Chapter 5:
Screening of earthworm species for vermicomposting
105
5.1 Introduction
The practice of vermiculture is at least a century old but it is now being received
worldwide with diverse ecological objectives such as waste management, soil
detoxification, regeneration and sustainable agriculture (Chauhan and Joshi, 2010). The
growth of industries and ever increasing human population has led to an increased
accumulation of waste materials (Joshi and Chauhan, 2006). The use of earthworms as a
waste treatment technique is gaining popularity and is commonly termed as
vermicomposting. Thus vermicomposting is an eco-biotechnological process that
transforms energy rich and complex organic substance into stabilized humus like product
‘vermicompost’ with the aid of earthworms (Garg et al., 2006a; Suthar and Singh, 2008).
Vermicomposting results in bioconversion of the waste into two useful products: the
earthworm biomass and the vermicompost. The former product can further be processed
into proteins (earthworm meal) or high-grade horticultural compost and the latter product
(vermicompost) is also considered as an excellent product since it is homogeneous, with
greatly increased surface areas and microsites for microbial decomposition and that
which tends to adsorb and retain nutrients over a longer period, without adversely
impacting the environment (Edwards et al., 2011). According to Sinha et al., (2010)
vermicomposting is “economically viable” (affordable by all nations), “environmentally
sustainable” (friendly to the environment-flora, fauna, soil, air and water, with no adverse
effect on them) and “socially acceptable” (beneficial to the society with no adverse effect
on human health) technology.
The actions of earthworms in the vermicomposting include substrate aeration,
mixing, grinding, fragmentation, enzymatic digestion and microbial digestion in
106
intestines of earthworms (Sharma et al., 2005; Sinha, et al., 2010). Under the present
condition of environmental degradation ‘vermicomposting’ technology offers recovery of
valuable resources like ‘manure’ from such biodegradable waste. Recycling of wastes
through vermitechnology reduces the problem of dumping of huge quantities of wastes
and vermicompost has higher economic value compared with compost derived from
traditional methods (Chauhan et al., 2010).
Earthworms are voracious feeders on organic waste, converting a portion of the
organic material into worm biomass and respiration products and expel the remaining as
partially stabilized product (Benitez et al., 1999). Studies have also shown that
vermicomposting of organic waste accelerates organic matter stabilization (Neuhauser et
al., 1998) and gives chelating and phyto-hormonal elements (Tomati et al., 1995) which
have a high content of microbial matter besides stabilized humic substances. During
vermicomposting process the important plant nutrients such as nitrogen, potassium,
phosphorus and calcium present in feed material are converted into forms that are much
more soluble and available to the plants than those in the parent substrate (Ndegwa and
Thompson, 2001). Garg et al., (2006b) also reported increase in nitrogen, phosphorous
and potassium contents during vermicomposting. Since the intestine of earthworms
harbor wide range of microorganisms, enzymes and hormones, these half-digested
substrate (parent substrate) decomposes rapidly and is transformed into a form of
‘vermicompost’ within a short time (Lavelle, 1988).
5.2 Review of literature on screening of earthworms for vermicomposting
Earthworms of different species and ecological categories differ greatly in their ability to
digest various organic residues (Lattaud et al., 1998). Commonly adopted worms in
107
vermiculture are Bimastos parvus, Dendrobaena rubida, D. veneta, Eisenia fetida, E.
hortensis and Eudrilus andrei, E. eugeniae, Amynthas diffringens, A. morrisi, Lampito
mauritii, Metaphire anomala, M. birmanica, Perionyx excavatus, P. sansibaricus,
Megascolex megascolex, Pontoscolex corethrurus, Octochaetona serrata, O. surensis,
Pheritima elongata, P. posthuma (Munnoli et al., 2010). But relatively few have been
used on a widespread scale and/or researched adequately.
The reproductive biology of P. excavatus, L. mauritii, P. elongata, Pontoscolex
corethrurus, E. gammiei, D. modiglianii and D. nepalensis (Dash and Senapati, 1980); D.
rubida and Lumbricus rubella (Elvira et al., 1996), E. andrei (Dominguez and Edwards,
1997), E. andrei and D. veneta (Fayolle et al., 1997), P. excavatus (Chaudhuri et al.,
2000); P. excavatus, Lampito mauritii, Polypheretima elongata, P. corethrurus,
Eutyphoeus gammiei, Dichogaster modiglianii and Drawida nepalensis (Bhattacharjee
and Chaudhuri, 2002); E. fetida and L. mauritii (Tripathi and Bhardwaj, 2004);
Metaphire posthuma (Bisht et al., 2007); P. ceylanensis (Karmegam and Daniel, 2009a);
Pontoscolex corethrurus, D. assamensis, D. papillifer papillifer, Eutyphoeus
comillahnus, Metaphire houlleti, Dichogaster affinis, Octochaetona beatrix, Lennogaster
chittagongensis (Chaudhuri and Bhattacharjee, 2011) has been studied by evaluating their
suitability for vermiculture.
Potential of some epigeic earthworms- Lumbricus terrestris, E. fetida, E. andrei,
Eudrilus eugeniae and P. excavatus to recycle organic waste materials into value-added
products is well documented (Kale et al., 1982; Elvira et al., 1998; Atiyeh et al., 2000;
Dominguez et al., 2001; Garg and Kaushik, 2005; Gajalakshmi et al., 2005; Tajbakhsh et
al., 2008; Navarro et al., 2009; Suthar, 2006, 2007 and 2009; Najar and Khan, 2010). Use
108
of other species of earthworms (L. mauritii, Es eugeniae, Octochaetona serrata and
Perionyx excavatus, P. sansibaricus and Megascolex mauritii) are those of
Sathianarayanan and Khan (2007); Suthar and Singh (2008); Muthukumaravel et al.,
(2008); Karmegam and Daniel (2009b); Adi and Noor (2009); Bharadwaj (2010). Recent
reports by Paul et al., (2011) and Prakash et al., (2008) confirm that P. ceylanensis is a
potential vermicomposting species and the vermicompost produced by using this worm
had very good effect on plant growth and yield.
Among the epigeics, e.g. E. fetida, P. excavatus and Eudrilus eugeniae have
appeared as key candidates for organic waste recycling practices (Gajalakshmi et al.,
2002; Loh et al., 2005; Garg and Kaushik, 2005). However E. fetida is most commonly
used earthworm species for breaking down organic wastes because of its rapid growth
rate, reproductive potential, temperature tolerance range and its occurrence in organic
wastes with a wide range of moisture content (Edwards, 2004) and has been used for
recycling a wide variety of wastes (Kaviraj and Sharma 2003; Contreras-Ramos et al.,
2005; Garg et al., 2006b; Walkowiak, 2007; Tajbakhsh et al., 2008; Suthar 2009; Yadav
and Garg, 2011; Vig et al., 2011).
The presence of digestive enzymes like amylase, cellulase, protease, lipase,
chitinase have also been reported from the alimentary canal of earthworms (Munnoli et
al., 2010). Zhang et al., (1993) reported cellulase and mannase activities to be mainly due
to microorganisms. Mishra (1980) reported protease, amylase, cellulose, invertase and
urease in four species of indian earthworms, viz., Octochaetona surensis, L. mauritii, D.
calebi and Dichogaster balaui. Prabha et al., (2007) reported higher activity of amylase,
cellobiase, endoglucanase, acid phosphatase and nitrate reductase in the gut of E.
109
eugeniae and E. fetida.
The decrease in C/N ratio, increase in concentration of N, P, K, phosphatase activity
in vermicast have been taken as criteria for judging the efficiency of earthworms in the
vermicomposting process (Garg et al., 2006a). In addition survival rate, biomass
production and reproduction of earthworms are the other indicator to evaluate the
vermicomposting process (Suthar, 2006).
5.3 Results
The data related to the experiments carried out to find the efficient/potential species for
the vermicomposting of macrophytes among the localy available earthworm species in
terms of their reproductive performance and the physicochemical characteristics of the
recycled product (vermicompost) are given below. The methodology adopted is presented
in chapter 2: Materials and methods, under subheads as earthworm cultures,
vermireactors and vermicasts.
Results of all the analyzed parameters of vermicasts obtained after recycling of
macrophytes by E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea during different time periods
(fortnights) are presented in Fig. 5.1.
pH ranged from 6.9 ± 0.06 to 7.7 ± 0.06, 6.9 ± 0.06 to 7.5 ± 0.05 and 6.7 ± 0.05 to
7.4 ± 0.06 in vermicasts of E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea respectively during
different fortnights (Fig. 5.1a).
Electrical conductivity indicated a value from 0.50 ± 0.02 to 0.71 ± 0.02 mS/cm and
0.45 ± 0.02 to 0.60 ± 0.02 mS/cm in E. fetida and A. c. trapezoides respectively as
compared to 0.40 ± 0.02 to 0.55 ± 0.02 mS/cm in vermicasts of A. r. rosea during
different fortnights (Fig. 5.1b).
110
Concentration of potassium ranged from 29.33 ± 0.9 to 37.33 ± 0.9 mg/g, 27.33 ±
1.45 to 35 ± 0.6 mg/g and 19 ± 0.6 to 29.66 ± 1.2 mg/g in vermicasts of E. fetida, A. c.
trapezoides and A. r. rosea respectively during different fortnights (Fig. 5.1c).
Available phosphorous has higher values ranging from 456.43 ± 10.32 to 600 ±
7.93 µg/g in E. fetida as compared to 400 ± 10.50 to 523.66 ± 9.40 µg/g in A. c.
trapezoides and 324 ± 4.93 to 401.33 ± 10.17 µg/g in A. r. rosea vermicasts during
different fortnights (Fig. 5.1d).
Organic carbon decreased from 441.13 ± 14.10 to 156.23 ± 8.51 g/kg, 480 ± 11.54
to 246.66 ± 14.52 g/kg and 576.66 ± 14.52 to 280 ± 17.32 in vermicasts of E. fetida, A. c.
trapezoides and A. r. rosea respectively during different fortnights (Fig. 5.1e).
There was an increase in organic nitrogen from 4.97 ± 0.11 to 8.06 ± 0.32 g/kg;
5.34 ± 0.17 to 7.28 ± 0.24 g/kg and 5.53 ± 0.18 to 7 ± 0.17 g/kg in vermicasts of E.
fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea respectively during different fortnights (Fig. 5.1f).
Stability of C:N ratio was observed which ranged from 88.75 ± 2.44 to 19.38 ±
0.14, 89.88 ± 3.14 to 33.88 ± 2.63 and 104.27 ± 5.58 to 40 ± 1.37 in vermicasts of E.
fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea respectively during different fortnights (Fig.
5.1g).
ANOVA indicated significant variation among the vermicasts of the species and
during different time periods in pH (16.63; 76, P < 0.05), EC (86.04; 76.20, P < 0.05), K
(144.59; 70.80, P < 0.05), P (127.42; 33.95, P < 0.05), OC (63.31; 165.53, P < 0.05) and
C:N (238.36; 32.45, P < 0.05) ratio. However in case of ON significant variation (20.19,
P < 0.05) was observed only during different fortnights.
111
Figure 5.1 3D graph showing characteristics of the vermicompost prepared from macrophytes during different fortnights by E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea.
112
Figure 5.1 3D graph showing characteristics of the vermicompost prepared from macrophytes during different fortnights by E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea (continued).
113
Vermicomposting experiment was also considered in terms of earthworm biomass
besides number of cocoons produced. Vermicomposting results in the conversion of a
part of the organic waste into worm biomass and respiratory products and other part of
the ingested is excreted as partially stabilized product i.e., vermicast (Benitez et al.,
1999).
Mean body weight was 0.64 ± 0.02 g in E. fetida, 0.53 ± 0.02 g in A. c. trapezoides
and 0.15 ± 0.01 g in A. r. rosea (Fig. 5.2a). Mean growth rate was 3.11 ± 0.28
mg/worm/day) in E. fetida, 0.38 ± 0.06 mg/worm/day in A. c. trapezoides and 0.15 ± 0.03
mg/day A. r. rosea (Fig. 5.2b). The percentage of relative growth rate was 14.74 ± 1.39
% in E. fetida; 1.93 ± 0.29 % in A. c. trapezoides and 1.19 ± 0.30 % in A. r. rosea (Fig.
5.2c).
Relative increase in earthworm number was 285 ± 7.63% in E. fetida, 95 ± 7.63%
in A. c. trapezoides and 45 ± 3% in A. r. rosea (Fig. 5.3a) which was significant (F =
6.58, P < 0.05) among the species, though there was no significant variation in number
during different fortnights. Increase in biomass was observed in E. fetida (69.16 ± 2.06%)
and in A. c. trapezoides (11.95 ± 1.12%), but a decrease was observed in A. r. rosea (8.82
± 2.53%) (Fig. 5.3b). Variation in biomass was significant (F = 21.03, P < 0.05) among
the species, with no significant variation (F = 2.97, P < 0.05) during different fortnights.
Cocoon production started after 15 days in both E. fetida and A. c. trapezoides, but
after 45 days in case of A. r. rosea, as the weed affect the reproductive potential of this
species and varied the cocoon production varies from 93 ± 6.06 to 174.7 ± 7.9 in E.
fetida, 11.33 ± 1.76 to 54 ± 2.08 in A. c. trapezoides and 1.67 ± 3.3 to 15 ± 1.73 in A. r.
rosea (Fig. 5.3c). Appearance of juveniles started after 30 days in E. fetida, after 45 days
114
in A. c. trapezoides and after 60 days in A. r. rosea (Fig. 5.3d). Among these three species
after 60 days of experiment, the recycling potential (macrophytes) was 100% in the
epigeic E. fetida and it was 53.66 ± 0.88% and 33.66 ± 1% in the endogeic A. c.
trapezoides and A. r. rosea (Fig. 5.4) respectively.
Figure 5.2 Mean weight (a), growth rate (b) and relative growth rate (c) of earthworm species.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
E. fetida A. c. trapezoides A. r. rosea
Mea
n w
eigh
t (g)
(a)
0
1
2
3
4
E. fetida A. c. trapezoides A. r. rosea
Gro
wth
rat
e m
g/w
orm
/day
(b)
0
5
10
15
20
E. fetida A. c. trapezoides A. r. rosea
Rel
ativ
e gr
owth
rat
e (%
)
(c)
115
Figure 5.3 Error bars showing reproduction performances of E. fetida (EF), A. c. trapezoides (ACT) and A. r. rosea (ARR) on macrophytes during different fortnights.
333333333333N =
(a)
EF60
EF45
EF30
EF15
ARR60
ARR45
ARR30
ARR15
ACT60
ACT45
ACT30
ACT15
Incr
ease
in n
um
ber (%
)
400
300
200
100
0
-100
333333333333N =
(b)
EF60
EF45
EF30
EF15
ARR60
ARR45
ARR30
ARR15
ACT60
ACT45
ACT30
ACT15
Incr
ease
in b
iom
ass
(%
)
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
333333333333N =
(c)
EF60
EF45
EF30
EF15
ARR60
ARR45
ARR30
ARR15
ACT60
ACT45
ACT30
ACT15
Coco
ons
300
200
100
0
-100
116
Figure 5.3 Error bars showing reproduction performances of E. fetida (EF), A. c. trapezoides (ACT) and A. r. rosea (ARR) on macrophytes during different fortnights (continued).
Figure 5.4 Error bar showing macrophytes recycling potential by E. fetida (EF), A. c. trapezoides (ACT) and A. r. rosea (ARR) during different fortnights.
5.4 Discussion
5.4.1 Characteristics of the vermicompost of E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r.
rosea
The marginal increase in pH with time interval from 6.9 ± 0.06 to 7.7 ± 0.06 in E. fetida
6.9 ± 0.06 to 7.5 ± 0.05 in A. C. trapezoids, 6.7 ± 0.05 to 7.4 ± 0.06 in A. r. rosea 6.7 ±
333333333333N =
(d)
EF60
EF45
EF30
EF15
ARR60
ARR45
ARR30
ARR15
ACT60
ACT45
ACT30
ACT15
Juve
nile
s
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
333333333333N =
EF60
EF45
EF30
EF15
ARR60
ARR45
ARR30
ARR15
ACT60
ACT45
ACT30
ACT15
Recy
cling o
f macrophytes (%
) 120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
117
0.05 was observed and the overall increase in pH could be due the decomposition of
ammonia, which forms a larger proportion of nitrogenous matter excreted by earthworms
(Muthukumaravel et al., (2008).
Electrical conductivity indicated increasing trend from first fortnight to fourth
fortnight but maximium increase was in E. fetida-mediated treatment (0.50 ± 0.02 to 0.71
± 0.02 mS/cm) and minimum in A. r. rosea treatment (0.40 ± 0.02 to 0.55 ± 0.02 mS/cm).
The results corroborate the study of Kaviraj and Sharma (2003) where an increase in EC
of vermicast during time interval was reported and is attributed to the loss of organic
matter and release of different mineral salts in available form such as phosphate,
ammonia and potassium (Najar and Khan, 2010).
Among the treatments maximium decrease from 441.13 ± 14.10 to 156.23 ± 8.51
g/kg in organic carbon observed in E. fetida-mediated treatments is consistent with the
studies of Garg and Kaushik (2005) and Suthar (2007). Goyal et al., (2005) reported that
during vermicomposting a large fraction of organic matter in substrates is lost as carbon-
dioxide.
Though increase in organic nitrogen was observed over different time intervals,
with maximium in E. fetida (4.97 ± 0.11 to 8.06 ± 0.32 g/kg) and A. c. trapezoids (5.53 ±
0.18 to 7 ± 0.17 g/kg) treatments, the observed differences among the 3 species could be
attributed directly to the feeding preferences of the epigeic and endogeic earthworm
species and indirectly to mutualistic relationship between ingested microorganisms and
intestinal mucus which might be species-specific (Suthar and Singh, 2008).
The concentration of potassium in the vermicast of the epigeic E. fetida (37.33 ± 0.9
mg/g) is higher than the endogeic A. c. trapezoides (35 ± 0.6 mg/g) and A. r. rosea, which
118
is attributed to the production of carbonic, nitric and sulphuric acids by microorganisms
present in the gut of earthworms (Kaviraj and Sharma, 2003).
Phosphorus content was higher after 60 days in all three treatments, being highest in
E. fetida treatment (600 ± 7.93 µg/g) followed by A. c. trapezoides (523.66 ± 9.40 µg/g)
but was least in A. r. rosea (401.33 ± 10.17 µg/g). Garg et al., (2006b) reported increase
in concentration of phosphorous during vermicomposting. The enhanced phosphorous
level in vermicompost is probably through mineralization and mobilization of phosphorus
by bacterial and faecal phosphatase activity of earthworms (Jeyanthi et al., 2010).
Stability of C:N ratio during vermicomposting is attributed to the loss of carbon as
carbon dioxide in the process of respiration and production of mucus and nitrogenous
excrements that enhance the level of nitrogen (Hayawin et al., 2010). Castillo et al.,
(2010) reported that a decline in C:N ratio to less than 20 indicates an advanced degree of
organic matter stabilization and it reflects a satisfactory degree of maturity of organic
wastes. The low C:N ratio (19.3 ± 0.14) from the epigeic E. fetida processed treatment
indicates that this species enhances the organic matter mineralization more efficiently
than the other two endogeics- A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea.
The observed difference in the nutrient contents of vermicasts among the species is
attributed to feeding habit which determines the nature and properties of vermicasts
produced (Haynes, 2003).
5.4.2 Reproductive performance of E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea
At the end of the experiment (60 days) increase in earthworm number was higher in
epigeic E. fetida followed by A. c. trapezoides but was least in the other endogeic A. r.
rosea. Consumption of weed with time provides nutrients that enhance earthworm
119
reproductive capability leading to increase in number (including juveniles) by the end of
60 days. However it is evident that the variation in growth rates among the species
observed is related to species-specific feeding habitat. Saini et al., (2010) reported growth
and reproduction in E. fetida as rapid when compared to other species.
Higher production of cocoon was observed in E. fetida reactor as compared to that
of A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea during all fortnights. Chauhan et al., (2010) reported a
varied number of cocoon production during the vermicomposting by using E. fetida, E.
eugeniae and P. excavatus and is said to be species to substrate specific.
5.4.3 Recycling of macrophytes during different fortnights by E. fetida, A. c.
trapezoides and A. r. rosea
Different species of earthworms can show distinct preference for plant material (Curry
and Schmidt, 2007). Efficient recycling of macrophytes over the period of time is shown
by epigeic E. fetida (100%) than the other two endogeic species. The observed difference
in recycling of macrophytes between E. fetida, A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea could be
related to the feed preferences based on the ecology of individual earthworm species
(Suthar and Singh 2008; Indrajeet et al., 2010).
5.5 Conclusion
From the apparent discussion it could be concluded that the epigeic earthworm species E.
fetida has a higher potential in recycling of macrophytes than the two endogeic species-
A. c. trapezoides and A. r. rosea. Further the data manifests vermicast of E. fetida as rich
in plant nutrients relative to the other two species. Moreover, its growth was higher and
reproductive behaviour favorable on this substrate. The composting potential besides
120
being a species-specific character, is also related to the feeding preferences of epigeic and
endogeic composting earthworms. Species which are capable of dwelling in high
percentage of organic material along with high adaptability to environmental changes,
with high fecundity rate, high rate of consumption, digestion, assimilation and growth
possess a better potential for vermicomposting process. Thus the study revealed that the
resourceful efficiency of E. fetida should be used to combat noxious macrophytes
invasion of the lakes into value-added materials, i,e vermicompost besides earthworm
biomass.
References
Adi, A. J and Noor, Z. M. 2009. Waste recycling: utilization of coffee grounds and
kitchen waste in vermicomposting. 2009. Bioresource Technology, 100: 1027-1030.
Atiyeh, R. M., Dominguez, J., Subler, S and Edwards, C. A. 2000. Change in the
biochemical properties of cow manure during processing by earthworm Eisenia
andrei (bouch) and the effect of seeding growth. Pedobiologia, 44: 709-724.
Benitez, E., Nogales, R., Elvira, C., Masciandaro, G and Ceccanti, B. 1999. Enzyme
activities as indicators of the stabilization of sewage sludges composting with
Eisenia foetida. Bioresource Technology, 67:297-303.
Bharadwaj, A. 2010. Management of Kitchen Waste Material through Vermicomposting.
Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences, 1(1):175-177.
Bhattacharjee, G and Chaudhuri, P. S. 2002. Cocoon production, morphology, hatching
pattern and fecundity in seven tropical earthworm species-a laboratory based
investigation. Journal of Bioscience, 27:283-294.
121
Bisht, R., Pandey, H., Bharti, D., Bisht, S. P. S and Kaushal, B. R. 2007. Reproductive
potential of the earthworm Metaphire posthuma (Oligochaeta) in different food
substrates. Tropical Ecology, 48:107-114.
Castillo, H., Hernández, A., Dominguez, D and Ojeda, D. 2010. Effect of Californian red
worm (Eisenia foetida) on the nutrient dynamics of semicomposted materials.
Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 70(3):465-473.
Chaudhuri, P. S and Bhattacharjee, S. 2011. Reproductive biology of eight tropical
earthworm species of rubber plantations in Tripura, India. Tropical Ecology,
52(1):49-60.
Chaudhuri, P. S., Pal, T. K., Bhattacharjee, G and Dey, S. K. 2000. Chemical changes
during vermicomposting (Perionyx excavatus) of kitchen wastes. Tropical Ecology,
41:107-110.
Chauhan, A and Joshi, P. C. 2010. Composting of Some Dangerous and Toxic Weeds
Using Eisenia foetida. Journal of American Science, 6(3):1-6.
Chauhan, A., Kumar, S., Singh, A. P and Gupta, M. 2010. Vermicomposting of vegetable
wastes with cow dung using three earthworm species Eisenia foetida, Eudrilus
eugeniae and Perionyx excavatus. Nature and Science, 8(1):33-43.
Contreras-Ramos, S. M., Escamilla-Silva, E. M and Dendooven, L. 2005.
Vermicomposting of biosolids with cow manure and oat straw. Biology and
Fertility of Soils, 41:190-198.
Curry, P and Schmidt, O. 2007. The feeding ecology of earthworms. A rewiew.
Pedobiologia, 50:463-477.
122
Dash, M. C and Senapati, B. K. 1980. Cocoon morphology, hatching and emergence
pattern in tropical earthworms. Pedobiologia, 20:316-324.
Dominguez, J and Edwards, C. A. 1997. Effects of stocking rate and moisture content on
the growth and maturation of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) in pig manure. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry, 29:743-746.
Dominguez, J., Edwards, C. A and Ashby, J. 2001. The biology and population dynamics
of Eudrilus eugeniae (Kinberg) (Oligochaeta) in cattle waste solids. Pedobiologia,
45:341-353.
Edwards, C. A. 2004. Earthworm Ecology (2nd ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Edwards, C. A., Arancon, N. Q and Sherman, R. 2011. Vermiculture technology:
earthworms, organic wastes and environmental management.. CRC press, Boca
Raton
Elvira, C., J. Dominguez and S. Mato. 1996. The growth and reproduction of Lumbricus
rubellus and Dendrobaena rubida in cow manure mixed cultures with Eisenia
fetida. Applied Soil Ecology, 5:97-103.
Elvira, C., Sampedro, L., Benitez, E and Nogales, R. 1998. Vermicomposting of sludges
from paper mill and dairy industries with Eisenia andrei: A pilot scale study.
Bioresource Technology, 63:205-211.
Fayolle, L., Michaud, H., Cluzeau, D and Stawiecki, J. 1997. Influence of temperature
and food source of the life-cycle of the earthworm Dendrobaena veneta
(Oligochaeta). Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 29:747-750.
123
Gajalakshmi, S., Ganesh, P. S and Abassi, S. A. 2005. A highly cost-effective
simplification in the design of fast-paced vermireactors based on epigeic
earthworms. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 22:111-116.
Garg, P., Gupta, A and Satya, S. 2006a. Vermicomposting of different types of wastes
using Eisenia fetida: A comparative study. Bioresource Technology, 97:391-395.
Garg, V. K and Kaushik, P. 2005. Vermistabilization of textile mill sludge spiked with
poultry droppings by epigeic earthworm Eisenia fetida. Bioresource Technology,
96:1063-1071.
Garg, V. K., Yadav, Y. K., Sheoran, A., Chand, S and Kaushik, P. 2006b. Livestock
excreta management through vermicomposting using an epigeic earthworm Eisenia
fetida. Environmentalist, 26:269-276.
Goyal, S., Dhull, S. K and Kapoor, K. K. 2005. Chemical and biological changes during
composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity.
Bioresource Technology, 96:1584-1591.
Haynes, R. J., Fraser, P. M., Piercy, J. E and Tregurtha, R. J. 2003. Casts of Aporrectodea
caliginosa (Savigny) and Lumbricus rubellus (Hoffmeister) differ in microbial
activity, nutrient availability and aggregate stability. Pedobiologia, 47:882-887.
Hayawin, Z. N., Khalil, H. P. S. A., Jawaid, M., Ibrahim, M. H and Astimar, A. A. 2010.
Exploring chemical analysis of vermicompost of various oil palm fibre wastes.
Environmentalist, 30:273-278.
Indrajeet, Rai, S. N and Singh, J. 2010. Vermicomposting of farm garbage in different
combination. Journal of Recent Advances in Applied Sciences, 25:15-18.
124
Jeyanthi, A., Balakumar, S and Mahalakshmi, T. 2010. Increasing bioavailability of
nutrients in fly ash through vermicomposting. Journal of Bioscience and
Technology, 1(2):100-113.
Paul, J. J. A., Karmegam, N and Daniel, T. 2011. Municipal solid waste (MSW)
vermicomposting with an epigeic earthworm, Perionyx ceylanensis Mich.
Bioresource Technology, 102:6769-6773.
Joshi, P. C and Chauhan, A. 2006. Composting of some organic materials using Eisenia
foetida and Conventional microbial methods: A comparative study. Uttar Pradesh
Journal of Zoology, 26(1):123-125.
Kale, R. D., Bano, K and Krishnamoorthy, R. V. 1982. Potential of Perionyx excavatus
for utilizing organic wastes. Pedobiologia, 23:419-425.
Karmegam, N and Daniel, T. 2009a. Growth, reproductive biology and life cycle of the
vermicomposting earthworm, Perionyx ceylanensis Mich. (Oligochaeta:
Megascolecidae). Bioresource. Technology, 100:4790-4796.
Karmegam, N and Daniel, T. 2009b. Investigating efficiency of Lampito mauritii
(Kinberg) and Perionyx ceylanensis Michaelsen for vermicomposting of different
types of organic substrates. Environmentalist, 29:287-300.
Kaviraj, S. S and Sharma, S. 2003. Municipal solid waste management through
vermicomposting employing exotic and local species of earthworms. Bioresource
Technology, 90:169-173.
Lattaud, C., Locati, S., Mora, P., Rouland, C and Lavelle, P. 1998. The diversity of the
digestive enzymes in the geophagous earthworm. Applied Soil Ecology, 9:189-195.
125
Lavelle, P. 1988. Earthworm activity and the soil system. Biology and fertility of Soil, 6:
237-51.
Loh, T. C., Lee, Y. C., Liang, J. B and Tan, D. 2005. Vermicomposting of cattle and goat
manures by Eisenia foetida and their growth and reproduction preference.
Bioresource Technology, 96:111-114.
Mishra, P. C 1980. Ecophysiological studies on tropical earthworms. Ph.D. Thesis
submitted to Sambalpur University, Orissa. India.
Munnoli, P. M., Teixeira da Silva, J. A and Bhosle, S. 2010. Dynamics of the Soil-
Earthworm-Plant Relationship: A Review. Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant, 4 (Special
Issue 1):1-21.
Muthukumaravel, K., Amsath, A and Sukumaran, M. 2008. Vermicomposting of
vegetable wastes using cow dung. E-Journal of Chemistry, 5(4):810-813.
Najar, I. A and Khan, A. B. 2010. Vermicomposting of invasive species Azolla pinnata
with Eisenia fetida. The Bioscan, 5(2):239-241.
Navarro, A. R., Dorado, L and Maldonado, M. C. 2009. An eco-biotechnological process
for the treatment of residual lemon pulp. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy, 11:323-327.
Ndegwa, P. M and Thompson, S. A. 2001. Intergrating composting and vermicomposting
in the treatment of bioconversion of biosolids. Bioresource Technology, 76:107-12.
Neuhauser, E. F., Loehr, R. C and Malecki, M. R. 1998. The potential of earthworms for
managing sewage sludge. In: Edwards, C. A and Nauhauser, E. F (eds) Earthworms
in waste and environmental management. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague.
126
Prabha, L. M., Jayaraaj, R and Rao, S. 2007. Comparative studies on the digestive
enzymes in the gut of earthworms, Eudrilus euginiae and Eisenia fetisa. Indian
Journal of Biotechnology, 6:567-569.
Prakash, M., Jayakumar, M and Karmegam, N. 2008. Physico-chemical characteristics
and fungal flora in the casts of the earthworm, Perionyx ceylanensis Mich reared in
Polyalthia longifolia leaf litter. Journal of Applied Science Research, 4:53-57.
Saini, V. K., Sihag, R. C., Sharma, R. C., Gahlawat, S. K and Gupta, R. K. 2010. Relative
efficacy of two species of earthworms in biodegradation of organic wastes under
semi-arid subtropical conditions of North-West India. World Review of Science
Technology and Sustainable development, 7(3): 259-270.
Sathianarayanan, A and Khan, A. B. 2007. Rate of conversion of coffee husk by four
earthworm species with different feed ratios. The Bioscan, 2(3):195-197.
Sharma, S., Pradhan, K., Satya, S and Vasudevan, P. 2005. Potential of earthworms for
waste management and in other uses-a review. The Journal of American Science,
1(1):4-16.
Sinha, R. K., Agarwal, S., Chauhan, K, Chandran, V and Soni, B. K. 2010. Vermiculture
Technology: Reviving the Dreams of Sir Charles Darwin for Scientific Use of
Earthworms in Sustainable Development Programs. Technology and Investment,
(1):155-172.
Suthar, S and Singh, S. 2008. Vermicomposting of domestic waste by using two epigeic
earthworms (Perionyx excavatus and Perionyx sansibaricus). International Journal
of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(1):99-106.
127
Suthar, S. 2006. Potential utilization of guar gum industrial waste in vermicompost
production. Bioresource Technology, 97:2474-2477.
Suthar, S. 2007. Vermicomposting potential of Perionyx sansibaricus (Perrier) in
different waste materials. Bioresource Technology, 98:1231-1237.
Suthar, S. 2009. Vermistabilization of municipal sewage sludge amended with sugarcane
trash using epigeic Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta). Journal of Hazardous Materials,
163:199-206.
Tajbakhsh, J., Abdoli, M. A., Goltapeh, E. M., Alahdadi, I and Malakouti, M. J. 2008.
Recycling of spent mushroom compost using earthworms Eisenia foetida and
Eisenia andrei. Environmentalist, 28:476-482.
Tomati, U., Galli, E., Pasetti, L and Volterra, E. 1995. Bioremediation of olive mill waste
waters by composting. Waste Management and Resources, 13:509-518.
Tripathi, G and Bhardwaj, P. 2004. Comparative studies on biomass production, life
cycles and composting efficiency of Eisenia fetida (Savigny) and Lampito mauritii
(Kinberg). Bioresource Technology, 92:275–283.
Vig, A. P., Singh, J., Wani, S. H and Dhaliwal, S. S. 2011. Vermicomposting of tannery
sludge mixed with cattle dung into valuable manure using earthworm Eisenia fetida
(Savigny). Bioresource Technology 102:7941-7945.
Walkowiak, A. 2007. Effect of selected environmental parameters on sewage sludge
vermicomposting. Polish Journal of Natural Sciences, 22(1): 83-91.
Yadav, A and Garg, V. K. 2011. Vermicomposting-An effective tool for the management
of invasive weed Parthenium hysterophorus. Bioresource Technology, 102:5891-
5895.
128
Zhang, B. G., Rouland, C., Lattaud, G and Lavelle, P.1993 Activities of digestive
enzymes in gut of the tropical earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus. European
Journal Soil Biology, 29(1): 7-11.