Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 11228–11239 | Cite as

A comparative analysis of composts and vermicomposts derived from municipal solid waste for the growth and yield of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

  • Nuhaa SoobhanyEmail author
  • Romeela Mohee
  • Vinod Kumar Garg
Research Article


This work was conducted to evaluate and compare the responses of Phaseolus vulgaris to three types of composts and vermicomposts derived from municipal solid waste (MSW). Different amendment rates were used and evaluated for their effect on germination, growth, and marketable yield. MSW-derived vermicomposts and composts were substituted into mineral brown-earth soil, applied at rates of 0 (control), 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 100% (v/v) in plastic pots of 7.2-L capacity. Green beans which are grown in 40% vermicompost/soil mixtures and compost/soil mixtures yielded 78.3–89.5% higher fruit weights as compared to control. Results showed that MSW vermicomposts consistently outperformed equivalent quantities of composts in terms of fruit yield, shoot, and root dry weights, which can be attributed to the contributions of physicochemical properties and nutrients content (N, P, and K) in the potting experiments. Consequently, it seemed likely that MSW vermicompost provided other biological inputs such as plant growth regulators (PGRs) and plant growth hormones (PGHs), which could have a considerably positive effect on the growth and yields of P. vulgaris as compared to composts. More in-depth scientific investigation is required in order to identify the distinctive effects and the exact mechanisms of these PGRs in MSW vermicomposts which influenced plant growth responses.


MSW-derived compost Vermicompost Phaseolus vulgaris Plant growth Yield Plant uptake 



This research was made possible with the financial supports from the Mauritius Research Council (MRC) and associated contingency funds. The authors are highly thankful to editor Prof. Garrigues and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier version of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11356_2017_8774_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 35 kb)


  1. Agricultural Research and Extension Unit (2010) Le Guide Agricole. Republique de MauriceGoogle Scholar
  2. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Metzger JD, Lucht C (2005) Effects of vermicomposts produced from cattle manure, food waste and paper waste on the growth and yields of peppers in the field. Pedobiologia 49:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Babenko A, Cannon J, Galvis P, Metzger JD (2008) 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 39:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P (2006) Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries: part 2. Effects on soil microbiological and chemical properties. Bioresour Technol 97:831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Welch C, Metzger JD (2004) Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries: effects on growth and yields. Bioresour Technol 93:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Welch C, Metzger JD (2003) Effects of vermicomposts on growth and marketable fruits of field-grown tomatoes, peppers, and strawberries. Pedobiologia 47:731–735Google Scholar
  7. Atiyeh RM, Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Metzger JD (2000b) Influence of earthworm-processed pig manure on the growth and yield of green house tomatoes. Bioresour Technol 75:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atiyeh RM, Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Metzger JD (2002a) The influence of earthworm-processed pig manure on the growth and productivity of marigolds. Bioresour Technol 81:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atiyeh RM, Edwards CA, Subler S, Metzger J (2001) Pig manure vermicomposts as a component of a horticultural bedding plant medium. Effects on physicochemical properties and plant growth. Bioresour Technol 78:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atiyeh RM, Lee S, Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Metzger JD (2002b) The influence of humic acids derived from organic wastes on plant growth. Bioresour Technol 84:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA (1998) Growth of tomato plants in vermicomposted hog manure. Pedobiologia 43:724–728Google Scholar
  12. Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Bachman G, Metzger JD, Shuster W (2000a) Effects of vermicomposts and compost on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia 44:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bachman GR, Metzger JD (2008) Growth of bedding plants in commercial potting substrate amended with vermicomposts. Bioresour Technol 99:3155–3161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buckerfield JC, Flavel TC, Lee KE, Webster KA (1999) Vermicompost in solid and liquid forms as a plant-growth promoter. Pedobiologia 43:753–759Google Scholar
  15. Canellas LP, Olivares FL, Okorokova AL, Facanha AR (2002) Humic acids isolated from earthworm compost enhance root elongation, lateral root emergence, and plasma H+-ATPase activity in maize roots. Plant Physiol 130:1951–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chan PLS, Griffiths DA (1988) The vermicomposting of pre-treated pig manure. Biological Wastes 24:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Sherman RL (2011) Vermiculture technology: earthworms, organic wastes and environmental management. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards CA, Burrows I (1988) The potential of earthworm composts as plant growth media. In: Edwards CA, Neuhauser EF (eds) Earthworms in environmental and waste management. SPB Academic Publ, Amsterdam, pp 211–220Google Scholar
  20. Fornes F, Mendoza-Hernandez D, Garcia-de-la-Fuente R, Abad M, Belda RM (2012) Composting versus vermicomposting: a comparative study of organic matter evolution through straight and combined processes. Bioresour Technol 118:296–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutierrez-Miceli FA, Moguel-Zamudio B, Abud-Achila M, Gutierrez-Oliva VF (2007) Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Bioresour Technol 98:2781–2786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkins WG (1995) Introduction to plant physiology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Joshi R, Vig AP (2010) Effect of vermicompost on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L). African J Basic Appl Sci 2:117–123Google Scholar
  24. Karthikeyan M, Hussain N, Gajalakshmi S, Abbasi SA (2014) Effect of vermicast generated from an allelopathic weed lantana (Lantana camara) on seed germination, plant growth, and yield of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba). Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:12539–12548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mainoo NOK, Barrington S, Whalen JK, Sampedro L (2009) Pilot-scale vermicomposting of pineapple wastes with earthworms native to Accra, Ghana. Bioresour Technol 100:5872–5875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B, Garcia C (1997) Soil agro-ecological management: fertirrigation and vermicompost treatments. Bioresour Technol 59:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nair J, Sekiozoic V, Anda M (2006) Effect of pre-composting on vermicomposting of kitchen waste. Bioresour Technol 97:2091–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orozco FH, Cegarra J, Trujillo LM, Roig A (1996) Vermicomposting of coffee pulp using the earthworm Eisenia fetida: effects on C and N contents and the availability of nutrients. Biol Fert Soils 22:162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ounia Y, Albaceteb A, Canterob E, Lakhdara A, Abdellya C, Pérez-Alfoceab F, Barhoumia Z (2014) Influence of municipal solid waste (MSW) compost on hormonal status and biomass partitioning in two forage species growing under saline soil conditions. Ecol Eng 64:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paradelo R, Barral MT (2012) Evaluation of the potential capacity as biosorbents of two MSW composts with different Cu, Pb and Zn concentrations. Bioresour Technol 104:810–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts P, Jones GE, Jones DL (2007) Yield responses of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to vermicomposts. Compost Sci Util 15:6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roy S, Arunachalam K, Dutta BK, Arunachalam A (2010) Effect of organic amendments of soil on growth and productivity of three common crops viz. Zea mays, Phaseolus vulgaris and Abelmonchus esculentus. Appl Soil Ecol 45:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruz-Jerez BE, Ball PR, Tillman RW (1992) Laboratory assessment of nutrient release from a pasture soil receiving grass or clover residues, in the presence or absence of Lumbricus rubellus or Eisenia fetida. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1529–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soobhany N, Mohee R, Garg VK (2015a) Recovery of nutrient from municipal solid waste by composting and vermicomposting using earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae. J Environ Chem Eng 3:2931–2942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soobhany N, Mohee R, Garg VK (2015b) Comparative assessment of heavy metals content during the composting and vermicomposting of municipal solid waste employing Eudrilus eugeniae. Waste Manag 39:130–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Subler S, Edwards C, Metzger J (1998) Comparing vermicomposts and composts. Biocycle 7:63–66Google Scholar
  37. Tomati U, Galli E, Grappelli A, DiLena G (1990) Effect of earthworm casts on protein synthesis in radish (Raphanus sativum) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) seedlings. Biol Fert Soils 9:288–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warman PR, AngLopez MJ (2010) Vermicompost derived from different feedstocks as a plant growth medium. Bioresour Technol 101:4479–4483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson DP, Carlile WR (1989) Plant growth in potting media containing worm-worked duck waste. Acta Hortic 238:205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang L, Zhao F, Chang Q, Li T, Li F (2015) Effects of vermicomposts on tomato yield and quality and soil fertility in greenhouse under different soil water regimes. Agric Water Manag 160:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang H, Tan SN, Wong WS, Ng CYL, Teo CH, Ge L, Chen X, Yong JWH (2014) Mass spectrometric evidence for the occurrence of plant growth promoting cytokinins in vermicompost tea. Biol Fertil Soils 50:401–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuhaa Soobhany
    • 1
    Email author
  • Romeela Mohee
    • 2
  • Vinod Kumar Garg
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MauritiusMokaMauritius
  2. 2.Office of Vice ChancellorUniversity of MauritiusMokaMauritius
  3. 3.Centre for Environmental Science and TechnologyCentral University of PunjabBathindaIndia

Personalised recommendations