Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Genetic Variation of Stripe Rust Foliar and Head Infection in Egyptian Wheat as an Effect of Climate Change
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Chemically Diverse Organic Residue Amendment on Soil Enzymatic Activities in a Sandy Loam Soil
Previous Article in Journal
Counting Crowded Soybean Pods Based on Deformable Attention Recursive Feature Pyramid
Previous Article in Special Issue
Continuous Cropping Alters Soil Hydraulic and Physicochemical Properties in the Karst Region of Southwestern China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy13061508
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Morphological and Physiological Response of Tomato to Sole and Combined Application of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizers

by
Muhammad Qasim
1,2,*,
Jing Ju
1,2,*,
Haitao Zhao
1,2,
Saleem Maseeh Bhatti
3,
Gulnaz Saleem
4,
Saima Parveen Memon
2,
Shahzaib Ali
5,
Muhammad Usama Younas
6,
Nimra Rajput
6 and
Zameer Hussain Jamali
7
1
Key Laboratory of Arable Land Quality Monitoring and Evaluation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
2
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
3
Department of Soil Science, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, Tandojam 70060, Pakistan
4
College of Food Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
5
Department of Agroecosystems, Faculty of Agriculture and Technology, University of South Bohemia Ceske Budejovice, Branišovská 1645/31A, 370 05 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
6
Department of Crop Breeding and Genetics, Agriculture College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225012, China
7
Institute of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, Sichuan Agricultural University, No. 211 Huimin Road, Chengdu 611130, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(6), 1508; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061508
Submission received: 6 May 2023 / Revised: 20 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 30 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applied Research and Extension in Agronomic Soil Fertility Series II)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chemical fertilizers are commonly used to meet the nutritional demands of crops and boost their yields. However, their high costs and excessive application in soils increase the cost of production and have negative effects on the soil and environmental health. Vermicompost is an organic amendment that can potentially lessen the dependence on chemical fertilizers, with the additional advantages of sustainable nutrient supply to crops and maintaining soil health. To evaluate the potential of the two diverse vermicompost, the sole and combined applications of these vermicompost with reduced rates of chemical fertilizers were used for tomato cultivation in a field study. The results indicated that vermicompost produced from cattle manure combined with chemical fertilizers was more effective in improving tomato growth, physiology, yield, and nutritional attributes. Compared to the control treatment (NP applied), the combined application of vermicompost and chemical fertilizer significantly improved the root length (21.6%), plant height (167%), SPAD value (13.5%), chlorophyll ‘a’ (96%), chlorophyll ‘b’ (161%), relative water content (16%), membrane stability index (18%), carotenoid (87%), yield (82%), photosynthetic rate (148%), fruit diameter (83%), protein (89%), fat (27.5%), fiber (12%), vitamin C (52%), calcium (54%), magnesium (117%), phosphorus (38%) and potassium (128%). In addition, significant improvements in different soil physicochemical properties were also pragmatic. The results suggest that vermicompost application with reduced doses of chemical fertilizers can be used to improve crop yield and soil physico-chemical properties.

1. Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a highly valued vegetable crop in horticulture due to its nutritional value and versatile culinary applications [1]. Tomatoes are rich in essential vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, C, and E; calcium; and niacin, which are linked to numerous human health benefits [2]. The global demand for tomatoes has increased significantly in recent years due to population increase, their widespread availability, and affordability [3]. However, traditional methods of tomato cultivation heavily depend on chemical fertilizers, which can have detrimental effects on soil health, the environment, and ultimately human health [4]. To address these issues, organic farming methods utilizing sustainable biofertilizers such as vermicompost have emerged as a viable alternative. This approach enhances the nutritional quality of fruits, making it an increasingly favored option for ensuring a sustainable crop supply [5].
Vermicompost is a nutrient-rich organic amendment produced through the breakdown of organic materials using earthworms and microbes [6], which produces a stable, peat-like material with a low carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio, enriched with essential nutrients, microbiologically active agents that increase porosity, and water-holding capacity (WHC) [7]. The application of vermicompost has several benefits: it reduces the application of chemical fertilizers, minimizes harm to soils and the environment, improves soil health, and provides better crop yields [8]. In addition, the application of vermicompost as a soil amendment can enhance the soil nutrient profile and promote soil health, leading to sustainable crop production [9]. Different field studies have shown that the integrated use of vermicompost with chemical fertilizers can significantly improve tomato growth and yield [10]. Mixed biofertilizer application has been reported to improve soil fertility, nutrient uptake, grain yield, and shoot biomass of many crops, including cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) [11], suggesting its potential to reduce chemical fertilizer usage and promote sustainable agriculture. The combined use of chemical fertilizers, biofertilizers, and compost enhanced the growth and yield of Brassica compestris [12]. Additionally, vermicompost application showed positive effects on root volume, fresh weight, and length in Setaria grass, Lilium longiflorum, pea, maize, and crossandra plants [3,13,14,15].
Vermicompost application increased shoot fresh weight and shoot dry weight in marigold (Tagetes) plants [14,16], as well as enhanced chlorophyll content, number of leaves, and leaf area in cucumber, pak choi, sorghum, and Lilium plants [15,17,18]. Moreover, it increased chlorophyll a and b content in Andrographis paniculate and cucumber, improved flowering and heading in African marigold, crossandra, Chrysanthemum morifolium, and Matricaria chamomilla plants [19,20,21], and increased fruit yield and length in strawberry, cucumber, eggplant, and garlic plants [14,20,22,23]. These findings suggest that vermicompost can enhance plant growth, nutrient uptake, and yield, making it a potential alternative to chemical fertilizers. It is hypothesized that organic matter and/or vermicompost application to soil could minimize the usage of chemical fertilizers and, subsequently, improve plant growth and reduce production costs. This study seeks to evaluate the effects of the sole and combined application of vermicompost and chemical fertilizers on the morpho-physiological responses of tomato plants, aiming to improve yield fruit quality, and soil health, and reduce the environmental risks associated with chemical fertilizer use.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation and Collection of Vermicomposts

For vermicompost 1 preparation, cattle dung was collected from the Agronomic Research Area, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Sindh, Pakistan. Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) were taken from Mian Dost Muhammad Farm Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan, and vermicomposting was performed at the same location in 6 pits (6 ft length × 4 ft width × 2 ft depth) in soil using the method of pre-composting described by Grag and Gupta [24]. After 20 days of pre-composting, the material was added to composting pits along with 8000 earthworms per composting pit at 25 ± 1 °C [25,26]. Water was sprinkled regularly in the composting pits and the final form of vermicompost (vermicast) was collected through sieves after 60 days [27]. Vermicompost 2 was obtained from the National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC), Islamabad, Pakistan, where the vermicompost that is commercially available to growers or researchers is prepared.

2.2. Chemical Composition of Cattle Manure and Vermicomposts

The chemical properties of cattle manure and vermicompost 1 and 2 were analyzed. The EC and pH were recorded using EC (Model Cyberscean Con11 standard portable series) and pH meters (Model SENS Direct Lovibond pH 110) [28]. The gravimetric technique and titration with the EDTA method were followed to determine the manure’s moisture status and total calcium (Ca) content, respectively [29]. Total nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, and organic carbon in the organic samples were determined by following the protocols of Bremner and Mulavaney [30], Watanabe and Olsen [31], Bansal and Kapoor [32], and Page and Page [33], respectively. The chemical compositions of the manure and vermicompost are given in Table 1.

2.3. Soil Sampling and Preparation

Pre-and post-experiment soil sampling (0–30 cm) was performed using a soil auger. The samples were air-dried, ground, sieved through a 2 mm sieve, placed in polyethylene bags for storage in a cool and dry environment, and analyzed for physico-chemical properties [34]. The EC and pH were determined in 1:2.5 soil water extracts [35], and EC and pH were recorded using EC (Model Cyberscean Con11 standard portable series, Lovibond, Amesbury, UK) and pH meters (Model SENSO Direct Lovibond pH 110). Soil texture was assessed using the hydrometer method [36], whereas the soil textural class was determined using the USDA triangle for soil texture determination. Nitrogen concentration in the soil was determined using the Kjeldahl apparatus following the manual of Bremner et al. [30]. Similarly, extractable P and K were measured by the AB-DTPA method as described by Soltanpour et al. [37] using a spectrophotometer and flame photometer, and the organic matter content was determined by following the protocols of Walkely and Black [38,39]. The physical and chemical characteristics of soil are presented in Table 2.

2.4. Crop Husbandry and Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted in a farmer’s field (Mian Dost Muhammad Farm Tando Jam, Sindh, Pakistan) from 2021 to 2022. The soil was prepared by performing two cross-ploughings, each followed by planking with the help of a tractor-drawn tine-cultivator to achieve a normal seedbed. Tomato crop was used as a test crop whose certified seeds (Sultan F1 Hybrid) were purchased from a private company (Millan Agro Seed, Pakistan). A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was used to arrange the treatments with four replicates. Six treatments were used as follows: T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1, common practice of tomato growers),T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1), T3 = Vermicompost 1 (2 t ha−1), T4 = Vermicompost 2 (2 t ha−1), T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost 1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1), and T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost 2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). The required amount of chemical fertilizer was urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP), and muriate of potash (MOP).

2.4.1. Plant Growth, Physiology and Yield Attributes

After four weeks of transplanting, a random sample of 3 tomato plants per experimental sub-plot was taken. Plants were carefully shoveled out of the soil, and excess soil around the roots was carefully removed. After that, the roots were washed using tap water to remove the rest of the adhered soil. Then, the harvested plants were transferred to the laboratory for physiological measurements (chlorophyll SPAD and ‘a and b’ contents, photosynthetic rate, carotenoids, relative water content, and membrane stability index), along with growth and yield attributes, i.e., root length, root and shoot fresh and dry weight, and plant height. Moreover, plant height was recorded during the last picking of tomato fruit. Moreover, fruit quality and yield attributes, such as size, weight, and overall yields, were also calculated upon harvest.
The chlorophyll content (SPAD) values were taken using a portable chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502 Plus, Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., Osaka, Japan). Furthermore, the photosynthetic rate was measured before flowering using a portable photosynthesis ‘Combined infra-red analyzing’ system (CIRAS) using its automatic light source in 1800 μmol m−2 s−1 photon flux density. Chlorophyll ‘a’, ‘b’, carotenoids, relative water content (RWC), and membrane stability index (MSI) were measured using the prescribed protocols [40,41,42].

2.4.2. Nutritional Quality of the Tomato

Tomato fruit samples were randomly taken from each experimental sub-plot, oven-dried at 70 ± 5 °C until constant weight, and ground in a stainless-steel grinder. Total P was determined by the Vanado-molybdate method, K and Ca were determined by flame photometry, and the sample for Mg was determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometer following the method described by Shehzad et al. [43]. Total N was analyzed using the micro-Kjeldahl procedure as described, and crude protein was obtained by multiplying the total N by a factor of 6.25 [44]. Concentrations of nutrients were expressed based on the percentage of dry fruit material as described by Chapman et al. [45].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

After the experiment, the recorded data were subjected to variance analysis (ANOVA) using Statistix v8.1 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA), and the least significant difference (LSD) test was applied for multiple comparisons at a p value of 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth, Yield and Physiological Attributes

The application of recommended NPK levels alone and reduced doses of NPK in combination with the two types of vermicompost significantly (p < 0.05) enhanced tomato plant growth, yield, and physiological attributes. The maximum plant height (184 ± 2.93 cm) was recorded in T5, where vermicompost 1 was applied in combination with reduced doses of NPK (Table 3). The increase was 168% more than that of the control treatment (NP, farmers’ practice). The maximum shoot fresh weight (10.52 ± 0.09 g) and shoot dry weight (1.04 ± 0.014 g) were recorded in the same treatment, which was 39 and 44% more than that of their respective controls. The maximum root length (11.50 ± 0.15 cm) was recorded in T5 with a 22% increase, while root fresh (3.11 ± 0.09 g) and dry weight (0.38 ± 0.009 g) were also found in the same treatment with 45 and 46% more than that of the respective controls. The results of tomato yield, fruit length, and diameter are presented in Table 3. The application of the T5 treatment yielded a significant yield, fruit length, and diameter (p < 0.05) than the rest of the treatments. The maximum yield (13,778 ± 285 kg ha−1) was obtained in T5. Additionally, the maximum fruit length (8.51 ± 0.12 cm) and fruit diameter (5.85 ± 0.10 cm) were observed in the plants under the T5 treatment, which increased by 101% and 83% more than the control treatments, respectively (Table 4).
The application of reduced doses of NPK in combination with the two types of vermicompost significantly (p < 0.05) enhanced the physiological attributes of tomato plants. The maximum chlorophyll a, b, carotenoid and chlorophyll (SPAD) readings were found to be 6.3 ± 0.02 mg g−1, 2.27 ± 0.11 mg g−1, 4.08 ± 0.43 mg g−1, and 49.41 ± 3.21 in T5, with 96%, 155%, 89%, and 13.5% increases over their respective controls (Figure 1a). Total chlorophyll contents were recorded as maximum (8.5 ± 0.36 mg g−1) in T5, with a 109% increase over the control treatment. The same treatment showed the highest response of relative water content (RWC), membrane stability index (MSI), and photosynthesis was also found to be maximum in T5, with maximum values of 91.4 ± 0.78%, 88 ± 1.22%, and 26 μmol m−2 s−1 ± 0.77, which was were 17%, 16%, and 150% more than the control treatments, respectively (Figure 1b).

Fruit Quality and Nutritional Analysis

The nutritional and quality attributes of the fruits were also assessed and compared with the mean using ANOVA. It was revealed that the nutritional and quality parameters of the fruits were positively affected by the applied treatments. The maximum tomato fruit protein contents (43.47%) and fat and fiber contents were recorded at 43.47% ± 1.17, 4% ± 0.09, and 7.23% ± 0.12 in T5. In the same treatment, Vitamin C contents also show the same response after the T5 treatment application. Vitamin C was found to be 0.32 mg 100 g−1, which was 52% more than the control treatment (Figure 2a). The maximum tomato fruit calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium contents were found to be 0.380% ± 0.004, 0.250% ± 0.006, 0.172% ± 0.004, and 0.527% ± 0.010 in T5, which were 54%, 117%, 38%, and 128% more than the respective controls, respectively (Figure 2b).

3.2. Post-Harvest Variation in Soil Physico-Chemical Properties

The physico-chemical properties of the soil were assessed after the experiment to check the effectiveness of the applied treatments in improving the soil’s physico-chemical properties. In our results, we observed that different treatments led to a considerable improvement in the physico-chemical parameters of the post-harvest soil. The individual and combined application of different vermicompost and NPK fertilization significantly improved soil properties such as organic matter content, total N, available P, and exchangeable K contents after crop harvest. It was concluded that the sole application of vermicompost yielded more significant outcomes than conventional fertilizers and their combined treatments in improving soil characteristics. The changes in the soil’s physico-chemical properties are presented in Table 5.

4. Discussion

4.1. Plant Growth, Yield, Physiology and Nutritional Quality Attributes of Tomato Plant

In the current study, we observed that the application of both types of vermicompost, especially cow dung vermicompost, in combination with a reduced dose of NPK fertilization, enhanced various growth parameters compared to the individual application of vermicompost or chemical fertilization. The increase in these properties could be due to the high moisture content and balance between its organic and inorganic nutrients, which enhance plant growth and yield upon its application [46]. Various researchers have reported similar results that the application of vermicompost as an amendment to soil enhances plant growth, productivity, and soil health [47,48]. Similar results have also been reported by [49,50] that vermicompost application improves growth attributes and, hence, enhances overall plant productivity. In addition, the presence of an increased number of N-fixing bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi in vermicompost promotes plant growth via different mechanisms of growth promotion. Vermicompost also encompasses different enzymes such as chitinases, amylases, lipases, and cellulases, which are very helpful in organic matter degradation and the release of various nutrients, making them available to plant roots for their uptake even after soil depletion [51]. Reference [52] observed the effects of the combined application of vermicompost and NPK fertilizers in improving the growth and yield of spinach (Amaranthus tricolor L.) due to the high NPK contents of inorganic fertilizer as well as the increased nutritional attributes of vermicompost. Vermicompost-mediated improvement in soil properties and uptake of essential nutrients has also been reported in potato tubers by Afandi et al. [53].
We also noted a significant positive effect of the combined application of vermicompost and NPK fertilizers in improving different physiological attributes, such as chlorophyll and carotenoid contents and SPAD value in tomato leaves. Identical results were observed when vermicompost was applied to radish along with conventional inorganic fertilizers [54]. Similarly, our results, in terms of carotenoid contents and photosynthetic rate in tomato leaves, were further confirmed by those who reported increased attributes upon the application of vermicompost. Vermicompost has a diversity of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) that directly improve plant productivity via biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), nutrient solubilization, and production of different growth hormones that enhance plant growth, development, and physiology, such as carotenoid contents, as well as gas exchange attributes, such as photosynthetic rate [51].
Rekha et al. [55] reported that vermicompost supports a wide range of essential nutrients, the uptake of which leads to a substantial increment in plant growth, photosynthesis as well as chlorophyll contents by exerting positive impacts on plant nutrition. Our results, in terms of the effect of vermicompost on the photosynthetic attributes of the plant, were also confirmed by Mahmoud et al. [56]; they observed that the application of different levels of vermicompost significantly improved the chlorophyll contents of bean plant (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and they also observed that increasing the dose of vermicompost compared to chemical fertilizers yielded more significant outcomes in terms of photosynthetic attributes of the plant. Khosropour et al. [57] reported better photosynthetic rates and increased plant biomass due to the vermicompost-mediated improved soil properties, such as nutrient and water retention capacities. Additionally, due to its high nutrient-supplying capacities, vermicompost can act as a plant growth promoter by facilitating chlorophyll contents. Similar results were also reported by Wang et al. [1] and Arancon et al. [58]. The increase in the chlorophyll contents was attributed to increased nitrogen availability from vermicompost. As nitrogen is a key component of chlorophyll molecules, an adequate nitrogen supply can stimulate the production of chlorophyll. Moreover, reduced chlorosis due to improved nitrogen supply also helped increase chlorophyll synthesis, activity, and production. Relative water content (RWC) is a significant contributor to the relationship between water and plant physiology. Amendments of soil with both types of vermicompost significantly enhanced RWC in tomato leaves alone and were associated with NPK fertilization. Similar results were reported by [59], who found that the application of vermicompost to wheat plants under drought stress enhanced the RWC of plants. Vermicompost also uplifts soil properties, ultimately leading to improved physiological attributes of plants and resultant nutrient uptake [60,61]. Hafez et al. also observed an increase in the relative water content of the wheat plant after the combined application of biochar and vermicompost [62].
The current study indicated a significant increase in the membrane stability index of tomato plants due to the single and combined applications of vermicompost and NPK fertilizer. Similar results were observed in the findings by Beyk-Khormizi et al. [63], who checked the effect of vermicompost application in alleviating the salinity stress of Foeniculum vulgare. They reported that under salinity stress, a substantial decline in the MSI was observed with a simultaneous increment in the tomato plant. In another study, Ezzat et al. [64] reported that the application of vermicompost to potatoes significantly increased the MSI and RWC, which reflected increased membrane damage under salinity stress. However, vermicompost application ameliorated the adverse effects on cell membranes and increased their stability under stressed conditions. In another experiment, Ref. [65] stated that the simultaneous application of compost and vermicompost enhanced the MSI under salinity stress and attributed this increase to the regulation of membrane integrity, as well as the prevention of plasma membrane damage [66]. Aslam et al. [67] also reported similar results where they explained that the application of vermicompost increased membrane stability in tomatoes, as evidenced by increased MSI percentage in the treated plants.
Our outcomes regarding different vitamins and biochemical attributes, such as protein, fiber, and fat contents, revealed their strong correlation with vermicompost application. Similar outcomes were observed by [68], who checked the potential of vermicomposting of different organic wastes in improving growth and yield and performed a proximate analysis of cucumber plants. They stated that the application of vermicompost positively affected the proximate analysis of cucumbers, such as fat, protein, fiber, and other nutritional contents. In addition, Joshi observed that adding vermicompost to soil increased wheat protein, fat, fiber, and carbohydrate contents compared to the control treatment [14]. Moreover, Adekiye et al. [69] reported that increased N input to the soil upon the application of vermicompost enhanced the total protein contents since N is a crucial component of protein and different enzymes, as well as chlorophyll; hence, they observed a substantial quantity of crude protein contents in okra. An increase in these mineral elements upon the application of vermicompost is assumed to be correlated with the high nutritional content of vermicompost [70]. Similar results were obtained by Joshi et al., who reported enhanced crude fiber and fat contents with an increase in the vermicompost application level. In another study, Rahman et al. [71] reported an increase in the protein contents of sunflowers upon the application of vermicompost in the soil, and the values were found to be positively correlated with the increase in the vermicompost levels. Furthermore, an increase in the protein contents after the application of vermicompost has been reported by several researchers [72,73].

4.2. Effect of Vermicompost on Physico-Chemical Properties of Post-Harvest Soil

The application of various rates of vermicompost showed statistically significant positive effects on the physico-chemical properties of postharvest soil. [74]. In general, the physical characteristics of sandy clay loam soil were improved by vermicompost treatments under water-limiting and water-replete conditions. The application rate of vermicompost at 5% effectively increased various soil parameters, including total porosity, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity, field capacity, and accessible water holding capacity [75]. Raising soil aggregate stability is indicative of improving soil quality and health, and this trend appears to be driven primarily by organic matter in the soil [76]. In this study, vermicompost treatments significantly altered the soil aggregate and structural stability indexes [77]. Organic matter plays an important role in soils because of its increased water-holding capacity (WHC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and chelation ability. According to the literature, more vermicompost is associated with higher soil organic matter levels [78]. It has also been observed that the soil’s content of organic carbon (C) increases with increasing doses of vermicompost, followed by organic waste [79]. It is reported that vermicompost has a valuable source of readily accessible nutrients. It is also revealed that vermicompost has a high concentration of humic acid. Because of the humic acid’s positive effects on soil microbes, organic acid production has increased, improving the soil’s overall quality [80]. Vermicompost contains a rather high level of humic acid, which contributes to its reputation as a useful source of easily absorbable nutrients. As a result of the beneficial effects of humic acid on soil microbes, the production of organic acids increases, thereby improving soil quality [81]. Vermicompost treatments have also been linked to an increase in soil phosphorus content. A sizable fraction of total N is readily available to plants due to adequate moisture, low pH, and organic matter [82]. Vermicompost improves plant nutritional intake and conveniently delivers all nutrients [83]. The EC of vermicompost is related to the ion concentration of the starting materials [75]. Similarly, soil EC values for both acidic and alkaline soils increased after treatment with organic fertilizers [84]. Exchangeable Soil Mg and Ca concentrations dramatically increased after VC treatments. Higher VC treatment doses increased the exchangeable Mg and Ca contents [85]. Using vermicompost improves the soil in both a nutritional and physical sense.

5. Conclusions

The application of inorganic chemical fertilizers can be minimized by supplementing them with organic fertilization sources such as vermicompost, which not only improves the physico-chemical properties of the soil but also facilitates nutrient transfer to plants, leading to increased growth and yield. In the current study, a similar concept was used, and the results suggested that vermicompost combined with half of the recommended doses of NPK enhanced tomato growth, yield, physiology, nutrient uptake, and proximate nutrient concentrations. Furthermore, a significant improvement in different physico-chemical attributes of post-harvest soil was also observed under the sole and combined application of vermicompost. It was concluded that vermicompost, along with reduced NPK fertilization, can be used as an ideal agent for improving soil properties, followed by an improvement in plant growth and fruit quality.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Q. and J.J.; methodology, M.Q. and S.M.B.; software and data collection, M.Q., M.U.Y. and G.S.; formal analysis, M.Q. and Z.H.J.; data curation, J.J., H.Z. and S.M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Q.; writing—review and editing, J.J., S.M.B., N.R. and S.P.M.; visualization, M.Q.; supervision, J.J., H.Z. and S.M.B.; funding acquisition, J.J. and H.Z.; revision of the manuscript and elimination of grammatical mistakes, S.M.B., S.A. and J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Program No. 31000939) and supported by the earmarked fund for Jiangsu Agricultural Industry Technology System (Program No. JATS [2022]498).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, X.-X.; Zhao, F.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, L. Vermicompost Improves Tomato Yield and Quality and the Biochemical Properties of Soils with Different Tomato Planting History in a Greenhouse Study. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Bulgari, R.; Franzoni, G.; Ferrante, A. Biostimulants Application in Horticultural Crops under Abiotic Stress Conditions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Villanueva Gutierrez, E.E. An Overview of Recent Studies of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum spp.) from a Social, Biochemical and Genetic Perspective on Quality Parameters. Basic Microbiol. 2018, 50, 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  4. Norris, C.E.; Congreves, K.A. Alternative Management Practices Improve Soil Health Indices in Intensive Vegetable Cropping Systems: A Review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chauhan, H.S.; Joshi, S.C.N.; Rana, D.K.; Li, W.; Zheng, P.; Guo, J.; Ji, J.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Zhan, E.; et al. Water-Use Efficiency and Transpiration Efficiency of Wheat under Rain-Fed Conditions and Supplemental Irrigation in a Mediterranean-Type Environment. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 5, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fu, X.; Huang, K.; Cui, G.; Chen, X.; Li, F.; Zhang, X.; Li, F. Dynamics of Bacterial and Eukaryotic Community Associated with Stability during Vermicomposting of Pelletized Dewatered Sludge. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 104, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Edwards, C.A.; Dominguez, J.; Aranconl, N.Q. 18. The Influence Ofvermicomposts on Plant Growth and Pest Incidence. In Soil Zoology for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century; Hanna, H.S.H., Mikhail, W.Z.A., Eds.; Geocities: Cairo, Egypt, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lim, S.L.; Wu, T.Y.; Lim, P.N.; Shak, K.P.Y. The Use of Vermicompost in Organic Farming: Overview, Effects on Soil and Economics. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 1143–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dubey, R.K.; Dubey, P.K.; Chaurasia, R.; Singh, H.B.; Abhilash, P.C. Sustainable Agronomic Practices for Enhancing the Soil Quality and Yield of Cicer arietinum L. under Diverse Agroecosystems. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 262, 110284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Adhikary, S. Vermicompost, the Story of Organic Gold: A Review. Agric. Sci. 2012, 3, 905–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Andrade, M.M.M.; Stamford, N.P.; Santos, C.E.R.S.; Freitas, A.D.S.; Sousa, C.A.; Junior, M.A.L. Effects of Biofertilizer with Diazotrophic Bacteria and Mycorrhizal Fungi in Soil Attribute, Cowpea Nodulation Yield and Nutrient Uptake in Field Conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 162, 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Haque, M.M.; Haque, M.A.; Ilias, G.N.M.; Molla, A.H. Trichoderma-Enriched Biofertilizer: A Prospective Substitute of Inorganic Fertilizer for Mustard (Brassica campestris) Production. Agriculturists 2010, 8, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Sabrina, D.T.; Hanafi, M.M.; Gandahi, A.W.; Muda Mohamed, M.T.; Abdul Aziz, N.A. Effect of Mixed Organic-Inorganic Fertilizer on Growth and Phosphorus Uptake of Setaria Grass (‘Setaria splendida’). Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013, 7, 75–83. [Google Scholar]
  14. Joshi, R.; Singh, J.; Vig, A.P. Vermicompost as an Effective Organic Fertilizer and Biocontrol Agent: Effect on Growth, Yield and Quality of Plants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2015, 14, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gajalakshmi, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Effect of the Application of Water Hyacinth Compost/Vermicompost on the Growth and Flowering of Crossandra Undulaefolia, and on Several Vegetables. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 85, 197–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shadanpour, F.; Torkashvand, A.M.; Majd, K.H. The Effect of Cow Manure Vermicompost as the Planting Medium on the Growth of Marigold. Ann. Biol. Res. 2011, 2, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pant, A.P.; Radovich, T.J.K.; Hue, N.V.; Talcott, S.T.; Krenek, K.A. Vermicompost Extracts Influence Growth, Mineral Nutrients, Phytonutrients and Antioxidant Activity in Pak Choi (Brassica rapa Cv. Bonsai, Chinensis Group) Grown under Vermicompost and Chemical Fertiliser. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 2383–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Reddy, M.V.; Ohkura, K. Vermicomposting of Rice-Straw and Its Effects on Sorghum Growth. Trop. Ecol. 2004, 45, 327–331. [Google Scholar]
  19. Vijaya, K.S.; Seethalakshmi, S. Contribution of Parthenium Vermicompost in Altering Growth, Yield and Quality of Alelmoschus Esculentus (I) Moench. Adv. Biotech 2011, 11, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
  20. Azarmi, R.; Giglou, M.T.; Taleshmikail, R.D. Influence of Vermicompost on Soil Chemical and Physical Properties in Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) Field. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2008, 7, 2397–2401. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hadi, M.; Darz, M.T.; Ghandehari, Z.; Riazi, G. Effects of Vermicompost and Amino Acids on the Flower Yield and Essential Oil Production from Matricaria chamomile L. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 5611–5617. [Google Scholar]
  22. Singh, R.; Sharma, R.R.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, R.K.; Patil, R.T. Vermicompost Substitution Influences Growth, Physiological Disorders, Fruit Yield and Quality of Strawberry (Fragaria x Ananassa Duch.). Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 8507–8511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Suthar, S. Earthworm Communities a Bioindicator of Arable Land Management Practices: A Case Study in Semiarid Region of India. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 588–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Garg, V.K.; Gupta, R. Optimization of Cow Dung Spiked Pre-Consumer Processing Vegetable Waste for Vermicomposting Using Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2011, 74, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Suthar, S.; Sharma, P. Vermicomposting of Toxic Weed—Lantana Camara Biomass: Chemical and Microbial Properties Changes and Assessment of Toxicity of End Product Using Seed Bioassay. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 95, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Reinecke, A.J.; Viljoen, S.A.; Saayman, R.J. The Suitability of Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus and Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta) for Vermicomposting in Southern Africa in Terms of Their Temperature Requirements. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1992, 24, 1295–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aslam, Z.; Bashir, S.; Hassan, W.; Bellitürk, K.; Ahmad, N.; Niazi, N.K.; Khan, A.; Khan, M.I.; Chen, Z.; Maitah, M. Unveiling the Efficiency of Vermicompost Derived from Different Biowastes on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Plant Growth and Soil Health. Agronomy 2019, 9, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ryan, J.; Estefan, G.; Rashid, A. Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory Manual; ICARDA: Beirut, Lebanon, 2001; ISBN 9291271187. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  29. Shapiro, L.; Brannock, W.W. Automatic Photometric Titrations of Calcium and Magnesium in Carbonate Rocks. Anal. Chem. 1955, 27, 725–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mulvaney, B.J.M.; Page, A.L. Nitrogen-Total. Methods Soil Anal. Part 1982, 2, 595–624. [Google Scholar]
  31. Watanabe, F.S.; Olsen, S.R. Test of an Ascorbic Acid Method for Determining Phosphorus in Water and NaHCO3 Extracts from Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1965, 29, 677–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bansal, S.; Kapoor, K.K. Vermicomposting of Crop Residues and Cattle Dung with Eisenia Foetida. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 73, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Page, A.L.; Page, A.L. Methods of Soil Analysis: Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Americann Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  34. Estefan, G.; Sommer, R.; Ryan, J. Methods of Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis. Man. West Asia N. Afr. Reg. 2013, 3, 65–119. [Google Scholar]
  35. Abbaspour, A.; Kalbasi, M.; Hajrasuliha, S.; Fotovat, A. Effect of Organic Matter and Salinity on Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid–Extractable and Solution Species of Cadmium and Lead in Three Agricultural Soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2008, 39, 983–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bouyoucos, G.J. Hydrometer Method Improved for Making Particle Size Analyses of Soils 1. Agron. J. 1962, 54, 464–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Soltanpour, P.N.; Schwab, A.P. A New Soil Test for Simultaneous Extraction of Macro-and Micro-nutrients in Alkaline Soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1977, 8, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abraham, J. Organic Carbon Estimations in Soils: Analytical Protocols and Their Implications. Rubber Sci. 2013, 26, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  39. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An Examination of the Degtjareff Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter, and a Proposed Modification of the Chromic Acid Titration Method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arnon, D.I.; Whatley, F.R. Is Chloride a Coenzyme of Photosynthesis? Science 1949, 110, 554–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schonfeld, M.A.; Johnson, R.C.; Carver, B.F.; Mornhinweg, D.W. Water Relations in Winter Wheat as Drought Resistance Indicators. Crop Sci. 1988, 28, 526–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sairam, R.K. Effects of Homobrassinolide Application on Plant Metabolism and Grain Yield under Irrigated and Moisture-Stress Conditions of Two Wheat Varieties. Plant Growth Regul. 1994, 14, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shehzad, M.T.; Sabir, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Zia, M.A.; Naidu, R. Arsenic Concentrations in Soil, Water, and Rice Grains of Rice-Growing Areas of Punjab, Pakistan: Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Levey, D.J.; Bissell, H.A.; O’keefe, S.F. Conversion of Nitrogen to Protein and Amino Acids in Wild Fruits. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 1749–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chapman, H.D.; Pratt, F.P. Determination of Minerals by Titration Method: Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants and Water; Agriculture Division, University of California: Oakland, CA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  46. Esringü, A.; Turan, M.; Sushkova, S.; Minkina, T.; Rajput, V.D.; Glinushkin, A.; Kalinitchenko, V. Influence of Vermicompost Application on the Growth of Vinca rosea valiant, Pelargonium peltatum L. and Pegasus patio rose. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ansari, A.A.; Sukhraj, K. Effect of Vermin Wash and Vermicompost on Soil Parameter and Productivity of A. Esculentus in Guyana. Afr. J. Agric. Res 2010, 5, 1994–1998. [Google Scholar]
  48. Karagöz, F.P.; Dursun, A.; Tekiner, N.; Kul, R.; Kotan, R. Efficacy of Vermicompost and/or Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria on the Plant Growth and Development in Gladiolus. Ornam. Hortic. 2019, 25, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Naidu, A.K.; Kushwah, S.S.; Mehta, A.K.; Jain, P.K. Study of Organic, Inorganic and Biofertilizers in Relation to Growth and Yield of Tomato. JNKVV Res. J. 2001, 35, 36–37. [Google Scholar]
  50. Musa, S.I.; Njoku, L.K.; Ndiribe, C.C. The Effect of Vermi Tea on the Growth Parameters of Spinacia oleracea L. (Spinach). J. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 3, 236–238. [Google Scholar]
  51. Aslam, Z.; Ahmad, A.; Bellitürk, K.; Kanwal, H.; Asif, M.; Ullah, E. Integrated Use of Simple Compost, Vermicompost, Vermi-Tea and Chemical Fertilizers NP on the Morpho-Physiological, Yield and Yield Related Traits of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Innov. Sci. 2023, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Raksun, A.; Ilhamdi, M.L.; Merta, I.W.; Mertha, I.G. Analysis of Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Growth Due to Treatment of Vermicompost and Different Types of Mulch. J. Biol. Trop. 2022, 22, 907–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Afandi, A.M.; Zulkifli, H.; Khalid, H.; Hasnol, O.; Nur-Zuhaili, H.; Zuraidah, Y. Oil Palm Fertilizer Recommandation for Sabah Soils. Oil Palm Bull. 2016, 72, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dominguez, J.; Edwards, C.A. Biology and Ecology of Earthworm Species Used for Vermicomposting. Vermiculture Technology: Earthworms, Organic Waste and Environmental Management; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rekha, G.S.; Kaleena, P.K.; Elumalai, D.; Srikumaran, M.P.; Maheswari, V.N. 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]
  56. Mahmoud, S.O.; Gad, D.A.M. Effect of Vermicompost as Fertilizer on Growth, Yield and Quality of Bean Plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Middle East J. Agric. Res. 2020, 9, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
  57. Khosropour, E.; Weisany, W.; Tahir, N.A.; Hakimi, L. Vermicompost and Biochar Can Alleviate Cadmium Stress through Minimizing Its Uptake and Optimizing Biochemical Properties in Berberis Integerrima Bunge. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 17476–17486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Arancon, N.Q.; Pant, A.; Radovich, T.; Hue, N.V.; Potter, J.K.; Converse, C.E. Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Tomato and Lettuce as Affected by Vermicompost Water Extracts (Teas). HortScience 2012, 47, 1722–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aslam, Z.; Ahmad, A. Effects of Vermicompost, Vermi-Tea and Chemical Fertilizer on Morpho-Physiological Characteristics of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Suleymanpasa District, Tekirdag of Turkey. J. Innov. Sci. 2020, 6, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Emami, H.; Astaraei, A.R. Effect of Organic and Inorganic Amendments on Parameters of Water Retention Curve, Bulk Density and Aggregate Diameter of a Saline-Sodic Soil. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2012, 14, 1625–1636. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yadav, V.; Karak, T.; Singh, S.; Singh, A.K.; Khare, P. Benefits of Biochar over Other Organic Amendments: Responses for Plant Productivity (Pelargonium graveolens L.) and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 131, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hafez, E.M.; Omara, A.E.D.; Alhumaydhi, F.A.; El-Esawi, M.A. Minimizing Hazard Impacts of Soil Salinity and Water Stress on Wheat Plants by Soil Application of Vermicompost and Biochar. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 172, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Beyk-Khormizi, A.; Hosseini Sarghein, S.; Sarafraz-Ardakani, M.R.; Moshtaghioun, S.M.; Mousavi-Kouhi, S.M.; Ganjeali, A. Ameliorating Effect of Vermicompost on Foeniculum vulgare under Saline Condition. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 46, 1601–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ezzat, A.S.; Badway, A.S.; Abdelkader, A.E. Sequenced Vermicompost, Glycine Betaine, Proline Treatments Elevate Salinity Tolerance in Potatoes. Middle East J. Agric. Res 2019, 8, 126–138. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ahmadpour, R.; Armand, N. Effect of Ecophysiological Characteristics of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) in Response to Organic Fertilizers (Compost and Vermicompost). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj Napoca 2020, 48, 1248–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zouari, M.; Elloumi, N.; Ahmed, C.B.; Delmail, D.; Rouina, B.B.; Abdallah, F.B.; Labrousse, P. Exogenous Proline Enhances Growth, Mineral Uptake, Antioxidant Defense, and Reduces Cadmium-Induced Oxidative Damage in Young Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.). Ecol. Eng. 2016, 86, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aslam, Z.; Ahmad, A.; Bellitürk, K.; Iqbal, N.; Idrees, M.; Rehman, W.U.; Akbar, G.; Tariq, M.; Raza, M.; Riasat, S. 26. Effects of Vermicompost, Vermi-Tea and Chemical Fertilizer on Morpho-Physiological Characteristics of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) in Suleymanpasa District, Tekirdag of Turkey. Pure Appl. Biol. 2020, 9, 1920–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Olowoake, A.A.; Wahab, A.A.; Lawal, O.O.; Subair, S.K. Assessing the Potential of Organic Wastes through Vermicomposting: A Case Study with Cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2022, 92, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Adekeye, O.; Ozano, K.; Dixon, R.; Elhassan, E.O.; Lar, L.; Schmidt, E.; Isiyaku, S.; Okoko, O.; Thomson, R.; Theobald, S. Mass Administration of Medicines in Changing Contexts: Acceptability, Adaptability and Community Directed Approaches in Kaduna and Ogun States, Nigeria. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020, 14, e0008857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Machfudz, M.; Murwani, I. Combined Effect of Vermicompost and Earthworm Pontoscolex Corethrurus Inoculationon the Yield and Quality of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L.) Using Organic Growing Media. 2017. Available online: http://repository.unisma.ac.id/handle/123456789/2245 (accessed on 5 May 2023).
  71. Rahman, M.; Alauddin, M.; Ali, A.H.M.Z. Growth and Yield Performance of Strawberry (Fragaria Ananassa) under Various Doses of Vermicompost and NPK Fertilizers Grown at Rooftop of Charfasson Area in the Southern Parts of Bangladesh. Dhaka Univ. J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 30, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gupta, R.K.; Patel, A.K.; Shah, N.; Choudhary, A.K.; Jha, U.K.; Yadav, U.C.; Gupta, P.K.; Pakuwal, U. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidants in Disease and Cancer: A Review. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 4405–4409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kamal, M.D. Efficacy of Different Combinations of Nitrogenous Fertilizer and Vermicompost on Yield and Quality of Aromatic Rice. Master’s Thesis, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020. Available online: http://archive.saulibrary.edu.bd:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/4551 (accessed on 5 May 2023).[Green Version]
  74. Lachnicht, S.L.; Hendrix, P.F. Interaction of the Earthworm Diplocardia Mississippiensis (Megascolecidae) with Microbial and Nutrient Dynamics in a Subtropical Spodosol. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 1411–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nasrin, A.; Khanom, S.; Hossain, S.A. Effects of Vermicompost and Compost on Soil Properties and Growth and Yield of Kalmi (Ipomoea Aquatica Forsk.) in Mixed Soil. Dhaka Univ. J. Biol. Sci. 2019, 28, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil Structure and Soil Organic Matter II. A Normalized Stability Index and the Effect of Mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wick, A.F.; Daniels, W.L.; Nash, W.L.; Burger, J.A. Aggregate Recovery in Reclaimed Coal Mine Soils of SW Virginia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 965–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ouda, B.A.; Mahadeen, A.Y. Effect of Fertilizers on Growth, Yield, Yield Components, Quality and Certain Nutrient Contents in Broccoli (Brassica oleracea). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2008, 10, 627–632. [Google Scholar]
  79. Paul, V.; Dhiman, S.; Dubey, Y.P. Effect of Vermicompost and P Enriched Biocompost on Soil Properties under French Bean Crop. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 2170–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gholami, H.; Fard, F.R.; Saharkhiz, M.J.; Ghani, A. Yield and Physicochemical Properties of Inulin Obtained from Iranian Chicory Roots under Vermicompost and Humic Acid Treatments. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 123, 610–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sreenivas, C.; Muralidhar, S.; Rao, M.S. Vermicompost: A Viable Component of IPNSS in Nitrogen Nutrition of Ridge Gourd. Ann. Agric. Res. 2000, 21, 108–113. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zupanc, V.; Justin, M.Z. Changes in Soil Characteristics during Landfill Leachate Irrigation of Populus Deltoides. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2130–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Choudhary, R.C.; Bairwa, H.L.; Kumar, U.; Javed, T.; Asad, M.; Lal, K.; Mahawer, L.N.; Sharma, S.K.; Singh, P.; Hassan, M.M. Influence of Organic Manures on Soil Nutrient Content, Microbial Population, Yield and Quality Parameters of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Cv. Bhagwa. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0266675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Atiyeh, R.M.; Edwards, C.A.; Subler, S.; Metzger, J.D. Pig Manure Vermicompost as a Component of a Horticultural Bedding Plant Medium: Effects on Physicochemical Properties and Plant Growth. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 78, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. González, M.; Gomez, E.; Comese, R.; Quesada, M.; Conti, M. Influence of Organic Amendments on Soil Quality Potential Indicators in an Urban Horticultural System. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8897–8901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 01508 g001 550
Figure 1. (a): Effect of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on tomato physiological attributes. T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05. (b): Effect of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the tomato physiological attributes. Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 1. (a): Effect of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on tomato physiological attributes. T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05. (b): Effect of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the tomato physiological attributes. Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05.
Agronomy 13 01508 g001
Agronomy 13 01508 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Effect of different types of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the quality of tomato fruit. Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05. T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). (b) Effect of different types of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the nutritional attributes of tomato fruit. Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. (a) Effect of different types of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the quality of tomato fruit. Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05. T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). (b) Effect of different types of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the nutritional attributes of tomato fruit. Bars exhibiting the same letters are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05.
Agronomy 13 01508 g002
Table
Table 1. Physico-chemical properties of the cattle manure and vermicompost used for the experiment. Values after ± represent standard error.
Table 1. Physico-chemical properties of the cattle manure and vermicompost used for the experiment. Values after ± represent standard error.
PropertiesCattle ManureVermicompost 1Vermicompost 2
ColorDark BrownDark Brown to BlackDark Brown to Black
OdorOdorOdorlessOdorless
Particles size4 mm4 mm4 mm
Moisture %-24.28 ± 0.2021.29 ± 0.14
pH8.6 ± 0.037.74 ± 0.058.07 ± 0.05
Electrical conductivity (dS m−1)0.66 ± 0.043.56 ± 0.074.26 ± 0.07
Organic Carbon (OC) %0.65 ± 0.0318.13 ± 0.0516.70 ± 0.04
Nitrogen (N) %0.86 ± 0.041.85 ± 0.031.75 ± 0.03
Available Phosphorus (P) %0.26 ± 0.020.68 ± 0.020.81 ± 0.06
Available Potassium (K) %0.60 ± 0.030.93 ± 0.020.83 ± 0.03
Calcium (Ca) %1.10 ± 0.021.29 ± 0.051.47 ± 0.04
Table
Table 2. Physico-chemical properties of the soil before the experiment.
Table 2. Physico-chemical properties of the soil before the experiment.
Soil PropertiesValues
a. Sand (%)32.40%
b. Silt (%)27.30%
c. Clay (%)40.30%
Textural classClay
pH (1:2.5 soil water extract)8.43 ± 0.05
Electrical conductivity (dS m−1)0.66 ± 0.03
Soil organic matter (%)1.60 ± 0.11
Nitrogen (%)0.08 ± 0.01
Phosphorus (mg kg−1)1.63 ± 0.23
Potassium (mg kg−1)82.25 ± 2.66
Table
Table 3. Effect of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the height, shoot, and root attributes of tomato plants.
Table 3. Effect of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the height, shoot, and root attributes of tomato plants.
TreatmentsPlant Height (cm)Shoot Fresh Weight (g)Shoot Dry Weight (g)Root Length (cm)Root Fresh Weight (g)Root Dry Weight (g)
T1 68.7 ± 2.40 e7.57 ± 0.06 d0.72 ± 0.018 d9.46 ± 0.20 d2.14 ± 0.06 c0.26 ± 0.005 e
T2 133.8 ± 1.24 c10.22 ± 0.13 a0.86 ± 0.016 c10.84 ± 0.22 bc2.93 ± 0.13 ab0.35 ± 0.002 bc
T3 120.3 ± 0.50 d9.31 ± 0.09 b0.82 ± 0.012 c10.69 ± 0.13 bc2.62 ± 0.09 b0.32 ± 0.002 cd
T4 111.3 ± 0.91 d8.78 ± 0.12 c0.75 ± 0.003 d10.15 ± 0.07 cd2.58 ± 0.10 bc0.31 ± 0.003 d
T5184.0 ± 2.93 a10.52 ± 0.09 a1.04 ± 0.014 a11.50 ± 0.15 a3.11 ± 0.09 a0.38 ± 0.009 a
T6159.8 ± 2.78 b10.35 ± 0.16 a0.94 ± 0.016 b11.20 ± 0.10 ab2.94 ± 0.10 ab0.36 ± 0.008 ab
T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). Values are the mean of four replicates ± standard errors, while means exhibiting the same lettering are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Effect of different types of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the yield, fruit length, and fruit diameter of tomato.
Table 4. Effect of different types of vermicompost alone and in combination with conventional fertilizers on the yield, fruit length, and fruit diameter of tomato.
TreatmentsYield (kg ha−1)Fruit Length (cm)Fruit Diameter (cm)
T17310 ± 250 d4.40 ± 0.12 e3.33 ± 0.15 f
T211,827 ± 310 b7.17 ± 0.10 c4.43 ± 0.19 c
T310,742 ± 270 c6.45 ± 0.15 d4.15 ± 0.16 d
T410,612 ± 258 c5.62 ± 0.14 f3.76 ± 0.10 e
T513,778 ± 285 a8.51 ± 0.12 a5.85 ± 0.10 a
T612,515 ± 264 b7.94 ± 0.13 b5.45 ± 0.14 b
T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1). Values are the mean of four replicates ± standard errors, while means exhibiting the same lettering are statistically non-significant at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Post-harvest physico-chemical properties of the soil. Values after ± show standard error of four replicates of each treatment, while different letters show the level of significance at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 5. Post-harvest physico-chemical properties of the soil. Values after ± show standard error of four replicates of each treatment, while different letters show the level of significance at p ≤ 0.05.
Soil PropertiesT1T2T3T4T5T6
pH (1:2.5 soil water extract)8.6 ± 0.02 a8.5 ± 0.07 ab8.1 ± 0.04 de8.0 ± 0.07 e8.2 ± 0.07 cd8.4 ± 0.07 bc
EC (dS m−1)0.56 ± 0.02 d0.62 ± 0.01 e0.90 ± 0.02 a0.86 ± 0.03 a0.75 ± 0.02 b0.64 ± 0.03 c
Soil organic matter (SOM, %)1.2 ± 0.05 c1.3 ± 0.11 c2.2 ± 0.11 a1.6 ± 0.07 b1.7 ± 0.07 b1.6 ± 0.04 b
Nitrogen (N, %)0.069 ± 0.01 b0.080 ± 0.01 b0.147 ± 0.01 a0.129 ± 0.01 a0.128 ± 0.01 a0.117 ± 0.01 a
Available Phosphorus (P, mg kg−1)1.60 ± 0.08 d1.88 ± 0.07 c2.50 ± 0.07 a2.20 ± 0.07 b2.15 ± 0.04 b2.03 ± 0.05 bc
Extractable Potassium (K, mg kg−1)78.1 ± 0.93 c80.3 ± 1.11 d98.3 ± 0.57 a94.1 ± 0.95 b89.6 ± 0.64 c87.7 ± 0.83 c
T1 = N:P (100:50 kg ha−1); T2 = N:P:K (100:50:50 kg ha−1); T3 = Vermicompost1 (2 t ha−1); T4 = Vermicompost2 (2 t ha−1); T5 = N:P:K + Vermicompost1 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1); T6 = N:P:K + Vermicompost2 (50:25:25 kg ha−1 + 1.5 t ha−1).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qasim, M.; Ju, J.; Zhao, H.; Bhatti, S.M.; Saleem, G.; Memon, S.P.; Ali, S.; Younas, M.U.; Rajput, N.; Jamali, Z.H. Morphological and Physiological Response of Tomato to Sole and Combined Application of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizers. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061508

AMA Style

Qasim M, Ju J, Zhao H, Bhatti SM, Saleem G, Memon SP, Ali S, Younas MU, Rajput N, Jamali ZH. Morphological and Physiological Response of Tomato to Sole and Combined Application of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizers. Agronomy. 2023; 13(6):1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061508

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qasim, Muhammad, Jing Ju, Haitao Zhao, Saleem Maseeh Bhatti, Gulnaz Saleem, Saima Parveen Memon, Shahzaib Ali, Muhammad Usama Younas, Nimra Rajput, and Zameer Hussain Jamali. 2023. "Morphological and Physiological Response of Tomato to Sole and Combined Application of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizers" Agronomy 13, no. 6: 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061508

APA Style

Qasim, M., Ju, J., Zhao, H., Bhatti, S. M., Saleem, G., Memon, S. P., Ali, S., Younas, M. U., Rajput, N., & Jamali, Z. H. (2023). Morphological and Physiological Response of Tomato to Sole and Combined Application of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizers. Agronomy, 13(6), 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061508

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop