Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Effect of Corporate ESG Management on Corporate Financial & Market Performance and Export
Next Article in Special Issue
A Meta-Analysis Study on the Use of Biochar to Simultaneously Mitigate Emissions of Reactive Nitrogen Gases (N2O and NO) from Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Conceptualizing Corporate Digital Responsibility: A Digital Technology Development Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of the Wetting Hydraulic Property of Soil on 1-D Water Infiltration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15032317
sustainability-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

Composting of Municipal Solid Waste Using Earthworms and Ligno-Cellulolytic Microbial Consortia for Reclamation of the Degraded Sodic Soils and Harnessing Their Productivity Potential

by
Yash Pal Singh
*,
Sanjay Arora
*,
Vinay K. Mishra
and
Arjun Singh
Regional Research Station, ICAR-Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Lucknow 226002, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 2317; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032317
Submission received: 24 December 2022 / Revised: 18 January 2023 / Accepted: 23 January 2023 / Published: 27 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue BRICS Soil Management for Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The management of municipal solid waste (MSW) and the reclamation of degraded sodic soils are two serious environmental and socio-economic problems experienced by the developing nations. To overcome these problems, a technology has been developed for the composting of MSW using earthworm and ligno-cellulolytic microbial consortia and its utilization for the sustainable reclamation of degraded sodic soils, as well as for harnessing their productivity potential. To standardize on-farm composting under aerobic conditions, the field experiment consisted of seven treatment combinations, replicated thrice with municipal solid waste (MSW) sole and in combination with agricultural wastes (AW) treated with earthworms (Eisenia foetida) and consortia of lingo-cellulolytic microbes such as Aspergillus spp., Trichoderma spp. and Bacillus spp. It was conducted at ICAR-CSSRI, Research farm, Shivri, Lucknow, India. The results revealed that the thermophilic phase was achieved at 60 days of composting and thereafter the temperature decreased. Marked changes in pH and EC were found and they changed from acidic to neutral. The reduction in total C, from initial to maturity, varied from 4.45 to 14.14% and the increase in total P and total K from 4.88 to 88.10% and 12.00 to 35.71%, respectively. The nutrient-rich quality compost based on the lowest C: N ratio, highest nutrient contents, microbial population (bacteria and fungi) and enzymatic activities was obtained from a mix of MSW and AW, enriched with earthworms and consortia of lingo-cellulolytic microbes. The efficacy of this enriched compost was evaluated for the reclamation of sodic soils and their potential for sustaining productivity of the rice-wheat cropping system was harnessed through combined application with a reduced dose of gypsum. The results indicated that the application of on-farm compost @10 t ha−1 in conjunction with a reduced quantity of gypsum (25% GR) significantly (p < 0.05) improved the physico-chemical and microbial soil properties, and enhanced productivity of the rice-wheat cropping system over the use of only gypsum. This study proved that on-farm compost of MSW and its utilization for the reclamation of degraded sodic soils can be an alternate solution for useful disposal and management of MSW, thereby improving the health and productivity of sodic soils.

1. Introduction

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a byproduct of industrial, mining, municipal, agricultural and other processes, and it poses disposal and management challenges globally. As per the available data, about 1300 million Mg of the MSW is annually generated globally and it is estimated to increase to about 2200 million Mg per year by 2025 [1]. A substantial increase in per capita waste generation rates, from 1.2 to 1.42 kg−1 day−1, will also be registered in the upcoming fifteen years [1]. According to the reports of the central pollution control board (CPCB) 2012, India produces about 12.74 million Mg of MSW per day [2]. With the increase in populations in cities and the changing lifestyle, more MSW will be generated which will end up in landfills and the aquatic ecosystem, causing gradual deterioration of soil health and climate as well. One of the upcoming eco-friendly solutions for the utilization of MSW waste is to recycle the decomposable organic component into a useful manure and apply it to improve soil health. The composting of MSW can be viewed as the common practice of recycling the organic degradable fraction of the municipal solid wastes. The generated compost can help in alleviating organic matter deficiency in soils vis-à-vis reducing the use of chemical fertilizers in crops. The municipal solid waste compost (MSWC), rich in organic matters with a low concentration of xenobiotic pollutants, is proposed as a low-cost soil recovery option for improving the physical, chemical and microbial properties of soil [3]. Being a rich source of mineralized nutrients, MSWC also contributes toward the improvement in crop productivity [4]. During the biodegradation of MSW, it is ultimately converted to humus rich substances with an increase in mineral content also [5]. The microbes and their concealed enzymes play an imperative role in biological and biochemical changes in the compost during the composting process [6]. The microbial enzymes produced during the composting of MSW proficiently degrade large organic molecules viz. cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin etc., into simple water-soluble compounds [7]. The dynamics of the composting process, including the decomposition of organic matter, its stability and maturity, can be modelled using microbial communities and enzyme activity. This could produce useful data on the compost’s quality and rate of biodegradation [8,9,10].
The salinity affects over 6% of the world’s land area (FAO, 2008), which accounts for over 800 million hectares in nearly 100 countries. Sodic/solonetz constitute 581 million hectares [11], out of the total salt affected soils. In India, of the total geographical area (328 million ha), about 2.1% (6.73 million hectares) is salt affected land. Out of this land, 2.8 million ha are sodic and primarily occur in the Indo-Gangetic alluvial plains and the remaining 3.9 million ha are saline soil [12]. Gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) is the major chemical ameliorant that is used for reclaiming the sodic soils in India. However, due to low hydraulic conductivity brought on by dispersion, the reclamation of sodic soil with this ameliorant fails to enhance the physical and biological characteristics of sodic soils [13]. Many studies on composting have focused on physio-chemical parameters of the compost to choose the quality of compost [14]. However, microbiological and biochemical parameters are also important indicators for the characterization of the composting process [5,15]. Turning MSW and agricultural wastes to an on-farm compost is an attractive proposition [16], but the farmers lack the techniques and knowledge to make the best use of the composting opportunities. This is because they are not aware of the on-farm composting technology. The present study was, therefore, conducted to standardize an on-farm composting protocol for MSW, along with the agricultural wastes mediated through earthworms and ligno-cellulolytic microbial consortia. The study aims to ascertain the efficacy of enriched compost, with a reduced dose of mineral gypsum, as an inorganic amendment for the amelioration of degraded sodic soils and to harness the productivity potential of degraded sodic soils.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Plan for On-Farm Composting

A three times replicated experiment for on-farm composting of MSW was conducted with seven treatments viz. T1: 100% MSW; T2: 100% MSW + microbial consortia; T3: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural wastes + microbial consortia; T4: 100% MSW + earthworms; T5: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural waste + earthworms; T6: 100% MSW + earthworms (Eisenia foetida) + microbial consortia; and T7: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural waste + earthworms + microbial consortia under aerobic conditions at the Research Farm, Shivri, of ICAR-Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Lucknow (260 47′ N; 800 46′ E), India, during 2014-15. Municipal solid wastes (MSW) were collected from 11 different locations in the Lucknow metro city and were segregated for degradable material, while agricultural wastes (AW) including paddy straw, mustard straw, Pongamia and Casuarina dry leaves were mixed in the ratio of 1:1 w/w and were filled in 360 × 120 × 120 cm HDPE vermi beds. Each bed was filled with a uniform quantity of composting material (Figure 1). Before initiating the composting process, chemical properties of all the composting materials were analyzed (Table 1). Microbial consortia of three efficient ligno-cellulolytic cultures such as Aspergillus terreus, Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus cereus were used for rapid composting. The consortia were mixed in 10 L of water and 1.0 kg of earthworms (Eisenia foetida) were added to the respective treatment beds and watered uniformly (5 L) at 4-day intervals to maintain the moisture in each bed. For proper aeration, at 15-day intervals, the turnings of composting material were performed manually until the maturity of the compost.

2.2. Sampling and Analysis of Composting Material

The samples of MSW and agricultural wastes (mustard stover, paddy straw, Pongamia leaves and Casuarina leaves) were collected, oven dried at 60 ± 2 °C, ground by a hammer mill, stored in dry airtight containers and analyzed before use for composting (Table 1). The samples were acid digested for analyzing total nitrogen (N) content by the Micro-kjeldahl distillation method and total phosphorus (P) content by the yellow color method by using ammonium molybdate-Meta vandate [17]. The organic carbon content was determined by the chromic acid wet oxidation method [18], and total carbon by the loss on ignition method by placing the sample in muffle furnace at 550 °C. Total Potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) contents were estimated in the diacid digestion extract using the standard protocol. Sulphate content in the diacid extract was estimated by the turbidity method.

2.3. Changes Monitored during Composting

2.3.1. Changes in the Physical Properties

To measure the fluctuations in the temperature, metal probe thermometers of 60 cm [19] were injected up to 30 cm depth at three places in each treatment bed, and the temperature was recorded daily at 11:00AM and reported at an interval of 15 days. For the analysis of moisture content during composting, samples were collected from 30 cm depth from three places in each bed at and at an interval of 15 days. These were mixed together to make a composite sample for gravimetric analysis.

2.3.2. Changes in the Chemical Properties

For the analysis of chemical properties, samples were collected from 30 cm depth at three places in each treatment bed at an interval of 15 days and were mixed together to make a composite sample. The sample was then oven dried (60–70 °C), and ground using a mortar and pestle. The ground samples were then stored in dry, airtight containers for further analytical use. The pH of the sample was determined by taking 5.0 g compost mixed with 25 mL distilled water (1:5 w/v) and the mixture was stirred for 30 min. The pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured in the solution mixture using calibrated digital pH (Systronics µ pH system 661) and conductivity-TDS meter, respectively [20]. Total carbon content in the sample was assessed by the wet oxidation-rapid titration method [18] and the total N content was estimated in acid digestion by the Micro-kjeldahl distillation apparatus. Total P and total K were analyzed using standard methods described in the initial properties of composting material section.

2.3.3. Changes in Microbial Properties

To analyze the quantitative changes in the microbial population during the composting process, bacteria and fungi were enumerated from the compost samples using differential media following the procedure described by Nakasaki et al. 1992 [21]. Nutrient agar (NA) media for bacterial population, Pikovskayàs agar media for phosphate solubilizing microbes and potato dextrose agar (PDA) media for fungal population were used. All microbial counts were estimated on a dry weight basis. A serial dilution technique was employed to estimate the microbial population in the compost samples. The dilution level of 10−3 and 10−4 of each sample was prepared following the spread plate technique. The average numbers of microorganisms were expressed as colony forming units (CFU) per gram of dry compost. The viable colonies of bacteria and fungi were counted using a digital colony counter after incubation in the BOD incubator [22,23].

2.3.4. Changes in Enzymatic Activities

The 10 g fresh compost sample was collected in a flask containing 50 mL acetate buffer (0.1 M, pH 5.0) and shaken at 150 rpm on a rotatory shaker for 1 h to analyze the enzymatic activities of related enzymes using aqueous compost extracts. The flask content was filtered and then the 10 mL filtrate was centrifuged at 40 °C for 15 min at 5000 rpm. Afterwards, enzymatic activities were measured using supernatant. The α-amylase and xylanase activities were measured as per the procedure described by Shambe and Ejembi (1987) [24].

2.4. Assessing Efficacy of On-Farm Compost for Sodic Soil Reclamation and Crop Productivity

To assess the efficacy of the MSW compost in ameliorating degraded sodic soils and sustaining crop yields, a pot experiment was conducted with three replications imposing the four treatments viz. T1: Gypsum (G) @ 50% gypsum requirement (GR); T2: G @ 25% GR + MSW compost (MSWC) @10 Mg ha−1; T3: G @ 25% GR + industrial processed MSW compost (IPMSWC) @10 Mg ha−1; T4: G @ 25 % GR + pressmud (PM) @10 Mg ha−1 was conducted for three years (2014-15 to 2016-17). To fill the pots, highly sodic soil (pH2 9.8, EC2 147 µSm−1, ESP 78, OC 1.3 g kg−1) collected from the research farm Shivri (26° 47′ N; 80° 46′ E) was air dried, ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve, mixed thoroughly for homogeneity and used to analyze physico-chemical properties. A uniform quantity of soil (8 kg pot−1) was placed in each pot, having a surface area of 0.035 m2. The Schoonover (1952) method was used to estimate the gypsum requirement (GR) of the sodic soil [25]. Prior to the calculation of the amount of gypsum to be added in the pots as per the treatments, the chemical composition of mineral gypsum was analyzed. The gypsum quantity was calculated on the basis of soil volume and applied in the pots as per treatment, mixed in the soil to the depth of 15 cm and ponded with water for 10 days to displace the Ca-Na reaction product down to the root zone. The industrial processed municipal solid waste compost (IPMSWC) was collected from a nearby municipal solid waste treatment plant and press mud (11%Ca and 0.23% S) was a byproduct of sugar industry from nearby sugar mill. For proper leaching of the salts beyond the root zone, as per the protocol, organic amendments such as MSWC, IPMSWC and PM were applied after completion of the leaching process @10 Mg ha−1 and were mixed uniformly in the surface soil (0–15 cm) manually. These amendments were added once only over the study period. The three 30-day-old rice seedlings of salt tolerant variety ‘CSR 36′ were transplanted in each pot on July 15 every year. After the harvesting of rice, five seeds of the salt tolerant variety of wheat ‘KRL 210′ were sown in each pot on November 23. The recommended doses of chemical fertilizers for rice and wheat were applied uniformly in each treatment through urea, DAP (diammonium phosphate), MOP (muriate of potash) and zinc sulphate monohydrate, following the standard time and methods of application. Other intercultural agronomic operations, such as irrigation and weeding etc., were followed uniformly as per the requirements in all the treatments. All the observations associated with yield contributing characters and crop yield were recorded at maturity. After three years of growing rice-wheat crops, soil samples from 0–15 cm depths were collected from three places in each pot, mixed together to make a composite sample, air dried, ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve and used to analyze soil physico-chemical and microbial properties following the standard procedures.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical tool was used to compare the variances across the mean values of each observation from the different samples. For the treatments in which significant differences were observed, individual means were tested using the least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% probability [26]. The pooled yield data generated from the study were analyzed statistically using SPSS software version 21.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physico-Chemical Properties of Composting Material

The analyzed data presented in Table 1 reveal that the MSW was near neutral in reaction, with a pH value of 6.97, total nitrogen content of 0.52%, total carbon content of 28.35%, and C: N ratio of 54.51 ± 1.12. The farm wastes such as Pongamia and Casuarina leaves, mustard stover and paddy straw had average total N and total carbon contents of 1.25 ± 0.06 and 47.02 ± 0.33%, respectively, with an average C: N ratio of 37.61 ± 0.32 (Table 1). Total P and K in MSW were found to be 0.5 ± 0.02 g kg−1 and 2.8 ± 0.10 g kg−1, respectively; whereas, the corresponding values in agricultural wastes were 2.2 ± 0.2 and 5.2 ± 1.2 g kg−1, respectively. The total calcium, magnesium and sulphate contents were found to be 3.6, 1.0 and 1.1 g kg−1 in MSW, while being 3.0, 1.9 and 2.7 g kg−1 in agricultural wastes.

3.2. Bio-Physical Changes during Composting

3.2.1. Temperature

During composting, there is an increase in temperature as well as carbon dioxide evaluation due to the metabolic actions of microbes and their secreted enzymes [27]. The series of changes that occur during composting are generally characterized in terms of biophysical, chemical, as well as microbial properties [28,29]. Measuring the changes in temperature is one of the important parameters to assess the composting process, and its value determines the speed at which the biological process during composting takes place [30,31]. In our study, changes in temperature under different treatments throughout the composting period ranged between 31.0 and 58.4 °C, being directly governed by the evolution of CO2 due to microbial activities during composting [32]. Microbes involved in the MSW decomposition process increase the temperature, which is also known as thermophilic phase during composting, and at this stage most of the degradation of recalcitrant organic matter takes place. Statistically, the difference between these treatments was non-significant. This may be attributed to the higher initial activity of microorganisms using organic matter as a substrate from the raw composting materials, and composting environment for microbial and enzymatic activities. The reduction in temperature after 60DOC may be due to declining microbial and enzymatic activities because of the metabolization of most of the organic matter. The same outcome was also recognized during the composting of municipal solid waste by earlier workers [33,34].

3.2.2. Moisture Content

For the metabolic and physiological activities of micro-organisms, moisture content of the composting material is a chief environmental variable as it necessarily provides a medium for the transportation of the dissolved nutrients [35,36]. From the data (Figure 2B), it is evident that the moisture content in all the composting treatments was variable throughout the duration of experimentation. Direct correlations have been established between the microbial population [33] and the physiological activities of micro-organisms [37] on the compost’s moisture content. The moisture content during the composting period varied from 19.4% to 67.5%. It was higher at the initial stage of composting and reduced with increasing time. This may be due to the effect of reduced atmospheric temperature and increasing evaporation rate [38]. The highest moisture content (67.5%) was recorded in treatment T7, whereas the lowest was in T1 at 15 DOC. However, after 30 days onward, the moisture content between the treatments did not show any stable trend in all the treatments. However, at maturity, the moisture content in all the treatments was reduced significantly over the initial values (Figure 2B).

3.2.3. Changes in Chemical Properties

Changes in pH values during the composting process are shown in Figure 3A. The initial pH of composting material was 6.97; it increased gradually up to 60DOC and reached the maximum level of 8.52 in treatment T3. After 60 DOC, the pH started decreasing gradually up to maturity (120DOC) and reduced to the level of 7.32 (Figure 3A). The greatest reduction in pH was observed in treatment T4, but the differences between the treatments were statistically non-significant. From these data it is evident that the pH at the initial stage was near neutrality, it decreased and thereafter increased with time towards alkalinity, and returned to neutrality at the end of composting (120DAC). The reason behind the increasing pH after 15DOC was the evolution of free ammonia and dropping again due to formation of humus, along with its pH buffering capacity at the completion of the composting process [39,40,41]. The pH range that is best for composting is 6.0 to 8.0 because microorganisms flourish and are most active in this range. In comparison with recommended standard pH values, ours were found to be higher than the normal range. The possible reason being that during the degradation process, a decrease in pH can be associated with the production of CO2 from organic acid and loss of nitrogen [36,42].
The electrical conductivity (EC) is also one of the important factors to define the quality of compost, as its utilization can alter the chemical state of soils and seed germination with the presence of high salt concentration in compost [43]. There was a decrease in EC during the initial stage of composting and then it started increasing gradually up to 45 DOC and again showed a decreasing trend up to the final stage of composting (120DOC) (Figure 3B). During composting, the decline in EC may be the result of increased stability of the bridging bonds of ions and organic matter [37].

3.2.4. Changes in Nutrient Contents

The results obtained showed that the total carbon content at the initial stage ranges from 11.35% to 14.60%. The maximum total carbon content at 15DOC was found in treatment T7; whereas, it was lowest in T4, and it decreased gradually to maturity or on completion of composting. The maximum total carbon content was recorded (13.69%) in treatment T5 and minimum (11.14%) in T1. The breakdown and the conversion of complex organic compounds releases simpler water-soluble compounds with the evolution of CO2; the released degraded organic matter is assimilated by microorganisms as well [44,45,46]. At the beginning, the highest total N was found in treatment T3 (0.50%) and T5 (0.50%), followed by the treatments T2, T4, T6, T7 and T1 with 0.47, 0.46, 0.43, 0.42 and 0.40 per cent, respectively. At compost maturity (120DOC), the highest and lowest total N (0.79%) contents were estimated in treatment T7 and the lowest (0.43%) in T1. The increase in nitrogen content during composting is attributed to the action of nitrogen mineralizing enzymes, nitrogen transformation processes and a decrease in the loss of NH3 [47]. The highest total P (0.33%) at the initial stage of composting was recorded in the treatment T2, followed by T5, T7, T3, T4, T6 and T1, with the levels of 0.31, 0.31, 0.26, 0.26, 0.25 and 0.21%, respectively, at the start of composting. An increasing trend was seen in all the treatments, with the values ranging between 0.39 and 0.41%. Potassium is an essential nutrient for plants, and it gets immobilized in the presence of un-decomposed organic matter. The present study revealed that at the initial stage of composting, the highest K content (0.61%) was recorded with treatment T7, followed by T5, T6, T4, T2, T3 and T1. It increased gradually with time and the highest total K content at maturity was recorded in treatment T5 (0.76%) and the lowest (0.56%) in T2 (Table 2). During decomposition of the organic matter, especially sugars, a lot of organic acids and CO2 are released in the environment. Since potassium tends to get adsorbed in the soil matrix, the solubilizing action of the acids formed during the composting liberates the bound K and increases the ionic potassium in the compost [31,37,48,49]. Calcium is a vital nutrient and is required by organisms and plant cells to maintain their structure. The major sources of calcium in composting material are vegetables, food, animal wastes, organic wastes, etc. The calcium content between the treatments after 15 days of composting (15DOC) ranged from 100 to 190 ppm and at maturity (120DOC), there was a two times increase in its levels (210 to 270 ppm) (Table 2). An increase in calcium content at maturity of composting over the initial values has also been reported [37]. Sodium and Mg contents also increased in matured compost compared to initial levels in all composting treatments (Table 2). The release of adsorbed ions on the decomposition of organic materials and also the contribution from the native content in the raw waste on degradation have been known mechanisms.
The carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio is an important determinant of the state of mineralization for evaluating the nutritive value of the compost and whether it has been stabilized scrupulously [50,51,52]. With the decreasing total carbon (C) with increasing time elapsed vis-à-vis increasing total nitrogen (N) content, total phosphorus (P) content and total potassium (K) content during decomposition of MSW, and the C:N, C:P and C:K ratios also decreased (Figure 4). The C: N ratio in our study was higher (32:1) at the initial stage of composting in all the treatments and it decreased gradually with time. This is because mineralized N becomes part of the overall N pool of the matrix, whereas some part of the C is utilized by microbes and also released as CO2 in the disintegration of organic matter. These data show that the lowest C:N ratio of 22.35:1 at 15DOC was recorded in the treatment T2 and it remained the lowest up to 45 DOC (Figure 4A). It decreased subsequently as the C content of the composting material declined and N content increased with time. The indirect role of nitrogen fixing bacteria is also highlighted in the decreasing C:N ratio due to more available nitrogen content from added organic matter [9,53]. It is also reported by several workers that the C:N ratio below 20 is acceptable for the maturity of composting material and is reliable for use in crops. These data show that the C:P and C:K ratios also narrowed with time (Figure 4B,C). The highest decrease in these parameters was observed in treatments where the combined use of MSW and AW was treated with either earthworm or decomposing microbes.

3.2.5. Changes in Microbial Properties

The primary biological agents responsible for the breakdown of municipal solid waste are microorganisms [54]. The metabolic action of the microbes on organic matter results in the production of CO2, water, energy and other organics as byproducts [32]. Shifts in microbial loads were observed during the initial and final stages of on-farm MSW compost (Table 3). A decreasing trend of the bacterial and fungal loads from initial stage (15 DOC) to maturity (120DOC) in all the treatments was observed [55]. The decreasing trend in microbial population with composting age has also been reported [32]. The highest bacterial and fungal populations at initial and maturity stages were recorded in treatment T7 where MSW and AW were mixed together and enriched with earthworm and ligno-cellulolytic microbial consortia. Whereas, the lowest bacterial (26 × 105) and fungal (18 × 105) populations at maturity were recorded in treatments T1 and T6, respectively (Table 3). The earthworm gut harbors potential microbial groups which mediate rapid biodegradation of recalcitrant organic matter [56]. The use of composting inoculant also enhances the rate of decomposition of agro-residues; the efficient microorganism consortia consisting of lingo-cellulolytic microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria and a phototrophic-bacteria has been used for ex situ decomposition of paddy straw [57].

3.2.6. Changes in Enzymatic Activities

Monitoring the changes in enzymatic activities during composting provides useful information on the dynamics of C and N for understanding the transformations taking place during composting [5]. The enzymes produced through the metabolization of insoluble particles of the organic matter through microbes controlled the degradation rates of different substrates which were the main intermediaries of the degradation process [58]. In our study, two important enzymes α-amylase and Xylanase, which are responsible for hydrolysis of starch and hemicellulose, respectively, were monitored. The results obtained in our study revealed that the enzymatic activities were higher under treatment T7 followed by T6, where MSW and AW were mixed in equal quantities and enriched with earthworm and earthworm + ligno-cellulolytic microbial consortia (Figure 5). This could be attributed to the dual action of earthworm and microbial consortia on the degradation of organic matter [57,59]. In our study, the maximum α-amylase activity (2.8 µmol mL−1 min−1) at 15DOC was recorded with treatment T7 and it decreased significantly at 120DOC. The higher enzymatic activity at the initial stage may be due to high starch content in the degradable composting material. The highest enzymatic activities at the initial stage and the lowest at the maturity of composting have been reported [60]. The xylanase activities in all the treatments at the initial stage range from 0.6–0.8 µmol mL−1 min−1 and they decreased to the level of 0.4 µmol mL−1 min−1 at maturity. The maximum reduction in this parameter was recorded in treatments T6 and T7 (Figure 5).

3.3. Qualiy of On-Farm Compost

After 120DOC and analysis of physico-chemical and microbial properties, the best quality on-farm compost was obtained from treatment T7 and the same was compared with industrial processed MSW compost (IPMSWC) produced in the same city. The C:N ratio of on-farm compost was narrower as compared to IPMSW compost (Table 4). The on-farm MSW compost was also found to be richer in nutrient contents such as total N, P, K and carbon, as compared to industrial processed MSW compost. The bacterial and fungal populations in on-farm compost were 104 and 75% higher than the IPMSW. Our results are in conformity with the findings of earlier researchers [61].

3.4. Utilization of On-Farm Compost for Amelioration of Sodic Soils

After three years of cropping under a rice-wheat cropping system, a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in soil bulk density was observed. The highest reduction (11.87%) in bulk density was recorded in treatment T2 (Gypsum @ 25% GR + OFMSWC @10 Mg ha−1) followed by T3 (Gypsum @ 25%GR + IPMSWC @10 Mg ha−1) (8.13%), T4 (Gypsum @ 25% GR + PM @10 Mg ha−1) (8.10%) and the lowest was in T1 (Gypsum @ 50% GR). In comparison to applying only inorganic amendments, it has been found that the addition of organic amendments considerably lowered soil bulk density [62,63]. A similar trend was observed in infiltration rate and soil porosity. A significant increase in infiltration rate was observed with all the treatments. The increase in infiltration rate was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in treatment T2 (719.5%) as compared to treatments T1, T3 and T4. Similarly, a significant increase in porosity was recorded in treatment T2 (62.07%) followed by T3 (53.84%), T4 (49.05%) and T1 (23.34%) over the initial value. The organic amendment improvement acts as an accelerant for increasing soil microbial activities, and improvement in plant biomass and soil physical parameters are also improved by an increase in macropores [64]. An increase in the infiltration rate and porosity of sodic soils as a result of the addition of organic amendments, which improved pore geometry and transmission pores, has been observed [65]. After three years of the study, a significant reduction in soil pH was observed over the initial value in all the imposed treatments. This reduction in pH was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in treatment T2 (9.79%) as compared to rest of the treatments. This may be due to the release of H+ through the production of organic acids during decomposition of organic amendments [66,67]. The application of OFMSWC caused a significant reduction in soil EC over the initial values. Although the difference between the treatments for EC was statistically non-significant, the maximum reduction in EC was observed in treatment T2 (Table 5). These data also reveal that the maximum decrease in exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) (64.10%) was recorded in treatment T2 and the lowest in T1 where only inorganic amendment was used. Moreover, ESP was decreased by 61.5, 58.97 and 53.84% with the application of gypsum (T1), gypsum + IPMSWC (T3) and gypsum + PM (T4). This is attributed to the gradual rise in soil organic carbon content, and thereby organic acids in soil, which lower the redox potential and promote the substitution of Na+ with Ca++ in sodic soil [68,69,70,71,72,73].
The application of OFMSWC along with the reduced dose of gypsum (25% GR) resulted in a significant improvement in soil organic carbon (SOC) content of the sodic soil (Table 5). The maximum increase in organic carbon over the initial value was observed in treatment T2 (161.53%) and the minimum (100%) in T4. Improvement in soil physical properties and rhizospheric environment under amended conditions leads to more root biomass, thereby improving the SOC content of the soil [74]. A similar trend was also observed in available N, P and K contents in soil. The highest improvements in available N, P and K status over the initial value were recorded in treatment T2 which were 132.63, 97.60 and 40.0% higher over the initial N, P and K status in the soil. The composted materials act as reservoirs of mineralized N and organic acids which solubilize the insoluble or sparingly soluble compounds and thus augment the availability of N, P, and K in soil [58,75]. A significant reduction in Na+, K+, CO3- and HCO3- contents was recorded in the treatment where OFMSWC was combined with reduced dose of gypsum (T2), over the IPMSWC (T3) and PM (T4). Moreover, the K+ content with application of IPMSWC increased over the initial and control treatments. This is because of the reduction in adverse soil properties associated, in sodic soils, with the addition of organic matter from OFMSWC in conjunction with gypsum [76]. The maximum bacterial (11 × 107 cfu g−1) and fungal (9.0 × 105 cfu g−1) loads after three years of sodic soil amelioration and cultivation of the rice-wheat cropping system were enumerated in treatment T2, whereas, the minimum were with control (T1). This is on account of improved soil microbial activity resulting from the substantial availability of substrate with the combined application of organic and inorganic amendments, compared to only application of inorganic amendments [77,78].

3.5. Efficacy of On-Farm Composts on Crop Yield

A significantly higher grain yield of rice (4.71 Mg ha−1) was recorded under treatment T2 over the other treatments viz. T1, T3 and T4. Application of OFMSWC (T2) enhanced rice grain yield by 7.53%, 20.46% and 2.83% over control (T1), IPMSWC (T3) and PM (T4) (Figure 6). Similarly, the wheat grain yield with OFMSWC (2.62 Mg ha−1) was 12.9%, 83.21%, and 31.65% higher over T1, T3, and T4, respectively. The enhancement in rice and wheat yield with the combined use of OFMSWC and inorganic amendments is because of an improvement in soil fertility status and build-up of soil C and N content. A significant relationship between the grain yield and soil organic carbon content has been earlier reported [79]. The addition of OFMSWC also induces humus content and available N, P and K, improving the fertility status of soil, resulting in significant increase in grain yield [80,81]. On the basis of the ameliorative potential of MSW compost, on-farm MSW compost could be promoted as an alternate source of organic amendment to reclaim sodic soils and sustain crop productivity.

4. Conclusions

It can be concluded from the study that on-farm composting with the combined use of municipal solid wastes and agricultural wastes, in 1:1 w/w ratio enriched with earth worms (Eisenia foetida) and ligno-cellulolytic microbial consortia, provided a favorable environment for microorganisms and their enzymatic activities, aiding in higher degradation of organic matter. Changes in the microbial population and enzymatic activities enhance decomposing efficiency in terms of narrowing C:N, C:P and C:K ratios. Thus, on-farm composting of MSW and agricultural wastes could be a suitable technology to produce nutrient-rich quality compost. The application of on-farm MSW compost along with the reduced dose of gypsum in sodic soil improved the soil physico-chemical and biological properties by increasing infiltration rate, soil porosity, soil organic carbon, available essential plant nutrients and microbial populations. The sodic soils also registered decreased bulk density, soil pH, EC, ESP, CO3 and HCO3. Hence, the addition of on-farm MSW compost ameliorated sodic soils and improved soil health as well as crop productivity. Adoption of this approach may provide a pragmatic solution for the utilization of MSW and agricultural wastes for the sustainable reclamation of sodic soils.

Author Contributions

Idea and concept framing to the project, submission for external funding, execution of experiment in the field, collection of agronomical data, Y.P.S.; analysis of compost, soil chemical properties, microbial enrichment of municipal solid waste compost, S.A.; analysis of soil physical properties, V.K.M.; analysis of soil microbial and enzymatic properties, S.A. and A.S.; data compilation, statistical analysis and drafting of the manuscript, Y.P.S. and S.A.; reviewing and editing, S.A., V.K.M. and A.S. All authors have read through the manuscript and agreed to publish.

Funding

Part of the work was supported by the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research (UPCAR), Lucknow vide sanction letter no. 485YPS/NRM/SN/2014, dated 12 June 2014, for standardizing a protocol for on-farm composting of municipal solid waste and agricultural wastes and monitoring its efficacy on reclamation of sodic soils and sustaining crop productivity.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the U.P. Council of Science and Technology, Lucknow, for providing financial support to conduct part of this study. Thanks are due to P.C. Sharma, Director, ICAR-CSSRI, Karnal, for providing all the facilities to conduct field study at Research farm, Shivri, and for allowing utilization of the laboratory for the analysis. Thanks are also due to D.K. Srivastava, Joint Director, U.P. Council of Science and Technology, Lucknow, for the scientific inputs and support. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Pulkit Srivastava and Mamata Prajapati (JRFs) and Somshekhar (Project Assistant) for ensuring that experiments were conducted smoothly.

Conflicts of Interest

All the authors have read the manuscript, and declare no conflict of interest in publishing the manuscript.

References

  1. Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management; Urban Development Series; Knowledge paper no 15; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; 8p, Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/17388 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
  2. Central Pollution Control Board. Management of Municipal Solid Waste; Ministry of Environment and Forest: New Delhi, India, 2012.
  3. Walter, I.; Martinez, F.; Cuevas, G. Plant and soil responses to the application of composted MSW in a degraded, semiarid shrub land in central Spain. Compos. Sci. Util. 2006, 14, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lakhdar, A.; Hafsi, C.; Rabhi, M.; Debez, A.; Montemurro, F.; Abdelly, C.; Jedidi, N.; Querghi, Z. Application of municipal solid waste compost reduces the negative effects of saline water in Hordeum maritime L. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7160–7167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vargas-Garcia, M.C.; Suárez-Estrella, F.; López, M.J.; Moreno, J. Microbial population dynamics and enzyme activities in composting processes with different starting materials. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guo, X.; Gu, J.; Gao, H. Effects of Cu on metabolisms and enzyme activities of microbial communities in the process of composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 108, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Castaldi, P.; Garau, G.; Melis, P. Maturity assessment of compost from municipal solid waste through the study of enzyme activities and water-soluble fractions. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ryckeboer, J.; Mergaert, J.; Coosemans, J. Microbiological aspects of biowaste during composting in monitored compost bin. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Goyal, S.; Dhull, S.K.; Kapoor, K.K. Chemical and biological changes during composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mondini, C.; Fornasie, F.; Sinicco, T. Enzymatic activity as a parameter for the characterization of the composting process. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. FAO. Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service. 2008. Available online: htpp://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/spush (accessed on 16 August 2022).
  12. Mandal, A.K.; Sharma, R.C.; Singh, G. Assessment of salt affected soils in India using GIS. Geocarto Int. 2009, 24, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Responses of soil properties and grain yields to deep ripping and gypsum application in a compacted loamy sand soil contrasted with a sandy clay loam soil in Western Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2003, 4, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Said-Pullicino, D.; Erriquens, F.G.; Gicliotti, G. Changes in the chemical characteristics of water extractable organic matter during composting and their influence on compost stability and maturity. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Raut, M.P.; Prince William, S.P.M.; Bhattacharyya, J.K. Microbial dynamics and enzyme activities during rapid composting of municipal solid waste—A compost maturity analysis perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Willson, G.B.; Par, J.F.; Epstien, E.; Marsh, P.B.; Chaney, R.L.; Colaccico, D.; Burge, W.D.; Sikora, L.J.; Tester, C.F.; Hornick, S. Manual for Composting Sewage Sludge by the Beltsville Aerated-Piled Method; EPA-600/8-80-022; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
  17. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis; Prentice Hall of India Private Limited: New Delhi, India, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  18. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of Degtijareff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Poincelot, R.P. A scientific examination of the principles and practice of composting. Compos. Sci. Util. 1974, 15, 24–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khalil, A.I.; Beheary, M.; Salem, E.M. Monitoring of microbial populations and their cellulolytic activities during the composting of municipal solid wastes. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 17, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nakasaki, K.; Watanabe, A.; Kitano, M. Effect of seedling on thermophilic composting of tofu refuse. J. Environ. Qual. 1992, 21, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Buchanan, R.E.; Gibbons, N.E. Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology; The Williams and Wilkins Company: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1974; pp. 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dubey, R.C.; Maheshwari, D.K. Practical Micro; S. Chand & Company Ltd., Ram Nagar: New Delhi, India, 2006; 352p. [Google Scholar]
  24. Shambe, T.; Ejembi, O. Production of amylase and cellulase: Degradation of starch and carboxymethylcellulose by extracellular enzymes from four fungal species. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 1987, 9, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schoonover, W.R. Examination of Soils for Alkali; University of California, Extension Service: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1952. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mead, R.; Gilmour, S.G.; Mead, A. Statistical Principles for the Design of Experiments: Applications to Real Experiments; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zeng, G.M.; Huang, D.L.; Huang, G.H. Composting of lead-contaminated solid waste with inoculate of white-rot fungus. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Haight, T.; Taylor, P. Canadian Universities Consortium Urban Environmental Management Project, Training and Technology Transfer program, Canadian International Development Agency; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2000. In A Manual for Composting in Hotels: A Guide to Composting Yard and Food. Waste for Hotels in Thailand; Canadian Universities Consortium Urban Environmental Management Project, Training and Technology Transfer program; Canadian International Development Agency: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sharholy, M.; Ahmed, K.; Mahmood, G. Analysis of solid waste management system in Delhi—A review. In Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Chemistry and Environment, Indore, India, 24–26 December 2005; pp. 773–777. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bustamante, M.A.; Moral, R.; Paredes, C. Evolution of the pathogen content during co-composting of winery and distillery wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khalil, A.I.; Hassouna, M.S.; El-Ashkqar Fawzi, M. Changes in physical, chemical and microbial parameters during the composting of municipal sewage sludge. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 27, 2359–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pathak, A.K.; Singh, M.M.; Kumar, V.; Arya, S.; Trivedi, A.K. Assessment of physico-chemical properties and microbial community during composting of municipal solid waste viz. Kitchen waste at Jhansi city, UP (India). Recent Res. Sci. Technol. 2012, 4, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  33. Narkhede, S.D.; Attarde, S.B.; Ingle, S.T. Combined aerobic composting of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. Glob. J. Environ. Res. 2010, 4, 109–112. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hasanimehr, M.H.; Amini Rad, H.; Babaee, V.; Sharifzadehbaei, M. Use of Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Waste Water Biosolids with Co-Composting Process. World Appl. Sci. J. 2011, 14, 60–66. [Google Scholar]
  35. Elango, D.; Thinakaran, N.; Panneerselvam, P.; Sivanesan, S. Thermophylic composting of municipal waste. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shyamala, D.C.; Belagali, S.L. Studies on variations in physico-chemical and biological characteristics at different maturity stages of municipal solid waste compost. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2012, 2, 1984–1997. [Google Scholar]
  37. Moretti, S.M.L.; Bertoncini, E.I.; Abreu-Junior, C.H. Composting sewage sludge with green waste from tree pruning. Sci. Agric. 2015, 72, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Larney, F.J.; Blackshow, R.E. The effect of lignin and sugars to the aerobic feedlot manure. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 1105–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Poincelot, R.P.; Day, P.R. Rates of cellulose decomposition during the composting of leaves combined with several municipal and industrial waste and other additives. Compos. Sci. 1973, 14, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fogarty, A.M.; Tuovinen, O.H. Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting. Microbiol. Rev. 1991, 55, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Composting of municipal solid waste and farm wastes for its use as amendment in sodic soil. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 16, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hong, S.; Gan, P.; Chen, A. Environmental controls on soil pH in planted forest and its response to nitrogen deposition. Environ. Res. 2019, 172, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rawat, M.; Ramanthan, A.L.; Kuriakose, T. Characterization of municipal solid waste compost (MSWC) from selected Indian cities—A case study for its sustainable utilization. J. Environ. Prot. 2013, 4, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Cabrera, M.L.; Kissel, D.E.; Vigil, M.F. Nitrogen mineralization from organic residues: Research opportunities. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Contreras-Ramos, S.M.; Bernal, D.A.; Trujillo-Tapia, N.; Dendooven, L. Composting of tannery effluent with cow manure and wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 94, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Siddiqui, T.Z.; Siddiqui, F.Z.; Khan, E. Sustainable development through integrated municipal solid waste management (MSWM) approach—A case study of Aligarh District. In Proceedings of the National Conference of Advanced in Mechanical Engineering (AIME-2006), Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India, 20–21 January 2006; pp. 1168–1175. [Google Scholar]
  47. Makni, H.; Ayed, L.; Ben Khedher, M.; Bakhrouf, A. Evaluation of the maturity of organic waste composts. Waste Manag. Res. 2010, 28, 489–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Inbar, Y.; Hadar, Y.; Chen, Y. Recycling of cattle manure: The composting process and characterization of maturity. J. Environ. Qual. 1993, 22, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gallando, L.F.; Nogales, R. Effect of application of town refuses compost on the soil—Plant system—A review. Biol. Waste 1987, 19, 35–62. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bazrafshan, E.; Zarei, A.; Mostafapour, F.K.; Poormollae, N.; Mahmoodi, S.; Zazouli, M.A. Maturity and stability evaluation of composted municipal solid wastes. Health Scope 2016, 5, e33202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Rich, N.; Kumar, S.; Bharti, A. Change in characteristic of municipal solid waste by bulking agent in—Vessel composting: Critical review. Int. J. Inno. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 3, 235–249. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kumar, V.C.; Antony, S.; Murugesan, A.G. Bio composting of municipal solid wastes employing earthworms Eisenia foetida and Eudrilus eugeniae. Int. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 3, 6–13. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sasaki, H.; Wakase, S.; Itoh, K.; Kitazume, O.; Nonaka, J.; Satoh, M.; Otawa, K.; Nakai, Y. Microbial community in a microbiological additive and composting process. Dyn. Soil Dyn. Plant 2008, 2, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  54. Gaur, A.C.; Sadasivam, K.V.; Magu, S.P.; Mathur, R.S. Progress Report Indian Agriculture Research Institute, All India Co-ordinated Projects on Microbial Decomposition and Recycling of Farm and City Wastes; Indian Agriculture Research Institute: New Delhi, India, 1980; pp. 2–19. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hargerty, D.J.; Pavoni, J.L.; Heer, J.E. Solid Waste Management; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 12–13. [Google Scholar]
  56. Singh, A.; Singh, D.P.; Tiwari, R.; Kumar, K.; Singh, R.V.; Singh, S.; Prasanna, R.; Saxena, A.K.; Nain, L. Taxonomic and functional annotation of gut bacterial communities of Eisenia foetida and Perionyx excavates. Microbiol. Res. 2015, 175. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharma, A.; Sharma, R.; Arora, A. Insights into rapid composting of paddy straw augmented with efficient microorganism consortium. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agricult. 2014, 3, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Tiquia, S.M. Evolution of extracellular enzyme activities during manure composting. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2002, 92, 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Singh, A.; Tiwari, R.; Sharma, A.; Adak, A.; Singh, S.; Prasanna, R.; Saxena, A.K.; Nain, L.; Singh, R.V. Taxonomic and functional diversity of the culturable microbiomes of epigeic earthworms and their prospects in agriculture. J. Basic Microbiol. 2016, 56, 1009–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zameer, F.; Meghashri, S.; Gopal, S. Chemical and microbial dynamics during composting of herbal pharmaceutical industrial waste. E-J. Chem. 2010, 7, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Wu, X.; Ren, L.; Luo, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Huang, H. Bacterial and fungal community dynamics and shaping factors during agricultural waste composting with zeolite and biochar addition. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Walia, M.K.; Walia, S.S.; Dhaliwal, S.S. Long term effect of integrated nutrient management on properties of typic ustochrept after 23 cycles of an irrigated rice (Oryza sativa L.)- wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) system. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 34, 724–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Khursheed, S.; Arora, S.; Ali, T. Effect of organic sources of nitrogen on rice (Oryza sativa) and soil carbon pools in Inceptisols of Jammu. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 1, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yaduvanshi, N.P.S.; Sharma, D.R. Effect of organic resources with and without chemical fertilizing on productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) sequence and plant nutrients balance in a reclaims sodic soil. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 80, 482–486. [Google Scholar]
  65. Walker, D.J.; Bernal, M.P. The effects of olive mill waste compost and poultry manure on the availability and plant uptake of nutrients in a highly saline soil. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bolan, N.S.; Adriano, D.C.; Kunhikrishnan, A.; James, T.; McDowell, R.; Senesi, N. Dissolved organic matter: Biogeochemistry, dynamics, and environmental significance in soils. Adv. Agron. 2011, 110, 1–75. [Google Scholar]
  67. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Conjoint use of chemical amendments and municipal solid waste compost for amelioration of degraded sodic soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2018, 66, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Effectiveness of organic waste as fertilizer and amendment in salt affected soils. Agriculture 2015, 5, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Arora, S.; Singh, Y.P.; Singh, A.K.; Mishra, V.K.; Sharma, D.K. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments in combination with halophilic bacteria on productivity of rice-wheat in sodic soils. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika 2016, 31, 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ansari, A.A. Soil profile study during bioremediation of sodic soils through the application of organic amendment (vermiwash, tillage, green manure, mulch, earthworm and vermicompost). World J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 4, 550–553. [Google Scholar]
  71. Rai, T.N.; Rai, K.N.; Prasad, S.N.; Sharma, C.P.; Mishra, S.K.; Gupta, B.R. Effect of organic amendments, bioinoculants and gypsum on the reclamation and soil chemical properties in sodic soils of Etawah. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 9, 197–200. [Google Scholar]
  72. Elrahman Abd, S.H.; Mostafa, M.A.M.; Taha, T.A.; Elsharawy, M.A.O.; Eid, M.A. Effect of different amendments on soil chemical characteristics, grain yield and elemental content of wheat plants grown on salt-affected soil irrigated with low quality water. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2012, 57, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sharma, U.; Subehia, S.K. Effect of long term integrated nutrient management on rice (Oryza sativa L.)—Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity and soil properties in North Western Himalaya. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2014, 62, 248–254. [Google Scholar]
  74. Brar, B.S.; Singh, K.; Dheri, G.S.; Kumar, B. Carbon sequestration and soil carbon pools in a rice-wheat cropping system: Effect of long-term use of inorganic fertilizers and organic manure. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 128, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Weber, J.; Karczewska, A.; Drozd, J.; Licznar, S.; Jamroz, E.; Kocowicz, A. Agricultural and ecological aspects of a sandy soil as affected by the application of municipal solid waste composts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1294–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nayak, A.K.; Sharma, D.K.; Mishra, V.K.; Jha, S.K. Effect of phosphogypsum amendment on floride content of soil and plants under rice (Oryza sativa) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) system in sodic sols of Indo-gangetic plains. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 79, 615–619. [Google Scholar]
  77. Yazdanpanah, N.; Pazira, E.; Neshat, A.; Naghavi, H.; Moezi, A.A.; Mahmoodabadi, M. Effect of some amendments on leachate properties of a calcareous saline-sodic soil. Int. Agrophys. 2011, 25, 307–310. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mbarki, S.; Cerda, A.; Brestic, M.; Mahendra, R.; Abdelly, C.; Pascual, J.A. Vineyard compost supplemented with Trichoderma harzianum T78 improves saline soil quality. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mikanova, O.; Simon, T.; Javurek, M.; Vach, M. Relationships between winter wheat yields and soil carbon under various tillage systems. Plant Soil Environ. 2012, 58, 540–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Verma, S.V.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Composting of municipal solid waste (MSW) mixed with cattle manure. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 3, 2068–2079. [Google Scholar]
  81. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Plant and Soil Responses to the Combined Application of Organic Amendments and Inorganic Fertilizers in Degraded Sodic Soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2640–2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 02317 g001 550
Figure 1. Layout of composting experiment.
Figure 1. Layout of composting experiment.
Sustainability 15 02317 g001
Sustainability 15 02317 g002 550
Figure 2. Changes in (A) temperature and (B) moisture content during composting under different treatments.
Figure 2. Changes in (A) temperature and (B) moisture content during composting under different treatments.
Sustainability 15 02317 g002
Sustainability 15 02317 g003 550
Figure 3. Changes in (A) pH and (B) electrical conductivity (EC) during composting under different treatments.
Figure 3. Changes in (A) pH and (B) electrical conductivity (EC) during composting under different treatments.
Sustainability 15 02317 g003
Sustainability 15 02317 g004a 550Sustainability 15 02317 g004b 550
Figure 4. Changes in (A) C:N (B) C:P and (C) C:K ratios during the composting under different treatments.
Figure 4. Changes in (A) C:N (B) C:P and (C) C:K ratios during the composting under different treatments.
Sustainability 15 02317 g004aSustainability 15 02317 g004b
Sustainability 15 02317 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in enzymatic activity during composting under different treatments.
Figure 5. Changes in enzymatic activity during composting under different treatments.
Sustainability 15 02317 g005
Sustainability 15 02317 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of on-farm composts on grain yield of rice and wheat.
Figure 6. Effect of on-farm composts on grain yield of rice and wheat.
Sustainability 15 02317 g006
Table
Table 1. Initial properties of municipal solid waste and agricultural wastes used for on-farm composting.
Table 1. Initial properties of municipal solid waste and agricultural wastes used for on-farm composting.
PropertiesMunicipal Solid WasteAgricultural Wastes
Pongamia LeavesCasuarina LeavesMustard StrawPaddy Straw
pH (1:5)6.97----
Total Nitrogen (%)0.52 ± 0.012.20 ± 0.111.70 ± 0.060.56 ± 0.050.54 ± 0.04
Total Phosphorus (%)0.05 ± 0.020.15 ± 0.010.18 ± 0.020.36 ± 0.020.17 ± 0.03
Total Potassium (%)0.28 ± 0.100.63 ± 0.120.42 ± 0.110.64 ± 0.120.39 ± 0.14
Total Calcium (%)0.36 ± 0.120.46 ± 0.030.51 ± 0.020.12 ± 0.020.09 ± 0.03
Total Magnesium (%)0.10 ± 0.020.32 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.010.05 ± 0.010.10 ± 0.02
Total Sulphate (%)0.11 ± 0.010.27 ± 0.020.42 ± 0.120.17 ± 0.020.23 ± 0.14
Total Carbon (%)28.35 ± 0.2242.06 ± 0.1653.88 ± 0.5252.49 ± 0.4339.65 ± 0.21
C:N ratio54.51 ± 1.1219.11 ± 0.5231.69 ± 0.2393.73 ± 0.2273.42 ± 0.32
Bacterial population (Cfu g−1)39 × 105ndndndnd
Fungal population (Cfu g−1)18 × 105ndndndnd
C: N ratio = carbon: nitrogen ratio; nd = not determined.
Table
Table 2. Changes in nutrient contents during on-farm composting.
Table 2. Changes in nutrient contents during on-farm composting.
TreatmentsStagesTotal N (%)Total P (%)Total K (%)Na
(ppm)		Ca
(ppm)		Mg (ppm)
T1Initial0.410.210.4912.1413063.5
120DOC *0.430.410.5626.46250134.0
T2Initial0.470.330.5014.6619055.5
120DOC0.510.400.5627.9827068.0
T3Initial0.500.260.5017.1214036.1
120DOC0.580.400.5823.8325056.0
T4Initial0.460.260.5314.3810035.2
120DOC0.510.410.6530.2221065.0
T5Initial0.500.310.5612.5410045.0
120DOC0.560.400.7635.7723070.0
T6Initial0.430.250.5421.0414040.0
120DOC0.650.400.6728.1524054.0
T7Initial0.420.310.6126.0715032.5
120DOC0.790.390.7430.2926058.2
* Maturity; T1: 100% MSW; T2: 100% MSW + microbes; T3: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural wastes + microbes; T4: 100% MSW + earth worms; T5: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural waste + earth worms; T6: 100% MSW +earth worms + microbes; T7: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural waste + earth worms + microbes; DOC: days of composting.
Table
Table 3. Changes in microbial properties during on-farm composting.
Table 3. Changes in microbial properties during on-farm composting.
TreatmentsInitialat Maturity
Bacterial Population
(×105 Cfu g−1)		Fungal Population
(×105 Cfu g−1)		Bacterial Population
(×105 Cfu g−1)		Fungal Population
(×105 Cfu g−1)
T148452633
T254604426
T379605636
T473426028
T569525423
T679416818
T798797548
T1: 100% MSW; T2: 100% MSW + microbes; T3: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural wastes + microbes; T4: 100% MSW + earth worms; T5: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural waste + earth worms; T6: 100% MSW +earth worms + microbes; T7: 50% MSW + 50% agricultural waste + earth worms + microbes.
Table
Table 4. Comparative evaluation of quality parameters of on-farm and industrial processed municipal solid waste composts.
Table 4. Comparative evaluation of quality parameters of on-farm and industrial processed municipal solid waste composts.
Quality ParametersOn-Farm CompostIndustrial Processed
Compost
Bulk density (g cm−3)0.890.78
pH (1:5)7.367.48
EC (1:5) (dS m−1)0.660.68
Total N (%)0.790.43
Total P (%)0.390.41
Total K (%)0.740.57
Total C (%)13.5411.14
C:N ratio17.1325.89
Bacterial population (Cfu g−1)98 × 10548 × 105
Fungal population (Cfu g−1)79 × 10545 × 105
C: N ratio = carbon: nitrogen ratio.
Table
Table 5. Effect of different treatments on physico-chemical and microbial properties of sodic soil after three years of study.
Table 5. Effect of different treatments on physico-chemical and microbial properties of sodic soil after three years of study.
TreatmentsInitialT1T2T3T4LSD0.05
Bulk density
(g cm−3)		1.601.57
(−1.87)		1.41
(−11.87)		1.48
(−8.10)		1.48
(−8.10)		0.03
Infiltration rate
(mm day−1)		2.111.15
(+431)		17.21
(+719.5)		15.65
(+645.2)		15.42
(+634.3)		1.32
Porosity (%)42.452.30
(+23.34)		68.72
(+62.07)		65.23
(+53.84)		63.204
(+49.05)		3.12
pH29.89.15
(−6.63)		8.84
(−9.79)		8.99
(−8.26)		9.29
(−5.20)		0.26
EC2 (µS m−1)147.046.00
(−68.70)		45.00
(−69.38)		56.00
(−61.90)		52.00
(−64.62)		ns
Exchangeable Sodium percentage (ESP)7832.00
(−58.97)		28.00
(−64.10)		30
(−61.5)		36.00
(−53.84)		2.31
Soil Organic C (g kg−1)1.303.10
(+138.46)		3.40
(+161.53)		3.00
(+130.76)		2.60
(+100.00)		0.30
Available N (mg kg−1)30.765.33
(+112.80)		71.42
(+132.63)		67.24
(+119.02)		67.19
(+118.85)		3.12
Available P (mg kg−1)8.311.2
(+34.93)		16.4
(+61.44)		14.3
(+72.28)		13.5
(+62.65)		0.83
Available K (mg kg−1)173.0201.4
(+16.41)		242.2
(+40.0)		181.53
(+4.93)		183.2
(+5.89)		6.32
Na+ (ppm)342.0283.75
(−17.03)		229.81
(−32.80)		288.66
(−15.60)		279.56
(−18.25)		23.20
K+ (ppm)3.13.14
(+1.29)		2.44
(−21.29)		4.37
(+40.96)		2.45
(−20.96)		ns
CO3−(me l−L)6.02.33
(−61.20)		2.33
(−61.20)		0.00
(−100.00)		2.66
(−55.66)		0.24
HCO3−(me l−L)22.01.50
(−93.18)		1.50
(−93.18)		1.33
(−93.95)		1.66
(−92.45)		1.12
Bacterial population (Cfu g−1)1.3 × 1065 × 10711 × 1078 × 1077 × 107-
Fungal population
(Cfu g−1)		0.2 × 1054 × 1058 × 1059 × 1053 × 105-
T1: Gypsum (G) @ 50% gypsum requirement (GR); T2: G @ 25% GR + on-farm MSW compost (OFMSWC) @10 Mg ha−1; T3: G @ 25% GR + industrial processed MSW compost (IPMSWC) @10 Mg ha−1; T4: G @ 25 % GR + pressmud (PM) @10 Mg 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

Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Singh, A. Composting of Municipal Solid Waste Using Earthworms and Ligno-Cellulolytic Microbial Consortia for Reclamation of the Degraded Sodic Soils and Harnessing Their Productivity Potential. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032317

AMA Style

Singh YP, Arora S, Mishra VK, Singh A. Composting of Municipal Solid Waste Using Earthworms and Ligno-Cellulolytic Microbial Consortia for Reclamation of the Degraded Sodic Soils and Harnessing Their Productivity Potential. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032317

Chicago/Turabian Style

Singh, Yash Pal, Sanjay Arora, Vinay K. Mishra, and Arjun Singh. 2023. "Composting of Municipal Solid Waste Using Earthworms and Ligno-Cellulolytic Microbial Consortia for Reclamation of the Degraded Sodic Soils and Harnessing Their Productivity Potential" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032317

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