Current Microbiology

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 15–20 | Cite as

Amplification of Plant Beneficial Microbial Communities During Conversion of Coconut Leaf Substrate to Vermicompost by Eudrilus sp.

  • Murali Gopal
  • Alka Gupta
  • E. Sunil
  • George V. Thomas


The population densities of 15 microbial communities in the coconut leaves + cow manure mixture (10:1 ratio, w/w) and pure cow manure, gut contents of the earthworm, Eudrilus sp., reared on the above substrates and vermicompost produced by the worm were studied. The enumeration was done by dilution plate and most probable number method using several selective and semi-selective microbial media. In the vermicompost produced from coconut leaves + cow manure (CLV) mixture, 9 out of 15 microbial communities, particularly the plant beneficial ones, were amplified whereas five communities were amplified in case of pure cow manure (CMV). The CLV contained significantly high population of fungi, free-living nitrogen fixers, phosphate solubilizers, fluorescent pseudomonads, and silicate solubilizers. The CMV was preponderant with aerobic heterotrophic bacteria, actinomycetes, and Trichoderma spp. Spore formers were present in similar numbers in both the vermicomposts. Presence of Azotobacter was detected only in CMV. The results obtained in this study suggest coconut leaf litter to be a good alternative for cow manure for the production of vermicompost, especially in the areas where coconut is grown in plenty.


Fluorescent Pseudomonad Azospirillum Phosphate Solubilizers Azotobacter Silicate Solubilizers 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the ms.


  1. 1.
    Allen ON (1959) Experiments in soil bacteriology, 3rd edn. Burgess, Minneapolis, MN, USA, p 117Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander M, Clark FE (1965) Methods for most probable number of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. Methods of soil analysis, Part 2. Soil Sci Soc of America, Madison, USA, pp 1477–1480Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becking JH (1959) Nitrogen fixing bacteria of the genus Beijerinckia in South African soils. Plant Soil 11:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bunt JS, Rovira AD (1955) Microbiological studies of some subantartic soils. J Soil Sci 6:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chet I, Baker R (1981) Isolation and biocontrol potential of Trichoderma hamatum from soil naturally suppressive to Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathol 71:286–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaoui HI, Zibilske LM, Ohno T (2003) Effects of earthworm casts and compost on soil microbial activity and plant nutrient availability. Soil Biol Biochem 35:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decaens T, Rangel AF, Asakawa N, Thomas RJ (1999) Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in ageing earthworm casts in grass lands of the eastern plains of Colombia. Biol Fertil Soils 30:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devlee Schanwer D, Lal R (1981) Properties of earthworm casts under secondary tropical forest re-growth. Soil Sci 132:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drake HL, Horn MA (2007) As the worm turns: the earthworm gut as transient habitat for soil microbial biomes. Ann Rev Microbiol 66:169–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edwards CA, Burrows I (1998) The potential of earthworm compost as plant growth media. In: Edwards CA, Neuhauser E (eds) Earthworm in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Press, Netherlands, pp 21–32Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edwards CA, Fletcher KE (1988) Interactions between earthworms and microorganisms in organic matter breakdown. Agric Ecosyst Environ 24:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egert M, Marham S, Wagner B, Scheu S, Friedrich MW (2004) Molecular profiling of 16S rRNA genes reveals diet-related difference of microbial communities, gut, and casts of Lumbricus terrestris L (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). FEMS Microbiol Ecol 48:187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edn. Wiley and Sons, USA, p 680Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gopal M, Gupta A, Thomas GV (2006) Prospects of using Metarhizium anisopliae to check the breeding of insect pest, Oryctes rhinoceros L., in coconut leaf vermicomposting sites. Biores Technol 97:1801–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hand P, Hayes WA, Frankland JC, Satchell JE (1988) The vermicomposting of cow slurry. Pedobiologia 31:199–209Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hankin L, Anagnostakis SL (1977) Solid media containing carboxymethyl–cellulose to detect C x cellulase activity of microorganisms. J Gen Microbiol 6:109–115Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hendriksen NB (1991) Gut load and food retention time in the earthworm Lumbricus festivus and L. castaneus: a field study. Biol Fertil Soils 1:170–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kale RD, Mallesh BC, Bano K, Bagyaraj DJ (1992) Influence of vermicompost application on the available macronutrients and selected microbial population in a paddy field. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1317–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    King EO, Ward MN, Raney DE (1954) Two simple media for the demonstration of pyocyanin and fluorescein. J Lab Clin Med 44:301–307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krištǖfek V, Ravasz K, Pižl V (1992) Changes in densities of bacteria and microfungi during gut transit in Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea calignosa (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Soil Biol Biochem 24:1499–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin JP (1950) Use of acid, rose Bengal and streptomycin in the plate method for estimating soil fungi. Soil Sci 69:215–232Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parle JN (1963) Microorganisms in the intestines of earthworms. J Gen Microbiol 31:1–11Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parle JN (1963) A microbiological study of earthworm casts. J Gen Microbiol 31:13–22Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pedersen JC, Hendriksen NB (1993) Effect of passage through the intestinal tract of detrivore earthworms (Lumbricus spp.) on the number of selected gram-negative and total bacteria. Biol Fertil Soils 16:227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pikovskaya RI (1948) Mobilization of phosphorus in soil in connection with vital activity of some soil microbial species. Mikrobiologiya 17:362–370Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prabhu SR, Subramanian P, Bidappa CC, Bopaiah BM (1998) Prospects of improving coconut productivity through vermiculture technologies. Indian Coconut J 29:79–84Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt O, Doube BM, Ryder MH, Killham K (1997) Population dynamics of Pseudomonas corrugata 2140R lux8 in earthworm food and in earthworm casts. Soil Biol Biochem 29:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schönholzer F, Hahn D, Zarda B, Zeyer J (2002) Automated image analysis and in situ hybridization as tools to study bacterial populations in food resources, gut and cast of Lumbricus terrestris. Lab J Microbial Methods 48:53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scullion J, Goodacre R, Elliott G, Huang W, Worgan H, Gwynn-Jones D, Griffith G, Darby R, Bailey M, Clegg C, Draper J (2004) Food quality and microbial succession in ageing earthworm casts: standard microbial indices and metabolic fingerprinting. Pedobiologia 47:888–894Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Subler S, Edwards CA, Metzger J (1998) Comparing vermicomposts and composts. Biocycle 39:63–66Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tomati U, Grapelli A, Galli E (1988) The hormone-like effects of earthworm casts on plant growth. Biol Fertil Soils 5:288–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolter C, Scheu S (1999) Changes in bacterial numbers and hyphal lengths during gut passage through Lumbricus terrestris (Lumbricidae, Oligochaeta). Pedobiologia 43:891–900Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murali Gopal
    • 1
  • Alka Gupta
    • 1
  • E. Sunil
    • 1
  • George V. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Plantation Crops Research InstituteKasaragodIndia

Personalised recommendations