addition, a plot was supplemented with inorganic fertilizers N, P, K at 15 t/ha each VC increased the N, P, and Ca content in comparison to farmyard manure. In addition, VC also elevated the alkaline phosphatase and ß-glycosidase activities in soil.[63]
Crop residues and cattle dungVC, compost and farmyard manure were added to the soil at the rate of 5 t ha−1, alone and in combination with half of the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer (6:30:30 kg ha−1 NPK). In addition, a treatment was set with 100% inorganic fertilizer (12:60:60 kg ha−1). Unamended soil was used as control.Organic manures and fertilizers enhanced the organic carbon, mineral N, Olsen-P and ammonium acetate-extractables in the amended soil.[170]
Mixture of cow and buffalo dung plus bedding material (oak leaves, pine needles and Finger millet strawVC, farmyard manure (FYM), and chicken manure were supplemented alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers equivalent to the recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers (IF) N, P, K at 150, 75, and 75 t/ha respectively (. In addition, microbial consortia were added in each treatment. Unamended soil served as control.Combined application of VC, FYM and IF increased the available NPK and soil microbiological properties.[171]
Cow dung and water hyacinthVC at the rate 2.5 t/ha was supplemented in field soil in combination with 50% and 75% recommended dose of inorganic fertilizers (NPK) and biofertilizers (Azotobacter and phosphate solubilizing bacteria); 100% recommended dose of NPK supplementation was served as control.Applications of VCs and biofertilizers increased the organic matter, porosity and water holding capacity and reduced the bulk density and particle density of the soil. Further VC enhanced the available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents as well as micronutrient availability of iron, manganese, zinc, and copper in the soil.[286]
Organic waste (coir waste, paddy husk) cow dungVC was supplemented in soil alone and in combination with earthworms’s coelomic fluid. Unfertilized soil was used as control.VC supplementation increased the soil porosity, water holding capacity, nutrient content (N, P, K, Cu, Zn, Fe, B, Mn, and Mo) and the microbial count in the treated soil.[189]
Cow dung, municipal solid waste, duckweed, water hyacinth, bermuda grass, fly ash, and kitchen wasteVC was supplemented in soil to maintain 1.7% N, 0.7% P2O5, and 0.86% K2O. Unfertilized soil was considered as control.Mineral N (NH4–N and NO3–N) were significantly higher in all the VC-treated plots than the control.[287]
Farm waste and cow dungIn separate treatments, VC at the rate 10 Mg ha−1, 100% recommended dose of inorganic fertilizer (IF) and their combination was supplemented in soil. Study plots that were not amended were used as control.Combine treatment of VC and inorganic fertilizers increased the total organic carbon, total sulfate content, microbial biomass carbon, β-glucosidase, alkaline phosphatase, and the dehydrogenase activities in amended soil.[212]
Rice straw, water hyacinth, ipomoea and cow dungSoil was amended with 500 g of each of the substrate’s VC inoculated with A. chroococcum, A. brasilense, P. fluorescens, and a consortium of azotobacter, azospirillum, and pseudomonas. Soil amended with VC without microbial inoculation was set as control.Available N, P, K, and CEC in post-harvest soil were significantly higher in microbial enriched VCs amendments.[70]
Animal manure, grasses, green leaves of vegetables, herbs and plants) VC was supplemented in soil at rates of 1780 kg fresh organic matter ha−1. Soil fertilized with 250 kg N ha−1, 80 kg P ha−1, and 120 kg K ha−1 served as the control.Microbial biomass, dehydrogenase, urease, β-glucosidase, phosphatase and arylsulfatase activities increased significantly in soils amended with VC than the control.[223]
Residues of soybean and partially decomposed cattle dung In a field experiment, VC was supplemented in soil in combination with farmyard manure compost (FYM), poultry manure (PM) and biofertilizers. The treatments are: (1) VC 7.5 tonnes/ha + biofertilizers; and (2) FYM 10 tonnes/ha + PM and VC each 1.5 tonnes/ha + biofertilizers. Unfertilized soil was considered as controls.Combined treatment of VC, FYM and PM increased the organic carbon and available nutrients (NPK) in amended soils, while the bulk density was significantly reduced in comparison to the controls.[288]
Straw, green material and rabbit manure VC and compost (mix) prepared from orchard waste (straw, green material and rabbit manure) was applied alone at the rates 1 and 2 kg m−2 and in combination with bone meal (2 kg m−2 VC + 0.15 kg m−2) in soil. Unfertilized plots were considered as controls.An increment in particulate organic carbon, extractable P, fulvic, humic and humin fractions, electrical conductivity, cation exchange capacity and microbial respiration was reported in soils amended with VC-compost mixture and the combination of compost and bone meal. [289]
Green forages: grasses, green vegetable leaves, herbs and plant materialsVC was supplemented in soil at rates 0 (control), 5, and 10 t ha−1 organic matter.VC amendment reduced the bulk density of the amended soil, while the microbial biomass carbon, dehydrogenase, urease, β-glucosidase, phosphatase and arylsulfatase activity were increased significantly.[290]
Residues of soybean and partially decomposed cattle dungVC was supplemented in soil in combination with farmyard manure compost (FYMC), poultry manure (PM) and biofertilizers (BF; Azotobacter + phosphorus solubilizing bacteria). The treatments were: (1) VC 7.5 Mg ha−1 + BF; and (2) FYMC 10 Mg ha−1 + PM and VC each 1.5 Mg ha−1 + BF. Unfertilized soil was set as control.VC in combination with FYMC, poultry manure and biofertilizers greatly lowered the bulk density and enhanced the soil oxidizable organic carbon, and NPK levels compared with the controls.[291]
Crop residues (soybean) and partially decomposed cattle dung Composted farmyard manure, VC and lantana compost were supplemented in the soil at the rate 60, 90, 120, and 150 kg N ha−1.Organic amendments, irrespective of source and rate, greatly lowered the bulk density and increased the oxidizable organic carbon, dehydrogenase, β-glucosidase, urease and phosphatase activities in soil compared with mineral fertilizer treatment and controls. [292]
Yard leaf, sewage sludge + woodchips, municipal wastes, saw dust, wheat straw + urea, sugar cane filter cake and dairy cattle manurePotting mixes containing four rates of VC (0%, 15%, 30%, and 45% of pot volume), one rate of soil (33% of pot volume) and sand (remaining pot volume).VC amendment decreased the bulk density and particle density with an increase in the water holding capacity of the potting media.[293]
Filter cake and bovine manure VC was added to clay soil at the rates 0 (control), 20, 40 and 60 Mg ha−1.The bulk density of the soil reduced with increasing concentration of VC. Soil treated with higher VC concentrations (40 and 60 Mg ha−1) showed more stable soil macro aggregates. [294]
Cattle manure, leaves, and food scrapsIn separate treatments, earthworm casts, conventional compost and inorganic fertilizer (NPK) was supplemented in pots containing soil. The treatment rates utilized were designed to equalize the quantity of N in the container media.Microbial respiration and biomass were significantly greater in the soil amended with earthworm compost and cow manure in comparison to the inorganic fertilizer treated soil and controls.[295]
Phytomass based VCs
Distillation waste of aromatic cropsVC and tannery sludge were added to a sodic soil to the extent of 5 t/ha. In addition, two bacterial strains isolated from the same sodic soil were also mixed in the soil. Unamended soil served as control.With the addition of VC in the soil an increase in the pH, EC, exchangeable sodium, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, soil respiration, microbial quotient, and metabolic quotient was recorded.[150]
Ipomoea Seedlings were germinated and grown in soil amended with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).The bulk and particle density of soil decreased with increasing concentration of VC. An increase in total porosity, water holding capacity, and an increase in the nitrate, ammonium and microbial biomass carbon concentration was also seen in VC amended soils.[37]
Salvinia Soil was supplemented with VC at the rates 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (w/w).With the addition of VC in soil the bulk and particle density of the later decreased with concomitant increase in their total porosity, and water holding capacity. In addition, an increase in the nitrate, ammonium and microbial biomass carbon concentration was also seen in VC amended soils.[38]
Arecanut plantation leavesVC alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizers was supplemented to the extent of equivalent or twice of the recommended dose of nitrogen (100 g) for the growth of arecanut.VC significantly increased soil organic carbon and the availability of calcium, magnesium, manganese and copper, but reduced exchangeable K in the soil. [73]
Parthenium leavesVC was added to the soil to the extent of 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20% and 40% (by weight).With an increase in the VC concentration the density of the soil reduced with a concomitant increase in the porosity and water holding capacity. An increase in nitrate, ammonium and microbial biomass carbon was also reported in VC amended soils.[36]
Distillation waste of geranium and ocimumIn field trials VC was added to the soil at concentrations 0, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, and 5 t/ha in combination with 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% of recommended dose of NPK, respectively. Unfertilized soil was set as control.Total organic carbon, available NPK content and microbial biomass carbon in the soil increased, while the bulk density in the soils reduced in VC amended soils.[104]
Cassava industrial wasteEfficacy of VC and compost as soil conditioners in alleviating salt affected soils was assessed. Treatments included: (1) control (unfertilized soil); (2) earthworms only; (3) compost at the rate 10 Mg ha−1); (4) compost + earthworms; (5) VC at the rate 5 Mg ha−1); (6) VC + earthworms; and (7) recommended dose of chemical fertilizers.VC and compost treatments increased the soil microbial activities, cation exchange capacity, total nitrogen and extractable phosphorus in soil. These amendments also increased exchangeable K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ while decreasing exchangeable Na+, pH and EC in the saline soil.[190]
Lantana leavesIn separate treatments, soil was supplemented with VC at the rate 0% (control), 0.75%, 1.5%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 20%, and 40% (by weight).With increasing VC concentration, the bulk density and particle density of soil decreased significantly. An increase in total porosity and water holding capacity, nitrate, ammonium and microbial biomass carbon was also reported in VC amended soils.[35]
Distillation waste of geraniumVC alone and in combination with inorganic fertilizers (NPK) was supplemented in plots at the concentration 5 t ha−1 and 10 t ha−1.Mineral nutrients such as total nitrogen and available, phosphorus, and potassium and microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen increased in integrated nutrient management. In addition, soil organic carbon significantly increased in VC amended soil[71]
Distillation waste of patchouliIn separate treatments nitrogen concentration at the rate 66 kg ha−1 harvest−1 was supplied through bioinoculants-enriched VC, bioinoculants enriched compost, VC and chemical fertilizers. Unamended soil was considered as control.VC application resulted in a marked decrease in bulk density of soil with an increase in its water holding capacity, and available NPK content.[116]
WoodchipsCoal-spoil-contaminated tertiary sand was mixed with VC at ratios of 0.0%, 3.0%, 12.5%, and 25.0% (dry weight, w/w).VC supplementation caused an increase in the water holding capacity, total porosity and organic matter and decreased bulk and particle density. An increase in the exchangeable bases (Ca++, Mg++, K+, Na+), total exchangeable acidity (c mol kg−1), and effective CEC (c mol kg−1) was also reported.[226]
Green forageGreen forage VC was applied to the soil at the rate 3 and 6 Mg C ha−1.VC increased the microbial biomass carbon, dehydrogenase, urease, ß-glucosidase, phosphatase, and arylsulfatase activity in soil. [283]
Spent grape marc Efficacy of single or combined VC, urea, and/or diuron on soil enzyme activities and the persistence of this herbicide in soils with low organic carbon content was assessed.VC supplementation enhanced the microbial and dehydrogenase activity in the amended soil.[296]
Bagasse, municipal solid wastes, water hyacinth, paddy straw, and fly ash VCs were supplemented in the soil at 15 t ha−1. Unfertilized soil was considered as controls.VCs enhanced the organic C, mineralizable N, available P and exchangeable K in the soil. An increase in microbial respiration, microbial biomass C and N and fungal population in lateritic soil was reported. Amylase, protease, urease, acid phosphatase activities and ergosterol and chitin content were also significantly higher in VC treated soils compared with the control. [69]
Vegetable wasteThe treatments evaluated were: a control T1 (75% peat and 25% perlite), T2 (25% peat, 25% coconut coir dust, 25% VC and 25% perlite), T3 (50% peat, 25% VC and 25% perlite), T4 (25% peat, 50% VC and 25% perlite), T5 (50% coconut coir dust, 25% VC and 25% perlite), and T6 (25% coconut coir dust, 50% VC and 25% perlite).The bulk density and water-soluble elements, contained in the substrate, increased with increasing amounts of VC in the substrate, whereas the total porosity, easily available water and total water holding capacity decreased significantly with increasing amounts of VC. [140]
Grape marc Mixtures of slate processing fines at the rate 4%, 8%, and 16% dry weight (60, 120, and 240 Mg ha−1) were mixed in VC and incubated in the laboratory for 90 days at 25 °C.An increase in nutrient content, dehydrogenase activity, water holding capacity and Atterberg’s limits, defining consistency, was reported in slate processing fines with the addition of VC.[68]
Sugar mill wastesEfficacy of VC, in comparison to inorganic fertilizers-NPK, when supplemented in clay loam soil and sandy loam soil was compared. Treatments consisted of: (1) control (unfertilized soil); (2) 100% recommended dose of NPK; (3) 100% recommended dose of VC (5 t ha−1); and (4) 50%VC supplemented with 50% NPK.VC amendment increased the organic carbon, pore space, water holding capacity and reduced the bulk density and particle density of both the soil types.[115]
Pressmud, sugarcane trash and fine bagasseVC was supplemented alone and in combination with inorganic fertilizers in clay loam, sandy loam and red loam soils. The treatments were: (1) control (unfertilized soil); (2) NPK; (3) VC 5 t/ha; and (4) VC supplemented with 50% NPK (w/w).VC supplementation increased the pore space, water holding capacity, and organic carbon content and reduced the particle and bulk density, of all the soil types. Increase in available NPK and microbial population and activity was also recorded in VC amended soils.[67]
Impact of VC generated from substrates other than manure and phytomass
Fly ashSeeds were sown in media composed of pine bark compost and VC. The proportion of VC was 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Additionally, in one set of treatments, chemical fertilizers were added, while keeping another treatment without fertilizer fortification. VC improved the water-holding capacity, total porosity, and air-filled porosity of the media. [142]
Sugar mill wasteIn separate treatments, soil was fortified with recommended dose of VC (5 t/ha), inorganic fertilizer (NPK; 50:25:0 kg/ha) and mixture of VC and NPK (50/50). Unamended soil was considered as controls.VC increased the pore space, water holding capacity and cation exchange capacity, with concomitant reduction of particle and bulk density. Further it also enhanced the organic carbon, available NPK content and microbial population in soil.[258]
Municipal wasteVC and compost were added to the degraded volcanic soil to the extent of 20 and 40 g kg−1.VC increased the nitrogen mineralization, enzymatic and microbial activity in amended soil.[66]
Studies with no mention of substrates used for generating VC
No statedIn randomised block design, experiment was conducted with six treatments: Control, recommended dose of NPK for the crop, recommended dose + farmyard manure, recommended dose + VC, farmyard manure only and VC only.VC positively influenced the total Kjeldahl nitrogen, available N, P and K content, total organic carbon, and the soil pH.[75]
Not statedVC was added to the commercial mix of peat and perlite at the rate 0% (control), 20% and 40% of VC.Addition of VC resulted in a linear increase in pH, electrical conductivity, nutrient level, bulk density and total porosity of the substrate, while organic matter decreased linearly and quadratically the percentage of pores occupied by water. [74]
Not statedMarjoram was grown in soil supplemented with VC to the extent of 0, 6, 8 and 10 m3/fed and calcium silicate at the rate 0, 10, 15 and 20 kg/fed.VC treatments the nitrogenase and dehydrogenase activities and nutrient contents of N, P, K and Ca of rhizosphere soil. [72]
Table 4. Effect of vermicompost in suppressing plant disease and pests.
Table 4. Effect of vermicompost in suppressing plant disease and pests.
Source of VCTarget Plant SpeciesPlant Pathogen Suppressed by VCFactors Deemed to Have Been behind the Suppression of Plant Pathogens by VCReference
Cattle manureTomato (Lycopersicum spp.)Tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta)Enrichment of nutrient and phenolic content in plant tissues.[297]
Parthenium Ladies finger (A. esculentus)Liriomyza spp, Alternaria alternate and Earias vittellaBetter nutrient availability and presence of pathogen-destroying microorganisms[127]
Salvinia Ladies finger (A. esculentus)Liriomyza spp, Alternaria alternate and Earias vittellaBetter nutrient availability and presence of pathogen-destroying microorganisms[126]
Cattle solidsThymus vulgarisFusarium oxysporum and Phytophthora infestansPresence of phenolic substances such as gallic acid and chlorogenic acid.[143]
Cow manureTomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)Meloidogyne incognitaIncreased secondary defense compounds, related gene expression, plant growth and the changes of soil properties particularly the increase of pH, IAA and microbial activity.[96]
Not statedWalnut (Juglans regia)Agrobacterium tumefaciensBiotic nature[298]
Cow dungMung bean (Vigna radiata)Macrophomina phaseolinaMicrobial activity[188]
Not statedCucumber (C. sativus)Meloidogyne javanicaHydrogen sulfide, ammonium and nitrates and rhizobacteria accumulation around the plant roots [95]
Lantana leavesCluster bean (Cyamopsis teteragonoloba)Xanthomonas campestris, Aternaria spp., Bemisia tabaciBetter nutrient availability, antimicrobial compounds such as phenols, flavonoids and humic acid[106]
Distillation waste of patchouli Patchouli (Pogostemon cablin)Rhizoctonia spp.Microbial activity and balanced plant nutrients[299]
Not statedRice (Oriza sativa) cv Pusa BasmatiRhizoctonia solani, Nilaparvata lugens and Leptocorisa acutaProper nutrient management[300]
Distillation waste of lemongrass and citronellaColeus (Coleus forskohlii)Fusarium chlamydosporum and Ralstonia solanacearumBeneficial microflora, production and release of allelochemicals[301]
Not statedCucumber (C. sativus)Aphis gossypiiMicrobial activity[302]
Not statedCurly bamboo (Dracaena sanderiana)Erwinia spp.Soil borne microbes[303]
Food wasteCorn (Zea mays)Helicoverpa zeaMicrobial activity[94]
Medical plant wastes and cattle manurePotato (Solanum tuberosum)Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallidaAmmonium content [304]
Animal manure and agro wastesTomato (L. esculentum)Pratylenchus spp.Plant nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, Ca++, K+) vitamins, enzyme, and plant hormones[305]
Not statedArabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana)Helicoverpa zeaMicrobial activity [93]
Agro waste of medicinal and aromatic plantsTomato (Lycopersicon spp.)Meloidogyne incognita-[306]
Cow dungGreen gram (Vigna radiata)Macrophomina phaseolinaSoil microflora which includes fungi, bacteria and actinomycetes[92]
Agro-wastes and cow dungCucumber (C. sativus)Rhizoctonia solaniBio-control agents (microbial population)[91]
Vegetable waste and cow dungStrawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.)Botrytis cinereaMicrobial activity[20]
Food wasteTomato (Lycopersicon spp.) and cucumber (C. sativus), bush beans (P. vulgaris) and eggplant (Solanum melongena)Tetranychus urticae, Pseudococcus sp., and Myzus persicaeAvailable plant nutrients and phenols[90]
Food wasteTomato (Lycopersicon spp.) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus)Manduca quinquemaculata and Acalymma vittatum and Diabotrica undecimpunctataPlant nutrition, controlled slower release rates of mineral nutrients in plants, and presence of phenolic compounds [26]
Not statedImpatiens (Impatiens wallerana)Rhizoctonia solaniMicrobial activity[307]
Food wasteTomato (Lycopersicon spp.), pepper (Capsicum spp.) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea)Myzus persicae, Pseudococcus spp. and Peiris brassicaeEssential nutrient elements[89]
Cattle, sheep and horse manureTomato (Lycopersicon spp.)Phytophthora nicotianaeAvailable plant nutrients[88]
Cattle manureTomato (Lycopersicon spp.)Fusarium oxysporum Biotic nature (microbial activity)[87]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hussain, N.; Abbasi, S.A. Efficacy of the Vermicomposts of Different Organic Wastes as “Clean” Fertilizers: State-of-the-Art. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041205

AMA Style

Hussain N, Abbasi SA. Efficacy of the Vermicomposts of Different Organic Wastes as “Clean” Fertilizers: State-of-the-Art. Sustainability. 2018; 10(4):1205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hussain, Naseer, and Shahid A. Abbasi. 2018. "Efficacy of the Vermicomposts of Different Organic Wastes as “Clean” Fertilizers: State-of-the-Art" Sustainability 10, no. 4: 1205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041205

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop