Next Article in Journal
The Chemistry and Health Outcomes of Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Leachate: Exposure to E-Waste Is Toxic to Atlantic Killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) Embryos
Next Article in Special Issue
Vermicomposting as a Sustainable Option for Managing Biomass of the Invasive Tree Acacia dealbata Link
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Deforestation on Climate Change: A Co-Integration and Causality Approach with Time Series
Previous Article in Special Issue
Drying of Food Waste for Potential Use as Animal Feed
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impact of Vermicomposting on Greenhouse Gas Emission: A Short Review

by
Amrita Kumari Panda
1,†,
Rojita Mishra
2,†,
Joystu Dutta
3,*,
Zishan Ahmad Wani
4,
Shreekar Pant
5,
Sazada Siddiqui
6,*,
Saad Abdulrahman Alamri
6,
Sulaiman A. Alrumman
6,
Mohammed Ali Alkahtani
6 and
Satpal Singh Bisht
7
1
Department of Biotechnology, Sant Gahira Guru University, Ambikapur 497001, Chhattisgarh, India
2
Department of Botany, Polasara Science College, Polasara 761105, Odisha, India
3
Department of Environmental Sciences, Sant Gahira Guru University, Ambikapur 497001, Chhattisgarh, India
4
Department of Botany, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri 185234, Jammu and Kashmir, India
5
Center for Biodiversity Studies, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri 185234, Jammu and Kashmir, India
6
Department of Biology, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
7
Department of Zoology, Kumaun University, Nainital 263002, Uttarakhand, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11306; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811306
Submission received: 19 July 2022 / Revised: 1 September 2022 / Accepted: 4 September 2022 / Published: 9 September 2022

Abstract

:
The implementation of cutting-edge agricultural practices provides tools and techniques to drive climate-smart agriculture, reduce carbon emissions, and lower the carbon footprint. The alteration of climate conditions due to human activities poses a serious threat to the global agricultural systems. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from organic waste management need urgent attention to optimize conventional composting strategies for organic wastes. The addition of various inorganic materials such as sawdust and fly ash mitigate GHG during the vermicomposting process. This paper critically investigates the factors responsible for GHG emissions during vermicomposting so that possible threats can be managed.

1. Introduction

The changing temperature conditions, precipitation variability, and the incidence of extreme weather events are increasing day by day throughout the world, including the Indian subcontinent [1]. The Paris Climate Conference (COP21) created the goal of limiting the amount of heat-trapping gases, i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (F-gases) emitted globally. The largest climatic impacts will be greatest in those regions where agricultural production is vital for securing livelihoods and promoting economic growth [2]. Soil is a major source and sink of greenhouse gases, producing approximately one-fifth of global CO2 emissions [3], roughly one-third of global CH4 emissions, and two-thirds of N2O emissions [4]. The green revolution has increased global food production which indirectly increased the dependence of farmers on synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides. The repetitive use of chemical fertilizers causes severe environmental and land degradation. Vermicomposting is an integrated biological process of converting organic waste into vermicast by employing earthworms and naturally occurring microbes under a mesophilic environment. Vermicomposting has been reported as a sustainable technique for the treatment and management of different organic wastes [5]. Earthworms increase the bacterial abundance in the soil as their gut conditions are favorable for the multiplication of bacteria and the suppression of fungi [6].
The burrowing action of earthworms efficiently maintains anaerobic conditions in vermibeds and thereby lowers greenhouse gas emissions [7]. The emission of greenhouse gases during vermicomposting has only been documented recently [8,9,10]. The effects of the presence of earthworms during vermicomposting on greenhouse gas emissions have not been analyzed specifically, but a study reported that the vermicomposting of household waste emitted more CO2 and CH4, but less N2O than traditional composting [11]; however, Yang et al. reported the positive role of earthworms in reducing gaseous emissions in vermicompost [12], resulting in fewer emissions of NH3 and total greenhouse gases (8.1 kg CO2-eq/t DM) than those from thermophilic compost. The earthworm addition during composting showed less gas emission from animal manure [13,14], however, another study [15] reported more greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional composting. Thus, the aim of the present review is to provide an inclusive outline of the factors and conditions accountable for greenhouse gas emissions during the vermicomposting process so that this environment-friendly process can be optimized with comparatively less emission.

2. Vermicomposting

Vermicomposting is an eco-friendly technique that utilizes earthworms, soil microbial flora, and a few endemic gut flora of earthworms to convert solid and other agri-waste into vermicast. The earthworm gut is anoxic and has an elevated amount of water, sugars, organic and amino acids, thus providing the best environment for various microbial flora such as cellulitic, denitrifying bacteria, chitin degraders, ammonia oxidizers, and nitrogen fixers, etc. The decomposition of organic waste into nutrient-rich vermicast is mediated by the burrowing, gut digestion, casting, and mucus secretion of earthworms during the vermicomposting process [16]. Several studies have reported that vermicompost is a rich source of P, N, K, Mg, Ca, and S that, in turn, improves soil health and that plants can easily uptake these nutrients [17]. Vermicompost also acts as a biocontrol agent as it contains antagonistic microorganisms to control phytopathogens [18]. The tremulous urbanization thrust toward worldwide economic development leads to the huge production of both municipal and industrial waste per capita and creates an uncomfortable situation for waste management. Waste management in landfills releases huge greenhouse gases around 3640 mg CO2-e/m2/hour, whereas vermicomposting emits only 463 mg CO2-e/m2/hour [19]. The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2005 reported that 17 million tons of greenhouse gases were emitted in Australia due to landfills in the year 2005. Waste management practices were next to agriculture in enhanced greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that need urgent attention [7]. Vermicomposting of various organic wastes emits unpredictable amounts of CO2, CH4, and N2O based on their C and N content. Though vermicomposting is an environmentally friendly and sustainable approach on a large scale, it is still associated with the high emission of greenhouse gases. There are reports that vermicomposting lessen methane emissions in comparison to composting [20,21] and it was reported that the emission of CH4 and N2O reduced to 32% and 40%, respectively, with high moisture content, whereas the emission reduced to 16% and 23% at low moisture condition [13]. A recent study by [22] explained that earthworms played a positive role in soil carbon mineralization by employing a statistical model and revealed a 24% increase in carbon mineralization in the presence of earthworms with 1.95 mg/g soil dry mass earthworm density. Two important factors that affect soil carbon mineralization are earthworm density and time from their inoculation [22]. Greenhouse gas emissions could be mitigated by maintaining aeration, moisture content, and temperature in the vermicomposting peats. The greatest advantage of vermicomposting over conventional thermophilic composting is that it can be used immediately after its production.

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Organic Waste Management

Greenhouse gas emission is one of the foremost problems connected with waste management; CO2 is generated under strictly aerobic conditions, whereas CH4 and N2O are produced from the anaerobic mineralization of organic waste [23]. The COP21 Paris climate change conference established the desire to reduce GHG in all sectors [24]. China had the highest CO2 emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land use in 2014, followed by the United States, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan (Figure 1). Greenhouse gas emissions have many detrimental ecosystem impacts such as the melting of glaciers, rise in sea level, global warming, acidification of the ocean, etc. Many studies reported that the Earth’s temperature increased by 1 °C in the last 100 years and the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) predicted that the global average temperature would increase by 5.8°C by the end of 2100. There are reports that by maintaining aerobic conditions during the composting process, GHG emissions can be mitigated up to a certain extent [25,26]. The mixing of waste material in vermicomposting beds at regular intervals, size reduction, and mandatory aeration reduce CH4 emission to a substantial extent.

3.1. Mitigating GHGs Emission during the Vermicomposting of Waste

The mitigation policies to lessen the GHG emission during vermicomposting comprise the following: use of C-rich amendment material such as sawdust [28], red mud and fly ash [29], inorganic material [30], and an aeration system. The selection of a bulking agent is based on locally available agricultural residues such as wood chips [31], corn stalks [8], and spent mushrooms and cotton gins [32]. The role of biochar in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has been documented in many pieces of literature [29,33]. Greenhouse gas emission during composting and vermicomposting is controlled by various factors such as aeration, the addition of a bulking agent, pH, temperature, and C/N ratio [34]. Many studies suggest that the incorporation of sewage sludge and cow dung significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions [35]. Wang et al. found that a reed straw addition to duck dung reduces N2O generation. However, manure cannot be used in vermicomposting as it enhances GHG production [34]. Greenhouse gas emission is linked with the carbon content of the waste used. Vermicomposting can be used for reducing the methane emission from the sewage sludge with an additive of pelletized wheat straw [36]. There are reports that worm composting reduces CH4 emissions in comparison to controlled conditions due to the aerobic environment maintained in the pile by the earthworms. The increased aeration period and suitable maintenance reduce CH4 emissions during the vermicomposting process. Moisture is also an important factor that regulates greenhouse gas emissions during vermicomposting. Excess moisture in worm composting bins causes the death of worms, increases N2O emission by enhancing the process of nitrification and denitrification, and induces CH4 emissions by supporting the growth of methanogenic bacteria in vermibeds.
The center of the anoxic earthworm gut contains the highest concentration of N2O [37,38]. An increase in the radius of the earthworm might increase the probability that the N2O is further reduced to N2 before it leaves the alimentary canal [39]. There are reports that gut passage time and competing redox processes may be important factors for the in vivo emission of N2O and N2 by earthworms [40]. The passage through the earthworm gut accelerates the decomposition of organic matter due to mineralization, fragmentation, and the consequent increase in microbial activity (Figure 2) thus, higher C storage occurs with the physical protection of soil organic matter inside cast aggregates [41]. The feeding ratio is also an important parameter for the determination of GHG emissions during vermicomposting (Table 1).

3.2. Effect of Feeding Ratio on Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG)

The feeding ratio is the ratio of substrate added over earthworm biomass [43]. The optimum feeding ratio helps in decreasing GHGE by 23–48% as compared to non-earthworm-treated composting. A low amount of GHGE during vermicomposting is because of many factors such as (i) earthworms help to increase aeration due to the continuous turning of the substrates [11,16] and (ii) stabilization of the substrate after passing through the gut of the earthworm [44]. In case of a high feeding ratio, the conditions are reversed and GHGE increases. The findings for GHGE during vermicomposting are contradictory; for example, [15,45] had a different view than that of [8,11,16]. This difference in result can be well explained in terms of the feeding and burrowing behavior of earthworms [45], carbon quality and nitrogen content [16,44], temperature, and scale of the experiment [11,44]. The denitrification process that takes place inside the earthworm gut is the main physiological process for N2O emission in anecic earthworms [45]. A high feeding ratio decreases the conversion rate of fresh materials into vermicompost. Previous studies revealed that more food supply decreases the biomass and reproduction of earthworms [44]. However, a low feeding ratio increases the mineralization of nitrogen compared with a high feeding ratio [43]. A high feeding ratio increases temperature and obstructs air circulation in the pile [45], both of which influence GHG emissions. At a supra-optimal feeding ratio per unit of earthworm biomass, increased temperature in piles also causes earthworm mortality and larger GHG emissions. There are reports that the high moisture content reduces CH4 and N2O emission in vermibeds by 32% and 40% but low moisture reduces the emission only by 16% and 23% [44]. The analysis of various factors affecting the rate of emission of greenhouse gases will enhance our understanding to develop experimental models to lessen GHG emissions.

3.3. Role of Earthworms in Soil Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration is a process to fix and store atmospheric carbon dioxide and results in the mitigation of global warming. Soil organic matter (SOM) is formed due to litter decomposition and plays an indispensable role in soil carbon (C) sequestration [39]. In the comparison of systems without earthworms and with earthworms, a sequence of events takes place that actually deals with carbon cycling and carbon sequestration. From Figure 3 and Figure 4 it is well understood that the earthworms decrease the potentially mineralizable carbon and increase the readily mineralizable carbon and stabilized carbon. A study reported that earthworms increased the carbon mineralization in straw by employing C13 labeling [46] and creates a priming effect by inducing organic matter mineralization [47]. There is a report that soil organic C stock and carbon sequestration increased to a small extent due to the addition of vermicompost at a 5 t ha−1 rate [48]. This little augmentation in the soil organic C stock may generate large impacts in reducing the concentration of atmospheric C. The presence of earthworms adds vermicast to soil and enhances the soil’s physicochemical and biological properties which favor the growth of plant roots in the deeper layer of soil and gather more C in the soil [48]. The increase in organic C in soil maintains a sustainable agriculture system and behaves as a potent sink of atmospheric CO2 [49]. Reduced tillage, improving soil biodiversity, managing wastes/vermicompost, micro-aggregation, and mulching can play a significant role in decreasing CO2 emissions and enhancing soil C sequestration [50]. The net carbon sequestration mainly depends on the pool size of the activated carbon and its utilization in the formation of stabilized carbon and mineralized carbon [51]. Earthworms have various impacts on the C cycle, based on soil organic carbon content, and do not play a significant role in CO2 emission but increase net C sequestration as huge amounts of C, i.e., earthworm-activated C, are present and stabilized by earthworms [51].
An earthworm affects net C sequestration due to unequal amplification of carbon stabilization in comparison to C mineralization and generates an earthworm-mediated carbon trap (Figure 5). The changes in the chemical composition of soil organic matter over a longer period of time in earthworm treatments lower C loss and creates greater C sequestration. Earthworms enhance C stabilization in macro and micro-aggregates formed in their casts. A similar kind of observation was made by [52] that 35% of new C is augmented in biogenic aggregates, compared to a conventional system. The scale and method of C dynamics in an agroecosystem are greatly influenced by the earthworms [53]. The feeding manner of earthworms can differentially change the integration of fresh organic material (OM) into biogenic aggregates. This might have significant consequences for C protection and extended soil organic carbon (SOC) storage [54].

4. Conclusions and Future Perspective

Earthworms, while burrowing, ingest soil, add various biodegradable compounds such as proteins, sugars, etc., and egest this mixed mineral soil as a nutrient-rich cast. The vermicast is a good source of phosphorous and nitrogen due to the higher activity of microorganisms in it. The presence of bioavailable compounds in the cast increases the carbon use efficiency of microorganisms and developed microbial necromass which becomes stabilized inside vermicast aggregates. The presence of earthworms influences the soil structure, porosity, nutrient dynamics, and microbial activity which increases plant growth, yield, and percentage of photosynthesized carbon. In sustainable agricultural practices, vermicasts can be used as a natural amendment to improve soil conditions and increase nutrient content in the soil; it also helps to meet the nutritional requirements of plant species [55]. An experiment performed with a greenhouse pot revealed that the application of vermicast alone (100%) or 75% vermicast with added Mycorrhizal fungi was toxic to plants, due to high chemical nutrient concentrations, compared to the addition of 25% or 50% vermicast [56]. Vermicast is rich in beneficial microorganisms, essential nutrients, humic and non-humic substances, and growth-promoting hormones with desirable physical properties [57,58,59]. The large surface area of vermicast granules provides more microsites for microbial activity and nutrient retention [60,61]. This leads to slow nutrient release for an extensive time period. The availability of scientific literature regarding nutrient mineralization and pattern of release is limited [62]. Despite many studies on the effect of earthworms on the soil microbial community, it is still not clear whether the earthworm has its own microbiota or if it originates from the soil. Further research is needed to understand the shift of microorganisms and the activation of microbial genes induced by earthworm activity. This mini-review indicates that there is a research gap in determining the exact GHG emissions during the vermicomposting process. Worm composting with different additives and earthworm species should be investigated, along with the impact of seasons on GHG emissions during vermicomposting. Large-scale research on vermicomposting is scant due to various challenges in accurate GHG measurement methods. The measurement, mitigation, and perspectives on the emission of commonly known GHGs during composting and vermicomposting have been reviewed in detail by [34]. Further research is essential to find out the most accurate method for large-scale GHG measurement.

Author Contributions

A.K.P. and R.M. drafted the manuscript, A.K.P., R.M. and J.D. were responsible for preparing the tables and figures in the manuscript. A.K.P. and R.M. equally contributed in writing the first drafting of the manuscript. A.K.P., Z.A.W., S.P., S.S., S.S.B., S.A.A. (Saad Abdulrahman Alamri), S.A.A. (Sulaiman A. Alrumman) and M.A.A. assisted in revising the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work through the Small Groups Project under grant number (R.G.P.1/360/43).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or personal relationship that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Mathison, C.; Wiltshire, A.; Dimri, A.P.; Falloon, P.; Jacob, D.; Kumar, P.; Moors, E.; Ridley, J.; Siderius, C.; Stoffel, M.; et al. Regional projections of North Indian climate for adaptation studies. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 468, S4–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Biggs, E.M.; Gupta, N.; Saikia, S.D.; Duncan, J.M. The tea landscape of Assam: Multi-stakeholder insights into sustainable livelihoods under a changing climate. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2018, 82, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rastogi, M.; Singh, S.; Pathak, H. Emission of carbon dioxide from soil. Curr. Sci. 2002, 82, 510–518. [Google Scholar]
  4. Smith, K.A.; Ball, T.; Conen, F.; Dobbie, K.E.; Massheder, J.; Rey, A. Exchange of greenhouse gases between soil and atmosphere: Interactions of soil physical factors and biological processes. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 54, 779–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Frederickson, J.; Howell, G. Large-scale vermicomposting: Emission of nitrous oxide and effects of temperature on earthworm populations: The 7th international symposium on earthworm ecology·Cardiff·Wales. Pedobiologia 2003, 47, 724–730. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, G.G. How do earthworms affect microfloral and faunal community diversity. Plant Soil. 1995, 170, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Swati, A.; Hait, S. Greenhouse Gas Emission During Composting and Vermicomposting of Organic Wastes—A Review. Clean 2003, 46, 1700042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, J.; Hu, Z.; Xu, X.; Jiang, X.; Zheng, B.; Liu, X.; Pan, X.; Kardol, P. Emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases during combined pre-composting and vermicomposting of duck manure. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1546–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Wu, Y.; Shaaban, M.; Zhao, J.; Hao, R.; Hu, R. Effect of the earthworm gut-stimulated denitrifiers on soil nitrous oxide emissions. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2015, 70, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lubbers, I.M.; Van Groenigen, K.J.; Brussaard, L.; Van Groenigen, J.W. Reduced greenhouse gas mitigation potential of no-tillage soils through earthworm activity. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 13787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Chan, Y.C.; Sinha, R.K.; Wang, W. Emission of greenhouse gases from home aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion and vermicomposting of household wastes in Brisbane (Australia). Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 540–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, F.; Li, G.; Zang, B.; Zhang, Z. The Maturity and CH4, N2O, NH3 Emissions from Vermicomposting with Agricultural Waste. Compost Sci. Util. 2017, 25, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nigussie, A.; Kuyper, T.W.; Bruun, S.; de Neergaard, A. Vermicomposting as a technology for reducing nitrogen losses and greenhouse gas emissions from small-scale composting. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mahapatra, S.; Ali, M.H.; Samal, K. Assessment of compost maturity-stability indices and recent development of composting bin. Energy Nex. 2022, 6, 100062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hobson, A.M.; Frederickson, J.; Dise, N.B. CH4 and N2O from mechanically turned windrow and vermicomposting systems following in-vessel pre-treatment. Waste Manag. 2005, 25, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Huang, K.; Xia, H. Role of earthworms’ mucus in vermicomposting system: Biodegradation tests based on humification and microbial activity. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610, 703–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mahmud, M.; Abdullah, R.; Yaacob, J.S. Effect of vermicompost on growth, plant nutrient uptake and bioactivity of ex vitro pineapple (Ananas comosus var. MD2). Agronomy 2020, 10, 1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. 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. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Singh, S.; Sinha, R.K. Vermicomposting of organic wastes by earthworms: Making wealth from waste by converting ‘garbage into gold’for farmers. In Advanced Organic Waste Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 93–120. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lv, B.; Zhang, D.; Cui, Y.; Yin, F. Effects of C/N ratio and earthworms on greenhouse gas emissions during vermicomposting of sewage sludge, Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 268, 408–414. [Google Scholar]
  21. Samal, K.; Naushin, Y.; Priya, K. Challenges in the implementation of Phyto Fuel System (PFS) for wastewater treatment and harnessing bio-energy. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Garnier, P.; Makowski, D.; Hedde, M.; Bertrand, M. Changes in soil carbon mineralization related to earthworm activity depend on the time since inoculation and their density in soil. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13616. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pereira, R.F.; Cardoso, E.J.B.N.; Oliveira, F.C.; Estrada-Bonilla, G.A.; Cerri, C.E.P. A novel way of assessing C dynamics during urban organic waste composting and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical region. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2018, 3, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rogelj, J.; den Elzen, M.; Höhne, N.; Fransen, T.; Fekete, H.; Winkler, H.; Schaeffer, R.; Sha, F.; Riahi, K.; Meinshausen, M. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 2016, 534, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, Q.; Ren, X.; Zhao, J.; Huang, H.; Awasthi, S.K.; Lahori, A.H.; Li, R.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, Z. Role of biochar amendment in mitigation of nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emission during sewage sludge composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 219, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nigussie, A.; Bruun, S.; Kuyper, T.W.; de Neergaard, A. Delayed addition of nitrogen-rich substrates during composting of municipal wastes: Effects on nitrogen loss, greenhouse gas emissions and compost stability. Chemosphere 2017, 166, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Boden, T.; Marland, G.; Andres, R.J. National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2017; pp. 1751–2014. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yang, F.; Li, G.X.; Yang, Q.Y.; Luo, W.H. Effect of bulking agents on maturity and gaseous emissions during kitchen waste composting. Chemosphere 2013, 93, 1393–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Barthod, J.; Rumpel, C.; Calabi-Floody, M.; Mora, M.L.; Bolan, N.S.; Dignac, M.F. Adding worms during composting of organic waste with red mud and fly ash reduces CO2 emissions and increases plant available nutrient contents. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 222, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Mupambwa, H.A.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. Optimizing the vermicomposting of organic wastes amended with inorganic materials for production of nutrient-rich organic fertilizers: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 10577–10595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Maulini-Duran, C.; Artola, A.; Font, X.; Sanchez, A. Gaseous emissions in municipal wastes composting: Effect of the bulking agent. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 172, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Santos, A.; Bustamante, M.A.; Tortosa, G.; Moral, R.; Bernal, M.P. Gaseous emissions and process development during composting of pig slurry: The influence of the proportion of cotton gin waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, Y.; Hu, S.; Chen, J.; Muller, K.; Li, Y.; Fu, W.; Wang, H. Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: A review. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 546–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yasmin, N.; Jamuda, M.; Panda, A.K.; Samal, K.; Nayak, J.K. Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during composting and vermicomposting: Measurement, mitigation, and perspectives. Energy Nexus 2022, 7, 100092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Samal, K.; Mahapatra, S.; Ali, M.H.; Samal, K. Pharmaceutical wastewater as emerging contaminants (EC): Treatment technologies, impact on environment and human health. Energy Nexus 2022, 6, 100076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dume, B.; Hanc, A.; Svehla, P.; Chane, A.; Nigussie, A. Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions during the Composting and Vermicomposting of Sewage Sludge under the Effect of Different Proportions of Straw Pellets. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2021, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wust, P.K.; Horn, M.A.; Drake, H.L. In situ hydrogen and nitrous oxide as indicators of concomitant fermentation and denitrification in the alimentary canal of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 1852–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wust, P.K.; Horn, M.A.; Henderson, G.; Janssen, P.H.; Rehm, B.H.; Drake, H.L. Gut-associated denitrification and in vivo emission of nitrous oxide by the earthworm families Megascolecidae and Lumbricidae in New Zealand. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 3430–3436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Angst, G.; John, S.; Mueller, C.W.; Kogel-Knabner, I.; Rethemeyer, J. Tracing the sources and spatial distribution of organic carbon in subsoils using a multi-biomarker approach. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Peter, S.D.J.; Siu, M.T.; Marcus, A.H.; Harold, L.D. Emission of nitrous oxide and dinitrogen by diverse earthworm families from Brazil and resolution of associated denitrifying and nitrate-dissimilating taxa. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2013, 83, 375–391. [Google Scholar]
  41. Angst, S.; Mueller, C.W.; Cajthaml, T.; Angst, G.; Lhotakova, Z.; Bartuska, M.; Špaldoňová, A.; Frouz, J. Stabilization of soil organic matter by earthworms is connected with physical protection rather than with chemical changes of organic matter. Geoderma 2017, 289, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lleo, T.; Albacete, E.; Barrena, R.; Font, X.; Artola, A.; Sanchez, A. Home and vermicomposting as sustainable options for biowaste management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ndegwa, P.; Thompson, S.; Das, K. Effects of stocking density and feeding rate on vermicomposting of biosolids. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 71, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luth, R.P.; Germain, P.; Lecomte, M.; Landrain, B.; Li, Y.; Cluzeau, D. Earthworm effects on gaseous emissions during vermifiltration of pig fresh slurry. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3679–3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lubbers, I.M.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Fonte, S.J.; Six, J.; Brussaard, L.; van Groenigen, J.W. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Potthoff, M.; Joergensenb, R.G.; Woltersc, V. Short-term effects of earthworm activity and straw amendment on the microbial C and N turnover in a remoistened arable soil after summer drought. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 583–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bernard, L.; Chapuis-Lardy, L.; Razafimbelo, T.; Razafindrakoto, M.; Pablo, A.L.; Legname, E.; Poulain, J.; Brüls, T.; O’Donohue, M.; Brauman, A.; et al. Endogeic earthworms shape bacterial functional communities and affect organic matter mineralization in a tropical soil. ISME J. 2012, 6, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Urmi, T.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Islam, M.M.; Islam, M.A.; Jahan, N.A.; Mia, M.A.B.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Kalaji, H.M. Integrated Nutrient Management for Rice Yield, Soil Fertility, and Carbon Sequestration. Plants 2022, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gnanavelrajah, N.; Shrestha, R.P.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Samarakoon, L. Carbon stock assessment and soil carbon management in agricultural land-uses in Thailand. Land Degrad. Dev. 2008, 19, 242–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Russell, A.E.; Larid, D.A.; Parkin, T.B.; Mallarino, A.P. Impact of nitrogen fertilization and cropping system on carbon sequestration in Midwestern Mollisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, W.; Hendrix, P.F.; Dame, L.E.; Burke, R.A.; Wu, J.; Neher, D.A.; Li, J.; Shao, Y.; Fu, S. Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Fonte, S.J.; Kong, A.Y.Y.; Van Kessel, C.; Hendrix, P.F.; Six, J. Influence of earthworm activity on aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen dynamics differs with agroecosystem management. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hedde, M.; Bureau, F.; Delporte, P.C.; Ecillon, L.; Decaens, T. The effects of earthworm species on soil behaviour depend on land use. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 65, 264e273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bossuyt, H.; Six, J.; Hendrix, P.F. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm cast. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Blouin, M.; Barrere, J.; Meyer, N.; Lartigue, S.; Barot, S.; Mathieu, J. Vermicompost significantly affects plant growth. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 39, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abbey, L.; Appah, P. Pot-grown swiss chard and kale responses to a variable rate of manure compost in mycorrhizal fungi inoculated medium. In Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Organic Greenhouse Horticulture 1164, Izmir, Turkiye, 11–14 April 2016; pp. 241–248. [Google Scholar]
  57. Nagavallemma, K.P.; Wani, S.P.; Lacroix, S.; Padmaja, V.V.; Vineela, C.; Rao, M.B.; Sahrawat, K.L. Vermicomposting, Recycling Wastes into Valuable Organic Fertilizer. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 8; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Patancheru, India, 2004; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  58. Abbey, L.; Pham, T.H.; Annan, N.; Leke-Aladekoba, A.; Thomas, R.H. Chemical composition of kale as influenced by dry vermicast, potassium humate and volcanic minerals. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 726–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. El-Goud, A.; Amal, K. Efficiency response of vermicompost and vermitea levels on growth and yield of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 2020, 41, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shi-Wei, Z.; Fu-Zhen, H. The nitrogen uptake efficiency from 15N labeled chemical fertilizer in the presence of earthworm manure (cast). In Advances in Management and Conservation of Soil Fauna; Oxford and IBH Publishing Company: New Delhi, Bombay, India, 2019; pp. 539–542. [Google Scholar]
  61. Palaniappan, S.; Alagappan, M.; Rayar, S. Influence of substrate particle size on vermicomposting of pre-processed vegetable waste. Nat. Env. Pollut. Technol. 2018, 17, 277–286. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lin, S.; Gunupuru, L.R.; Ofoe, R.; Saleh, R.; Asiedu, S.K.; Thomas, R.H.; Abbey, L. Mineralization and nutrient release pattern of vermicast-sawdust mixed media with or without addition of Trichoderma viride. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Various carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from countries in 2014 (Source: [27]).
Figure 1. Various carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from countries in 2014 (Source: [27]).
Sustainability 14 11306 g001
Figure 2. Vermicomposting in climate-smart agriculture.
Figure 2. Vermicomposting in climate-smart agriculture.
Sustainability 14 11306 g002
Figure 3. Carbon sequestration in a system without earthworms.
Figure 3. Carbon sequestration in a system without earthworms.
Sustainability 14 11306 g003
Figure 4. Carbon sequestration in a system with earthworms; BC: basal activated carbon; PMC: potentially mineralizable carbon; SBC: stabilized carbon; and RMC: readily mineralizable carbon.
Figure 4. Carbon sequestration in a system with earthworms; BC: basal activated carbon; PMC: potentially mineralizable carbon; SBC: stabilized carbon; and RMC: readily mineralizable carbon.
Sustainability 14 11306 g004
Figure 5. The earthworm-mediated carbon trap (modified from [51]) conceptualized interpretation of the effect of earthworms.
Figure 5. The earthworm-mediated carbon trap (modified from [51]) conceptualized interpretation of the effect of earthworms.
Sustainability 14 11306 g005
Table 1. Parameters mitigating GHGs emissions during vermicomposting.
Table 1. Parameters mitigating GHGs emissions during vermicomposting.
S. NoParametersVermicomposting ReactorComposting ReactorReference
Methane
[CH4]
NitrousOxide
[N2O]
Carbon Dioxide
[CO2]
Duration
Days
Methane
[CH4]
Nitrous Oxide
[N2O]
Carbon Dioxide
[CO2]
Duration
Days
1Earthworm species
(i)
Eisenia fetida, Perionyx excavatus, Eudriluseuginaeand Lumbricusrebellus
(ii)
Eisenia andrei and Eisenia foetida(Red mud addition)
(iii)
Eisenia fetida
4.76
kg mg−1
0.033
(μg g−1 h−1)
2.28
(kg CO2-eq t¡1 DM)
1.17
kg mg−1
0.012
(μg g−1 h−1)
5.76
(kg CO2-eq t¡1 DM)
1675
kg mg−1
16.5 % decrease in CO2 emission
N.M
30–60
56
50
2.2
kg mg−1
0.024
(μg g−1 h−1)
10.52
(kg CO2-eq t¡1 DM)
1.5
kg mg−1
0.007
(μg g−1 h−1)
12.29
(kg CO2-eq t¡1 DM)
882
kg mg−1
519–730 (mg g−1)
N.M
30–60
56
50
[11]
[29]
[12]
2Waste characteristics
(i)
Municipal solid waste
(ii)
Home waste
(iii)
Source segregated
Household waste
2.2 × 10−3
kg mg−1
4.76
kg mg−1
0.02–0.38
kg mg−1
N.D
1.17
kg mg−1
0.12–1.5
kg mg−1
N.M
1675
kg mg−1
N.M.
240
30–60
84
1.4
kg mg−1
2.2
kg mg−1
0.05–6.6
kg mg−1
1.2 ppm
kg mg−1
1.5
kg mg−1
0.005–0.37
kg mg−1
N.M
882
kg mg−1
N.M.
240
120
84
[42]
[11]
[15]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Panda, A.K.; Mishra, R.; Dutta, J.; Wani, Z.A.; Pant, S.; Siddiqui, S.; Alamri, S.A.; Alrumman, S.A.; Alkahtani, M.A.; Bisht, S.S. Impact of Vermicomposting on Greenhouse Gas Emission: A Short Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811306

AMA Style

Panda AK, Mishra R, Dutta J, Wani ZA, Pant S, Siddiqui S, Alamri SA, Alrumman SA, Alkahtani MA, Bisht SS. Impact of Vermicomposting on Greenhouse Gas Emission: A Short Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811306

Chicago/Turabian Style

Panda, Amrita Kumari, Rojita Mishra, Joystu Dutta, Zishan Ahmad Wani, Shreekar Pant, Sazada Siddiqui, Saad Abdulrahman Alamri, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Mohammed Ali Alkahtani, and Satpal Singh Bisht. 2022. "Impact of Vermicomposting on Greenhouse Gas Emission: A Short Review" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811306

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