Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Research
Open Access

An Overview on Vermicompost Environmental Impacts (From Past to Future)

Javad Robatjazi^{* *}Correspondence: Javad Robatjazi, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, TX, USA, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

As a sustainable, eco-friendly, and non-thermophilic approach in the agriculture industry, vermicompost is a bio-oxidation decomposition process that involves organic matter stabilization and nutrients development in physical, nutritional, and biochemical terms using epigeic earthworms and microorganisms [1-7]. Benefits it provides to soil are nutrient cycling improvement, enhancement of water retention capacity, and developed microbial activity [8-10]. Epigeic earthworms cause substrates breakdown and are the most appropriate and efficient for vermicompost production as they live in organic horizons and utilize decayed organic matter [11,12]. Eisenia fetida is the widely used epigeic earthworm in vermicomposting process, having a wide temperature resiliency high fecundity, and the ability to live in the wide spectrum of organic wastes [8,13].

Vermicompost-applied soils are better in micro and macrospaces, particles, Electrical Conductivity (EC), pH, nutrients, profile structure, hydraulic conductivity, and erosion resistance [14-17]. Vermicast, the product of the earthworms when they mix inorganic soil materials and organic matters in their guts, contains beneficial enzymes and hormones for crops and soil [18,19]. Casts are normally present in the 0-20 cm of the surface layer containing more water-stable aggregates than surroundings ones [20]. Presence of nitrogen fixing and phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria, in vermicast stimulates the productivity, development, growth of crops [21-26]. Several studies found the salutary effects of the vermicompost on crop productivity such as: wheat, peppermint, tomatoes, capsicum, and garlic. In addition, indirect benefits found include, pests and diseases control, parasitic nematodes suppression [27-33].

Literature Review

Vermicompost impacts on plants growth

Organic matter is a valuable source of nutrients that plants can easily access, and adding it to the soil can promote thriving microbial populations and activities. This leads to higher values of biomass carbon, basal respiration, the ratio of biomass carbon to total organic carbon, and the metabolic quotient (qCO₂). The inclusion of organic matter has also resulted in enhanced soil quality, leading to increased crop yields. Studies have documented significant yield improvements by using mulches made from coffee husks, as well as increased productivity through the application of animal manures and hay residues. According to Edwards and Burrows, vermicomposts were found to enhance the emergence of ornamental seedlings compared to control commercial plant growth media. Various test plants, including pea, lettuce, wheat, cabbage, tomato, and radish, exhibited improved growth when grown in vermicompost-supplemented mixtures. Additionally, ornamental shrubs such as Eleagnus pungens, Cotoneaster conspicua, Pyracantha, Viburnum bodnantense, Chaemaecyparis lawsonia, Cupressocyparis leylandii and Juniperus communis thrived better in vermicompost-supplemented mixtures when transplanted into larger pots or grown outdoors. Chrysanthemums, salvias, and petunias also flowered earlier in vermicomposts compared to commercial planting media. Even when substituting just 5% of a 50:50 mixture of pig and cattle manure vermicomposts into various levels of commercial plant growth medium, plants exhibited better growth. Similar positive growth trends were observed in greenhouse pot trials by using vermicompost and sand mixtures ranging from 0% to 100%. Although higher concentrations of vermicompost led to reduced radish germination, radish harvest weights increased proportionally with vermicompost application rates, with yields in 100% vermicompost being up to ten times greater than those in 10% vermicompost. The Soil Ecology Laboratory at The Ohio State University consistently found that a wide range of crops exhibited accelerated germination when treated with vermicomposts. Initially, vermicompost applications inhibited germination, but subsequent weekly applications of diluted extracts improved plant growth and increased radish yields by up to 20%. Wilson and Carlile reported that tomatoes, lettuces, and peppers exhibited optimal growth rates at substitution rates of 8-10%, 8%, and 6%, respectively, using a mixture of duck waste vermicompost and peat. However, higher substitution rates led to growth inhibition attributed to increased electrical conductivity (salt content) and excessive nutrient levels. Subler, et al., observed increased plant growth in commercial media (Metro-Mix MM360) when vermicomposts were substituted instead of traditional composts derived from biosolids and yard waste. In Scott's U.K. study involving hardy nursery stocks of Juniperus, Chamaecyparis, and Pyracantha, substituting 20-50% vermicomposts from cattle manure, pig manure, and duck waste into Metro-Mix MM360, along with regular nutrient application, resulted in better growth compared to plants grown in a peat-sand mixture. In the second year of the experiment, responses varied among the test crops, but the addition of 25% of all three types of animal waste, along with a controlled-release fertilizer (Osmocote 18:11:10), promoted increased growth of Juniperus sabina tamariscifolia.

Handreck conducted research to examine the effects of various vermicomposts derived from cow manure, sheep manure, poultry manure, goat manure (mixed with carpet underfelt, lawn clippings, cardboard, and domestic waste), kitchen scraps, cardboard (mixed with wheat, maize, meat, lucerne and linseed meals, rice pollard, and oat hulls), and pig wastes on plant growth. The vermicomposts were mixed with Pinus radiata bark and quartz sand in the growth media, with each vermicompost accounting for 30% of the mixture. Handreck found that all of these mixtures increased the dry weights of stocks (Mathiola incana) compared to the control group that received no vermicompost. Similar results were reported in the germination of tomatoes and peppers grown in vermicomposts mixed with a commercial peat/sand planting medium. Chan and Griffiths reported stimulating effects of pig manure vermicomposts on the growth of soybeans (Glycine max), particularly in terms of increased root lengths, lateral root numbers, and internode lengths of seedlings. In a rooting experiment, vermicomposts were found to enhance the establishment of vanilla (Vanilla planifolia) cuttings better than other growth media such as coir pith and sand mixtures. Similar growth responses were observed in cloves (Syzygium aromaticum) and black peppers (Piper nigrum) sown in 1:1 mixtures of vermicompost and soil. Black pepper cuttings raised in vermicomposts exhibited significantly greater height and leaf count compared to those grown in commercial potting mixtures, while cloves grown in vermicompost mixtures displayed taller plant heights, more branches, and longer taproots. The study reported enhanced growth and dry matter yield of cardamom (Electtaria cardamomum) seedlings in vermicomposted forest litter compared to other growth media tested. Vermicomposts produced from coir dust were found to increase onion yields (Allium cepa).

Economic aspects of composting and vermicomposting processes

From economic point of view, total cost of vermicompost application from the workforce to fertilizer is cheaper compared to chemical fertilizers [34]. Compost and vermicompost are well-known in terms of economical sustainability, as they, especially composting process involves low technical and capital complexity and input [9,35]. Researchers reported that a savings of € 19.56 can happen per ton of organic waste if composting used to manage wine industries waste compared to external management [35]. Galgani P, et al., also mentioned that composting was economically viable without receiving any subsidies in Bangladesh and Indonesia [9]. Carbon markets is also another factor in economic viability of the composting process [12]. Composting normally involves lower Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) emissivity but balances are not taken into account for nutrients recycling for compost production from organic waste [12]. Studies show that no robust analysis were attempted so far addressing the economic feasibility of combined compost-vermicompost system but the total cost-effectivity and annual revenue of the integrated system can hypothetically be higher than the composting technology alone [12].

Global vermicast/compost production trend and their utility

As a growing waste-free industry which contains environmentally safe by-products and final products, vermiculture; huge production of earthworms in waste materials, firstly started in Holland in 1970, then started growing in Israel, Brazil, Canada, France, England, Korea, USA, Italy, Philippines, Thailand, China, Japan, and Australia [3,8]. American Earthworms Technology company produced approximately 500 tons of vermicompost per month in 1978-79 [8]. Collier, Hartenstein and Bisesi reported sewage sludge treatment through vermiculture in USA. in 1985–87 USA exported 3000 tons of earthworms to Japan for cellulose waste degradation [36,37]. Edwards also mentioned municipal sludge sawdust, rice straw and paper waste utilization for vermicomposting producing 2–3 thousand tons of vermicompost per month [38]. Sinha reported Bangalore and Pune vermicompsting sites with 100 ton per day capacity. Bhawalkar Earthworm Research Institute (BERI), Pune is the biggest earthworm-based vermiculturing institute in India [3,39]. Senapati, Gunathilagraj and Ramesh reported treatment of coir waste, sericultural wastes and cellulosic wastes by earthworms [40,41].

Does feedstock affect vermicomposting

Numerous feedstocks can be used for feeding vermicompost from pig manure, oat straw to kitchen waste, cow dung, and industrial sludge with pH range from 5-8, and 40-55% of moisture content [7,12,22,42]. Earthworms' growth monitored in several studies, like animal manure, plant residues, and municipal wastewater but little is known about the quality of the feedstock on the earthworms [43-46]. Butt found no adverse effect on earthworms in mill sludge treated vermicompost. Elvira, et al., cited that solid paper-mill sludge mixed with sewage sludge in the 3:2 ratio resulted in the highest growth rate and the lowest mortality of E. Andrei [47,48]. In contrast, Papermill sludge mixed with pig slurry showed a high mortality rate which can be due to changes in the environmental factors [48]. Elvira, et al., mentioned that earthworm's reproduction and total biomass ascended between 22 and 36-fold, 2.2 and 3.9-fold, in mixed paper mill sludge and cattle manure, respectively. The vermicomposts were nitrogen and phosphorous-rich with low toxicity and high stability [48]. In addition, Karmegam, et al., found that green manure+cowdung substantially improved the reproduction and growth of earthworms [4].

According to Aslam, et al., for paper wastes, cow dung, and rice straw during the vermicomposting process, Nitrogen (N), available Phosphorus (P), available Potassium (K), Zinc (Zn), and Iron (Fe) concentrations ranged from (0.02–0.30 percent), (9.10–23.21 ppm), (127.00–1425.00 ppm), (0.41–1.06 ppm), and (1.83–4.21 ppm), respectively. In agreement with that, Chauhan and PC conducted a study on toxic weeds vermicomposting and observed a high increase in nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and a significant decrease in organic carbon, C/N, C/P ratio in the Eisenia fetida inoculated experiment. In the study conducted by Chen, et al., decrease in C/N and C/P was also reported in vermiconversion of medicinal herbal residues [49-51]. In contrast, Bansal and Kapoor mentioned that earthworms had no effect on the total P, K and Copper (Cu) content of compost [44]. However, they found more Zn in cattle dung compost with earthworms compared to earthworms-free compost. Esmaeili, et al., reported a significant reduction in C/N and total organic carbon by 69% and 37% in pistachio waste treatment which is coincided with other studies [52-55]. Such reduction is attributed to the coupled activity of microorganisms and earthworms that led to the conversion of organic materials to carbon dioxide [56,57]. This mutual activity is defined as release of mucus and enzymes by earthworms that accelerates the microorganisms’ activity, and release of extracellular enzymes into the earthworm’s intestine by microorganisms [58]. Nutrient contents of the feedstock mainly affect the nutrient release of the vermicompost [59]. Earthworms have an influential role in increasing and improving the nitrogen contents of the waste by adding nitrogen-rich mucus, decaying tissues of dead worms and by enhancing microbial mediated nitrogen mineralization [60]. Earthworms’ phosphatases and P-solubilizing microorganisms result in phosphorous mineralization and phosphor availability [11,61]. Jemal and Abede mentioned that total nitrogen content happened in Ambo combined with stevia leaf (2%) and high available phosphorous in Meskan+fresh foods (31.565 ppm) [62]. Van Groenigen JW, et al., mentioned 83% and 240% increase in P and N availability as 40 to 48% total P, N, and organic C found in casts compared to bulk soils [63].

The C/N ratio is an accepted measure of compost maturity [64]. Biruntha, et al., reported that vermi-amended compost had a lower C/N and C/P ratio compared to that of unamended ones ranging from (11 to 28%), and (30 to 43%), respectively indicating the significance of total organic carbon in the initial C/N. In line with that, Zhi-wei, et al., observed 59 to 72% decrease in C/N in rice straw and kitchen waste vermicompost [65,66]. Boruah, et al., reported 91% reduction in C/N ratio in citronella bagasse and paper mill sludge vermicomposting [67]. Soobhany, et al., also found 41.5–48% reduction in C/N ratio in solid wastes vermicomposting. This variation range in C/N ration can be attributed to earthworms' activity and reproduction rate due to food priority and appropriate C/N ratio in the initial feedstock. C/N is an indicator for the organic matter mineralization rate and compost maturity [65,68]. CO₂ emission, adding nitrogenous worms' excretion, and earthworm's bioactivity can improve the C/N reduction in vermicompost [69,70]. Ndegwa and Thompson recommended the C/N ratio of 25 for optimization of the interaction between earthworms and microbes as it provides sufficient available energy for during the bio-conversion process [71]. Gunadi and Edwards wrote that paper could better adsorb moisture and was a better bedding or bulking material as E. fetida could not survive in fresh cattle solids, fresh young pig solids, fruit wastes and vegetable wastes [72]. Warman and AngLopez observed that Kitchen Waste+Paper (KPW) was a better material for earthworms' fecundity than Kitchen Wastes+Yard (KYW) may be due to the higher nutritional content of the kitchen waste+paper casts [73]. They also found KPW cast darker and finer rather than KYW which could be attributed to castings redigestion and oxidation in the earthworm gut. The leaves and paper’s fibers were also noticed in KPW and KYW as they need long time to decompose due to cellulose which can explain greater earthworms' growth in KPW [73].

Microbial communities involved in vermicomposting

Vermicompost is an organic biofertilizer which is studied not only for its chemical and nutritional qualities but also for its biological features in terms of microbial inoculums. Few studies have focused on the microbial succession during vermicomposting. Thus, the need for a throughout research is sensed for interpretation and characterization of the microbial community composition [74]. The active phase of composting is the thermophilic stage in which bacterial succession happens [75,76]. Disease suppression activity of thermophilic compost reported in several researches on different phytopathogens viz., Rhizoctonia, Phytopthora, Plasmidiophora brassicae and Gaeumannomyces graminis and Fusarium [77-83]. Organic amendments improve the microbial population and diversity which could be the reason for disease suppression [84]. Pertinent to bacterial diversity enhancement Kolbe, et al., provided a detailed characterization of bacterial succession during vermicomposting of white grape marc and found a significant increment in bacterial diversity and community composition [85]. Such traits are also accompanied by increase in metabolic capacity and specific metabolic processes comprising cellulose metabolism, plant hormone synthesis, and antibiotic synthesis. In agreement with that Domínguez, et al., mentioned the beneficial impacts of vermicomposting of Scotch broom on bacterial community composition. Interestingly, Gómez-Brandón, et al., found a reduction in microbial biomass and diversity but an increase in microbial total activity. Several studies highlighted the significance of passage of the material through the earthworm gut as it favors the existence of smaller but metabolically more active microbial population [86-88]. In addition, Mainoo, et al., found a significant reduction both in E.coli plus Salmonella (31 to 70%) and Aspergillus (78 to 88%) loads during vermicompost while in the earthworm-free plot, there was a decline of 75%, and 16% in E. coli plus Salmonella, and Aspergillus, respectively during the same period in the pineapple waste-bedded [89].

Vermicomposts effect on heavy metals

Presence of the heavy metals and metalloids in soils pose serious threats to the food chain and human health [90]. Studies report that composting and maturity time of organic residuals does have positive effects on heavy metals behavior like water solubility and chemical extractabilities, consequently estimating to have low heavy metal leaching [91-96]. García, et al., these characteristics are attributed to formation of metal-humus complex [91]. Khan conducted a study on how biochar inclusion to vermiconversion can hinder the heavy metal movement during preincubation [97]. This is in agreement with the findings of the Li, et al., and Awasthi, et al., for the mobility of Zn, Cu and Ni, Lead (Pb) [98,99]. Park, et al., indicated a sharp reduction in the heavy metal build-up in Indian mustard+biochar bed [100]. Also, reduction of Zn, Pb, Fe, Cu was observed in sewage sludge and sugar cane mixture [101]. This is in line with Gogoi, et al., reported vermicompost efficacy in Zn removal rather than Cu in a 1:1 ratio (cowdung+sludge) [102]. According to Jain, et al., this happens due to microflora detoxification capability which are in earthworm's intestine. Khan, MB., reports biochar coupled with Eisenia fetida can be considered a significant treatment in preincubation-vermicomposting of biosolids [97,103]. Also, Wang, et al., found that the accumulation of heavy metals happened in earthworms’ tissues (145 mg/kg, 64.8 mg/kg for Zn and Pb total in a treatment of (90% sewage sludge, 7% fly ash, 3% phosphoric rock and 90% sewage sludge, 3% fly ash, 7% phosphoric rock) respectively [104]. However, the results are conflicting in this regard. For example, Abbaspour and Golchin reported low transformation effect of vermicompost on Pb, Cd, Zn and Cu in an alkaline soil [105]. Chand, et al. mentioned a positive relationship between vermicompost and potential heavy metal accumulation by crops [106-109]. Hoehne, et al., showed that quantity of bioavailable Chromium (Cr) and Pb varied based on vermicompost application ratio [110]. These discrepancies indicate that despite having a significant adsorption capacity for potential heavy metals Jordão, et al., further investigation required for fully understanding of the effects [111].

Vermicompost effect on GHG emission

Emission of GHGs has always been one of the major concerns in vermitechnology since it reduces the agricultural values of the products along with polluting atmosphere [17,112,113]. Amongst gases, N₂O and CH₄ are the significant contributors to the global warming Awasthi, et al., as their potentiality are 298 and 25 times higher than CO₂ over a 100-year period [114]. Hence, deciphering the behavior of vermicomposting in generating GHGs emission is significant. Contributing factors to GHG emission in vermicomposting are temperature, moisture quantity, aeration condition, additives, bulking agents, pile scales, and C/N ratio [17,112,115-119]. Studies report contradictory results on the earthworm addition to compost. Wang, et al., and Nigussie, et al., found positive effects of the earthworms on GHG emissivity in animal manure-bed while others mentioned that earthworm-induced GHG emission increased compared to traditional composting [120-122]. Since they influence physico-chemical properties of the soil [17,123]. According to Friedrich and Trois biodegradation process that produces CO₂ and agricultural machinery used during vermicomposting are the reasons behind GHG emissivity [124]. CO₂ emission is indicative of the mineralization and degradation of the organic matter [125]. In line with that Hao, et al., Tsutsui, et al., and Luo, et al., cited that organic matter decomposition consumes O₂ and release CO₂. Some studies mentioned the impact of aeration and turning in mitigating GHG emission [126-128]. For instance, Chowdhury, et al., reported low aeration reduced GHG emission while Wang, et al., reported that intermittent aeration could better decrease GHG emission rather than a continuous one. Some studies reported the increased nitrate and CO₂ emission and decreased CH₄ emission which is linked to aerobic condition maintained by burrowing activities of earthworms while more moisture content generate more CH₄ anaerobic condition led to more GHGs emissivity [104,129-131]. Nigussie, et al., reported a reduction in CH₄ and N₂O emission during vermicomposting compared to composting by 32% and 40% respectively, while the moisture content was high but the reduction of GHGs was 16% and 23% in low moisture condition [132]. Jiang, et al., indicated the effectivity of enhanced air exchange on reduction of GHG emission. Luo, et al., studies that turning and covering pig manure with mature compost could have positive effect on GHG emission [128,133]. Between aeration and turning, a study conducted by Friedrich and Trois represented that aeration might be better than turning as turned windrow composting released 8.14% higher GHGs than aerated dome composting [124]. Researchers conducted mentioned that biochar mature compost, and C-bulking agent, such as woodchips, sawdust or crop residues could tune the condition of waste mixture and decline the GHGs emission such as CO₂ if mixed well with manure [128,129,134]. Thus, a robust analysis and a deep investigation are required experimenting the factors and conditions in understating the definitive influences of the vermicomposting on GHGs emission.

Soil organic matter and carbon characteristics affected by vermicompost

Stable compost is a state in which Organic Matter (OM) decomposition is low without any heat produced [132]. Instability of the compost leads to a reduction in plant growth as it comprises toxic compounds, causes oxygen depletion in the root zone, and compels osmotic stress [135]. Several indices have been proposed as compost stability indicators such as CO₂ evaluation, lack of heat development, C/N ratio <12 and NH₄⁺-N: NO₃--N ratio <0.16 [136,137]. The quality and quantity of the Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) at threshold value of 4 g/kg is considered as an additional compost stability indicator [118,121,136]. Through ingestion of the substrates and governing the microbial communities, earthworms can affect the DOC. Still, little is known about the effects of the earthworms on the composition of DOC during the vermicomposting process [121]. Nigussie, et al., found that a longer pre-composting period causes a lower DOC content since it has easily degradable compounds. Consequently, C mineralization ascends. DOC in compost can affect microbial activities and C mineralization when soil is applied [121,138]. Composts with DOC content lower than 4 g kg-1 dry matter are considered more stable than non-earthworms treated ones presumably because they improve the decomposition process by interacting with microorganisms [112,132]. Soil carbon sequestration through earthworms’ activity is defined as the balance of the OM mineralization and stabilization [139,140]. Wu, et al., stated that earthworms can increase soil organic carbon rates through the replacement of the old SOM with newly added straw carbon [140]. Lubbers, et al., mentioned that earthworms spurred organic matter mineralization through microbial respiration enhancement [141]. They can also accelerate carbon stabilization [140]. Through ingestion of the organic matter, they are mixing it with inorganic soil materials, passing through their guts and sending it out as casts. Subsequently, nuclei are created for the formation of the organo-minerals micro-aggregates and then macro-aggregates to protect the soil organic matter [142,143]. Furthermore, earthworms can tunnel into the soil, deposit the C in deep soil profile and protect the C there [144]. Earthworms are able to mobilize labile carbon [145]. They can also develop microbial activities toward using more diverse carbon pools [146]. Ngo, et al., mentioned that increase of organic carbon storage relies on the organic manure characteristics [147]. Earthworms lessen carbon storage organic material-amended soils. In addition, earthworms’ presence results in organic matter protection in soil particles.

Zaitsev, et al., found out that earthworms can alter the microbial activity and carbon release from reapplied rice straw by stimulating aerobic microorganisms [148]. The optimal density of earthworms can be set at 500-600 per m² for sequestering carbon. At higher density, there could be a competition amongst earthworms for the resources and stress them. Lower than the optimal density, the straw remains unprocessed. In agreement with that, reported by Ramos, et al., microorganism activity and substrate mass (ρ =0.95) and total organic carbon (ρ =0.77) are highly correlated indicating high carbon quantity and microbial activity [149]. Cao, et al., the more earthworms population increase, the more nutrient quantity in the final product would be [150]. It can also be noted that the earthworms and carbon stabilization relation is positively correlated. Total organic carbon indicates organic carbon absorption and CO₂ emission during the vermiconversion process [151].

Discussion

Literature reviews largely revealed the potentiality of the vermicompost in ensuring food quality, remediating ground water pollution, and enhancing agricultural productivity. Pacing towards a sustainable agriculture, vermicompost can benefit the consumers, producer, and the environment [151]. Vermicompost, known as “Black Gold” fulfills the concept of “zero waste” by recycling a large deal of wastes from sewage sludge to food waste [151-153]. Green Revolution had many side effects including increase in chemical fertilization and pesticide utilization for fostering crop yields which adversely affected soil health and productivity [154]. Following the approach of three Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), vermicompost is significantly linked to the circular economy through generation of energy from wastes [70]. Circular economy is the long-term promising solution to meet the sustainable development pillars: economic, environment, social [151]. It addresses the economic aspects as it shrinks the costs of the pollution control. The environmental dimension is meet through minimization of waste and greenhouse gases emission [155]. New businesses provide new job opportunities for the society as well [151]. It can also tackle the soil fertility and food shortage problems [156]. Hence, the goal of sustainability in agriculture can be achieved once vermicompost potentials are deeply realized in terms of waste disposal management, contaminant remediation, and job offers provision.

Vermicompost, as a slow-release fertilizer, ensures agricultural sustainability and has a synergistic influence on crops [151]. It provides vital nutrients such as nitrates, solubilized potassium, magnesium, phosphorous, calcium to crops [16,84,157]. It also offers more microsites to microbes for nutrient retention through increased surface area [158,159]. It increases the production of plant growth hormones if applied with humic substances [160]. Several studies mentioned that the application of vermicomposting after composting process caused a decrease in GHGs emissivity, less heavy-metal contaminated agricultural products, more nutrient accessibility, and a greater deal of microbes [120,161-163].

Conclusion

While a great deal of research has shown the beneficial impacts of the vermicompost on soil nutrient efficiency, particle cohesion, and development of the soil profile, results for the greenhouse gases emissivity and environmental facets are contradictory and demand more subsequent and site-specific research. This review aimed to gather numerous studies and put them together to provide a detailed references for agriculturalists and farmers to make a more informed decision when apply vermicomposting on the farm.

References

1. Bhat SA, Singh J, Vig AP. Potential utilization of bagasse as feed material for earthworm Eisenia fetida and production of vermicompost. Springerplus. 2015;4(1):1-9.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

2. Kaushik P, Malik A, Sharma S. Vermicomposting: an eco‐friendly option for fermentation and dye decolourization waste disposal. Clean–Soil, Air, Water. 2013;41(6):616-21.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bhat SA, Singh S, Singh J, Kumar S, Vig AP. Bioremediation and detoxification of industrial wastes by earthworms: vermicompost as powerful crop nutrient in sustainable agriculture. Bioresour Technol. 2018;252:172-179.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

4. Karmegam N, Vijayan P, Prakash M, Paul JA. Vermicomposting of paper industry sludge with cowdung and green manure plants using Eisenia fetida: A viable option for cleaner and enriched vermicompost production. J Clean Prod. 2019;228:718-728.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Pramanik P, Ghosh GK, Ghosal PK, Banik P. Changes in organic–C, N, P and K and enzyme activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under liming and microbial inoculants. Bioresour Technol. 2007;98(13):2485-2494.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

6. Ngo PT, Rumpel C, Dignac MF, Billou D, Duc TT, Jouquet P. Transformation of buffalo manure by composting or vermicomposting to rehabilitate degraded tropical soils. Ecol Eng. 2011;37(2):269-276.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Wani KA, Rao RJ. Bioconversion of garden waste, kitchen waste and cow dung into value-added products using earthworm Eisenia fetida. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2013;20(2):149-154.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

8. Edwards CA. Earthworm ecology. CRC press. 2004.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Galgani P, van der Voet E, Korevaar G. Composting, anaerobic digestion and biochar production in Ghana. Environmental–economic assessment in the context of voluntary carbon markets. Waste Manag. 2014;34(12):2454-2465.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

10. Soobhany N, Mohee R, Garg VK. 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]

11. Ghosh M, Chattopadhyay GN, Baral K. Transformation of phosphorus during vermicomposting. Bioresour Technol. 1999;69(2):149-154.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lim SL, Lee LH, Wu TY. Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic analysis. J Clean Prod. 2016;111:262-278.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Badhwar VK, Singh S, Singh B. Biotransformation of paper mill sludge and tea waste with cow dung using vermicomposting. Bioresour Technol. 2020;318:124097.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

14. Bresson LM, Koch C, Le Bissonnais Y, Barriuso E, Lecomte V. Soil surface structure stabilization by municipal waste compost application. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2001;65(6):1804-11.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Celik I, Ortas I, Kilic S. Effects of compost, mycorrhiza, manure and fertilizer on some physical properties of a Chromoxerert soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2004;78(1):59-67.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Lim SL, Wu TY, Lim PN, Shak KP. The use of vermicompost in organic farming: overview, effects on soil and economics. J Sci Food Agric. 2015;95(6):1143-1156.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

17. Zhu-Barker X, Bailey SK, Burger M, Horwath WR. Greenhouse gas emissions from green waste composting windrow. Waste Manag. 2017;59:70-79.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

18. Bossuyt H, Six J, Hendrix PF. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts. Soil Biol Biochem. 2005;37(2):251-258.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Gajalakshmi S, Abbasi SA. Earthworms and vermicomposting. Indian J Biotechnol. 2004;3(4):486-494.

    [Google Scholar]

20. Marinissen JC. Earthworms and stability of soil structure: a study in a silt loam soil in a young Dutch polder. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1994;51:75-87.

    [Google Scholar]

21. Yatoo AM, Rasool S, Ali S, Majid S, Rehman MU, Ali MN, et al. Vermicomposting: An eco-friendly approach for recycling/management of organic wastes. Bioremediat Biotechnol. 2020:167-187.

    [Google Scholar]

22. Atiyeh RM, Arancon N, Edwards CA, Metzger JD. Influence of earthworm-processed pig manure on the growth and yield of greenhouse tomatoes. Bioresour Technol. 2000;75(3):175-180.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

23. Atiyeh RM, Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Metzger JD. The influence of earthworm-processed pig manure on the growth and productivity of marigolds. Bioresour Technol. 2002;81(2):103-108.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

24. Jouquet P, Plumere T, Thu TD, Rumpel C, Duc TT, Orange D. The rehabilitation of tropical soils using compost and vermicompost is affected by the presence of endogeic earthworms. Applied Soil Ecology. 2010;46(1):125-133.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Olle M. The effect of vermicompost based growth substrates on tomato growth. J Agric Sci. 2016;27(1):38-41.

    [Google Scholar]

26. Adiloğlu S, Eryılmaz Açıkgöz F, Solmaz Y, Çaktü E, Adiloğlu A. Effect of vermicompost on the growth and yield of lettuce plant (Lactuca sativa L. var. crispa). Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2018;21(1):1-5.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Yousefi AA, Sadeghi M. Effect of vermicompost and urea chemical fertilizers on yield and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum) in the field condition. Int J Agric Crop Sci. 2014;7(12):1227-1230.

    [Google Scholar]

28. Ayyobi H, Olfati JA, Peyvast GA. 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;3:147-53.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zucco MA, Walters SA, Chong SK, Klubek BP, Masabni JG. Effect of soil type and vermicompost applications on tomato growth. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric. 2015;4(2):135-141.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Rekha GS, Kaleena PK, Elumalai D, Srikumaran MP, Maheswari VN. Effects of vermicompost and plant growth enhancers on the exo-morphological features of Capsicum annum (Linn.) Hepper. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric. 2018;7:83-88.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Gichaba V, Muraya M. Effects of Goat Manure-Based Vermicompost on Growth and Yield of Garlic (Allium sativum L.).

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Singh R, Sharma RR, Kumar S, Gupta RK, Patil RT. Vermicompost substitution influences growth, physiological disorders, fruit yield and quality of strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.). Bioresour Technol. 2008;99(17):8507-8511.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

33. Basco MJ, Bisen K, Keswani C, Singh HB. Biological management of Fusarium wilt of tomato using biofortified vermicompost. Mycosphere. 2017;8(3):467-483.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Mahmud M, Abdullah R, Yaacob JS. Effect of vermicompost amendment on nutritional status of sandy loam soil, growth performance, and yield of pineapple (Ananas comosus var. MD2) under field conditions. Agronomy. 2018;8(9):183.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Ruggieri L, Cadena E, Martínez-Blanco J, Gasol CM, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X, et al. Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanish wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the composting process. J Clean Prod. 2009;17(9):830-838.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Collier J. Use of earthworms in sludge lagoons. Utilization of Soil Organisms in Sludge Management. 1978:133-137.

    [Google Scholar]

37. Hartenstein R, Bisesi MS. Use of earthworm biotechnology for the management of effluents from intensively housed livestock. Outlook Agric. 1989;18(2):72-76.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Edwards CA. Breakdown of animal, vegetable and industrial organic wastes by earthworms. Earthworms in waste and environmental management/edited by Clive A. Edwards and Edward F. Neuhauser. 1988.

    [Google Scholar]

39. Sinha RK. Vermiculture biotechnology for waste management and sustainable agriculture. Environmental Crisis. 1996.

    [Google Scholar]

40. Gunathilagraj K, Ramesh PT. Degradation of coir wastes and tapoica peels by earthworms. Training Program in Vermiculture. 1996.

    [Google Scholar]

41. Senapati, B.K. Vermitechnology as an option for recycling of cellulose waste in India. In: New Trends in Biotechnology. 1992. 347-358.

    [Google Scholar]

42. Singh RP, Singh P, Araujo AS, Ibrahim MH, Sulaiman O. Management of urban solid waste: Vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2011;55(7):719-729.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Gunadi B, Blount C, Edwards CA. The growth and fecundity of Eisenia fetida (Savigny) in cattle solids pre-composted for different periods. Pedobiologia. 2002;46(1):15-23.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Bansal S, Kapoor KK. Vermicomposting of crop residues and cattle dung with Eisenia foetida. Bioresour Technol. 2000;73(2):95-98.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Baker G, Michalk D, Whitby W, O’Grady S. Influence of sewage waste on the abundance of earthworms in pastures in south-eastern Australia. Eur J Soil Biol. 2002;38(3-4):233-7.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Domínguez J, Edwards CA, Webster M. Vermicomposting of sewage sludge: effect of bulking materials on the growth and reproduction of the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Pedobiologia. 2000;44(1):24-32.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Butt KR. An investigation into the growth and reproduction of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. under controlled environmental conditions. Open University (United Kingdom). 1990.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Elvira C, Goicoechea M, Sampedro L, Mato S, Nogales RJ. Bioconversion of solid paper-pulp mill sludge by earthworms. Bioresour Technol. 1996;57(2):173-177.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Aslam Z, Bashir S, Hassan W, Bellitürk K, Ahmad N, Niazi NK, et al. Unveiling the efficiency of vermicompost derived from different biowastes on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plant growth and soil health. Agronomy. 2019;9(12):791.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Chauhan A, Joshi PC. Composting of some dangerous and toxic weeds using Eisenia foetida. J Am Sci. 2010;6(3):1-6.

    [Google Scholar]

51. Chen Y, Chang SK, Chen J, Zhang Q, Yu H. Characterization of microbial community succession during vermicomposting of medicinal herbal residues. Bioresour Technol. 2018;249:542-549.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

52. Esmaeili A, Khoram MR, Gholami M, Eslami H. Pistachio waste management using combined composting-vermicomposting technique: Physico-chemical changes and worm growth analysis. J Clean Prod. 2020;242:118523.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Fatehi MH, Shayegan J. Vermicomposting of Organic Solid Waste with the E. Fetida in Different Bedding Materials. J Environ Stud. 2010;36(55):37-42.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Garg P, Gupta A, Satya S. Vermicomposting of different types of waste using Eisenia foetida: A comparative study. Bioresour Technol. 2006;97(3):391-395.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

55. Jadia CD, Fulekar MH. Vermicomposting of vegetable waste: A biophysicochemical process based on hydro-operating bioreactor. Afr J Biotechnol. 2008;7(20): 3726-3733.

    [Google Scholar]

56. Sharma K, Garg VK. Comparative analysis of vermicompost quality produced from rice straw and paper waste employing earthworm Eisenia fetida (Sav.). Bioresour Technol. 2018;250:708-715.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

57. Yadav A, Garg VK. Industrial wastes and sludges management by vermicomposting. Rev Environ Sci Bio. 2011;10:243-276.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Pérez-Godínez EA, Lagunes-Zarate J, Corona-Hernández J, Barajas-Aceves M. Growth and reproductive potential of Eisenia foetida (Sav) on various zoo animal dungs after two methods of pre-composting followed by vermicomposting. Waste Manag. 2017;64:67-78.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

59. Tognetti C, Mazzarino MJ, Laos F. Improving the quality of municipal organic waste compost. Bioresour Technol. 2007;98(5):1067-1076.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

60. Suthar S. Production of vermifertilizer from guar gum industrial wastes by using composting earthworm Perionyx sansibaricus (Perrier). Environmentalist. 2007;27(3):329-335.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Blouin M, Hodson ME, Delgado EA, Baker G, Brussaard L, Butt KR, et al. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Sci. 2013;64(2):161-182.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Jemal K, Abebe A. Effect of different bedding materials and waste feeds on vermicompost production and local earthworm performance in Wondo Genet Ethiopia. Asian J Plant Sci Res. 2020;10(3):13-8.

    [Google Scholar]

63. Van Groenigen JW, Van Groenigen KJ, Koopmans GF, Stokkermans L, Vos HM, Lubbers IM. How fertile are earthworm casts? A meta-analysis. Geoderma. 2019;338:525-535.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Cardenas Jr RR, Wang LK. Composting process. Solid Waste Processing and Resource Recovery. 1980;269-327.

    [Google Scholar]

65. Biruntha M, Karmegam N, Archana J, Selvi BK, Paul JA, Balamuralikrishnan B, et al. Vermiconversion of biowastes with low-to-high C/N ratio into value added vermicompost. Bioresour Technol. 2020;297:122398.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

66. Zhi-Wei S, Tao S, Wen-Jing D, Jing W. Investigation of rice straw and kitchen waste degradation through vermicomposting. J Environ Manage. 2019;243:269-272.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

67. Boruah T, Barman A, Kalita P, Lahkar J, Deka H. Vermicomposting of citronella bagasse and paper mill sludge mixture employing Eisenia fetida. Bioresour Technol. 2019;294:122147.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

68. Soobhany N, Mohee R, Garg VK. Comparative assessment of heavy metals content during the composting and vermicomposting of municipal solid waste employing Eudrilus eugeniae. Waste Manag. 2015;39:130-145.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

69. Alidadi H, Hosseinzadeh A, Najafpoor AA, Esmaili H, Zanganeh J, Takabi MD, et al. Waste recycling by vermicomposting: Maturity and quality assessment via dehydrogenase enzyme activity, lignin, water soluble carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and other indicators. J Environ Manage. 2016;182:134-140.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

70. Sharma K, Garg V. Vermicomposting of waste: a zero-waste approach for waste management, sustainable resource recovery and zero waste approaches. Elsevier. 2019;2019:133-164.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Ndegwa PM, Thompson SA. Effects of C-to-N ratio on vermicomposting of biosolids. Bioresour Technol. 2000;75(1):7-12.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Gunadi B, Edwards CA. The effects of multiple applications of different organic wastes on the growth, fecundity and survival of Eisenia fetida (Savigny)(Lumbricidae). Pedobiologia. 2003;47(4):321-329.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Warman PR, AngLopez MJ. The chemical properties of vermicompost derived from different feedstocks. InProceedings of the international composting and compost science symposium, Columbus, Ohio, CD Rom. 2002.

    [Google Scholar]

74. Domínguez J, Aira M, Crandall KA, Pérez-Losada M. Earthworms drastically change fungal and bacterial communities during vermicomposting of sewage sludge. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15556.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

75. Lazcano C, Gómez-Brandón M, Domínguez J. Comparison of the effectiveness of composting and vermicomposting for the biological stabilization of cattle manure. Chemosphere. 2008;72(7):1013-1019.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

76. Vivas A, Moreno B, Garcia-Rodriguez S, Benitez E. Assessing the impact of composting and vermicomposting on bacterial community size and structure, and microbial functional diversity of an olive-mill waste. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(3):1319-1326.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

77. Hoitink HJ, Stone A, Han D. Suppression of plant diseases by composts. HortScience. 1997;32(2):184-187.

    [Google Scholar]

78. Goldstein J. Compost suppresses disease in the lab and on the fields. BioCycle. 1998;39(11):62-64.

    [Google Scholar]

79. Pitt D, Tilston EL, Groenhof AC, Szmidt RA. Recycled organic materials (ROM) in the control of plant disease. Acta Hortic. 1998:391-404.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Kuter GA, Nelson EB, Hoitink HA, Madden LV. Fungal populations in container media amended with composted hardwood bark suppressive and conducive to Rhizoctonia damping-off. Phytopathology. 1983;73(10):1450-1456.

    [Google Scholar]

81. Hoitink HA, Kuter GA. Effects of composts in growth media on soilborne pathogens. InThe role of organic matter in modern agriculture. 1986;289-306.

    [Google Scholar]

82. Kannangara T, Utkhede RS, Paul JW, Punja ZK. Effects of mesophilic and thermophilic composts on suppression of Fusarium root and stem rot of greenhouse cucumber. Can J Microbiol. 2000;46(11):1021-1028.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

83. Cotxarrera L, Trillas-Gay MI, Steinberg C, Alabouvette C. Use of sewage sludge compost and Trichoderma asperellum isolates to suppress Fusarium wilt of tomato. Soil Biol Biochem. 2002;34(4):467-476.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Pathma J, Sakthivel N. Microbial diversity of vermicompost bacteria that exhibit useful agricultural traits and waste management potential. Springerplus. 2012;1(1):1-9.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

85. Kolbe AR, Aira M, Gómez-Brandón M, Pérez-Losada M, Domínguez J. Bacterial succession and functional diversity during vermicomposting of the white grape marc Vitis vinifera v. Albariño. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):7472.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

86. Domínguez J, Aira M, Kolbe AR, Gómez-Brandón M, Pérez-Losada M. Changes in the composition and function of bacterial communities during vermicomposting may explain beneficial properties of vermicompost. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9657.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

87. Gómez-Brandón M, Aira M, Lores M, Domínguez J. Changes in microbial community structure and function during vermicomposting of pig slurry. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(5):4171-4178.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

88. Gómez-Brandón M, Domínguez J. Recycling of solid organic wastes through vermicomposting: microbial community changes throughout the process and use of vermicompost as a soil amendment. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2014;44(12):1289-1312.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Mainoo NO, Barrington S, Whalen JK, Sampedro L. Pilot-scale vermicomposting of pineapple wastes with earthworms native to Accra, Ghana. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(23):5872-5875.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

90. Rai PK, Lee SS, Zhang M, Tsang YF, Kim KH. Heavy metals in food crops: Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management. Environ Int. 2019;125:365-85.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

91. Garcia C, Hernández T, Costa F. The influence of composting and maturation processes on the heavy-metal extractability from some organic wastes. Biol Wastes. 1990;31(4):291-301.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Leita L, De Nobili M. Water-soluble fractions of heavy metals during composting of municipal solid waste. J Environ Qual. 1991;20:73-78.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Woodbury PB. Trace elements in municipal solid waste composts: a review of potential detrimental effects on plants, soil biota, and water quality. Biomass Bioenergy. 1992;3(3-4):239-259.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Tisdell SE, Breslin VT. Characterization and leaching of elements from municipal solid waste compost. J Environ Qual.1995;24(5):827-833.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Chiang KY, Yoi SD, Lin HN, Wang KS. Stabilization of heavy metals in sewage sludge composting process. Water Sci Technol. 2001;44(10):95-100.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

96. Eneji AE, Honna T, Yamamoto S, Masuda T, Endo T, Irshad M. The relationship between total and available heavy metals in composted manure. J Sustain Agric. 2003;23(1):125-134.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Khan MB, Cui X, Jilani G, Lazzat U, Zehra A, Hamid Y, et al. Eisenia fetida and biochar synergistically alleviate the heavy metals content during valorization of biosolids via enhancing vermicompost quality. Sci Total Environ. 2019;684:597-609.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

98. Li R, Wang Q, Zhang Z, Zhang G, Li Z, Wang L, et al. Nutrient transformation during aerobic composting of pig manure with biochar prepared at different temperatures. Environ Technol. 2015;36(7):815-826.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

99. Awasthi MK, Wang Q, Huang H, Li R, Shen F, Lahori AH, et al. Effect of biochar amendment on greenhouse gas emission and bio-availability of heavy metals during sewage sludge co-composting. J Clean Prod. 2016;135:829-35.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. Park JH, Choppala GK, Bolan NS, Chung JW, Chuasavathi T. Biochar reduces the bioavailability and phytotoxicity of heavy metals. Plant Soil. 2011;348:439-451.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Suthar S. Pilot-scale vermireactors for sewage sludge stabilization and metal remediation process: comparison with small-scale vermireactors. Ecol Eng. 2010;36(5):703-712.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Gogoi A, Biswas S, Bora J, Bhattacharya SS, Kumar M. Effect of vermicomposting on copper and zinc removal in activated sludge with special emphasis on temporal variation. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. 2015;15(2):101-107.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Jain K, Singh J, Chauhan LK, Murthy RC, Gupta SK. Modulation of flyash-induced genotoxicity in Vicia faba by vermicomposting. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2004;59(1):89-94.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

104. Wang L, Zheng Z, Zhang Y, Chao J, Gao Y, Luo X, et al. Biostabilization enhancement of heavy metals during the vermiremediation of sewage sludge with passivant. J Hazard Mater. 2013;244:1-9. 

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

105. Abbaspour A, Golchin A. Immobilization of heavy metals in a contaminated soil in Iran using di-ammonium phosphate, vermicompost and zeolite. Environ Earth Sci. 2011;63(5):935-943.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. Chand S, Pandey A, Patra DD. Influence of vermicompost on dry matter yield and uptake of Ni and Cd by chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla) in Ni-and Cd-polluted soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012;223(5):2257-2262.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Hait S, Tare V. Transformation and availability of nutrients and heavy metals during integrated composting–vermicomposting of sewage sludges. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2012;79:214-224.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

108. Singh J, Kalamdhad AS. Effect of Eisenia fetida on speciation of heavy metals during vermicomposting of water hyacinth. Ecol Eng. 2013;60:214-223.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Bhat SA, Singh J, Singh K, Vig AP. Genotoxicity monitoring of industrial wastes using plant bioassays and management through vermitechnology: A review. Agric Nat Resour. 2017;51(5):325-337.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Hoehne L, de Lima CV, Martini MC, Altmayer T, Brietzke DT, Finatto J, et al. Addition of vermicompost to heavy metal-contaminated soil increases the ability of black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb) plants to remove Cd, Cr, and Pb. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016;227(12):1-8.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Jordão CP, Pereira WL, Carari DM, Fernandes RB, De Almeida RM, Fontes MP. Adsorption from Brazilian soils of Cu (II) and Cd (II) using cattle manure vermicompost. Int J Environ Stud. 2011;68(5):719-736.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA, Moral R. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(22):5444-5453.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

113. Zhang J, Sui Q, Li K, Chen M, Tong J, Qi L, Wei Y. Influence of natural zeolite and nitrification inhibitor on organics degradation and nitrogen transformation during sludge composting. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016;23:1324-34.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

114. Awasthi MK, Wang Q, Awasthi SK, Wang M, Chen H, Ren X, et al. Influence of medical stone amendment on gaseous emissions, microbial biomass and abundance of ammonia oxidizing bacteria genes during biosolids composting. Bioresour Technol. 2018;247:970-979.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

115. Szanto GL, Hamelers HV, Rulkens WH, Veeken AH. NH3, N2O and CH₄ emissions during passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure. Bioresour Technol. 2007;98(14):2659-2670.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

116. Sánchez-Monedero MA, Serramiá N, Civantos CG, Fernández-Hernández A, Roig A. Greenhouse gas emissions during composting of two-phase olive mill wastes with different agroindustrial by-products. Chemosphere. 2010;81(1):18-25.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

117. Jiang T, Schuchardt F, Li G, Guo R, Zhao Y. Effect of C/N ratio, aeration rate and moisture content on ammonia and greenhouse gas emission during the composting. J Environ Sci. 2011;23(10):1754-1760.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

118. Santos C, Fonseca J, Aires A, Coutinho J, Trindade H. Effect of different rates of spent coffee grounds (SCG) on composting process, gaseous emissions and quality of end-product. Waste Manag. 2017;59:37-47.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

119. Zeng J, Yin H, Shen X, Liu N, Ge J, Han L, et al. Effect of aeration interval on oxygen consumption and GHG emission during pig manure composting. Bioresour Technol. 2018;250:214-220.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

120. Wang J, Hu Z, Xu X, Jiang X, Zheng B, Liu X, et al. Emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases during combined pre-composting and vermicomposting of duck manure. Waste Manag. 2014;34(8):1546-1552.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

121. Nigussie A, Kuyper TW, Bruun S, de Neergaard A. Vermicomposting as a technology for reducing nitrogen losses and greenhouse gas emissions from small-scale composting. J Clean Prod. 2016;139:429-439.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

122. Hobson AM, Frederickson J, Dise NB. CH₄ and N2O from mechanically turned windrow and vermicomposting systems following in-vessel pre-treatment. Waste Manag. 2005;25(4):345-352.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

123. Lubbers IM, Van Groenigen KJ, Fonte SJ, Six J, Brussaard L, Van Groenigen JW. Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3(3):187-194.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

124. Friedrich E, Trois C. GHG emission factors developed for the recycling and composting of municipal waste in South African municipalities. Waste Manag. 2013;33(11):2520-2531.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

125. Himanen M, Hänninen K. Composting of bio-waste, aerobic and anaerobic sludges–Effect of feedstock on the process and quality of compost. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(3):2842-2852.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

126. Hao X, Chang C, Larney FJ. Carbon, nitrogen balances and greenhouse gas emission during cattle feedlot manure composting. J Environ Qual. 2004;33(1):37-44.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

127. Tsutsui H, Fujiwara T, Matsukawa K, Funamizu N. Nitrous oxide emission mechanisms during intermittently aerated composting of cattle manure. Bioresour Technol. 2013;141:205-211.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

128. Luo WH, Yuan J, Luo YM, Li GX, Nghiem LD, Price WE. Effects of mixing and covering with mature compost on gaseous emissions during composting. Chemosphere. 2014;117:14-19.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

129. Chowdhury MA, de Neergaard A, Jensen LS. Potential of aeration flow rate and bio-char addition to reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions during manure composting. Chemosphere. 2014;97:16-25.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

130. Yasmin N, Jamuda M, Panda AK, Samal K, Nayak JK. Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during composting and vermicomposting: Measurement, mitigation, and perspectives. Energy Nexus. 2022;7:100092.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

131. Swati A, Hait S. Greenhouse gas emission during composting and vermicomposting of organic wastes–a review. Clean - Soil Air Water. 2018;46(6):1700042.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

132. Nigussie A, Bruun S, de Neergaard A, Kuyper TW. Earthworms change the quantity and composition of dissolved organic carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions during composting. Waste Manag. 2017;62:43-51.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

133. Jiang T, Schuchardt F, Li GX, Guo R, Luo YM. Gaseous emission during the composting of pig feces from Chinese Ganqinfen system. Chemosphere. 2013;90(4):1545-1551.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

134. Maeda K, Hanajima D, Morioka R, Toyoda S, Yoshida N, Osada T. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission from the cattle manure composting process by use of a bulking agent.  J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2013;59(1):96-106.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

135. Wichuk KM, McCartney D. Compost stability and maturity evaluation—a literature review. Can J Civ Eng. 2010;37(11):1505-1523.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

136. Khan N, Clark I, Sánchez-Monedero MA, Shea S, Meier S, Bolan N. Maturity indices in co-composting of chicken manure and sawdust with biochar. Bioresour Technol. 2014;168:245-251.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

137. Boulter-Bitzer JI, Trevors JT, Boland GJ. A polyphasic approach for assessing maturity and stability in compost intended for suppression of plant pathogens. Appl Soil Ecol. 2006;34(1):65-81.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

138. Straathof AL, Chincarini R, Comans RN, Hoffland E. Dynamics of soil dissolved organic carbon pools reveal both hydrophobic and hydrophilic compounds sustain microbial respiration. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;79:109-116.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

139. Zhang W, Hendrix PF, Dame LE, Burke RA, Wu J, Neher DA, et al. Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization. Nat Commun. 2013;4(1):2576.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

140. Wu Y, Shaaban M, Peng QA, Zhou AQ, Hu R. Impacts of earthworm activity on the fate of straw carbon in soil: a microcosm experiment. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018;25(11):11054-11062.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

141. Lubbers IM, Pulleman MM, Van Groenigen JW. Can earthworms simultaneously enhance decomposition and stabilization of plant residue carbon?. Soil Biol Biochem. 2017;105:12-24.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

142. Vidal A, Quenea K, Alexis M, Tu TN, Mathieu J, Vaury V, et al. Fate of 13C labelled root and shoot residues in soil and anecic earthworm casts: a mesocosm experiment. Geoderma. 2017;285:9-18.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

143. Fonte SJ, Kong AY, van Kessel C, Hendrix PF, Six J. Influence of earthworm activity on aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen dynamics differs with agroecosystem management. Soil Biol Biochem. 2007;39(5):1014-1022.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

144. Don A, Steinberg B, Schöning I, Pritsch K, Joschko M, Gleixner G, et al. Organic carbon sequestration in earthworm burrows. Soil Biol Biochem. 2008;40(7):1803-1812.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

145. Saetre P. Decomposition, microbial community structure, and earthworm effects along a birch–spruce soil gradient. Ecology. 1998;79(3):834-846.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

146. Aira M, Monroy F, Domínguez J. Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) modifies the structure and physiological capabilities of microbial communities improving carbon mineralization during vermicomposting of pig manure. Microb Ecol. 2007;54(4):662-671.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

147. Ngo PT, Rumpel C, Doan TT, Jouquet P. The effect of earthworms on carbon storage and soil organic matter composition in tropical soil amended with compost and vermicompost. Soil Biol Biochem. 2012;50:214-220.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

148. Zaitsev AS, Gorbunova AY, Korobushkin DI, Degtyarev MI, Zhadova AN, Kostina NV, et al. The earthworm species Eisenia fetida modulates greenhouse gas release and carbon stabilization after rice straw amendment to a paddy soil. Eur J Soil Biol. 2018;89:39-44.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

149. Ramos RF, Santana NA, de Andrade N, Romagna IS, Tirloni B, de Oliveira Silveira A, et al. Vermicomposting of cow manure: Effect of time on earthworm biomass and chemical, physical, and biological properties of vermicompost. Bioresour Technol. 2022;345:126572.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

150. Cao Y, Tian Y, Wu Q, Li J, Zhu H. Vermicomposting of livestock manure as affected by carbon-rich additives (straw, biochar and nanocarbon): a comprehensive evaluation of earthworm performance, microbial activities, metabolic functions and vermicompost quality. Bioresour Technol. 2021;320:124404.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

151. Kamar Zaman AM, Yaacob JS. Exploring the potential of vermicompost as a sustainable strategy in circular economy: improving plants’ bioactive properties and boosting agricultural yield and quality. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022;29(9):12948-12964.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

152. Othman N. Vermicomposting of food waste. Int J Integr Eng. 2012;4(2).

     [Google Scholar]

153. Bellitürk K. Some evaluations about use of vermicompost in agricultural activity of Thrace Region, Turkey: a review. J Rice Res. 2018;6(3):193.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

154. Datta S, Singh J, Singh S, Singh J. Earthworms, pesticides and sustainable agriculture: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016;23(9):8227-8243.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

155. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J. Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ. 2018;143:37-46.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

156. Schroeder P, Anggraeni K, Weber U. The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals. J Ind Ecol. 2019;23(1):77-95.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

157. Orozco FH, Cegarra J, Trujillo LM, 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]

158. Ali U, Sajid N, Khalid A, Riaz L, Rabbani MM, Syed JH, et al. A review on vermicomposting of organic wastes. Environ Prog Sustain. 2015;34(4):1050-1062.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

159. Shi-Wei Z, Fu-Zhen H. The nitrogen uptake efficiency from 15N labeled chemical fertilizer in the presence of earthworm manure (cast). Adv Manag Conserv Soil Fauna. 1991:539-542.

     [Google Scholar]

160. Edwards CA, Arancon NQ. Vermicomposts suppress plant pest and disease attacks. BioCycle. 2004;45(3):51-54.

     [Google Scholar]

161. Soobhany N, Mohee R, Garg VK. Experimental process monitoring and potential of Eudrilus eugeniae in the vermicomposting of organic solid waste in Mauritius. Ecol Eng. 2015;84:149-158.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

162. Sierra J, Desfontaines L, Favérial J, Loranger-Merciris G, Boval M. Composting and vermicomposting of cattle manure and green wastes under tropical conditions: carbon and nutrient balances and end-product quality. Soil Res. 2013;51(2):142-151.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

163. Devi J, Deb U, Barman S, Das S, Bhattacharya SS, Tsang YF, et al. Appraisal of lignocellusoic biomass degrading potential of three earthworm species using vermireactor mediated with spent mushroom substrate: compost quality, crystallinity, and microbial community structural analysis. Sci Total Environ. 2020;716:135215.

     [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]