Next Article in Journal
Climate Change Dynamics in the High-Andean Communities of Peru: Social Imaginaries and Adaptation Practices of Agricultural Producers
Next Article in Special Issue
Physicochemical Characterization of Vineyard Stump-Derived Hydrochars and Pyrochars and Preliminary Grapevine Tolerance Screening
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Operating Parameters for Real Landfill Leachate Treatment via Electrocoagulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Organic Soil Amendments and Vineyard Topographic Position on the Chemical Composition of Syrah, Trincadeira, Alicante Bouschet, and Antão Vaz Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in the Alentejo Wine Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/environments13010059
environments-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

Vermicompost and Leachate from Sewage Sludge and Vineyard Pruning Residues: An Exploratory Assessment of Cucumber Germination and Early Seedling Growth

by
Elisabete Nascimento-Gonçalves
1,2,
Tiago Azevedo
1,
Henda Lopes
1,
Catarina Medeiros
1,
Virgílio Falco
1,2,3,
Ana Cláudia Coelho
4,
João R. Sousa
1,2,
Ana M. Coimbra
1,2,
Marta Roboredo
1,2,
Paula A. Oliveira
1,2 and
Maria C. Morais
1,2,*
1
Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Institute for Innovation, Capacity Building and Sustainability of Agri-Food Production (Inov4Agro), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
3
LAQV-REQUIMTE—Laboratory for Green Chemistry (LAQV) of the Network of Chemistry and Technology (REQUIMTE), University of Porto, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal
4
Animal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2026, 13(1), 59; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13010059
Submission received: 4 November 2025 / Revised: 15 January 2026 / Accepted: 19 January 2026 / Published: 21 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Remediation and Improvement Through the Application of By-Product Amendments, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The sustainable management of organic residues remains a major challenge in agriculture. Vermicomposting offers an environmentally friendly strategy to convert organic waste into nutrient-rich, biologically stable biofertilizers. This exploratory study evaluated the effects of vermicompost and its leachate, produced from sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues, on cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) germination and 25-day early seedling growth. Treatments included a control (peat and perlite, CNT), two vermicompost doses, 20 g kg−1 and 40 g kg−1 (VC_D1 and VC_D2, respectively) and a 5% (v/v) vermicompost leachate (VC_L) applied as the sole irrigation source. Foliar nutrient contents and physicochemical properties of the substrate and leachate were determined. Germination was not significantly affected (p > 0.05), but VC_D1 promoted slightly faster and more uniform seed emergence. Growth responses were dose dependent, with VC_D1 significantly enhancing shoot biomass (approximately 15% than the CNT and VC_D2) and providing a balanced foliar nutrient profile, whereas VC_D2 significantly reduced growth, promoted excessive foliar K and P, and lower Ca, Fe, and Mn contents. VC_L enhanced foliar N accumulation but did not significantly (p > 0.05) increase biomass. Both vermicompost and its leachate were pathogen-free, with metal concentrations below regulatory limits. Overall, these findings suggest that, under the tested conditions, vermicomposting these residues can generate potentially safe amendments for cucumber seedling growth, though dose optimization is essential. This exploratory approach supports residue valorization and contributes to circular economy principles and sustainable agriculture goals.

1. Introduction

Wine production generates large amounts of organic residues during vineyard management, as well as during winemaking operations. Vineyard residues include pruning wood, leaves and shoots, while from the winemaking processes, grape pomace, stems, lees, and wastewater are the main residues produced [1,2]. These are typically rich in organic matter, mineral nutrients, and polyphenols compounds that can be recovered and transformed into value-added products [3,4,5]. However, improper management of these residues poses significant environmental risks, such as air pollution from greenhouse gas emissions during the open-field burning of pruning waste and the contamination of soil and water by phenolic-rich effluents [6,7].
Sewage sludge is a major residue resulting from urban and industrial wastewater treatment processes and is produced in large quantities due to the increasing implementation of wastewater treatment plants worldwide [8,9]. These sludges are rich in organic matter, macronutrients and micronutrients, making them potentially valuable to be used as soil amendments or organic fertilizers [10,11]. However, their direct application to soils may be limited by the presence of contaminants such as metals, persistent organic pollutants, microplastics, personal care products, and pathogenic microorganisms [12,13]. Therefore, sustainable strategies for sewage sludge valorization, which include composting, anaerobic digestion, vermicomposting, or advanced stabilization processes, are being developed to ensure environmental and sanitary safety, widely promoting this residue integration into circular economy frameworks [14,15,16,17].
The increasing demand for sustainable agriculture has intensified the development of effective methods to recycle organic residues, while minimizing their environmental footprint [18]. Among biological recycling processes, vermicomposting has emerged as a promising, low-cost, and environmentally friendly approach [19]. Through the synergistic action of earthworms and microorganisms, organic matter is transformed into a stable, humus-like product known as vermicompost [20]. This product is characterized by its high nutrient content, homogeneity, porosity, water-holding capacity, stability, and low carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio [21]. Earthworm activity enhances both microbial proliferation and enzymatic activity by fragmenting, ingesting and digesting fresh organic material, while simultaneously reducing the bioavailability of toxic metals such as cadmium, zinc, copper, and lead, thereby limiting their bioaccumulation [19]. In addition to the solid product, the liquid fraction obtained from vermicompost, referred to as leachate [22], contains soluble nutrients, beneficial microorganisms, and plant growth regulators that can stimulate plant development and nutrient uptake [23,24,25].
Although some studies have explored the valorization of viticulture residues and sewage sludge separately through composting and vermicomposting [26,27,28,29,30,31,32], the combination of vine pruning residues with sewage sludge for composting or vermicomposting remains scarcely explored. The mixture of these materials offers complementary benefits in terms of nutritional balance, physical structure, and the presence of bioactive compounds [2,12]. Therefore, exploring such synergistic effects could provide an efficient and sustainable pathway for the joint management of agro-industrial and urban organic residues. Beyond local and regional contexts, the management and valorization of these residues represent a global challenge with increasing relevance for sustainable agriculture and waste management.
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is one of the most widely cultivated vegetables worldwide [33]. This vegetable is valued for its higher water content, dietary fiber, B-complex vitamins, and vitamin C, making it suitable for low-calorie diets and functional food applications [34]. Moreover, its bioactive compounds, particularly antioxidants, enhance its nutritional value and potential applications in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries [34]. Cucumber is established as a bioindicator species due to its rapid and uniform germination, combined with high sensitivity to phytotoxic compounds even at low concentrations [34].
In this context, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of vermicompost and its leachate, derived from sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues, on cucumber germination and early seedling growth. Conducted as an exploratory assessment, the study focused on their agronomic and environmental potential as sustainable organic amendments, within a conceptual circular economy framework centered on nutrient recycling and waste valorization.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Vermicompost Production

Vine prunings were collected from local vineyards in Vila Real, Portugal, and shredded into 1–2 cm pieces. Sewage sludge was obtained from the Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant in Sanfins do Douro, Portugal. The two residues were mixed in a 1:1 (w/w) ratio, corresponding to 1.5 kg of each residue, and placed in 5 L plastic container. Eisenia fetida earthworms were introduced in sufficient numbers to ensure effective decomposition, with a total biomass of 75 g, and were provided with a net (1 cm) limited separated comfort zone. The vermicomposting process was conducted as a single experimental batch maintained for nine months under controlled temperature and moisture conditions in darkness. Reproducibility across independent batches was not evaluated. Leachate was collected through a perforated bottom connected to a drainage outlet, allowing the liquid fraction to percolate into a separate collection vessel placed below each container. Collection was performed every two weeks. At the end of the vermicomposting process, the vermicompost material was pooled and thoroughly homogenized, and three subsamples were collected for further analysis. Similarly, the leachate was collected as a pooled composite sample, obtained by homogenizing the total volume produced at the end of the process. All samples were sent to the Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory of UTAD for chemical analyses (Table 1) and the analytical procedures followed standard methods as described in [35].
The vermicompost exhibited a C/N ratio of 21, slightly alkaline pH, 7.6, and high organic matter content, 849 g kg−1 DW, all indicative of a well-matured and stable product. In terms of nutrients, Ca, N and K were the most abundant macroelements, while Fe and Zn showed the highest concentrations among the micronutrients. Metal contents in the vermicompost were below the legal thresholds (Portaria n° 185/21 July 2022). The leachate presented a similar pH, 7.7, but slightly higher electrical conductivity than the solid vermicompost. Its nutrient concentrations were lower, with K and Ca as the most abundant macronutrients and Fe as the most abundant micronutrient. Metal contents in the leachate were also below regulatory limits (Portaria n° 185/21 July 2022). The total polyphenol content determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent method [36], corresponded to 2.91 ± 0.22 mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE) g−1 DW for vermicompost and 67.27 ± 0.42 mg GAE L−1 for leachate. The phytotoxicity of vermicompost and leachate was evaluated through germination and radicle elongation tests using garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) seeds, and phytotoxicity responses were evaluated as the germination index (GI) [37]. GI values confirmed the absence of phytotoxicity for both fractions, with the vermicompost exhibiting a very high GI (198.29 ± 25.96%) and the leachate also showing a value well above the 80% threshold generally considered safe for plant growth (139.33 ± 60.44%). Basal respiration, indicative of microbial activity, was estimated from C-CO2 emissions, according to Anderson [38] and was 3.33 ± 1.57 mg CO2 g−1 OM d−1 in the vermicompost, reflecting a moderate level of biological activity consistent with a stabilized organic amendment (Table 1). The vermicompost and leachate were analyzed for total and fecal coliforms (Escherichia coli) and Salmonella spp. [39] and both microorganisms were found absent in the vermicompost and leachate.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted outdoors at the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal (41°30′2″ N, 7°38′55″ W; 770 m altitude) during summer of 2024 under natural environmental conditions. The region has a Mediterranean climate, with average minimum and maximum temperatures of 15.2 °C and 25.0 °C, respectively, during the experimental period (27 July–20 August), and no rainfall was recorded during this period. Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. cv. ‘Market’, Eurosementes, Riachos, Portugal) seeds were sown in polystyrene trays with 30 × 30 × 65 mm cells at a depth of approximately 1–2 cm below the substrate surface, and four treatments were established. All treatments used the same base substrate, composed of a commercial peat-based mix (BIO Siro, Leal & Soares, Mira, Portugal) with 20% perlite to enhance aeration. The chemical properties of this base substrate are presented in Table 2. No additional fertilizers were applied during the experimental period. The control (CNT) consisted of only the commercial peat-based substrate amended with 20% perlite. Two vermicompost treatments included incorporation of vermicompost (VC) into the substrate at rates equivalent to 20 g kg−1 (VC_D1) and 40 g kg−1 (VC_D2). These application rates were selected to comply with Portuguese legislation (Portaria n.° 185/21 July 2022), considering metal concentrations and substrate pH, and were intended to represent low and moderate amendments levels for assessing dose-dependent effects. A fourth treatment (VC_L) consisted of CNT substrate with seedling irrigated exclusively with vermicompost leachate diluted to 5% (v/v), following recommended dilution rates for commercial vermicompost leachates. Given the lack of established fertilization guidelines specifically for vermicompost leachate in cucumber, this concentration was selected as a conservative, safety-oriented rate to test its agronomic potential without toxicity issues. For the solid treatments (VC_D1 and VC_D2), vermicompost was thoroughly mixed with the substrate prior to sowing. For VC_L, the diluted leachate replaced tap water throughout the experiment. Plants were irrigated daily with tap water in CNT, VC_D1, and VC_D2, or with the leachate diluted to 5% (v/v) in VC_L, to maintain adequate moisture level. Each treatment consisted of three replicates with 12 plants per replicate. Seedlings were grown for 25 days. At the end of the experiment, the bulk substrate from all experimental units within each treatment was thoroughly mixed to obtain a homogenous material, from which one composite sample per treatment was collected for chemical analysis.

2.3. Germination, Growth and Physiological Measurements

Germinated seeds were counted daily from day 2 to day 18 after sowing. Seeds were considered germinated when seedlings emerged above the substrate surface. Several germination-related parameters, including the germination percentage (G, %), mean germination time (MGT, day), coefficient of velocity of germination (CVG, %) and synchrony of germination (Z, without units) were calculated [40,41]. Morphological and physiological parameters were recorded at 10, 15 and 25 days after sowing. The shoot length (cm) was measured from the substrate surface to the tip of the longest leaf using a graduated ruler. The number of true leaves were counted manually for each seedling. The chlorophyll content index of the leaves was measured by a Minolta SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Minolta corporation, Ltd., Osaka, Japan). At 25 days, cucumber seedlings were carefully removed from the trays, and the following growth parameters were determined: stem diameter (mm) was measured at the base of the stem using a digital caliper (Fine Science Tools #30087-00, Heidelberg, Germany); root length (cm) was measured from the collar region to the tip of the longest root; and biomass (g) was determined using a scale (Sartorius Entris II, BCE, Lemgo, Germany), after oven dried at 60 °C to a constant weight. Additionally, for each treatment, shoot composite samples (n = 3/treatment) were analyzed for macronutrient and micronutrient content using standard methods at Soil and Plant analysis Laboratory of UTAD [35].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism Version 10.3.1 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Growth results over time were subjected to a one-way repeated measures ANOVA, with day of observation as a within-factor and treatments as between-group factor. Germination and morphological parameters were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mean differences were separated using Tukey’s HSD test at a 5% level of significance. All data sets satisfied the ANOVA assumptions of homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) and normality of errors (Shapiro–Wilk test). Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM).

3. Results

3.1. Chemical Properties of Treatment Mixtures at the End of the Experiment

At the end of the experiment, the chemical properties of the substrate mixtures provide an overview of the substrate properties and nutrient availability under the tested conditions (Table 3). Vermicompost addition reduced the C/N ratio and increased electrical conductivity (EC). Organic matter (OM) content was slightly higher in vermicompost mixtures and pH values remained close to neutral. Macronutrients content was consistently higher in vermicompost treatments, particularly in VC_D2. Micronutrients also increased with the incorporation of vermicompost and leachate, especially Cu and Zn in VC_D1. Metal concentrations remained low and below accepted safety thresholds in all treatments.

3.2. Effect of Vermicompost and Leachate on Cucumber Germination

Overall, all treatments supported successfully cucumber germination (Figure 1). In the early stages (days 2–5), VC_D1 reached 83–94% germination, slightly higher than the CNT (78–94%) and VC_D2 (78–92%). VC_L exhibited slower initial germination, reaching 72–81% in the first days. At eight days after sowing, VC_D1 reached 100% germination, whereas VC_D2 achieved full germination (100%) only at 16 days, and the CNT at 14 days.
At the end of the germination period, calculated germination parameters such as germination percentage (G), mean germination time (MGT), coefficient of velocity of germination (CVG), and synchrony index (Z) (Figure 2) did not show significant differences among treatments (p > 0.05). Although no statistically significant differences were detected (p > 0.05), some trends in germination parameters were apparent. VC_D1 tended to promote slightly faster germination (MGT = 4.31 ± 0.23 days) and higher uniformity (CVG = 23.35 ± 1.19%; Z = 0.71 ± 0.16) compared to VC_D2 and VC_L.

3.3. Effect of Vermicompost and Leachate on Early Cucumber Morphological and Biochemical Parameters

Shoot length increased gradually across all treatments between 10 and 25 days after sowing (Figure 3a). VC_D2 consistently showed the lowest shoot length values over time, with significant differences at 10 and 25 days when compared with CNT, VC_D1 and VC_L (p > 0.05). Leaf number (Figure 3b) followed a uniform pattern across treatments from three leaves at 10–15 days to approximately four leaves at 25 days, with no significant differences being observed among treatments (p > 0.05). SPAD chlorophyll values (Figure 3c) decreased progressively over time in all treatments and, at the end of the experiment, VC_D2 showed significantly lower SPAD values than CNT and VC_L (p < 0.05).
At the end of the experiment, the morphological aspect of cucumber seedlings are visible in Figure 4.
Stem diameter (Figure 5a) was significantly reduced under VC_D2 treatment compared to VC_D1 and VC_L (p < 0.05). VC_D1 significantly increased biomass (Figure 5c) compared with the CNT and VC_D2 (p < 0.05), while VC_L showed an intermediate value that did not differ significantly from VC_D1 or CNT (p > 0.05). Although root height (Figure 5b) and biomass (Figure 5c) did not differ statistically from other treatments, VC_D1 consistently showed a trend towards higher values (p > 0.05).

3.4. Effect of Vermicompost and Leachate on Cucumber Foliar Nutrient Content

The macronutrient and micronutrient contents of cucumber leaves are summarized in Table 4. Plants from VC_L treatment exhibited the highest nitrogen concentration (27.4 g kg−1 DW), whereas VC_D1 and VC_D2 showed the lower foliar nitrogen values. Phosphorus and potassium contents were higher in all VC treatments, particularly in VC_D2, compared with the control (CNT). In contrast, calcium content was lower across all treatments compared with the CNT. Concerning micronutrients, zinc and copper concentrations were slightly higher in VC treatments, especially in VC_D2. While iron and manganese concentrations were higher in the CNT plants than in plants grown under VC or VC_L treatments.

4. Discussion

This study provides preliminary insight into the effects of vermicompost and its leachate, both obtained from the vermicomposting of sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues, on cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) germination and early growth. The discussion integrates chemical, germination, and early growth responses to elucidate plant performance under the tested experimental conditions. Both the vermicompost and leachate presented metal concentrations below legal thresholds and showed no evidence of phytotoxicity (germination index > 80%), indicating effective stabilization of the original organic materials. In this context, the results are consistent with circular economy principles by contributing to nutrient recycling and reducing the environmental burden of organic waste management.
Chemical characterization of the final substrate mixtures confirmed that vermicompost addition to peat-based commercial substrate consistently enhanced macro- and micronutrients contents. The decrease in the C/N ratio in vermicompost treatments indicates higher availability of mineral nitrogen, that is likely supported by the superior shoot biomass observed in VC_D1. However, the elevated electrical conductivity detected in VC_D2 indicates possible salinity stress, which may have impaired water uptake and plant growth. These results highlight the role of dose optimization [42,43]. Similar observations have been reported in cucumber varieties [44] marigold [45], and peas [46], where moderate vermicompost doses enhanced seedling growth, whereas excessive applications reduced seedling performance due to increased salinity or nutrient imbalance.
Although germination parameters did not differ significantly among treatments, some trends were observed, and seedling growth seem to exhibit dose-dependent responses. Overall, neither vermicompost nor its leachate negatively affected cucumber seed germination under the present experimental conditions. All treatments supported high and uniform germination, reaching values close to 100% by the tenth day after sowing. These findings are consistent with the preliminary phytotoxicity tests (germination index > 80%), which had already suggested the absence of inhibitory compounds in both vermicompost and leachate. Nevertheless, VC_D1 promoted a slightly faster and more synchronized germination, whereas the leachate treatment displayed a slower onset. This suggests that moderate doses of the tested vermicompost may enhance seedling emergence, likely due to a balanced supply of essential nutrients and the presence of bioactive humic substances [24,47,48,49].
Regarding cucumber early growth, VC_D1 significantly increased biomass compared to the CNT, indicating that this vermicompost dose provided a favorable nutrient balance for early plant development. Conversely, VC_D2 reduced shoot length, stem diameter, and SPAD values. Previous studies have similarly reported that excessive doses of VC may negatively affect seedling performance [44,50]. For instance, Ceritoglu et al. [50] observed that while 10% and 20% concentrations of vermicompost promoted seedling growth in chickpea, the higher concentrations led to inhibited germination and reduced seedling vigor. Another study found that cucumber seedlings grown in substrates with more than 30% vermicompost exhibited increased leaf area and mineral content; however, higher vermicompost concentrations also resulted in higher nitrate levels in the fruits, indicating potential quality concerns [44].
In contrast, seeds irrigated with leachate exhibited a slower initial germination, which may be attributed to residual salts or phenolic compounds that can transiently delay emergence [51]. As highlighted by other studies, the effectiveness of vermicompost-leachate strongly depends on its concentration and application frequency [51,52,53,54]. For instance, a study that evaluated the effects of various leachate concentrations on lettuce seed germination, vegetative development, photosynthetic pigments, and phytotoxicity concluded that lower concentrations correlated positively with germination and growth parameters but higher concentrations of leachate exhibited negative correlations, indicating greater phytotoxicity [51]. Similarly, another study found that while low concentrations of liquid vermicompost promoted bean seedling growth, higher doses inhibited development and caused chlorosis [54]. It should be noted that the observed leachate effects are concentration-dependent and are based solely on the 5% (v/v) dilution tested in this study.
Leaf nutrient analysis provided further insight into the mechanisms underlying the observed growth patterns. Vermicompost treatments, especially VC_D2, strongly increased potassium and phosphorus concentrations (64.7 and 6.5 g kg−1 DW, respectively), while reducing calcium, iron, and manganese relative to the CNT. Such nutrient imbalances may explain the limited growth performance in VC_D2, as excessive K can antagonize Ca and Mg uptake, while reduced Fe and Mn availability may hinder chlorophyll biosynthesis and photosynthetic efficiency [55,56]. The VC_D1 treatment, on the other hand, maintained a more balanced nutrient profile, with moderate increases in P, K, Zn, and Cu, avoiding the extreme shifts observed in VC_D2. This balance likely contributed to its superior shoot biomass, suggesting that nutrient equilibrium, rather than total nutrient content, is key to promoting optimal growth.
Overall, the findings of this exploratory study indicate that vermicompost dose strongly determine cucumber performance by modulating nutrient dynamics, ionic balance, and bioactive compound effects. Excessive application rates may induce nutritional antagonisms rather than stimulating cucumber growth. As vermicompost not only supplies mineral nutrients but also contains humic substances and plant growth regulators that can modulate physiological processes [24,57,58]; the improved performance of VC_D1 observed under the tested experimental conditions likely resulted from the combined effect of nutrient availability and bioactive stimulation.

5. Conclusions

This exploratory study indicates that vermicompost and leachate derived from sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues are chemically safe and potentially valuable fertilizers for cucumber seedling growth. The results are aligned with residue valorization and nutrient recycling, thereby contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), as well as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).
All treatments supported high germination rates without evidence of phytotoxicity, indicating the maturity and environmental safety of the products. Nonetheless, plant growth responses depended on the application rate and amendment form. However, due to the limited number of application rates evaluated, the present study does not allow the establishment of robust dose–response relationships. Vermicompost addition at 20 g kg−1 enhanced seedling biomass and maintained a balanced foliar nutrient profile, whereas a higher rate, 40 g kg−1, induced nutrient imbalances and reduced growth. Leachate application increased foliar nitrogen concentrations but did not significantly improve biomass accumulation at the tested dilution. These results underscore the importance of dose optimization, as excessive application rates may offset the potential benefits of vermicompost-based amendments.
From a sustainability standpoint, the co-vermicomposting of sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues can be a promising strategy for residue valorization within circular economy frameworks, transforming waste materials into agronomically valuable resources. Nevertheless, given the use of a single experimental batch, further research is required to validate the agronomic relevance of these amendments beyond the tested experimental conditions. Future studies should encompass the complete crop cycle, including flowering, fruiting, and yield quality, as well as detailed characterization of leachate composition—particularly phenolic and humic fractions—to better elucidate their roles in plant development. In addition, intermediate vermicompost application rates and/or alternative application methods should be tested to reduce the nutrient imbalances observed at the highest rate. Field trials across different soil types and crop species will also be essential to confirm the scalability and practical applicability under real agricultural conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.A., E.N.-G., M.C.M. and P.A.O.; methodology, T.A., E.N.-G., C.M., H.L., A.C.C. and M.C.M.; formal analysis, T.A. and M.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.A., E.N.-G. and M.C.M.; writing—review and editing, T.A., E.N.-G., A.C.C., V.F., J.R.S., A.M.C., M.R., P.A.O. and M.C.M.; supervision, J.R.S., A.M.C., M.R., P.A.O. and M.C.M.; funding acquisition, P.A.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Vine&Wine PT project has received funding from the NextGeneration EU program, through Portugal’s Recovery and Resilience Plan (project n. º C644866286-00000011). This work is supported by National Funds by FCT–Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the projects UID/04033/2025: Center for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/04033/2025) and LA/P/0126/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/LA/P/0126/2020). T.A. and H.L. thank FCT for their PhD grants (2023. 01329.BD and PRT/BD/154380/2023, respectively), while E.N.-G. and C.M. acknowledge PRR and European Funds NextGeneration EU for their fellowship grants (BI/UTAD/41/2025 and BI/UTAD/17/2025, respectively).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CVGCoefficient of velocity of germination
DWDry weight
ECElectrical conductivity
GAEGallic acid equivalents
GIGermination index
MGTMean germination time
OMOrganic matter
SEMStandard error of the mean
SPADSoil–plant analysis development chlorophyll index
VCVermicompost

References

  1. Niculescu, V.-C.; Ionete, R.-E. An Overview on Management and Valorisation of Winery Wastes. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 5063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Nascimento-Gonçalves, E.; Azevedo, T.; Lopes, H.; Sousa, J.R.; Oliveira, P.A.; Roboredo, M.; Coimbra, A.M.; Morais, M.C. Vermicomposting as a Valorization Solution to the Winery Sector By-Products. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Barbanera, M.; Cardarelli, A.; Carota, E.; Castellini, M.; Giannoni, T.; Ubertini, S. Valorization of Winery and Distillery By-Products by Hydrothermal Carbonization. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Rodrigues Machado, A.; Atatoprak, T.; Santos, J.; Alexandre, E.M.C.; Pintado, M.E.; Paiva, J.A.P.; Nunes, J. Potentialities of the Extraction Technologies and Use of Bioactive Compounds from Winery By-Products: A Review from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Rodrigues, R.P.; Gando-Ferreira, L.M.; Quina, M.J. Increasing Value of Winery Residues through Integrated Biorefinery Processes: A Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 4709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Jesus, M.S.; Romaní, A.; Genisheva, Z.; Teixeira, J.A.; Domingues, L. Integral Valorization of Vine Pruning Residue by Sequential Autohydrolysis Stages. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Provenzano, M.; Pacchera, F.; Silvestri, C.; Ruggieri, A. From Vineyard to Value: A Circular Economy Approach to Viticulture Waste. Resources 2024, 13, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Mahmoudi, A.; Mousavi, S.A.; Darvishi, P. Performance and Recent Development in Sewage Sludge-to-Bioenergy Using Microbial Fuel Cells: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 50, 1432–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Salva, J.; Sečkár, M.; Schwarz, M.; Samešová, D.; Mordáčová, M.; Poništ, J.; Veverková, D. Analysis of the Current State of Sewage Sludge Treatment from the Perspective of Current European Directives. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2025, 37, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Głąb, T.; Żabiński, A.; Sadowska, U.; Gondek, K.; Kopeć, M.; Mierzwa-Hersztek, M.; Tabor, S.; Stanek-Tarkowska, J. Fertilization Effects of Compost Produced from Maize, Sewage Sludge and Biochar on Soil Water Retention and Chemical Properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 197, 104493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Siddiqui, M.I.; Rameez, H.; Farooqi, I.H.; Basheer, F. Recent Advancement in Commercial and Other Sustainable Techniques for Energy and Material Recovery from Sewage Sludge. Water 2023, 15, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Molaey, R.; Appels, L.; Yesil, H.; Tugtas, A.E.; Çalli, B. Sustainable Heavy Metal Removal from Sewage Sludge: A Review of Bioleaching and Other Emerging Technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 955, 177020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Grobelak, A.; Całus-Makowska, K.; Jasińska, A.; Klimasz, M.; Wypart-Pawul, A.; Augustajtys, D.; Baor, E.; Sławczyk, D.; Kowalska, A. Environmental Impacts and Contaminants Management in Sewage Sludge-to-Energy and Fertilizer Technologies: Current Trends and Future Directions. Energies 2024, 17, 4983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Hajam, Y.A.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, A. Environmental Waste Management Strategies and Vermi Transformation for Sustainable Development. Environ. Chall. 2023, 13, 100747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Manea, E.E.; Bumbac, C.; Dinu, L.R.; Bumbac, M.; Nicolescu, C.M. Composting as a Sustainable Solution for Organic Solid Waste Management: Current Practices and Potential Improvements. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Giwa, A.S.; Maurice, N.J.; Luoyan, A.; Liu, X.; Yunlong, Y.; Hong, Z. Advances in Sewage Sludge Application and Treatment: Process Integration of Plasma Pyrolysis and Anaerobic Digestion with the Resource Recovery. Heliyon 2023, 9, e19765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Kacprzak, M.; Baran, J.; Fijalkowski, K. Emerging Sewage Sludge Treatment Technologies for Land Carbon Sequestration: A Comprehensive Review. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2025, 27, 2866–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Dominguez, J.; Edwards, C.A. Vermicomposting Organic Wastes: A Review. In Soil Zoology for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century; Geocities: Cairo, Egypt, 2004; pp. 369–395. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gupta, R.; Garg, V.K. Stabilization of Primary Sewage Sludge during Vermicomposting. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 153, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Singh, A.; Karmegam, N.; Singh, G.S.; Bhadauria, T.; Chang, S.W.; Awasthi, M.K.; Sudhakar, S.; Arunachalam, K.D.; Biruntha, M.; Ravindran, B. Earthworms and Vermicompost: An Eco-Friendly Approach for Repaying Nature’s Debt. Environ Geochem Health 2020, 42, 1617–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Ahmed, N.; Al-Mutairi, K.A. Earthworms Effect on Microbial Population and Soil Fertility as Well as Their Interaction with Agriculture Practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Quaik, S.; Ibrahim, M.H. A Review on Potential of Vermicomposting Derived Liquids in Agricultural Use. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2013, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pant, A.P.; Radovich, T.J.; Hue, N.V.; Talcott, S.T.; Krenek, K.A. Vermicompost Extracts Influence Growth, Mineral Nutrients, Phytonutrients and Antioxidant Activity in Pak Choi (Brassica rapa Cv. Bonsai, Chinensis Group) Grown under Vermicompost and Chemical Fertiliser. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 2383–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. 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] [Scilit]
  25. Pathma, J.; Sakthivel, N. Microbial Diversity of Vermicompost Bacteria That Exhibit Useful Agricultural Traits and Waste Management Potential. Springerplus 2012, 1, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Gómez-Brandón, M.; Fornasier, F.; de Andrade, N.; Domínguez, J. Influence of Earthworms on the Microbial Properties and Extracellular Enzyme Activities during Vermicomposting of Raw and Distilled Grape Marc. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 319, 115654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Domínguez, J.; Martínez-Cordeiro, H.; Álvarez-Casas, M.; Lores, M. Vermicomposting Grape Marc Yields High Quality Organic Biofertiliser and Bioactive Polyphenols. Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 1235–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Santana, N.A.; Jacques, R.J.S.; Antoniolli, Z.I.; Martínez-Cordeiro, H.; Domínguez, J. Changes in the Chemical and Biological Characteristics of Grape Marc Vermicompost during a Two-Year Production Period. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 154, 103587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Dume, B.; Hanc, A.; Svehla, P.; Michal, P.; Chane, A.D.; Nigussie, A. Vermicomposting Technology as a Process Able to Reduce the Content of Potentially Toxic Elements in Sewage Sludge. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Dume, B.; Hanc, A.; Svehla, P.; Michal, P.; Chane, A.D.; Nigussie, A. Composting and Vermicomposting of Sewage Sludge at Various C/N Ratios: Technological Feasibility and End-Product Quality. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 263, 115255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Ludibeth, S.-M.; Marina, I.-E.; Vicenta, E.M. Vermicomposting of Sewage Sludge: Earthworm Population and Agronomic Advantages. Compos. Sci. Util. 2012, 20, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Azevedo, T.; Nascimento-Gonçalves, E.; Lopes, H.; Medeiros, C.; Falco, V.; Sousa, J.R.; Coimbra, A.M.; Roboredo, M.; Oliveira, P.A.; Morais, M.C. Valorization of Vineyard By-Products Through Vermicomposting: A Comparative Pilot-Scale Study with Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Samba, N.; Nunomura, O.; Lu, N.; Johkan, M.; Nakano, A.; Tsukagoshi, S. Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Growth and Productivity under Solar Radiation-Based Quantitative Nutrient Management in Hydroponic System. Agronomy 2024, 14, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Mukherjee, P.K.; Nema, N.K.; Maity, N.; Sarkar, B.K. Phytochemical and Therapeutic Potential of Cucumber. Fitoterapia 2013, 84, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Sá, C.; Trindade, A.; Coutinho, J. Manual de Colheita de Amostras e de Dados No Campo: Sistema de Monitorização Nacional Do Solo; DGADR: Lisboa, Portugal, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  36. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of Total Phenolics with Phosphomolybdic-Phosphotungstic Acid Reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Zucconi, F.; Forte, M.; Monaco, A.; Bertoldi, M. Biological Evaluation of Compost Maturity. Biocycle 1981, 22, 27–29. [Google Scholar]
  38. Anderson, J.P.E. Soil Respiration. In Methods of Soil Analysis; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1982; pp. 831–871. [Google Scholar]
  39. Soares, A.S.; Miranda, C.; Teixeira, C.A.; Coutinho, J.; Trindade, H.; Coelho, A.C. Impact of Different Treatments on Escherichia Coli during Storage of Cattle Slurry. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 323–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Ranal, M.A.; de Santana, D.G.; Ferreira, W.R.; Mendes-Rodrigues, C. Calculating Germination Measurements and Organizing Spreadsheets. Braz. J. Bot. 2009, 32, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Ranal, M.A.; de Santana, D.G. How and Why to Measure the Germination Process? Braz. J. Bot. 2006, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Méndez-Cifuentes, A.; Valdez-Aguilar, L.A.; Cadena-Zapata, M.; Alvarado-Camarillo, D.; González-Fuentes, J.A. Nutrient Solution Electrical Conductivity Affects Yield and Growth of Sub-Irrigated Tomatoes. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Ding, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, H.; Guo, D.; He, L.; Liu, F.; Zhou, Q.; Nandwani, D.; Hui, D.; Yu, J. Electrical Conductivity of Nutrient Solution Influenced Photosynthesis, Quality, and Antioxidant Enzyme Activity of Pakchoi (Brassica campestris L. ssp. Chinensis) in a Hydroponic System. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Jankauskienė, J.; Laužikė, K.; Kavaliauskaitė, D. Effects of Vermicompost on Quality and Physiological Parameters of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Seedlings and Plant Productivity. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Shafique, I.; Andleeb, S.; Aftab, M.S.; Naeem, F.; Ali, S.; Yahya, S.; Ahmed, F.; Tabasum, T.; Sultan, T.; Shahid, B.; et al. Efficiency of Cow Dung Based Vermi-Compost on Seed Germination and Plant Growth Parameters of Tagetes erectus (Marigold). Heliyon 2021, 7, e05895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  46. Akinnuoye-Adelabu, D.B.; Steenhuisen, S.; Bredenhand, E. Improving Pea Quality with Vermicompost Tea and Aqueous Biochar: Prospects for Sustainable Farming in Southern Africa. South Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 123, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Ye, T.; Ijenyo, M.; Abbey, L. A Preliminary Study on Emergence and Growth of Carrot Seedlings in Response to Varying Proportions of Vermicompost and Copper. Hortic. Int. J. 2022, 6, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Ravindran, B.; Lee, S.R.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Chung, W.J.; Balasubramanian, B.; Mupambwa, H.A.; Arasu, M.V.; Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Sekaran, G. Positive Effects of Compost and Vermicompost Produced from Tannery Waste-Animal Fleshing on the Growth and Yield of Commercial Crop-Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) Plant. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 234, 154–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Hussain, N.; Abbasi, T.; Abbasi, S.A. Generation of Highly Potent Organic Fertilizer from Pernicious Aquatic Weed Salvinia Molesta. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 4989–5002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Ceritoglu, M.; Erman, M.; Ceritoglu, F.; Bektas, H. The Response of Grain Legumes to Vermicompost at Germination and Seedling Stages. Legume Res. 2021, 44, 936–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Chávez, A.G.; Hernández, L.R.; Ramírez, R.I.; Gardea, M.C.E.D.; Huerta, J.H. Efecto del lixiviado de vermicompost en la germinación de lechuga in vitro. Nexo Rev. Cient. 2024, 37, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Kosem, H.; Kocak, M.Z.; Kaysim, M.G.; Celikcan, F.; Kulak, M. Liquid Leachate Produced from Vermicompost Effects on Some Agronomic Attributes and Secondary Metabolites of Sweet Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) Exposed to Severe Water Stress Conditions. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Bidabadi, S.S.; Afazel, M.; Poodeh, S.D. The Effect of Vermicompost Leachate on Morphological, Physiological and Biochemical Indices of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni in a Soilless Culture System. Int. J. Recycl Org Waste Agric. 2016, 5, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Öztürkci, Y.; Akköprü, A. Effects of Solid and Liquid Vermicompost Application on Bean Growth and Common Bacterial Blight Disease in Different Growth Medium. IJAWS 2021, 7, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Fageria, N.K. The Use of Nutrients in Crop Plants; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  56. White, P.J.; Brown, P.H. Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Development and Global Health. Ann. Bot. 2010, 105, 1073–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Arancon, N.Q.; Edwards, C.A.; Lee, S.; Byrne, R. Effects of Humic Acids from Vermicomposts on Plant Growth. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2006, 42, S65–S69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Oyege, I.; Balaji Bhaskar, M.S. Effects of Vermicompost on Soil and Plant Health and Promoting Sustainable Agriculture. Soil Syst. 2023, 7, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Environments 13 00059 g001
Figure 1. Cumulative germination percentage of cucumber seeds under different treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate) during the first 18 days after sowing. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3).
Figure 1. Cumulative germination percentage of cucumber seeds under different treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate) during the first 18 days after sowing. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3).
Environments 13 00059 g001
Environments 13 00059 g002
Figure 2. (a) Germination percentage (G, %), (b) mean germination time (MGT, day), (c) coefficient of velocity of germination (CVG, %) and (d) synchrony of germination (Z) determined 18 days after sowing in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Bars with the same letters indicate non-significant differences (p > 0.05).
Figure 2. (a) Germination percentage (G, %), (b) mean germination time (MGT, day), (c) coefficient of velocity of germination (CVG, %) and (d) synchrony of germination (Z) determined 18 days after sowing in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Bars with the same letters indicate non-significant differences (p > 0.05).
Environments 13 00059 g002
Environments 13 00059 g003
Figure 3. Shoot height (a), number of leaves (b) and SPAD chlorophyll values index (c) in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures two-way ANOVA * represents significant differences between the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Shoot height (a), number of leaves (b) and SPAD chlorophyll values index (c) in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures two-way ANOVA * represents significant differences between the treatments (p < 0.05).
Environments 13 00059 g003
Environments 13 00059 g004
Figure 4. Representative cucumber seedlings from each treatment (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate) at 25 days after sowing.
Figure 4. Representative cucumber seedlings from each treatment (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate) at 25 days after sowing.
Environments 13 00059 g004
Environments 13 00059 g005
Figure 5. Stem diameter (a), root height (b) and biomass (c) measured at the end of experiment in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way ANOVA. For each parameter different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Stem diameter (a), root height (b) and biomass (c) measured at the end of experiment in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate). Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way ANOVA. For each parameter different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Environments 13 00059 g005
Table 1. Chemical properties, total polyphenols, germination index (GI) of garden cress, and basal respiration rates of vermicompost and leachate derived from sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3).
Table 1. Chemical properties, total polyphenols, germination index (GI) of garden cress, and basal respiration rates of vermicompost and leachate derived from sewage sludge and vineyard pruning residues. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3).
VermicompostLeachate
Chemical properties
C/N ratio20.56 ± 0.28-
EC (dS m−1) #0.52 ± 0.010.65
OM (g kg−1 DW)849 ± 11-
pH (H2O) #7.6 ± 0.17.70
N-NH4+/N-NO3− ratio3.13 ± 1.24-
Macronutrientsg kg−1 DWg L−1
N23.93 ± 0.560.07
P5.53± 0.350.18
K21.61 ± 1.431.79
Ca26.39 ± 2.761.07
Mg4.60 ± 0.250.04
S3.52 ± 0.210.02
Micronutrientsmg kg−1 DWmg L−1
B26.94 ± 1.690.59
Fe2633.09 ± 162.191.79
Mn236.04 ± 15.060.38
Metalsmg kg−1 DWmg L−1
Cd0.281 ± 0.0040.007
Cr9.218 ± 0.3450.342
Cu110.020 ± 6.0940.243
Pb7.740 ± 0.3590.183
Hg0.074 ± 0.010-
Ni6.490 ± 0.2180.158
Zn329.339 ± 19.8170.587
Total polyphenolsmg GAE g−1 DWmg GAE L−1
2.91 ± 0.2267.27 ± 0.40
GI (%) 198.29 ± 25.96139.33 ± 60.44
Basal respiration (mg CO2 g−1 OM d−1)3.33 ± 1.57-
C/N: carbon/nitrogen ratio; DW: dry weight; EC: electrical conductivity; GAE: gallic acid equivalents; OM: organic matter; # (1:5).
Table 2. Chemical properties of the base substrate used in all treatments.
Table 2. Chemical properties of the base substrate used in all treatments.
Chemical properties
C/N ratio55.82
EC (dS m−1) #0.52
OM (g kg−1 DW)535.80
pH (H2O) #5.78
N-NH4+/N-NO3− ratio0.17
Macronutrients
(g element kg−1 DW)
N5.568
P0.950
K2.859
Ca11.263
Mg1.131
S1.109
Micronutrients
(mg element kg−1 DW)
B7.154
Fe2879.596
Mn116.671
Metals
(mg kg−1 DW)
Cd 0.087
Cr 7.616
Cu9.734
Pb4.911
Hg0.01
Ni3.596
Zn29.409
C/N: carbon/nitrogen ratio; DW: dry weight; EC: electrical conductivity; OM: organic matter; # (1:5).
Table 3. Chemical characteristics of the treatment’s mixtures (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate) at the end of the experiment.
Table 3. Chemical characteristics of the treatment’s mixtures (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate) at the end of the experiment.
CNTVC_D1VC_D2VC_L
Chemical properties
C/N ratio43.3235.8129.5840.27
EC (dS m−1) #0.130.180.280.08
OM (g kg−1 DW)475.05492.81497.03448.16
pH (H2O) #6.516.566.626.66
N-NH4+/N-NO3− ratio3.564.921.835.41
Macronutrients (g kg−1 DW)
N6.367.989.756.45
P0.670.991.220.62
K1.612.813.441.50
Ca12.0512.4513.9210.92
Mg1.201.511.891.04
S0.771.051.270.74
Micronutrients (mg kg−1 DW)
B6.798.9911.455.98
Fe3625.613833.664356.792912.74
Mn134.73146.35161.90119.73
Metals (mg kg−1 DW)
Cd <0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Cr 0.350.720.320.33
Cu11.1425.6731.7010.24
Pb0.070.080.080.06
Hg0.010.010.010.01
Ni0.120.220.110.10
Zn37.65104.49110.9633.19
C/N: carbon/nitrogen ratio; DW: dry weight; EC: electrical conductivity; OM: organic matter; # (1:5).
Table 4. Macro and micronutrients contents in cucumber leaves at harvest (n = 3 per treatment) in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate).
Table 4. Macro and micronutrients contents in cucumber leaves at harvest (n = 3 per treatment) in all treatments (CNT—control, VC_D1—vermicompost at 20 g Kg−1, VC_D2—vermicompost at 40 g Kg−1, VC_L—vermicompost leachate).
CNTVC_D1VC_D2VC_L
Macronutrients (g element kg−1 DW)
N24.11421.82821.89827.392
P5.1395.8446.4816.423
K45.51349.81064.74155.297
Ca20.34417.95714.96416.646
Mg5.8966.2856.2095.510
S10.518.828.6010.48
Micronutrients (mg element kg−1 DW)
B41.56742.36340.07438.035
Fe139.440130.026118.292121.898
Mn63.43354.87454.23262.123
Cu10.65211.34812.28311.902
Zn70.80374.68779.22775.308
DW: dry weight.
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

Nascimento-Gonçalves, E.; Azevedo, T.; Lopes, H.; Medeiros, C.; Falco, V.; Coelho, A.C.; Sousa, J.R.; Coimbra, A.M.; Roboredo, M.; Oliveira, P.A.; et al. Vermicompost and Leachate from Sewage Sludge and Vineyard Pruning Residues: An Exploratory Assessment of Cucumber Germination and Early Seedling Growth. Environments 2026, 13, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13010059

AMA Style

Nascimento-Gonçalves E, Azevedo T, Lopes H, Medeiros C, Falco V, Coelho AC, Sousa JR, Coimbra AM, Roboredo M, Oliveira PA, et al. Vermicompost and Leachate from Sewage Sludge and Vineyard Pruning Residues: An Exploratory Assessment of Cucumber Germination and Early Seedling Growth. Environments. 2026; 13(1):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13010059

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nascimento-Gonçalves, Elisabete, Tiago Azevedo, Henda Lopes, Catarina Medeiros, Virgílio Falco, Ana Cláudia Coelho, João R. Sousa, Ana M. Coimbra, Marta Roboredo, Paula A. Oliveira, and et al. 2026. "Vermicompost and Leachate from Sewage Sludge and Vineyard Pruning Residues: An Exploratory Assessment of Cucumber Germination and Early Seedling Growth" Environments 13, no. 1: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13010059

APA Style

Nascimento-Gonçalves, E., Azevedo, T., Lopes, H., Medeiros, C., Falco, V., Coelho, A. C., Sousa, J. R., Coimbra, A. M., Roboredo, M., Oliveira, P. A., & Morais, M. C. (2026). Vermicompost and Leachate from Sewage Sludge and Vineyard Pruning Residues: An Exploratory Assessment of Cucumber Germination and Early Seedling Growth. Environments, 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13010059

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