Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

European Journal of Soil Biology 43 (2007) S332eS336

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ejsobi

Original article
Vermicompost in seedling potting media can affect germination,
biomass allocation, yields and fruit quality
of three tomato varieties
Johann G. Zaller*
Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Available online 24 September 2007

Abstract

Commercial potting media often contain substantial amounts of peat that was mined from endangered bog and fen ecosystems.
The main objectives of this study were to assess (1) whether the substitution of peat by vermicompost (VC) in potting substrate
affects the emergence and biomass allocation of tomato seedlings (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under greenhouse conditions
and (2) whether VC amendments in seedling substrate affect tomato yields and fruit quality after plants were transplanted into
equally fertilized field soil. Amended VC was produced of food and cotton waste in a windrow system by Eisenia fetida Sav. Ver-
micompost amendments significantly influenced, specifically for each tomato variety, emergence and biomass allocation (root:-
shoot ratio) of seedlings. Marketable yields of field tomatoes remained unaffected by VC amendments in seedling substrates.
Peel firmness and glucose-fructose ratios of fruits were variety-specifically affected by VC amendments in seedling substrates. Re-
sults show that vermicompost could be an environmentally friendly substitute for peat in potting media with no detrimental effects
on seedling performance and fruit quality.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthworms; Peat moss replacement; Seedling husbandry; Soilless substrate; Solid organic wastes; Vermicompost

1. Introduction the use of peat because its harvest is destroying endan-

Sphagnum peat moss is used extensively as a soilless
potting substrate in horticulture because of its desirable
physical characteristics and high nutrient exchange ca-
pacity [18]. However, in recent years there has been in-
creasing environmental and ecological concerns against
* Present address: Institute of Zoology, Department of Integrative
Biology and Biodiversity Research, University of Natural Resources
and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33,
A-1180 Vienna, Austria. Fax: þ43 1 47654 3203.
E-mail address: johann.zaller@boku.ac.at
gered bog ecosystems worldwide [7,19].
Vermicompost (VC) as the product of an accelerated
biooxydation of organic matter by the use of high den-
sities of earthworm populations without passing a ther-
mophilic stage has early been suggested as a substitute
for peat in substrates [11,13]. Several studies assessed
the effect of VC amendments in potting substrates on
growth and yields of tomato plants cultivated in green-
houses [1,3,4]. However, so far only one study ad-
dressed the effects of vermicompost on fruit quality
of organically grown tomatoes in the field [23] and it
remains unclear whether VC amendments in seedling

1164-5563/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.08.020
 J.G. Zaller / European Journal of Soil Biology 43 (2007) S332eS336
substrates can impact tomato yields and fruit quality
after plants were transplanted into field soil.
The main objectives of the current study were to as-
sess whether (1) the amendment of different proportions
of VC to a fertilized commercial peat potting substrate
can affect the emergence and biomass allocation of
tomato seedlings in the greenhouse, and (2) whether
possible effects on seedlings can translate into effects
on yields and fruit quality after plants were transplanted
into equally fertilized field soil.
2. Materials and methods
The experiment was conducted at the organic research
farm of the University of Bonn, Germany. Long-term
mean annual air temperature at this location is 9.5  C,
mean annual precipitation is about 770 mm. Three,
globe-shaped, medium-sized (mean fruit fresh mass
85e90 g) tomato varieties (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill.) with red, 3e4 chambered fruits and medium shelf
life were used: cv. Diplom F1 (cv. D) is a early maturing
hybrid with medium yields, cv. Matina (cv. M) is early ma-
turing and high yielding, cv. Rheinlands Ruhm (cv. RR) is
characterised by mid season maturation with high yields.
Six substrate mixtures were used by substituting a com-
mercial peat substrate with VC in the proportions of 0, 20,
40, 60, 80 and 100% (vol/vol). Commercial peat substrate
consisted of about 70% peat moss, 20% green waste com-
post and additional organic fertilizer in its formulation
(Klasmann BioPotgrond, Groß Hesepe, Germany; charac-
teristics: pH ¼ 5.8, N ¼ 100 mg l1, P2O5 ¼ 300 mg l1,
K2O ¼ 400 mg l1, Mg ¼ 150 mg l1). Vermicompost
was obtained from a professional worm farm (Tacke
Regenwurmfarm, Borken, Germany) and produced of food
waste (average C:N ratio 22:1) from a wholesaler that
delivers organic food shops and cotton gin waste (average
C:N ratio 40:1) using Eisenia fetida Sav. (about 2000 worms
m2) in windrows. The vermicompost used for the current
experiment was produced during one year and had a physical
appearance similar to peat (average nutrient concentrations
pH ¼ 6.5, N ¼ 640 mg l1, P2O5 ¼ 1600 mg l1,
K2O ¼ 6000 mg l , Mg ¼ 710 mg l1).
1
In a greenhouse, for each substrate mixture twenty
seeds of each tomato variety were sown into cell plug
trays filled with the particular substrates. Seedling
emergence was assessed 32 days after sowing and was
expressed as number of seedlings emerged relative to
number of seeds sown per tomato variety. Biomass allo-
cation was determined on five subsamples per substrate
mixture and tomato variety by cutting seedlings at the
soil surface and weighing shoot and root biomass after
drying at 80  C for at least 24 h.
S333
Thereafter, seedlings were transferred into 11-cm-
diameter plastic pots containing VC-peat mixtures
corresponding to those in plug trays. Seedlings grew
in pots for 24 days before they were transplanted
into field soil in a randomized design (n ¼ 10; soil
type: fluvisol, row distance: 0.8 m, within row distance
of plants: 0.4 m). Tomato plants were watered when
needed using a drip irrigation system. No additional
fertilizer was applied to seedlings in plug trays and
pots, whereas field plants were fertilized weekly with
10 g (fresh mass) of VC applied on the soil surface
near each plant.
Marketable yield was calculated per tomato plant as
the sum of orange and red fruits successively harvested
until the end of the experiment. Fruit quality was as-
sessed on fully orange and red fruits harvested from sim-
ilar heights of insertion on the tomato plant on three
harvesting dates during the experiment. After harvest-
ing, plant peel firmness was measured on three randomly
chosen locations along the fruit equator on at least five
fruits using a mechanical hardness tester with a Shore
A hardness scale ranging from 0 (soft) to 100 (hard)
units (Type HP; Bareiss, Oberdischingen, Germany).
After these measurements, fruits were chopped using
a household mixer and freeze-dried. D-glucose and D-
fructose was determined from freeze-dried material on
enzymatically produced NADPH [20] using an UV
spectrophotometer (Lambda 2, Perkin Elmer, Wellesley,
MA, USA). Because there was only little variation of
fruit quality data between sampling dates, averages
across dates were used for statistical analyses.
Data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA with
tomato variety and VC proportion as the two factors by
using the general linear model approach in the software
package SAS (Version 8.02, SAS Institute, Cary, North
Carolina, USA). Tukey’s least squares means test was
used for mean comparisons. In addition to the overall
analysis, one-way ANOVA on the effects of VC propor-
tion were carried out separately for each variety to
determine the response patterns in more detail.
3. Results
Seedling emergence was significantly different be-
tween varieties and VC amendment. While the 100%
VC substrate led to earlier emergence than other VC
proportions in two varieties (cv. D, cv. M), emergence
of the third variety (cv. RR) was highest in substrate
containing 20% VC and lowest in the 100% VC sub-
strate (Fig. 1).
Root-shoot ratio was significantly different between
varieties (P ¼ 0.010) and significantly affected by VC
S334 J.G. Zaller / European Journal of Soil Biology 43 (2007) S332eS336

cv. D cv. M cv. RR

P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P = 0.001
ab ab ab ab
a 100 b b
100 ab ab ab ab 100
b a

80 80
80
Emergence (%)

b
b b
60 60 60
b
b
40 40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Vermicompost proportion in substrate (%)

Fig. 1. Relative seedling emergence of three tomato varieties (cv. D, cv. M, cv. RR) grown in plug cells with substrate mixture containing different
proportions of VC. P-values derived from ANOVAs for individual varieties. Different letters indicate significant differences at P ¼ 0.05 (Tukey
LSD test). Means (n ¼ 20).

amendments (VC effect: P ¼ 0.029; Fig. 2). Root-shoot
ratio was significantly higher for seedlings of cv. M and
cv. RR in 100% VC than in substrate with lower VC
proportions (Fig. 2).
Marketable yield was similar between tomato varie-
ties but affected by VC proportion in seedling substrate
mixture (variety effect: P ¼ 0.357, VC effect:
P ¼ 0.040; data not shown). Peel firmness was signifi-
cantly different between varieties (P < 0.001) and sig-
nificantly affected by VC amendment (P < 0.001;
variety  VC interaction: P < 0.001; Fig. 3). Peel firm-
ness was highest for cv. D at 20% VC and for cv. RR at
60% VC but unaffected by VC amendment for cv. M
(Fig. 3). Fructose-glucose ratios of marketable fruits
were significantly affected by VC amendments
(P < 0.001, Fig. 3) and highest for cv. D at 100% VC,
for cv. M at 40% and 80% VC and for cv. RR at 80%
VC (Fig. 3).
4. Discussion
Other studies on the effect of VC amendment to
growth media for tomatoes in greenhouses either
showed a maximum growth at VC proportions of
around 20% in the growth mixture [5] or a steady
increase in growth with increasing VC amendment.
This discrepancy in the response of tomato seedlings
could be explained (1) by the use of different tomato va-
rieties that respond differently and (2) by the use of VC
of different origin which has been shown to cause
great differences in vermicompost quality (e.g., refs.
[4,10,12]). An additional explanation for contrasting

cv.D cv. M cv. RR

P = 0.774 P < 0.001 P = 0.038
0.3 0.3
0.3
a
a
b b
Root:shoot ratio

0.2 0.2 b 0.2

c c b
c c b

0.1 0.1 0.1 c

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Vermicompost proportion in substrate (%)

Fig. 2. Shoot:root ratios of three tomato varieties (cv. D, cv. M, cv. RR) growing in plug cells containing substrate mixture with different pro-
portions of VC. P-values derived from ANOVAs for individual variety. Different letters indicate significant differences at P ¼ 0.05 (Tukey
LSD test), no LSD test was performed when the overall model was not significant. Means  SE (n ¼ 10). Small error bars are not depicted.
 J.G. Zaller / European Journal of Soil Biology 43 (2007) S332eS336 S335

cv. D cv. M cv. RR

P = 0.004 P = 0.391 P = 0.003
60 ab a
Peel firmness (Shore A scale)

60 60
ab
50 a ab 50 50
ab ab b
ab ab
40 40 40
b
b
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

cv. D cv. M cv. RR

P< 0.001 P < 0.001 P< 0.001
60 a 60 60
b b a
b b b a ab a b b b b b
Fructose:glucose ratio

50 50 b b ab
50

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Vermicompost proportion in substrate (%)

Fig. 3. Fruit peel firmness and fructose:glucose ratio of three tomato varieties (cv. D, cv. M, cv. RR) that had been raised in substrate mixtures
with different proportions of VC. P-values derived from ANOVAs for individual variety. Different letters indicate significant differences at
P ¼ 0.05 (Tukey LSD test), no LSD test was performed when the overall model was not significant. Means  SE (n ¼ 5).

results in the current study might also be that contrary to
other studies no additional mineral fertilization was
supplied during the course of the current experiment.
The current results indicate that vermicompost contains
a well-balanced composition of nutrients and at least for
tomato seedling husbandry in organic horticulture no
additional supply of mineral nutrients seems to be re-
quired. Recent work confirms this by showing that the
quality of tomato transplants cultivated in vermicom-
post was similar (tested only up to 20% amendment)
to that in a fertilized substrate without VC amendment
[17].
Biomass allocation towards roots tended to be higher
with higher proportions of VC in the substrate for two
varieties indicating that VC stimulated root growth for
these species. However, the absence of a clear relation-
ship between VC proportion in the growth media and
tomato biomass production for all varieties suggests
that not only nutrient contents of VC are affecting plant
growth but also other indirect effects via the inhibition
of plant pathogen infection [22,23] or effects on the
rhizosphere microflora [4,8,9] might override pure nu-
trient effects.
One of the central aims of this experiment was to test
whether tomato seedlings that were raised in different
substrate types carry over characteristics that affect
yields and fruit quality after its transplantation into field
soil. Marketable yields, peel firmness and fructose-glu-
cose ratios of fruits were significantly affected by VC
amendments in the seedling substrate. Peel firmness
was for two varieties significantly higher at 20% or
60% VC than without VC amendment and sugar ratios
tended to be higher when seedling substrate contained
VC than without VC. Since sugar concentrations are di-
rectly linked to tomato flavour attributes [6], VC
amendments can therefore also have consequences for
the taste of tomato fruits, although this was not tested
in the current study. Tomato fruit quality has also
been shown to be affected when VC was applied as fo-
liar spray [23]. These effects on fruit quality suggest
that VC-induced effects on seedlings are also important
for further developmental stages of tomato plants [24].
S336 J.G. Zaller / European Journal of Soil Biology 43 (2007) S332eS336
It is interesting to note that the tomato variety (cv. RR)
that is considered to mature later than the others showed
the most pronounced responses to the imposed treat-
ments. Although in this experiment no difference in
the time of maturation could be detected among the
tested varieties, it remains to be further investigated
whether this variety responded differently because of
a delayed plant development or allocation of available
nutrients provided by vermicompost.
In conclusion, results of the current experiment show
that firstly, vermicompost in potting media has no detri-
mental but rather a stimulatory effect on emergence and
root growth of tomato seedlings and has thus consider-
able potential for substituting peat in horticultural pot-
ting substrates. Secondly, fruit quality of tomatoes can
be altered by the substrate mixture used to raise seed-
lings even when seedlings were transplanted into
equally fertilized field soil. This influence of VC
amendments may also have implications for tomato
pest and disease resistance [14e16] or its susceptibility
to abiotic stress (e.g. chilling; ref. [21]). Finally, the cur-
rent results also highlight differences of vermicompost
effects between tomato varieties, a finding that should
be considered when giving recommendations on the op-
timum proportion of vermicompost amendment to hor-
ticultural potting substrates.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to A. Donati, C. Günther, H.
Leese, S. Lenzen, S. Reinhardt, H. Riebeling, U. Schlee,
J. Siebigteroth, B. Stöcker and D. Zedow for their excel-
lent help in the laboratory and the field.
References
[1] N.Q. Arancon, C.A. Edwards, R. Atiyeh, J.D. Metzger, Effects of
vermicomposts produced from food waste on the growth and
yields of greenhouse peppers, Biores. Techn. 93 (2004) 139e144.
[3] R.M. Atiyeh, C.A. Edwards, S. Subler, J.D. Metzger, Earth-
worm-processed organic wastes as components of horticultural
potting media for growing marigold and vegetable seedlings,
Compost Sci. Util. 8 (2000) 215e223.
[4] R.M. Atiyeh, S. Subler, C.A. Edwards, G. Bachmann,
J.D. Metzger, W. Shuster, Effects of vermicomposts and com-
posts on plant growth in horticultural container media and
soil, Pedobiologia 44 (2000) 579e590.
[5] R.M. Atiyeh, S. Subler, C.A. Edwards, J. Metzger, Growth of
tomato plants in horticultural potting media amended with ver-
micompost, Pedobiologia 43 (1999) 724e728.
[6] H. Auerswald, P. Peters, B. Brückner, A. Krumbein,
R. Kuchenbuch, Sensory analysis and instrumental measure-
ments of short-term stored tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill.), Postharv. Biol. Techn. 15 (1999) 323e334.
[7] J.P. Barkham, For peat’s sake: conversation or exploitation?
Biodiv. Conserv. 2 (1993) 255e566.
[8] N.D. Cavender, R.M. Atiyeh, M. Knee, Vermicompost stimu-
lates mycorrhizal colonization of roots of Sorghum bicolor at
the expense of plant growth, Pedobiology 47 (2003) 85e89.
[9] M.A. de Brito Alvarez, S. Gagne, H. Antoun, Effect of compost
on rhizosphere microflora of the tomato and on the incidence of
plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria, Appl. Environ. Micro-
biol. 61 (1995) 194e199.
[10] J. Domı́nguez, State of the art and new perspectives on vermi-
composting research, in: C.A. Edwards (Ed.), Earthworm Ecol-
ogy, second ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA,
2004, pp. 401e424.
[11] J. Domı́nguez, C.A. Edwards, S. Subler, A comparison of ver-
micomposting and composting methods to process animal
wastes, Biocycle 38 (1997) 57e59.
[12] C.A. Edwards (Ed.), Breakdown of Animal, Vegetable and
Industrial Organic Wastes by Earthworms, SPB Academic
Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1988.
[13] C.A. Edwards, I. Burrows, The potential of earthworm com-
post as plant growth media, in: C.A. Edwards,
E.F. Neuhauser (Eds.), Earthworms in Waste and Environ-
mental Management, SPB Academic Publishers, The Nether-
lands, 1988, pp. 21e32.
[14] C.A. Edwards, J. Domı́nguez, N.Q. Arancon, The influence of
vermicomposts on plant growth and pest incidence, in:
S.H. Shakir, W.Z.A. Mikhail (Eds.), Soil Zoology for Sustain-
able Development in the 21st Century, Self-Publisher, Cairo,
Egypt, 2004, pp. 397e420.
[15] E. Hoffland, M.J. Jeger, M.L. van Beusichem, Effect of nitrogen
supply on disease resistance in tomato depends on the pathogen,
Plant Soil 218 (2000) 239e247.
[16] E. Hoffland, M.L. van Beusichem, M.J. Jeger, Nitrogen avail-
ability and susceptibility of tomato leaves to Botrytis cinerea,
Plant Soil 210 (1999) 263e272.
[17] L.C. Paul, J.D. Metzger, Impact of vermicompost on vegetable
transplant quality, Hortscience 40 (2005) 2020e2023.
[18] M. Raviv, Y. Chen, Y. Inbar, The use of peat and composts as
growth media for container-grown plants, in: Y. Chen,
Y. Avnimelech (Eds.), The Role of Organic Matter in Modern
Agriculture, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht, 1986, pp.
257e287.
[19] R.A. Robertson, Peat, horticulture and environment, Biodiv.
Conserv. 2 (1993) 541e547.
[20] F.H. Schmidt, Die enzymatische Bestimmung von Glucose
und Fructose nebeneinander, Klin. Wochenschr. 39 (1961)
1244e1247.
[21] Z. Starck, B. Niemyska, J. Bogdan, R.N. Akour Tawalbeh,
Response of tomato plants to chilling stress in association
with nutrient or phosphorus starvation, Plant Soil 226 (2000)
99e106.
[22] M. Szczech, Suppressiveness of vermicompost against
Fusarium Wilt of tomato, Phytopathology 147 (1999) 155e161.
[23] J.G. Zaller, Foliar spraying of vermicompost extracts: effects
on fruit quality and indications for late-blight suppression
of field-grown tomatoes, Biol. Agric. Hortic. 24 (2006)
165e180.
[24] J.G. Zaller, Vermicompost as a substitute for peat in organic
potting media: effects on germination, biomass allocation,
yields and fruit quality of three tomato varieties, Sci. Hortic.
112 (2007) 191e199.