Vermicompost improves microbial functions of soil with continuous tomato cropping in a greenhouse

  • Fengyan Zhao
  • Yongyong Zhang
  • Zhijun Li
  • Jinwei Shi
  • Guoxian Zhang
  • Hui Zhang
  • Lijuan YangEmail author
Soils, Sec 4 • Ecotoxicology • Research Article



At present, the improvement of soil microbial function by the application of vermicompost in long-term monoculture system is rarely reported. We took advantage of a greenhouse pot experiment that examined the effects of vermicompost on soil microbial properties, enzyme activities, and tomato yield.

Materials and methods

Three soils subjected to 0, 5, and 20 years of continuous tomato cropping in a greenhouse were collected for a pot experiment. Treatments include chemical fertilizer (CF), vermicompost (VM), and poultry manure compost (PM). No fertilization was established as a control (CK). Biolog Eco microplates were used to measure soil microbial function.

Results and discussion

The results showed that compared to the CF and PM treatments, the VM treatment increased the abundances of bacteria (Bac, average 41% and 103%, respectively) and actinomycetes (Act, average 8.59% and 16.36%, respectively), while decreased the abundance of fungi (Fun, average 39% and 29%, respectively), and had the highest ratio of bacteria to fungi. Soil microbial activity, which was represented as the average well color development (AWCD), and microbial functional diversity were higher in the VM treatment than in the CF and PM treatments. The VM treatment led to greater improvement in soil health than the PM treatment, which expressed as the higher utilization of carboxylic acids and phenolic compounds in each type of soil. Catalase (Cat) and polyphenoloxidase (Ppo) activities in the VM treatment were significantly higher than those in the CF and PM treatments. We also found that the soil Cat activity, pH, available P, acid phosphatase (Pac) activity, and Ppo activity were important contributors to variation in the microbial population. Moreover, compared to CK, fruit yield in the VM treatment increased by 74%, 43%, and 28% in soils subjected to 0, 5, and 20 years of planting, respectively.


Our findings indicated that vermicompost can replace poultry manure compost to improve soil quality in greenhouse due to the ability of vermicompost to improve soil microbial functions.


Chemical fertilizer Poultry manure Soil chemical properties Soil microbial function Tomato yield 


Author contributions

Fengyan Zhao and Lijuan Yang conceived and designed the study; Fengyan Zhao performed the experiments, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript; Yongyong Zhang and Lijuan Yang revised the manuscript; Lijuan Yang applied for funding for the study; Jinwei Shi, Guoxian Zhang and Hui Zhang managed the experiment and collected the data.


This study was financially supported by The Foundation of Special Professor in Liaoning Province, the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0201004), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31372132). We thank LetPub ( for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11368_2019_2362_MOESM1_ESM.doc (47 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 47 kb)


  1. Bao SD (2000) Analysis of soil agro-chemistry. Agricultural Press Chinese, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardgett RD, Mcalister E (1999) The measurement of soil fungal:bacterial biomass ratios as an indicator of ecosystem self-regulation in temperate meadow grasslands. Biol Fertil Soil 29:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cai Z, Wang B, Xu M, Zhang H, He X, Zhang L, Gao S (2015) Intensified soil acidification from chemical N fertilization and prevention by manure in an 18-year field experiment in the red soil of southern China. J Soils Sediments 15:260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cellier A, Gauquelin T, Baldy V, Ballini C (2014) Effect of organic amendment on soil fertility and plant nutrients in a post-fire Mediterranean ecosystem. Plant Soil 376:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cesarano G, De Filippis F, La Storia A, Scala F, Bonanomi G (2017) Organic amendment type and application frequency affect crop yields, soil fertility and microbiome composition. Appl Soil Ecol 120:254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakraborty A, Chakrabarti K, Chakraborty A, Ghosh S (2011) Effect of long-term fertilizers and manure application on microbial biomass and microbial activity of a tropical agricultural soil. Biol Fertil Soil 47:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chantigny MH, Curtin D, Beare MH, Greenfield LG (2010) Influence of temperature on water-extractable organic matter and ammonium production in mineral soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaoui H, Edwards CA, Brickner A, Lee SS, Arancon NQ (2002) Suppression of the plant diseases, Pythium (damping-off), Rhizoctonia (root rot) and Verticillium (wilt) by vermicomposts. In The Bcpc conference: pests and diseases, volumes 1 and 2. Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection, Conference-Pest and Diseases, pp 711–716Google Scholar
  9. Corneo PE, Pellegrini A, Cappellin L, Roncador M, Chierici M, Gessler C, Pertot I (2013) Microbial community structure in vineyard soils across altitudinal gradients and in different seasons. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 84:588–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Reich PB, Jeffries TC, Gaitan JJ, Encinar D, Berdugo M, Campbell CD, Singh BK (2016) Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat Commun 7:10541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diacono M, Montemurro F (2011) Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. In Sustainable agriculture volume 2 (pp 761–786). Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Dick RP (1994) Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:107–124Google Scholar
  13. Dick RP, Rasmussen PE, Kerle EA (1988) Influence of long-term residue management on soil enzyme activities in relation to soil chemical properties of a wheat-fallow system. Biol Fertil Soils 6:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong M (1997) Survey, observation and analysis of terrestrial biocommunities. Standards Press of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  15. Duran N, Esposito E (2000) Potential applications of oxidative enzymes and phenoloxidase-like compounds in wastewater and soil treatment: a review. Appl Catal B-Environ 28:83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards CA, Burrows I (1988) The potential of earthworm composts as plant growth media. In: Edwards CA, Neuhauser E (eds) Earthworms in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Press, The Hague, pp 21–32Google Scholar
  17. Feller C, Bleiholder H, Buhr L, Hack H, Hess M, Klose R, Meier U, Stauss R, van den Boom T, Weber E (1995) Phänologische Entwicklungsstadien von Gemüsepflanzen: II. Fruchtgemüse und Hülsenfrüchte. Nachr -Bl Dtsch Pflanzenschutzd 47:217–232Google Scholar
  18. Forge T, Kenney E, Hashimoto N, Neilsen D, Zebarth B (2016) Compost and poultry manure as preplant soil amendments for red raspberry: comparative effects on root lesion nematodes, soil quality and risk of nitrate leaching. Agric Ecosyst Environ 223:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankenberger WT, Dick WA (1983) Relationships between enzyme activities and microbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:945–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fu HD, Zhang GX, Zhang F, Sun ZP, Geng GM, Li TL (2017) Effects of continuous tomato monoculture on soil microbial properties and enzyme activities in a solar greenhouse. Sustainability 9:317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garland JL, Mills AL, Young JS (2001) Relative effectiveness of kinetic analysis vs single point readings for classifying environmental samples based on community-level physiological profiles (CLPP). Soil Biol Biochem 33:1059–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gomez E, Ferreras L, Toresani S (2006) Soil bacterial functional diversity as influenced by organic amendment application. Bioresour Technol 97:1484–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guan S, Zhang D, Zhang Z (1986) Soil enzyme and its research methods. Agriculture Press Chinese, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutiérrez-Miceli FA, Santiago-Borraz J, Molina JAM, Nafate CC, Abud-Archila M, Llaven MAO, Rosales RR, Dendooven L (2007) Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Bioresour Technol 98:2781–2786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heuer H, Schmitt H, Smalla K (2011) Antibiotic resistance gene spread due to manure application on agricultural fields. Curr Opin Microbiol 14:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang K, Li F, Wei Y, Fu X, Chen X (2014) Effects of earthworms on physicochemical properties and microbial profiles during vermicomposting of fresh fruit and vegetable wastes. Bioresour Technol 170:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inderjit (2005) Soil microorganisms: an important determinant of allelopathic activity. Plant Soil 274:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kadir SA (2005) Fruit quality at harvest of “Jonathan” apple treated with foliarly-applied calcium chloride. J Plant Nutr 27:1991–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kizilkaya R, Hepsen Turkay FS, Turkmen C, Durmus M (2012) Vermicompost effects on wheat yield and nutrient contents in soil and plant. Arch Agron Soil Sci 58:S175–S179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR, Cobbold SM (2008) Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazcano C, Gómez-Brandón M, Revilla P, Domínguez J (2013) Short-term effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil microbial community structure and function. Biol Fertil Soil 49:723–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li SQ, Ling L, Li SX (2000) Review on the factors affecting soil microbial biomass nitrogen. Soil Environ Sci 9:158–162Google Scholar
  33. Li ZF, Yang YQ, Xie DF, Zhu LF, Zhang ZG, Lin WX (2012) Identification of autotoxic compounds in fibrous roots of Rehmannia (Rehmannia glutinosa Libosch.). PLoS One 7:e28806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu E, Yan C, Mei X, He W, Bing SH, Ding L, Liu Q, Liu S, Fan T (2010) Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China. Geoderma 158:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu G, Zhang X, Wang X, Shao H, Yang J, Wang X (2017a) Soil enzymes as indicators of saline soil fertility under various soil amendments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 237:274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu J, Li X, Jia Z, Zhang T, Wang X (2017b) Effect of benzoic acid on soil microbial communities associated with soilborne peanut diseases. Appl Soil Ecol 110:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Luo G, Ling L, Friman VP, Guo J, Guo S, Shen Q, Ling N (2018) Organic amendments increase crop yields by improving microbe-mediated soil functioning of agroecosystems: a meta-analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 124:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maji D, Misra P, Singh S, Kalra A (2017) 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 110:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliveira DMDS, Lima RPD, Barreto MSC, Verburg EEJ, Mayrink GCV (2017) Soil organic matter and nutrient accumulation in areas under intensive management and swine manure application. J Soils Sediments 17:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pathma J, Sakthivel N (2012) Microbial diversity of vermicompost bacteria that exhibit useful agricultural traits and waste management potential. Springerplus 1:26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pianka ER (1970) On r-and K-selection. Am Nat 104:592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Qu XH, Wang J (2008) Effect of amendments with different phenolic acids on soil microbial biomass, activity, and community diversity. Appl Soil Ecol 39:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rath KM, Rousk J (2015) Salt effects on the soil microbial decomposer community and their role in organic carbon cycling: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 81:108–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ravindran B, Wong JW, Selvam A, Sekaran G (2016) Influence of microbial diversity and plant growth hormones in compost and vermicompost from fermented tannery waste. Bioresour Technol 217:200–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rousk J, Brookes PC, Bååth E (2009) Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in carbon mineralization. Appl Environ Microb 75:1589–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rukshana F, Butterly CR, Xu JM, Baldock JA, Tang C (2014) Organic anion-to-acid ratio influences pH change of soils differing in initial pH. J Soils Sediments 14:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shalaby S, Abdou G (2010) The influence of soil microorganisms and bio- or-organic fertilizers on dissipation of some pesticides in soil and potato tubers. J Plant Protect Res 50:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Singh N, Dureja P (2009) Effect of biocompost-amendment on degradation of triazoles fungicides in soil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh A, Singh GS (2017) Vermicomposting: a sustainable tool for environmental equilibria. Environ Qual Manag 27:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singh RP, Singh P, Araujo AS, Ibrahim MH, Sulaiman O (2011) Management of urban solid waste: vermicomposting a sustainable option. Resour Conserv Recy 55:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tabatabai M (1994) Soil Enzymes. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2-Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. pp. 775–833.Google Scholar
  52. Trivedi P, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Trivedi C, Hamonts K, Anderson IC, Singh BK (2017) Keystone microbial taxa regulate the invasion of a fungal pathogen in agro-ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem 111:10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vivas A, Moreno B, Garcia-Rodriguez S, Benitez E (2009) Assessing the impact of composting and vermicomposting on bacterial community size and structure, and microbial functional diversity of an olive-mill waste. Bioresour Technol 100:1319–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waldrip HM, He Z, Erich MS (2011) Effects of poultry manure amendment on phosphorus uptake by ryegrass, soil phosphorus fractions and phosphatase activity. Biol Fert Soils 47:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang XX, Zhao FY, Zhang GX, Zhang YY, Yang LJ (2017) Vermicompost improves tomato yield and quality and the biochemical properties of soils with different tomato planting history in a greenhouse study. Front Plant Sci 8Google Scholar
  56. Wang Y, Xu Y, Li D, Tang B, Man S, Jia Y, Xu H (2018) Vermicompost and biochar as bio-conditioners to immobilize heavy metal and improve soil fertility on cadmium contaminated soil under acid rain stress. Sci Total Environ 621:1057–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wollum AG (1982) Cultural methods for soil microorganisms. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 2, 2nd ed. Agronomy. No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  58. Xue C, Huang QW, Ling N, Gao XL, Cao Y, Zhao QY, He X, Shen QR (2011) Analysis, regulation and high-throughput sequencing of soil microflora in mono-cropping system. Acta Pedol Sin 48:613–618Google Scholar
  59. Yang LJ, Zhao FY, Chang Q, Li TL, Li FS (2015) Effects of vermicomposts on tomato yield and quality and soil fertility in greenhouse under different soil water regimes. Agr Water Manage 160:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yazdanpanah N, Mahmoodabadi M, Cerdà A (2016) The impact of organic amendments on soil hydrology, structure and microbial respiration in semiarid lands. Geoderma 266:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu H, Li T, Zhou J (2005) Secondary salinization of greenhouse soil and its effects on soil properties. Soils 37:581–586Google Scholar
  62. Yu H, Si P, Shao W, Qiao X, Yang X, Gao D, Wang Z (2016) Response of enzyme activities and microbial communities to soil amendment with sugar alcohols. Microbiology Open 5:604–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhalnina K, Dias R, de Quadros PD, Davis-Richardson A, Camargo FA, Clark IM, McGrath SP, Hirsch PR, Triplett EW (2015) Soil pH determines microbial diversity and composition in the park grass experiment. Microb Ecol 69:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhao FY, Wu PP, Li TL, Xiong XN, Yang LJ (2016) Effect of vermicompost on soil fungi community structure under tomato continuous cropping in greenhouse. Chinese J Ecol 35:3329–3334Google Scholar
  65. Zhao HT, Li TP, Zhang Y, Hu J, Bai YC, Shan YH, Ke F (2017) 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 17:2718–2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao FY, Zhang YY, Dijkstra FA, Li ZJ, Zhang YQ, Zhang TS, Lu YQ, Shi JW, Yang LJ (2019) Effects of amendments on phosphorous status in soils with different phosphorous levels. Catena 172:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhong W, Gu T, Wang W, Zhang B, Lin X, Huang Q, ShenW (2010) The effects of mineral fertilizer and organic manure on soil microbial community and diversity. Plant Soil 326:511–522Google Scholar
  68. Zhou X, Wu F (2012a) Dynamics of the diversity of fungal and Fusarium communities during continuous cropping of cucumber in the greenhouse. FENS Microbiol Ecol 80:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhou X, Wu F (2012b) p-Coumaric acid influenced cucumber rhizosphere soil microbial communities and the growth of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum Owen. PLoS One 7:e48288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhou X, Yu G, Wu F (2011) Effects of intercropping cucumber with onion or garlic on soil enzyme activities, microbial communities and cucumber yield. Eur J Soil Biol 47:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhou X, Yu G, Wu F (2012) Soil phenolics in a continuously mono-cropped cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) system and their effects on cucumber seedling growth and soil microbial communities. Eur J Soil Sci 63:332–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fengyan Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yongyong Zhang
    • 1
  • Zhijun Li
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jinwei Shi
    • 1
  • Guoxian Zhang
    • 1
  • Hui Zhang
    • 1
  • Lijuan Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Land and Environmental CollegeShenyang Agricultural UniversityShenyangChina
  2. 2.Tillage and Cultivation Research InstituteLiaoning Academy of Agricultural SciencesShenyangChina
  3. 3.Economic Forestry Research Institute of Liaoning ProvinceDalianChina

Personalised recommendations