Next Article in Journal
The Optimal Cyanobacterial Sludge Incorporation Balances Nutrient Retention and NH3 Emission Reduction During Composting with Chicken Manure and Wheat Straw
Previous Article in Journal
Crab Shell Biochar and Compost Synergistically Mitigate Heavy Metal Toxicity in Soil–Plant System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/agronomy15102428
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Effects of Combined Application of Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizers on Melon Quality and Soil Environmental Quality

by
Ningyu Li
,
Si Chen
,
Wenjun Yue
and
Ailan Yan
*
Key Laboratory for Technology in Rural Water Management of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Hangzhou 310018, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(10), 2428; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102428
Submission received: 23 September 2025 / Revised: 17 October 2025 / Accepted: 17 October 2025 / Published: 20 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Irrigation and Fertilization Management for Sustainable Agricultural Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In the context of sustainable agriculture and environmental restoration, this study explores the potential of combining vermicompost with mineral fertilizers to optimize crop production while reducing the environmental footprint of synthetic fertilizer use. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to compare four nitrogen treatments: no nitrogen (CK), 100% mineral fertilizers (T1), 50% mineral fertilizers + 50% vermicompost (T2), and 100% vermicompost (T3). The experiment focused on key parameters, including melon yield, fruit quality (soluble sugars, soluble solids, and vitamin C), and soil environmental health. The results indicate that the T2 treatment, which integrates vermicompost, produced the most favorable outcomes: a 28.9% increase in soluble sugar content, improved flavor, and 3–7 days earlier pollination/harvest compared to CK. Soil organic matter in the T2 treatment was 2.6 times higher than CK, with significant improvements in microbial diversity and enzyme activity, enhancing soil fertility. Correlation analysis revealed strong associations between melon quality, soil health, and microbial dynamics. This integrated fertilization strategy not only enhances melon productivity but also promotes soil ecosystem sustainability, aligning with ecological restoration principles. These findings offer practical recommendations for reducing reliance on mineral fertilizers in melon farming systems while improving soil and environmental quality.

1. Introduction

The intensive use of mineral fertilizers in global agriculture has triggered a triple crisis: soil fertility decline (pH reduction by 0.5–1.2 units in a decade), crop quality degradation, and groundwater contamination [1,2]. China, as the world’s largest fertilizer consumer, faces exacerbated challenges due to low organic waste utilization rates (<40%) despite abundant resources [3]. This paradox highlights the urgency to adopt integrated fertilization strategies, as advocated by China’s 2023 national policy on organic-chemical synergy. Continued efforts to decrease mineral fertilizers and pesticide use by promoting organic alternatives (e.g., biopesticides, organic fertilizers) and integrated farming practices are underway. This policy emphasizes a balanced approach to maintain productivity while enhancing soil health and reducing environmental pollution.
Melon (Cucumis melo L.) production exemplifies these challenges. As a highly diversified species with over 1500 documented cultivars, melon exhibits genotype-specific responses to nutrient management. For instance, netted melons (e.g., ‘Hami’) demonstrate 25–30% higher nitrogen demand during fruit expansion compared to smooth-skinned varieties [4]. As a nutritionally vital crop rich in vitamins A/C/E and calcium [5], China’s facility-grown melons account for 68% of global output. However, excessive nitrogen application (>250 kg/ha) in greenhouse systems has reduced fertilizer use efficiency by 22–35% while accelerating soil acidification [6]. This study focuses on the dominant cultivar “YuGu” (68% market share in East China and North China), the shallow root system (<40 cm depth) of which poses unique challenges for nutrient retention—a key rationale for selecting vermicompost with its vertical nutrient distribution capabilities [7]. Restoring healthy soil fertilization regimes is critical for sustainable melon production.
Numerous studies have shown that a reasonable combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers can significantly improve soil structure and fertility, enhance crop yield and quality, and increase nitrogen utilization efficiency. This integrated fertilization approach not only reduces chemical fertilizer use but also promotes soil ecosystem functioning, leading to more sustainable agricultural practices [8]. Vermicompost, a cost-effective organic fertilizer produced through the decomposition of organic matter by earthworms and microorganisms, offers several advantages over conventional organic fertilizers. These castings have high water retention capacity, good aeration, a large surface area, and strong adsorption capabilities [9]. Compared to traditional organic fertilizers, vermicompost exhibits a favorable granular structure that is rich in amino acids, enzymes, beneficial microorganisms, humic substances, and plant growth regulators [10]. Their application improves soil aeration and drainage, enhances the proliferation of beneficial microorganisms, and accelerates nutrient transformations, such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, thereby improving nutrient absorption by crops [11]. Studies have shown that when tomatoes are treated with vermicompost, both yield and fruit quality are significantly enhanced compared to conventional organic fertilizers [12]. Additionally, the optimal ratio of combined organic and inorganic fertilizer application depends on factors such as soil and climate conditions, which presents an opportunity for the development of region-specific green farming and breeding recycling technology models [13,14].
Therefore, this study employed field experiments utilizing region-specific vermicompost resources to investigate the effects of varying vermicompost ratios and a constant nitrogen supply on melon yield, quality, nitrogen utilization efficiency, and soil fertility to identify the best ratio for combined application and provide scientific evidence for reducing mineral fertilizer use and enhancing soil fertility in the facility melon industry in this region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

This experiment was conducted from March to July 2023 in a greenhouse at the Agricultural Science Institute of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China (120°24′ E, 30°86′ N), located in the alluvial plain of the Taihu Lake basin, which belongs to the subtropical monsoon climate zone. The average annual temperature ranges from 12.2 to 17.3 °C, with annual precipitation between 761 and 1850 mm, concurrent rainfall and heat, and a frost-free period of approximately 224–246 days. The annual sunshine duration is between 1613 and 2430 h. The soil type in the experimental area is yellow soil with a sandy loam texture. The basic physical and chemical properties of the topsoil (0–20 cm) are as follows: pH value, 6.15; organic carbon, 16.14 g/kg; total nitrogen (TN), 1.25 mg/g; total phosphorus, 2.23 g/kg; total potassium, 46.15 g/kg; available nitrogen (AN), 104.77 mg/kg; available phosphorus (AP), 42.45 mg/kg; and available potassium (AK), 131.42 mg/kg.
The vermicompost used in the experiment was sourced from a production facility in Xianju County, Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province, China, with a pH value of 8.00, organic matter content of 47.51 g/kg, nitrogen content of 1.41%, phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) content of 0.22%, and potassium oxide (K2O) content of 0.13%. Quantitative analysis revealed that the vermicompost heavy metal concentrations (Cd: 0.35 mg/kg; Pb: 18.6 mg/kg; As: 2.1 mg/kg; Hg: 0.08 mg/kg; Cr: 12.4 mg/kg) significantly below the maximum allowable levels defined in the Organic Fertilizer standard (NY/T 525-2021; Cd ≤ 3.0 mg/kg, Pb ≤ 50.0 mg/kg), thereby validating its low ecotoxicological risk profile.
The compound fertilizer used in the experiment was purchased from Huzhou Agricultural Science and Technology Co., Ltd., which is in Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China, containing 15% nitrogen, 15% phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5), and 15% potassium oxide (K2O).
Melon (Cucumis melo L.): The seeds of the sweet melon were purchased from Shouhe Seed Industry Co., Ltd. in Shouguang City, Shandong Province, China. The uniform variety ‘YuGu’ was used at a seedling age of 35 days and transplanted to a greenhouse on 9 March 2023, for standardized pruning and field management.
The experiment comprised the following four treatments: (1) no nitrogen fertilizer (CK), (2) 100% mineral fertilizers nitrogen (T1), (3) 50% mineral fertilizers nitrogen + 50% vermicompost nitrogen (T2), and (4) 100% vermicompost nitrogen (T3). The quantity of mineral fertilizers applied for treatment T1 was 300 kg nitrogen/ha, 300 kg P2O5/ha, and 300 kg K2O/ha. Except for CK, the fertilization treatments had the same nitrogen input. A randomized block design was used, with 3 replications for each treatment, and each plot had an area of 16.0 m2. All fertilizers were applied as basal fertilizers before planting melon, and daily field management was consistent with local practices.

2.2. Plant Sample Analysis

During the sweet melon growth period, data on growth and development, including the pollination and harvest dates, were recorded for each treatment. After the melon matured, samples were collected, with 15 random samples taken from each plot to determine their yield. Subsequently, the soluble total sugar, soluble solids, titratable acidity, vitamin C, and other quality indicators were measured in the melon samples from each plot using the anthrone colorimetric method, soluble solids measuring instrument, acid–base titration method, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method.

2.3. Soil Sample Analysis

Before transplant and after harvest, soil samples were collected from the 0–20 cm plow layer using a five-point sampling method. Debris was removed, and the samples were air-dried, ground, and sieved for storage. The soil pH was measured using the soil-water suspension method (soil/water mass ratio of 1:2.5), and the soil organic matter was determined using the potassium dichromate titration method. In the soil, the Total nitrogen (TN) was measured using an elemental analyzer, and alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (AN) was determined using the alkaline hydrolysis diffusion method. The available phosphorus (AP) in the soil was extracted using 0.5 mol/L NaHCO3 (soil/liquid ratio of 1:20) and measured using the molybdenum-antimony colorimetric method. The available phosphorus (AK) in the soil was determined using the flame photometry method with 1 mol/L NH4OAC (soil/liquid ratio of 1:10). The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil was measured using a spectrophotometer with a solution of trichloroisocyanuric acid-extracted (soil/liquid ratio of 7:100).
The soil urease (SUA), sucrose enzyme (SIA), cellulase (SCEA), and peroxidase (SCA) activities were measured using Solarbio kits, employing the phenol-sodium hypochlorite colorimetric method, the 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetric method, ultraviolet spectrophotometry, and the 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetric method, respectively [15,16].

2.4. Soil Microbial Sequencing

Total genomic DNA was extracted from soil microorganisms, and the V3–V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was amplified using primers 338F and 806R. High-throughput sequencing was conducted on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbial diversity was assessed with Mothur software (version v1.45.3) by calculating the Shannon, Simpson, ACE, and Chao1 indices.

2.5. Data Processing and Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 24.0). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to evaluate significant differences in soil properties, microbial diversity, and community structure among treatments, followed by Duncan’s multiple range test for post hoc comparisons at a significance level of α = 0.05. Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine correlation coefficients (r), and data visualization was carried out using Origin 2021.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Fertilization on Sweet Melon Growth and Development

As shown in Table 1, the pollination and harvest dates occurred significantly earlier for sweet melon plants treated with mineral fertilizers and vermicompost than for those of CK. Specifically, the pollination date and harvest date for T1 were advanced by 3 and 1 days, respectively. Compared to CK, the treatments with vermicompost (T2 and T3) advanced the pollination date by 7 days, and the harvest dates for these treatments also occurred 3 days earlier. Compared to T1, the application of vermicompost advanced the pollination and harvest dates by 4 and 2 days, respectively. Furthermore, the results for T2 were similar to those for T3, indicating that replacing mineral fertilizers with vermicompost advanced the pollination and harvest dates, facilitating earlier market entry.
The combined vermicompost application significantly affected the aboveground biomass and stem diameter of sweet melon (Table 1). The aboveground biomass for T3 reached 812.3 g, which was 2.67 times that of CK, 1.46 times that of T1, and 1.09 times that of T3. Among all treatments, the stem diameter for T3 was the largest, reaching 8.49 mm, which represents an increase of 46.8% compared to CK, an increase of 18.7% compared to T1, and an increase of 5% compared to T3. Therefore, the combined vermicompost application contributes to improving the aboveground biomass and stem diameter of sweet melon.
All fertilization treatments had a significant effect on the single melon weight. As shown in Table 1, T3 had the highest single melon weight at 847.48 kg, which was 38.0% higher than that of CK and 11.2% higher than that of T1, but there was no significant difference between T1 and T2.

3.2. Effect of Different Fertilization Treatments on Melon Fruit Quality

As shown in Table 2, vermicompost application increased the soluble sugar and soluble solids contents. The T3 treatment had the highest soluble sugar and soluble solids contents (12.48 and 14.05%, respectively), showing increases of 28.9 and 6.24% compared to CK and 38.1 and 17.37% compared to T1, and reaching significant differences (p < 0.05). Vermicompost application reduced the organic acid content in melon, with T3 having the lowest content at 1.06 g/kg, which was a 35.3% decrease compared to CK and a 25.8% decrease compared to T1. Vermicompost application also increased the vitamin C content in melon, with T3 having the highest content, which showed a 21.1% increase compared to CK and a 16.7% increase compared to T1 (p < 0.05).

3.3. Impact of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil Fertility Quality

Soil fertility quality refers to the nutrient supply capacity and environmental conditions required for crop growth, development, and maturity, primarily including organic matter and three essential elements: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. As shown in Table 3, the soil pH values for the different treatments ranged from 5.28 to 6.08, indicating acidity. Compared to CK, the application of 100% vermicompost (T3) significantly increased the soil pH, while there were no significant differences among the other treatments. However, different treatments had a significant impact on soil fertility quality after planting melon, particularly those involving vermicompost application, which increased the organic matter content (OMC). Among the treatments, T3 had the highest OMC at 75.37 g/kg, which was a 3.1-fold increase compared to CK. T2 had the next highest OMC at 66.4 g/kg, representing a 2.6-fold increase compared to CK, indicating that vermicompost application is beneficial for improving the OMC and, consequently, soil fertility. The organic matter content in T1 was slightly higher than that in CK but did not show significant differences, with contents of 19.22 and 18.36 g/kg, respectively.
Alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen (AN) content reflects the nitrogen supply status of the soil in the short term and is an important indicator for evaluating soil fertility. As shown in Table 3, treatment had a significant impact on the AN content after planting melons, particularly those involving mineral fertilizers, which significantly increased the soil’s AN content. Among the treatments, T2 had the highest AN content at 67.87 mg/kg, which was a 37.1% increase compared to CK, indicating that a combination of 50% mineral fertilizers N and 50% vermicompost is more effective in increasing the soil AN content.
The effects of vermicompost and mineral fertilizer application on the available phosphorus (AP) and available phosphorus (AK) contents in the soil were similar to those observed for AN. As shown in Table 3, treatment had a significant impact on the AP and AK contents after planting melon, particularly the treatments involving vermicompost, which significantly increased the AP and AK contents. Among these, T2 had the highest AP and AK contents at 89.03 and 277.72 mg/kg, respectively, representing increases of 2.3- and 2.8-fold, respectively, compared to CK. T3 had the next highest AP and AK contents at 84.17 and 247.67 mg/kg, respectively, showing increases of 2.2- and 2.5-fold, respectively, compared to CK. Although the AP and AK contents in T1 were higher than those in CK, the increases were only 1.1- and 1.6-fold, respectively, substantially lower than those from treatments involving vermicompost (T1 and T2) (p < 0.05). Thus, applying a combination of vermicompost and mineral fertilizers more effectively increased the AP and AK contents in the soil than using mineral fertilizers alone.

3.4. Effect of Combined Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizer Application on Soil Enzyme Activity

The soil hydrogen peroxide enzyme activity for all treatments ranged from 3.87 to 21.21 mmol/(g·d), and SUA ranged from 115.46 to 363.47 μg/(g·d). SIA ranged from 10.33 to 11.02 mg/(g·d), and SCEA ranged from 33.13 to 36.41 mg/(g·d) (Figure 1A–D). With vermicompost application, there was an increasing trend in soil hydrogen peroxide enzyme activity, with T2 and T3 treatments significantly increasing by 264.81 to 448.06% compared to CK. The T2 and T3 treatments with vermicompost also showed increases of 175.20–313.25% compared to the T1 treatment. Among the four treatments, CK had the highest SUA, while it significantly decreased in the T1 treatment with only mineral fertilizers. However, vermicompost addition to the T2 and T3 treatments gradually increased the SUA. The T2 and T3 treatments showed increases of 105.92 and 146.91%, respectively, compared to T1. There were no significant changes in SIA or SCEA among treatments.

3.5. Impact of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil Bacterial Community Composition

The bacterial community structure of soil microorganisms at the phylum level is shown in Figure 2. There were three common bacterial phyla that were relatively abundant in the rhizosphere soil samples of melon for all treatments: Proteobacteria, Acidobacteriota, and Bacteroidota showed relative abundances of 35.22–45.06, 9.92–15.05, and 6.0–12.77%, respectively. Other bacterial phyla that were common but with lower abundance included Gemmatimonadetes (6.15–7.86%), Chloroflexi (5.8–6.57%), Actinobacteria (3.58–5.24%), Planctomycetes (1.41–5.05%), Firmicutes (1.86–6.43%), Verrucomicrobia (1.29–4.93%), Patescibacteria (1.72–4.40%), and Latescibacteria (1.09–4.08%). Compared to the control group (CK), vermicompost application in the T2 and T3 treatments significantly increased the relative abundance of Proteobacteria by 20.1 and 28.5%, respectively. However, it significantly reduced the relative abundance of Bacteroidota by 26.4 and 34.5%, with no significant difference between the T2 and T3 treatments.

3.6. Effect of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil Bacterial α-Diversity

Fertilization significantly affected the soil bacterial diversity (Shannon), dominance (Simpson), and evenness indices (Pielou), with a smaller effect on the richness index (Chao1) (Table 4). Overall, treatments that included vermicompost (T2, T3) increased the microbial community diversity, with the T3 treatment showing the highest diversity and richness in the rhizosphere soil bacterial community, while CK had the lowest diversity and richness. Compared to CK, the 100% mineral fertilizers N treatment (T1) did not significantly affect the soil bacterial Shannon, Simpson, and Pielou indices. In contrast, the T2 and T3 treatments with vermicompost addition increased the Shannon and Pielou indices by 2.26–2.46 and 0.73–1.06%, respectively, although the differences between T2 and T3 were largely insignificant. These results indicate that vermicompost application enhances the α-diversity of bacteria in the soil.

3.7. Impacts of Fertilization on the Correlations Between Melon Quality and Soil Environmental Quality

The results of this experiment indicate that melon quality was significantly correlated with bacterial community structure, soil enzyme activity, and soil fertility (p < 0.05) (Figure 3). The replacement of mineral fertilizers with vermicompost increases the nutrient content in the soil, especially the content of organic matter, which directly enhances the structure and diversity of the bacterial community in the soil. The improvement of microbial diversity can also indirectly increase the yield and quality of melons through soil nutrients and enzyme activity. The microbial community structure was closely related to environmental factors.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Combined Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizer Application on Melon Growth, Yield, and Quality

Previous studies have shown that combined organic and inorganic fertilizer application promotes melon plant growth and significantly enhances the dry matter accumulation, yield, and fruit quality [17,18]. In this experiment, the T2 and T3 treatments, which included vermicompost, significantly increased the stem diameter and aboveground weight of melon compared to CK, which is consistent with previous findings. This is primarily due to vermicompost application, which increased the soil organic matter content, slowing the loss of TN, AP, and readily AK, thus promoting melon growth [19]. Additionally, the combined vermicompost application increased the soil microbial activity and number, providing sufficient carbon sources (organic carbon), which are necessary for improving soil–crop nitrogen conversion by enhancing the soil C/N ratio [20]. This indicates that the vermicompost combination regulates nutrient release and enhances the activity of soil nitrogen cycling enzymes, thus facilitating the conversion of nitrate nitrogen to ammonium nitrogen and further promoting the nutritional and reproductive growth of melon. As a result, the harvest dates for the two treatments with vermicompost (T2 and T3) were advanced by three days compared to CK and by two days compared to T1, facilitating earlier market availability of melon, consistent with the results of.
The sugar content and acidity directly affect fruit quality and are important indicators for evaluating melon quality [21]. This study found that the combined vermicompost application increased the soluble sugar, soluble solids, and vitamin C contents in melon, with the T3 treatment exhibiting the highest soluble sugar, soluble solids, and vitamin C contents, which were increased by 28.9, 6.24, and 21.1% compared to CK and by 38.1, 17.37, and 16.7% compared to T1, all reaching significant differences. This is partially due to the high contents of essential amino acids, such as glutamic acid, glycine, aspartic acid, alanine, leucine, and valine, in vermicompost, which can participate in soluble sugar metabolism through the crop’s root system, thereby enhancing the soluble solids content of the fruit [22]. Conversely, compared to compound fertilizers, vermicompost contains high levels of micronutrients, such as calcium, manganese, iron, and zinc, which can increase the vitamin C and sugar contents in vegetables and fruit and reduce the organic acid levels, thereby improving vegetable quality [23].

4.2. Effects of Combined Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizer Application on Soil Quality

Research has indicated that combined organic and inorganic fertilizer applications improve soil quality [24,25]. Following vermicompost application in acidic soils, the soil pH initially decreased and then increased with higher application rates, and CEC also improved [26]. This may be related to the alkalinity of vermicompost and its large acid–base buffering capacity. Previous studies have found that long-term organic fertilizer application increases the soil base cation content, and the input of a significant amount of stable organic materials can complex with Al3+, forming Al-organic complexes, predominantly consisting of Al3+, that significantly reduce the exchangeable acidity, thereby alleviating soil acidification [12,27]. The results of this study indicate that vermicompost application raises the soil pH, consistent with the findings of Zhang et al. [28].
Reports have indicated that vermicompost is nutrient-rich and high in humic acid. When applied, it not only introduces a large amount of organic matter into the soil but also generates organic acids upon decomposition, further promoting mineral breakdown and nutrient release through acid dissolution and increasing the soil nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content [29,30]. In this study, vermicompost application significantly increased the soil organic matter, with the T3 treatment showing the highest organic matter content at 75.37 g·kg−1, a 3.1-fold increase compared to CK. The organic matter content in T2 was also significantly improved, showing a 2.6-fold increase compared to CK, which is largely consistent with the results by Atiyeh et al. [31]. In summary, combining vermicompost with fertilizers alleviates soil acidification, increases the organic matter content, and expands the nutrient reservoir in the soil, with a more pronounced effect at higher application rates.
Soil enzymes, which are primarily produced by soil microorganisms, plant roots, and soil fauna, play a crucial role in nutrient transformation and supply for plant growth. Their activities can be used to evaluate soil fertility and quality, serving as fundamental indicators of soil functioning, with SUA, SIA, SCEA, and SCA representing soil health, carbon cycling intensity, and antioxidant defense capacity [32]. This study found that compared to T1, vermicompost application increased SUA and SCA by 60.43–193.31 and 39.71–407.66%, respectively, with activity increasing with higher application ratios. This may be related to the substantial input of carbon sources, which promote increased nitrogen cycling enzyme activity [33]. The elevated SCA following vermicompost application indicates enhanced microbial decomposition of peroxides and phenolic compounds in the soil, mitigating toxic effects and promoting soil health [34,35]. So, combined vermicompost improvement in soil quality arises from a synergistic interplay of physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms. Physically, earthworm activity constructs macroporous networks (15–20% porosity increase in lateritic soils), enhancing aeration and hydraulic conductivity [16]. Chemically, vermicompost elevates soil organic carbon (2.6-fold) and mobilizes macronutrients (AN, AP and AK were increased by 37.1%, 2.2- and 2.5-fold, respectively, compared to CK.), with pH buffering critical for acidic soil remediation (Table 3). Biologically, reshapes microbiomes (Actinobacteria ↑/Acidobacteria ↓), stabilizes enzymes (urease + 28%), and enhances symbiosis (AMF colonization, r = 0.89). Field trials demonstrate 80% microbial biomass carbon recovery and 40% Fe/Zn bioavailability via fulvic acid chelation. These cross-scale interactions systemically rebuild soil structure-function integrity, positioning vermicompost as a keystone strategy for sustainable soil management [36].

4.3. Effects of Combined Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizer Application on the Bacterial Community Structure

There is a feedback relationship between the soil environment and microbial communities, with changes in the soil environment affecting the microbial community structure, while microorganisms also affect the soil through biological processes [37]. The relative abundance of soil microorganisms is an important indicator reflecting microbial activity and soil quality and is highly sensitive to environmental changes. In this study, the vermicompost combinations (T2 and T3) significantly promoted the growth and reproduction of soil bacteria compared to unfertilized (CK) and solely chemical-fertilized (T1) treatments, increasing the Shannon, Simpson, and Pielou indices (Table 4), likely because applying vermicompost improves the soil’s physicochemical properties and enhances soil fertility, creating a conducive growth environment for soil bacteria and countering the severe soil degradation observed with long-term mineral fertilizer use or in unfertilized soils, where nutrient deficiencies restrict bacterial growth [38,39].
Different fertilization methods influence the soil bacterial community structure. Overall, although the soil microbial bacterial community structure at the phylum level was similar, there were certain differences in relative abundance (Figure 2). Compared to CK, the combined vermicompost applications, T2 and T3, significantly increased the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, with no significant differences between them. This is likely because vermicompost incorporation improves the soil fertility, promoting the root growth of the crop, which affects the closely related Proteobacteria [40]. Combining vermicompost with mineral fertilizers decreases the soil salinity, increases fertility, improves soil properties, and enhances microbial activity. Soil microorganisms act as a bridge connecting soil and plant systems, converting nutrients provided by the soil into forms that plants can absorb and utilize [41]. Microorganisms also interact with the soil through changes in community structure and function to maintain the dynamic balance of the soil microenvironment [42]. Therefore, combined vermicompost and mineral fertilizer application enhances crop yield and quality and improves the soil micro-ecosystem, promoting sustainable agricultural development [41].
Despite the demonstrated benefits of combined fertilization, several implementation challenges merit attention. First, since the raw materials and production processes of vermicompost can vary, ensuring consistent quality is challenging [9,43]. This variability could affect the effectiveness of the combined application with mineral fertilizers. For instance, vermicompost produced from different organic waste sources might have different nutrient profiles and microbial compositions, leading to inconsistent results in melon growth and soil quality improvement. Second, while T2 (50% substitution) showed optimal results, higher substitution ratios (e.g., T3) exhibited yield trade-offs, suggesting potential economic constraints in regions where the production costs of vermicompost exceed those of conventional fertilizers. Third, prolonged dependence on organic fertilizers may modify soil microbial functional redundancy, as indicated by the absence of statistically significant differences in the Shannon index between T3 and T2 (Table 4). This observation underscores the importance of implementing periodic monitoring protocols to preserve ecosystem resilience and mitigate potential ecological imbalances [2,3]. Field-scale validation should further assess labor costs and mechanization compatibility, particularly for large-scale melon production systems. While our findings demonstrate the potential of vermicompost under controlled settings, further validation through multi-year trials across diverse climatic and edaphic conditions is essential to confirm its universal applicability. Future work should integrate long-term field studies to evaluate temporal stability and region-specific adaptations.

4.4. Study Limitations and Future Perspectives

A significant limitation of this study was its focus on greenhouse conditions. Although the greenhouse offered a stable and controllable environment for our experiments, it inherently lacked the complexity and variability present in the field. The field environment was subject to natural elements such as rainfall patterns, which could influence nutrient leaching and runoff, and wind, which could affect plant growth and the distribution of fertilizers. Moreover, the soil in the field hosted a more diverse and dynamic microbial ecosystem than the simplified one observed in the greenhouse. These factors could potentially alter the effects of the combined fertilizers on melon growth and soil quality. Consequently, future research should aim to conduct field trials to validate and extend the findings of this greenhouse-based study, thereby better informing practical agricultural applications.

5. Conclusions

  • Whether applied as a partial (T2) or full (T3) substitute for mineral fertilizers, vermicompost significantly increased melon yield and enhanced the contents of soluble sugars, soluble solids, and vitamin C. The complete substitution (T3) was particularly effective, increasing soluble sugar content by 28.9% compared to CK and thereby significantly improving melon flavor.
  • Whether partially (T2) or fully (T3) applied as a substitute for mineral fertilizers, vermicompost significantly enhanced watermelon yield and accelerated harvest by 3–7 days, leading to greater economic benefits for growers from earlier market access.
  • Whether applied as a partial (T2) or complete (T3) substitute for mineral fertilizers, vermicompost significantly enhanced the soil’s nutrient supply capacity. Particularly in the full substitution treatment (T3), the soil organic matter content increased by 2.6-fold compared to the control group (CK). Furthermore, this treatment effectively boosted both the abundance and diversity of soil microorganisms, leading to a marked improvement in the health of the soil ecosystem.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Y. and N.L.; methodology, A.Y.; formal analysis, N.L. and S.C.; writing—original draft preparation, N.L.; writing—review and editing, N.L., S.C. and W.Y.; supervision, A.Y.; project administration, A.Y.; funding acquisition, A.Y. and N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Scientific Research Foundation of Zhejiang University of Water Resources and Electric Power (No. xky2023002), We also thank the Nanxun Scholars Program for Young Scholars of ZJWEU (RC20220201101) to support Si Chen’s work.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used DeepSeek (specifically, the DeepSeek-V3.1 model) solely for language editing and refinement. After using this tool, the authors thoroughly reviewed and edited the output as needed and take full responsibility for the entire content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Liu, M.; Wang, C.; Liu, X.; Lu, Y.; Wang, Y. Saline-alkali soil applied with vermicompost and humic acid fertilizer improved macroaggregate microstructure to enhance salt leaching and inhibit nitrogen losses. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2020, 156, 103705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Benbi, D.K.; Brar, J.S. A 25-year record of carbon sequestration and soil properties in intensive agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Ma, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, X.; Li, H.; Wei, J.; Zheng, F.; Tan, D. Long-term application of pig manure fertiliser affects wheat yield and soil microorganism composition. Plant Soil. Environ. 2023, 69, 374–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ma, H.; Lv, P.; Wang, C.; Zhou, J. Comprehensive treatment and disposal of logistics waste in China: Prospects of biomass resource conversion. BioResources 2024, 19, 1844–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Crosby, K.; Marquez, S.A.; Jifon, J.L.; Leskovar, D.I.; Isakeit, T.; Singh, J.; Patil, B.S. ‘Supermelon’ and ‘flavorific’: Two new hybrid muskmelon cultivars with resistance to Monosporascus cannonballus from Texas A&M Agrilife Research. HortScience 2023, 58, 804–807. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sastry, K.S.; Mandal, B.; Hammond, J.; Scott, S.W.; Briddon, R.W. Cucumis melo (muskmelon or cantaloupe). In Encyclopedia of Plant Viruses and Viroids; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sakurai, M. Studies on enrichment of soil fertility and comprehensive design for fertilizer application in organic farming fields. Jpn. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 93, 260–261. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khattak, R.A.; Haroon, K.; Muhammad, D. Mechanism(s) of humic acid induced beneficial effects in salt-affected soils. Acad. J. 2013, 8, 932–939. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wato, T.; Negash, T.; Andualem, A.; Bitew, A. Significance of organic and inorganic fertilizers in maintaining soil fertility and increasing crop productivity in Ethiopia: A review. Environ. Res. Commun. 2024, 6, 102002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sinha, R.K.; Hahn, G.; Singh, P.K.; Suhane, R.K.; Anthonyreddy, A. Organic farming by vermiculture: Producing safe, nutritive and protective foods by earthworms (Charles Darwin’s friends of farmers). Am. J. Exp. Agr. 2011, 1, 363–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Panjgotra, S.; Sangha, G.K. Potential role of earthworms and earthworm casts for nutrient enrichment in soils of sugarcane fields of punjab. Biochem. Cell Arch. 2024, 24, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gupta, A.; Singh, U.B.; Sahu, P.K.; Paul, S.; Kumar, A.; Malviya, D.; Singh, S.; Kuppusamy, P.; Singh, P.; Paul, D.; et al. Linking soil microbial diversity to modern agriculture practices: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A.; Santiago-Borraz, J.; Montes Molina, J.A.; Nafate, C.C.; Abud-Archila, M.; Oliva Llaven, M.A.; Rincón-Rosales, R.; Dendooven, L. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2781–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Huang, C.; Zhang, K.; Guo, W.; Huang, H.; Gou, Z.; Yang, L.; Chen, Y.; Oh, K.; Fang, C.; Luo, L. The effects of partial substitution of fertilizer using different organic materials on soil nutrient condition, aggregate stability and enzyme activity in a tea plantation. Plants 2023, 12, 3791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nie, M.; Yue, G.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y. Short-term organic fertilizer substitution increases sorghum yield by improving soil physicochemical characteristics and regulating microbial community structure. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1492797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Soobhany, N. Insight into the recovery of nutrients from organic solid waste through biochemical conversion processes for fertilizer production: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, Y.; Zhen, Q.; Ma, W.; Jia, J.; Li, P.; Zhang, X. Dynamic responses of soil aggregate-associated organic carbon and nitrogen to different vegetation restoration patterns in an agro-pastoral ecotone in northern China. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 189, 106895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yang, B.M.; Li, G.L.; Yao, L.X.; Zhou, C.M.; He, Z.H. Effect of organic fertilizer application pattern on vegetable yield, soil chemical property and micro-organism. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2010, 18, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bhardwaj, D.; Ansari, M.W.; Sahoo, R.K.; Tuteja, N. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb. Cell Fact. 2014, 13, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qasim, M.; Ju, J.; Zhao, H.; Bhatti, S.M.; Saleem, G.; Memon, S.P.; Ali, S.; Younas, M.U.; Rajput, N.; Jamali, Z.H. Morphological and physiological response of tomato to sole and combined application of vermicompost and chemical fertilizers. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ali, M.A.; Gençoğlan, C.; Gençoğlan, S. The effects of organic and inorganic fertilizer applications on yield and plant vegetative growth of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Int. J. Plant Soil. Sci. 2019, 29, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bade, K.K.; Bhati, V.; Singh, V.B. Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth, yield and quality of chilli (Capsicum annum) cv. Pusa jwala. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App Sci. 2017, 6, 2545–2552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chaoui, H.I.; Zibilske, L.M.; Ohno, T. Effects of earthworm casts and compost on soil microbial activity and plant nutrient availability. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gao, C.; Wang, Z.; Wang, C.; Yang, J.; Du, R.; Bing, H.; Xiang, W.; Wang, X.; Liu, C. Endophytic streptomyces sp. Neau-dd186 from moss with broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity: Biocontrol potential against soilborne diseases and bioactive components. Phytopathology 2024, 114, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tian, M.; Yu, R.; Guo, S.; Yang, W.; Liu, S.; Du, H.; Liang, J.; Zhang, X. Effect of vermicompost application on the soil microbial community structure and fruit quality in melon (Cucumis melo). Agronomy 2024, 14, 2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Islam, S.S.; Anik, R.B.; Hasan, A.K.; Karim, R.; Khomphet, T. Impacts of vermicompost and farmyard manure as organic fertilizer with biochar amendment on soil quality, growth and yield of sunflower. Indian J. Agr. Res. 2024, 58, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lazcano, C.; Gómez-Brandón, M.; Revilla, P.; Domínguez, J. Short-term effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil microbial community structure and function. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, J.; Fang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Jiang, J.; Gu, X. Responses of soil nutrients and rhizosphere microbial communities of a medicinal plant Pinelliaternata to vermicompost. 3 Biotech 2023, 13, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Das, S.K.; Ghosh, G.K. Soil hydro-physical properties affected by biomass-derived biochar and organic manure: A low-cost technology for managing acidic mountain sandy soils of north eastern region of India. Biomass Conv. Biorefin. 2024, 14, 6621–6635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jain, R.; Pattanaik, L.; Padhi, S.K.; Naik, S.N. Role of microbes and microbial consortium in solid waste management. In Environmental and Agricultural Microbiology: Applications for Sustainability; Mishra, B.B., Kumar Nayak, S.K., Mohapatra, S., Samantaray, D.P., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  31. Atiyeh, R.M.; Lee, S.; Edwards, C.A.; Arancon, N.Q.; Metzger, J.D. The influence of humic acids derived from earthworm-processed organic wastes on plant growth. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 84, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maffia, A.; Marra, F.; Canino, F.; Battaglia, S.; Mallamaci, C.; Oliva, M.; Muscolo, A. Humic substances from waste-based fertilizers for improved soil fertility. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Atiyeh, R.M.; Subler, S.; Edwards, C.A.; Bachman, G.; Metzger, J.D.; Shuster, W. Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia 2000, 44, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Garcia, J.; Moravek, M.; Fish, T.; Thannhauser, T.; Fei, Z.; Sparks, J.P.; Giovannoni, J.; Kao-Kniffin, J. Rhizosphere microbiomes derived from vermicompost alter gene expression and regulatory pathways in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum, L.). Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 21362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bachman, G.R.; Metzger, J.D. Growth of bedding plants in commercial potting substrate amended with vermicompost. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 3155–3161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Iqbal, A.; Ligeng, J.; Mo, Z.; Adnan, M.; Lal, R.; Zaman, M.; Usman, S.; Hua, T.; Imran, M.; Pan, S.G.; et al. Substation of vermicompost mitigates cd toxicity, improves rice yields and restores bacterial community in a Cd-contaminated soil in southern China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 465, 133118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gopalakrishnan, S.; Pande, S.; Sharma, M.; Humayun, P.; Kiran, B.K.; Sandeep, D.; Vidya, M.S.; Deepthi, K.; Rupela, O. Evaluation of actinomycete isolates obtained from herbal vermicompost for the biological control of fusarium wilt of chickpea. Crop Protect 2011, 30, 1070–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cui, X.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, J.; Peng, F.; Gao, P. Long-term combined application of manure and chemical fertilizer sustained higher nutrient status and rhizospheric bacterial diversity in reddish paddy soil of central south China. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Enebe, M.C.; Erasmus, M. Vermicomposting technology—a perspective on vermicompost production technologies, limitations and prospects. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rehaman, A.; Fatma, M.; Jan, A.T.; Shah, A.A.; Asgher, M.; Khan, N.A. Co-application of nitric oxide and vermicompost improves photosynthetic functions, antioxidants, and nitrogen metabolism in maize (Zea mays L.) grown under drought stress. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 42, 3888–3907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pottipati, S.; Jat, N.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Bioconversion of Eichhornia crassipes into vermicompost on a large scale through improving operational aspects of in-vessel biodegradation process: Microbial dynamics. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 374, 128767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mago, M.; Gupta, R.; Yadav, A.; Kumar Garg, V. Sustainable treatment and nutrient recovery from leafy waste through vermicomposting. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 347, 126390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Patra, R.K.; Behera, D.; Mohapatra, K.K.; Sethi, D.; Mandal, M.; Patra, A.K.; Ravindran, B. Juxtaposing the quality of compost and vermicompost produced from organic wastes amended with cow dung. Environ. Res. 2022, 214, 114119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 02428 g001
Figure 1. Effects of different fertilization treatments on SAC (A), SUA (B), SIA (C) and SCEA (D) activities. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters above bars indicate significant differences among treatments (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05). Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 1.
Figure 1. Effects of different fertilization treatments on SAC (A), SUA (B), SIA (C) and SCEA (D) activities. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters above bars indicate significant differences among treatments (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05). Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 1.
Agronomy 15 02428 g001
Agronomy 15 02428 g002
Figure 2. Composition of bacterial communities at the phylum level in different fertilization treatments in the soil. Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 1.
Figure 2. Composition of bacterial communities at the phylum level in different fertilization treatments in the soil. Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 1.
Agronomy 15 02428 g002
Agronomy 15 02428 g003
Figure 3. Correlation analysis of melon quality, soil physicochemical properties, soil enzyme activities, and soil bacterial community composition with different fertilization treatments.
Figure 3. Correlation analysis of melon quality, soil physicochemical properties, soil enzyme activities, and soil bacterial community composition with different fertilization treatments.
Agronomy 15 02428 g003
Table 1. Effect of different fertilization treatments on the growth and development of melon plants.
Table 1. Effect of different fertilization treatments on the growth and development of melon plants.
TreatmentPollination DateHarvest DateAboveground Biomass (g) Stem Diameter (mm) Single Fruit Weight (g)
No nitrogen fertilizer (CK)11 May 202320 June 2023304.47 ± 102.31 d5.78 ± 1.05 d638.15 ± 34.05 c
100% mineral fertilizers nitrogen (T1)8 May 202319 June 2023555.97 ± 45.93 c7.15 ± 0.63 c762.03 ± 14.58 b
50% mineral fertilizers nitrogen + 50% vermicompost nitrogen (T2)4 May 202317 June 2023741.98 ± 94.50 b8.08 ± 0.46 a793.36 ± 31.34 b
100% vermicompost nitrogen (T3)4 May 202317 June 2023812.32 ± 77.37 a8.49 ± 0.81 a847.48 ± 23.98 a
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters within a column indicate significant differences among treatments (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05).
Table 2. Effects of different fertilization treatments on melon fruit quality.
Table 2. Effects of different fertilization treatments on melon fruit quality.
TreatmentSoluble Sugar Content (%)Soluble Solids Content (%)Organic Acid Content (g/kg)Soluble Protein Content (mg/g)Vitamin C Content (µg/g FW)
CK9.68 ± 0.17 c10.17 ± 1.09 c1.64 ± 0.11 a5.95 ± 1.27 a29.03 ± 0.33 b
T110.93 ± 0.39 b11.97 ± 0.61 b1.43 ± 0.16 b6.03 ± 0.67 a30.12 ± 0.55 b
T211.33 ± 0.11 b13.72 ± 0.49 a1.10 ± 0.05 c6.08 ± 0.66 a34.80 ± 0.44 a
T312.48 ± 0.01 a14.05 ± 1.03 a1.06 ± 0.03 c6.47 ± 0.73 a35.16 ± 0.66 a
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters within a column indicate significant differences among treatments (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05). Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 1.
Table 3. Effects of different fertilization treatments on soil fertility quality.
Table 3. Effects of different fertilization treatments on soil fertility quality.
TreatmentspHOMC (g/kg)AN (mg/kg)AP (mg/kg)AK (mg/kg)
CK5.28 ± 0.06 c18.36 ± 1.90 c49.5 ± 1.13 d37.26 ± 0.63 d98.19 ± 1.52 d
T15.35 ± 0.20 c19.22 ± 1.48 c56.74 ± 1.20 c41.29 ± 0.67 c164.15 ± 2.57 c
T25.72 ± 0.14 b66.41 ± 2.52 b67.87 ± 1.26 a89.03 ± 0.35 a277.72 ± 2.14 a
T36.08 ± 0.11 a75.37 ± 2.55 a61.92 ± 1.41 b84.17 ± 0.52 b247.67 ± 2.49 b
OMC, organic matter content; AN, alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen; AP, available phosphorus; AK, available potassium. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters within a column indicate significant differences among treatments (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05). Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 1.
Table 4. Soil bacterial α-diversity index affected by different fertilization treatments.
Table 4. Soil bacterial α-diversity index affected by different fertilization treatments.
TreatmentsChao1 IndexShannon IndexSimpson Index Pielou Index
CK3433.18 ± 76.20 a10.14 ± 0.02 b0.9983 ± 0.0000 a 0.8853 ± 0.0013 b
T13575.14 ± 76.57 a10.11 ± 0.08 b0.9981 ± 0.0000 a0.8847 ± 0.0015 b
T23679.19 ± 107.14 a10.36 ± 0.03 a0.9985 ± 0.0000 a0.8928 ± 0.0010 a
T33682.12 ± 60.53 a10.38 ± 0.04 a0.9985 ± 0.0001 a0.8946 ± 0.0011 a
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters within a column indicate significant differences among treatments (DMRT, p ≤ 0.05). Abbreviations for different fertilization treatments are the same as those in Table 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

Li, N.; Chen, S.; Yue, W.; Yan, A. Effects of Combined Application of Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizers on Melon Quality and Soil Environmental Quality. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102428

AMA Style

Li N, Chen S, Yue W, Yan A. Effects of Combined Application of Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizers on Melon Quality and Soil Environmental Quality. Agronomy. 2025; 15(10):2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102428

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Ningyu, Si Chen, Wenjun Yue, and Ailan Yan. 2025. "Effects of Combined Application of Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizers on Melon Quality and Soil Environmental Quality" Agronomy 15, no. 10: 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102428

APA Style

Li, N., Chen, S., Yue, W., & Yan, A. (2025). Effects of Combined Application of Vermicompost and Mineral Fertilizers on Melon Quality and Soil Environmental Quality. Agronomy, 15(10), 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102428

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