Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Impact of compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility, maize

yield and soil erosion in Northern Vietnam: A three year
mesocosm experiment
Thuy Thu Doan a,b, Thierry Henry-des-Tureaux b,c, Cornelia Rumpel d, Jean-Louis Janeau a,b, Pascal Jouquet a,e,⁎
a
IRD, UMR 242 iEES Paris, équipe BioPhys, 32 Avenue H. Varagnat, 93143 Bondy Cedex, France
b
Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Dong Ngac, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Viet Nam
c
NAFRI, National University of Vientiane, BP 811, Vientiane, Laos
d
UMR iEES Paris, équipe EcoIso, Campus AgroParisTech, Bâtiment EGER, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France
e
IFCWS, Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science, 560012 Bangalore, India

H I G H L I G H T S

• Influence of vermicompost and biochar on plant growth is variable but positive.

• Vermicompost allows a better resistance of maize to water shortage.
• Vermicompost and biochar reduce soil erosion and N loss.
• Combination of vermicompost and biochar improves agroecosystem sustainability.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Compost, vermicompost and biochar amendments are thought to improve soil quality and plant yield. However,
Received 19 June 2014 little is known about their long-term impact on crop yield and the environment in tropical agro-ecosystems. In
Received in revised form 30 December 2014 this study we investigated the effect of organic amendments (buffalo manure, compost and vermicompost)
Accepted 2 February 2015
and biochar (applied alone or with vermicompost) on plant yield, soil fertility, soil erosion and water dynamics
Available online xxxx
in a degraded Acrisol in Vietnam. Maize growth and yield, as well as weed growth, were examined for three years
Editor: Eddy Y. Zeng in terrestrial mesocosms under natural rainfall.
Maize yield and growth showed high inter-annual variability depending on the organic amendment.
Keywords: Vermicompost improved maize growth and yield but its effect was rather small and was only significant when
Mesocosms water availability was limited (year 2). This suggests that vermicompost could be a promising substrate for im-
Water quality proving the resistance of agrosystems to water stress. When the vermicompost–biochar mixture was applied,
Tropical soil further growth and yield improvements were recorded in some cases. When applied alone, biochar had a positive
Ecological engineering influence on maize yield and growth, thus confirming its interest for improving long-term soil productivity. All
−
organic amendments reduced water runoff, soil detachment and NH+ 4 and NO3 transfer to water. These effects
were more significant with vermicompost than with buffalo manure and compost, highlighting that the benefi-
cial influence of vermicompost is not limited to its influence on plant yield. In addition, this study showed for the
first time that the combination of vermicompost and biochar may not only improve plant productivity but also
reduce the negative impact of agriculture on water quality.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction practices are also priorities. Unsustainable agricultural practices, such

as the indiscriminate use of agro-chemicals, excessive and deep tillage,
Improved crop yield is obviously one objective of sustainable agri- reduction of the fallow period and the use of marginal land, such as
culture but other effects, such as the off-site impacts of cultivation slopes, have increased plant yield at the expense of soil quality. Under
these circumstances, agricultural practices lead to reduced soil organic
matter (SOM) content and soil biodiversity, and degradation of soil
⁎ Corresponding author at: IRD, UMR 242 iEES Paris, équipe BioPhys, 32 Avenue H.
physical properties and the wider environment (e.g., increased soil ero-
Varagnat, 93143 Bondy Cedex, France. sion, transfer of sediments and pollution of surface and ground-waters)
E-mail address: pascal.jouquet@ird.fr (P. Jouquet). (Kibblewhite et al., 2008; Lal, 2008; Papathanasiou et al., 2012).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.005
0048-9697/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
148 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154

SOM depletion is one of the major factors causing degradation of leachate. Mesocosms were filled with soil sampled from a depth of 0–
ecosystem services and loss of ecosystem resilience (Bronick and Lal, 30 cm at the MSEC experimental catchment (Podwojewski et al.,
2005; Lal, 2005; Feller et al., 2012). Thus numerous studies have 2008; Valentin et al., 2008) and packed until a density similar to that
suggested that organic soil amendment is an alternative for sustaining measured in the field was reached (~ 1 g cm−3, Jouquet et al., 2009).
economically viable crop production with minimal environmental pol- The soil was first sieved (2 cm sieve) to remove stones and litter resi-
lution. Indeed, organic fertilization has been shown to improve SOM dues. This soil is classified as an Acrisol (World Reference Base for Soil
content, microbial biomass and activity, to suppress plant diseases, es- Resources, 1998) with low organic C (0.31%) and N content (0.16%).
pecially those caused by soil-borne pathogens, and to improve soil resis- The soil pH was acidic (pHH2O = 5.3). It was mainly sandy (43% sand,
tance against erosion (Thiele-Bruhn et al., 2012). However, a major 34.3% silt, and 22.3% clay). Four maize seedlings (variety NK 4300)
limitation of organic amendment is its smaller impact on plant yield were grown per mesocosm every year. The maize was cultivated with-
than chemical fertilizers, although this difference is highly contextual out irrigation but with mineral fertilizer to assist plant growth: urea
and depends on the system and site characteristics (Seufert et al., (CH4N2O, %N = 46.3%, 40 g m−2), potash (K2O, %K = 60%, 16 g m−2)
2012). In a literature review, Seufert et al. (2012) found that most stud- and phosphate (P2O5, %P = 16%, 50 g m−2). Exactly the same amount
ies on organic amendments were carried out in developed countries of chemical fertilizer was applied to each mesocosm. Plants were then
where performance is on average 20% less than with conventional agri- treated with four different fertilization regimes in a randomized design:
culture, and this difference reaches 43% in developing countries. There- only chemical nutrients (control: mineral, ‘M’) or the same amount of
fore, more research is needed, especially in developing countries, to chemical nutrients plus one of the three types of organic fertilizer. Or-
improve our knowledge of the potential of organic amendments, as ganic fertilizers were amended at a rate of 20 t ha−1 (air-dry weight),
well as to improve their effectiveness. as recommended by SFRI: 2 kg of buffalo manure (BM), compost
Two alternative and emerging organic fertilizers are vermicompost (C) or vermicompost (V) mixed with the first 10 cm of soil (n = 5 for
and biochar. Vermicomposting is a biological and ecological process. In- all treatments). The influence of the incorporation of biochar (700 g,
teractions between earthworms and microorganisms lead to the bio- or 7 t ha−1) was also tested for the mineral (i.e., only chemical nutrients
oxidation and stabilization of the organic wastes (Dominguez and with ‘M+’ or without ‘M−’ biochar) and vermicompost (with ‘V+’ vs.
Edwards, 2004; Dominguez and Gomez-Brandon, 2013). Vermicompost without ‘V−’ biochar) treatments.
was reported to stimulate soil microbial growth and activity and the Compost and vermicompost were produced from domestic buffalo
subsequent mineralization of soil plant nutrients. It increases soil manure after three months of maturation, as reported by Jouquet et al.
fertility and quality and contains plant growth promoting substances (2010). The earthworm species used to produce the vermicompost
(e.g., vitamins, hormones, enzymes) that favor plant growth was Eisenia andrei. Organic amendments were air-dried for one week
(Gutierrez-Miceli et al., 2007; Pramanik et al., 2007; Zaller, 2007; before use so that exactly the same quantity of OM was applied per
Ievinsh, 2011; Papathanasiou et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012). The incor- mesocosm. Biochar was provided by GRET (Hanoi) and produced by
poration of biochar in soil improved the retention of nutrients, such as carbonizing pieces of bamboo for 8–10 h at 600 °C in airless brick
nitrogen (N), and sequestered carbon (C) (Lehmann et al., 2003; kilns. Chemical and organic amendments were applied each year
Barrow, 2012; Cheng et al., 2012; Borchard et al., 2012; Clough and (i.e. three times during the whole experiment), while biochar was
Condron, 2010; Clough et al., 2013; Farrell et al., 2014). Its beneficial ef- added only once at the beginning of the experiment and mixed with
fect on plant growth has also been shown in numerous studies (Steiner the chemical fertilizers or organic amendments. The buffalo manure
et al., 2007, 2008; Vaccari et al., 2011), and especially in poor tropical was more alkaline and contained more C and N than compost and
soils (Andrew et al., 2013). vermicompost (pHH2O = 10.5 (SE: 0.10), 7.2 (SE: 0.10) and 8.6 (SE:
Recently, there has been increasing interest in using vermicompost 0.06), C = 30.96% (SE: 1.01), 16.34% (SE: 0.10), 15.52% (SE: 0.11), and
in Northern Vietnam to restore fertility and plant growth in soils de- N = 1.72% (SE: 0.03), 1.56% (SE: 0.09), 1.72% (SE: 0.03), respectively
graded by erosion (Jouquet et al., 2011; Ngo et al., 2011, 2014; Doan for buffalo manure, compost and vermicompost). Biochar was neutral
et al., 2013a,b), as well as to reduce the negative impact of OM amend- (pHH2O = 7.0, SE: 0.1) and characterized by high C and low N contents
ment on the transfer of mineral N and microbes to water (Jouquet et al., (C = 74.21 %, SE: 1.92, and N = 0.87%, SE: 002). More information
2011; Amossé et al., 2013; Doan et al., 2014). Recent studies also about the experimental set-up and the chemical properties of the soil,
showed that biochar could be used with vermicompost to increase its buffalo manure, compost, vermicompost and biochar can be found in
stability and reduce OM solubility (Ngo et al., 2013, 2014; Doan et al., Doan et al. (2014) and Ngo et al. (2014).
2014). However, how biochar and vermicompost interact and influence
plant development and soil and nutrient losses remains unknown. The 2.2. Soil and water chemical properties
aim of this study carried out in Northern Vietnam was therefore to de-
termine if the positive influence of vermicompost on soil fertility, Soil detachment and the volume and chemical quality of runoff
plant growth and nutrient retention could be improved by the addition water and leachate were assessed after each rainfall event (i.e., 11
of biochar. We hypothesized that: (1) vermicompost increases plant times during the experiment). Monthly rainfall amounts are shown in
growth and yield in soil and reduces the amount of soil and nutrients Fig. 1. The volume of each water sample was measured and then filtered
lost by runoff and leaching compared with buffalo manure and compost, through GF/F membrane filters (Whatman, 0.7 μm porosity) to measure
and (2) these positive effects on soil fertility, plant growth and nutrient the concentration of suspended solids and nutrients. Following filtration
retention are enhanced in the presence of biochar. of runoff water and oven-drying of the sediment at 50 °C, sediment loss
was measured as the sediment weight. This sediment weight is as-
2. Materials and methods sumed to represent the quantity of soil lost during rainfall events on
1 m2 plots. The pH of each water sample was measured. Total N and
2.1. Experimental design phosphorus (P) were evaluated in the filtrate solution according to
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
The experiment was carried out at the Soil and Fertilizer Research In- (Clesceri et al., 1998). The concentrations of nutrients, NNH4+, NNO3−, K,
stitute (SFRI), in Hanoi, Vietnam. The experimental design consisted of and P, were measured in the solutions.
outdoor terrestrial mesocosms where maize was cultivated for three The percentage of organic C was determined using the Walkley–
years. The mesocosms consisted of tanks (1 m × 1 m × 2 m) filled Black method (TCVN 4050-85) for soil samples and dry combustion
with 1 m3 of soil. These tanks were equipped with runoff water collec- with a Carlo Erba NC2100 analyzer for water samples. Total N was de-
tors. A lysimeter was placed at the bottom of the tank to recover termined using the Kjeldahl method (ISO 11251-95) for soil samples
 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154 149

Plantation

Plantation

Plantation
Harvesting

Harvesting
Harvesting
2.4. Statistical analyses

450 Statistical analyses were performed using R software (R

400 development Core Team, 2008). The experimental design of this study
Rainfall amount (mm)

350 was completely randomized. A one way ANOVA was used to test the ef-
300 2009 2010 2011 fect of fertilization treatment (soil at T0 and treatments ‘M’, ‘BM’, ‘C’ or
250
‘V’) on soil chemical properties. A two-way ANOVA was performed to
200
150 test the effect of fertilization (chemical or vermicompost) and biochar
100 (with or without) treatments. The influence of the treatments on
50 plant growth and yield, weed biomass, water runoff and infiltration,
0 soil moisture, and soil loss and the quantity of NNH4+ and NNO3− were
measured through repeated ANOVA with time (year one to three) as a
within factor. LSD test was performed to assess differences between
means. The number of replicates was n = 5, except in the case of the ini-
Fig. 1. Monthly rainfall amount (mm) during the experiment. The planting (downward tial soil where n = 3.
arrow) and harvesting dates (upward arrow) are indicated.
3. Results

3.1. Soil chemical properties

and after reduction of nitrate with Devarda's alloy for water samples
(ISO 5553-84). The pH was measured in a soil/water suspension (ISO The addition of chemical (control) and organic amendments influ-
10390-2005). The NNH4+ and NNO3− contents were determined using enced soil chemical properties compared with the initial soil properties
the Kjeldahl method. The quantities of NNH4+ and NNO3− lost in the runoff (soil at T0) (P b 0.05). Table 1 shows that while organic amendments
water and leachate were measured in taking account the volume of each increased soil pH, the control treatment reduced it (P b 0.05). All the
sampled solution. The total K content was determined after extraction treatments also significantly increased the soil C content (P b 0.05).
with H2SO4 and HClO4 using a Flame photometer (TCVN 4053-81). However, the effect was more significant with compost and
The total P content was determined using a spectrophotometer after ex- vermicompost, with no significant difference between these two treat-
traction with H2SO4 and HClO4. Soil moisture was continuously mea- ments (P N 0.05). The least significant effect was observed in the control.
sured (every 2 h), as the soil water potential (kPa) with tensiometers Buffalo manure had an intermediate effect on C, with significantly lower
placed between 20 and 30 cm deep in the soil. In this study, only the av- values than those of compost and vermicompost treated soil but signif-
erage soil moisture over 10 day periods during cultivation was consid- icantly higher values than for the control treatment (P b 0.05 in all
ered for analysis. cases). The total soil N content also increased significantly, with higher
values following the organic treatments and lower values for the control
(P b 0.05). The total P and K content was significantly higher at the end
2.3. Maize growth and yield, and weed development of the experiment than in the soil at T0 (P b 0.05) but the treatments did
not have a significant effect (P N 0.05). Available P and K were also
Maize above-ground biomass was harvested at the end of each cul- significantly higher at the end of the experiment compared with the
tivation cycle and weighed after drying at 50 °C for 10 days. The maize control soil before the experiment (T0) (P b 0.05). However, available
yield was estimated as the total dry weight of grains per plant P was the highest in the compost and vermicompost treatments,
(g plant−1). The above-ground biomass of weeds was cut, dried at and then in the buffalo manure and lowest in the control (P b 0.05
50 °C for 10 days and weighed after the second and third maize cultiva- in all cases). The CEC also increased significantly in the order:
tion and before starting the next cultivation cycle. Weed biomass was Vermicompost N compost = manure N control N T0.
not measured after the first maize cultivation because its growth was ir- The application of biochar in combination with vermicompost did
regular and not significant overall. not have a significant effect on soil C, total P and K content or available

Table 1
Soil chemical properties sampled before and at the end of the experiment (pHH2O, C, N, P and K in %), P and K availability (mg 100 g−1) and CEC (meq 100 g−1). Different upper-case letters
indicate significant differences between fertilizer treatments (one way ANOVA for soil at T0, control, buffalo manure, compost and vermicompost treatments, LSD test, P b 0.05). Different
lower-case letters indicate differences between fertilizers (control vs. vermicompost) × biochar (with vs. without) treatments (two way ANOVA, LSD test, P b 0.05). Standard errors are in
parenthesis, n = 5. n.d. = not determined.

Fertilization Biochar pHH2O C (%) N (%) P2O5 (%) K2O (%)

Soil T0 5.3B (0.1) 0.31D (0.07) 0.15C (0.01) 0.09B (0.02) 0.10B (0.00)
Control − 4.8Cc (0.1) 1.15Cb (0.15) 0.20Bc (0.01) 0.32Aa (0.05) 0.26Aa (0.05)
+ 5.5b (0.1) 1.29b (0.22) 0.21c (0.01) 0.32a (0.04) 0.26a (0.05)
Manure 6.4A (0.1) 2.61B (0.17) 0.31A (0.02) 0.29A (0.05) 0.30A (0.05)
Compost 6.4A (0.2) 3.17A (0.22) 0.30A (0.04) 0.30A (0.02) 0.31A (0.05)
Vermicompost − 6.5Aa (0.2) 3.02Aa (0.28) 0.29Ab (0.04) 0.32Aa (0.04) 0.32Aa (0.08)
+ 6.5a (0.2) 3.10a (0.25) 0.35a (0.03) 0.35a (0.03) 0.26a (0.08)

Fertilization Biochar Pavailable (mg 100 g−1) Kavailable (mg 100 g−1) CEC (meq 100 g−1)

Soil T0 0.38D (0.02) 7.68C (1.4) 8.31D (1.1)

Control − 11.49Cc (1.04) 24.97ABb (4.5) 12.68Cc (1.5)
+ 16.30b (1.99) 21.65b (3.7) 15.90b (1.1)
Manure 18.11B (1.95) 28.57A (5.2) 16.61B (2.3)
Compost 19.94A (1.54) 22.98B (3.1) 16.64B (1.3)
Vermicompost − 20.20Aa (1.21) 25.19ABab (3.4) 20.40Aa (2.5)
+ 22.07a (2.31) 30.33a (3.5) 23.17a (3.0)
150 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154

1st year 2nd year 3th year

K contents but it significantly increased the total N and available P con- 0.4
tents (Table 1) (P b 0.05). It also significantly increased the CEC and pH a
A A
of the control treatment (P b 0.05). Ab
B B Bc bc

Maize biomass (kg m-2)

c
0.3 Cd

3.2. Soil moisture e e

De
0.2 E
EF FGf
Changes in soil moisture throughout the experiment are shown in Gf f

Fig. 2. As expected, the annual variability in soil moisture was high.

0.1
Soil water tension was higher in the second year of the experiment
(i.e., lower water availability) than in the first and third years. Despite
large variability, our results also showed that the treatments had a sig- 0
nificant influence on soil moisture (F3, 1294 = 3.427, P = 0.017). The M BM C V M BM C V M BM C V

vermicompost treatment significantly reduced soil water tension

(i.e., increase water availability) more than the other treatments Fig. 3. Maize biomass (kg m−2) for soil amended with mineral fertilizers only (control, M),
or with organic fertilizers (buffalo manure: BM, compost: C, or vermicompost: V) in the
(Fig. 2a). Higher soil water tension was measured on several dates for presence (in gray) or absence (in white) of biochar. Upper-case letters indicate significant
the compost and control treatments and intermediate values were differences between fertilizer treatments (M, BM, C or V). Lower-case letters indicate sig-
noted for the manure treatments. Biochar incorporation had variable ef- nificant differences between M and V in the presence of biochar or not. Bars represent
fects on soil moisture (F1, 1296 = 31.22, P b 0.001). It significantly de- mean ± standard errors, n = 5.
creased soil water tension for the vermicompost treatment in the
second year of the experiment but significantly increased it for the con- (e.g., 0.26, 0.14 and 0.15 kg m−2 for the control soils, respectively for
trol and vermicompost treatment in the last year of the experiment the first, second and third years vs. 0.31, 0.18 and 0.29 kg m−2 on aver-
(Fig. 2b). age for the organic amendments, respectively for the first, second and
third years, P b 0.05 in all cases, Fig. 3). The type of organic amendment
3.3. Maize growth and yield, and weed development did not significantly influence maize growth in the first and third years
of the experiment (P N 0.05). However, the maize biomass measured in
Figs. 3 and 4 show the influence of the different treatments on maize the second year of the experiment was higher for the vermicompost
biomass and yield for the three years of the experiment. Maize biomass treatment compared with all the other treatments (e.g., 0.20 kg m−2
was always the lowest when chemical fertilization was used alone for vermicompost against 0.17 kg m−2 on average for compost and buf-
falo manure, P b 0.05). Incorporation of biochar in the soil increased
a) Control Buffalo manure Compost Vermicompost
maize growth. However, this effect was variable and it was not con-
firmed in the second year of the experiment for either the control or
200 vermicompost treatments (P N 0.05), or in the third year of the experi-
ment for the vermicompost treatment (P N 0.05).
Soil water tension (kPa)

Maize yields followed the same trend with higher values measured
150
when organic amendments were used (e.g., 5, 3 and 4 t ha−1 for the
control treatment after the first, second and third years of the experi-
100 ment, compared to 6.6, 4.3 and 6.0 t ha−1 on average for the other treat-
ments, for the first, second and third years of the experiment
respectively, Fig. 4). As mentioned above, differences between organic
50 amendments were low and in most cases not significant (P N 0.05),
except in the second year of the experiment when the maize yield
0
was highest for the vermicompost treatment (e.g., 4.7 t ha− 1 for
July Aug Sept Oct July Aug Sept Oct June July Aug Sept vermicompost, against 4.1 t ha−1 on average for buffalo manure and
2010 2011 compost, and 3.2 t ha− 1 for the control treatment). In the last year,
2009
the trend was similar without any significant difference between com-
post and vermicompost treatments. Biochar addition to vermicompost
b) Control Control + biochar Vermicompost Vermicompost + biochar increased maize yield significantly compared to the control treatment.
However this effect was only significant in the first year for both the
200
Soil water tension (kPa)

9 1st year 2nd year 3th year

150
a
A AB Ab BCc
c
d
Maize yield (t ha -1)

100 Ee DE CD
6 e f
Ff Gg
G G
50
Hh h

3
0
July Aug Sept Oct July Aug Sept Oct June July Aug Sept

2009 2010 2011

0
Fig. 2. Changes in soil moisture (kPa) (a) for the control, buffalo manure, compost and M BM C V M BM C V M BM C V
vermicompost treatments, (b) for the control and vermicompost treatments with or with-
out biochar. Only average soil moisture values over 10 day periods during maize cultiva- Fig. 4. Maize yield (t ha−1) for soil amended with mineral fertilizers only (control, M), or
tion are shown, n = 5. The planting (downward arrows) and harvesting dates (upward with organic fertilizers (buffalo manure: BM, compost: C, or vermicompost: V) in the pres-
arrows) are indicated. ence (in gray) or absence (in white) of biochar. See legend of Fig. 3 for more details, n = 5.
 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154 151

0.9 3th year a

2nd year
Aa presence of biochar also significantly reduced water flow and soil de-
A tachment for both the control and vermicompost treatments (P b 0.05
Weed biomass (kg m-2)

A a A in both cases). The cumulative quantity of soil and water lost by runoff
Aa
A
0.6 and leaching clearly confirmed the beneficial influence of buffalo ma-
b nure, compost and vermicompost amendments. Among these three or-
b Bb ganic amendments, the most significant reductions in soil and water
loss were observed for the vermicompost treatment and the least signif-
0.3
Bb icant reduction was measured with the buffalo manure. Compost
amendment led to intermediate results. Similarly, the application of
biochar also reduced the amount of soil and water lost (P b 0.05) and
0 this effect was significant for both the control and vermicompost
M BM C V M BM C V treatments.
Table 3 shows the pH (average values) and quantity of NNH4+ and
Fig. 5. Weed biomass (kg m−2) in soil amended with mineral fertilizers only (control, M),
NNO3− lost in the runoff and leachate solutions. The pH of the runoff
or with organic fertilizers (buffalo manure: BD, compost: C, or vermicompost: V) in the
presence (in gray) or absence (in white) of biochar. See legend of Fig. 3 for more details, water was acidic (~5.6), as well as the leachate solution for the control
n = 5. treatment in the first year of the experiment (5.8). In contrast, the pH of
the leachate was neutral or slightly alkaline (~7.4) for the manure, com-
post and vermicompost and for the control in the second and third years
control and vermicompost treatments (e.g., from 5.2 to 5.6 t ha−1 for of the experiment. Organic amendment led to a significant reduction in
control and from 6.8 to 7.3 t ha−1 for vermicompost, P b 0.05), the sec- NNH4+ and NNO3− leaching (P b 0.05), with a stronger effect for compost
ond year for the vermicompost treatment (e.g., from 4.6 to 5.2 t ha−1), and vermicompost, without a significant difference between them
and in the last year of the experiment only for the control treatment (P N 0.05). The use of biochar also led to a significant reduction in
(from 4.2 to 4.7 t ha−1, P b 0.05 in all the cases). NH+ −
4 and NO3 leaching for the mineral and vermicompost treatments
Difference in weed biomass was not significant in the first year of the (P b 0.05). As a consequence, the total quantity of NNH4+ and NNO3− lost
experiment but reached almost 1 kg m−2 in the second and third years by runoff and leaching water was higher for the control treatment,
(Fig. 5). Treatments significantly influenced weed biomass (P b 0.05). It with around 4 g and 26 g, respectively. These quantities were signifi-
was significantly higher compared to the control when organic amend- cantly reduced when OM was applied and the effect was more pro-
ments were used (P b 0.05 in comparison with the control) but no sig- nounced in the presence of vermicompost than buffalo manure
nificant differences were measured between the three organic (P b 0.05). The application of compost led to intermediate results.
substrates (P N 0.05). Biochar did not significantly influence weed
growth (P N 0.05). 4. Discussion

3.4. Water flow, soil detachment and nutrient loss 4.1. Plant biomass and yield

Soil loss, water runoff and leachate properties are shown in Table 2. In our study, maize growth and yield were effectively increased in
Leaching and runoff water were significantly reduced when organic the presence of organic amendments, mainly because these increased
amendments were used (P b 0.05), and this effect was the most signifi- the amount of nutrients and water available to the plants. As a
cant for the vermicompost treatment. Soil detachment was also signifi- consequence of this higher nutrient content, plant weeds also
cantly reduced, with vermicompost having the highest effect. The responded favorably to organic amendments, but there was no

Table 2
Runoff water (Wrunoff), leachate (Wleachate) and soil detachment (Soil loss) from the mesocosms (note that there was no leachate in the second year). Data are shown for the three years of
the experiment (top section) and cumulated over the three years (lower section). Treatments are: control (mineral fertilizer only, in the presence of biochar ‘+’ or not ‘−’), buffalo manure,
compost and vermicompost (in the presence of biochar ‘+’ or not ‘−’). See legend of Table 1 for more details, n = 5.

Fertilization Biochar Wleachate (mm) Wrunoff (mm) Soil loss (kg m−2)
De Fi
Yr 1 Control − 182.9 (5.7) 72.2 (2.8) 0.77De (0.02)
+ 174.5ef (3.2) 68.2i (3.7) 0.54e (0.02)
Manure 177.8DE (3.9) 63.0FG (2.9) 0.42D (0.04)
Compost 172.3EF (4.9) 57.8G (2.4) 0.35D (0.01)
Vermicompost − 169.9Ffg (5.5) 56.9Gj (2.3) 0.33De (0.03)
+ 160.0g (2.3) 56.5j (2.7) 0.28e (0.02)
Yr 2 Control − 319.8De (5.1) 14.78Aa (1.7)
+ 302.1f (1.8) 11.25b (1.0)
Manure 288.3E (7.9) 7.05B (1.10)
Compost 289.9E (4.0) 6.40B (0.35)
Vermicompost − 289.2Eg (3.5) 5.45Cc (0.25)
+ 278.9h (2.0) 3.88d (0.27)
Yr 3 Control − 391.9Aa (5.5) 494.9Aa (10.5) 0.73De (0.05)
+ 358.3b (14.1) 425.3b (7.1) 0.49e (0.08)
Manure 330.0B (3.1) 319.0B (11.7) 0.26D (0.02)
Compost 316.4C (10.3) 314.2B (8.3) 0.24D (0.02)
Vermicompost − 308.8Cc (4.9) 305.0Cc (9.5) 0.25De (0.01)
+ 257.5d (14.6) 247.3d (5.0) 0.14e (0.01)
Total Control − 574.8Aa (5.5) 886.9Aa (12.5) 16.29Aa (1.60)
Yrs 1–3 + 532.9b (15.3) 795.6b (5.1) 12.28b (1.00)
Manure 507.7B (5.8) 670.3B (11.7) 7.74B (1.10)
Compost 488.7C(8.5) 661.9BC(10.7) 6.99BC (0.40)
Vermicompost − 478.7Dc (5.2) 651,1Bc (10.7) 6.03Cc (0.30)
+ 417.5d (12.9) 582.7d (5.7) 4.30d (0.30)
152 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154

Table 3 stress (T°C, water stress) or limited water or nutrients. Further studies
Chemical properties of the runoff water and leachate for the three years of the experiment. are now needed to determine if vermicompost can be a potential
Average HH2O values and quantity of NNH4+ and NNO3− (g m−2) every year for the runoff
water and leachate. Total amount of N NH 4 + and N NO 3 − lost during the experiment
amendment for increasing agrosystem resistance to perturbations or
(runoff + leachate water). Treatments are control (mineral fertilizer only, in the presence environmental stress.
of biochar ‘+’ or not ‘−’ ), buffalo manure, compost and vermicompost (in the presence of The influence of biochar addition to soils leads to highly variable re-
biochar ‘+’ or not ‘-’). See legend of Table 1 for more details, n = 5. sults (Paz-Ferreiro et al., 2014) and its utilization does not always result
Fertilization Biochar pH NNH4+ (g m−2) NNO3− (g m−2) in consistent yield increases (Jones et al., 2012). This variability is usual-
ly explained by the different compositions and structures of biochar,
Runoff
Yr 1 Control − 5.8Ad (0.1) 0.40EFfg (0.02) 0.54Bb (0.03) which largely depend not only on the pyrolysis conditions and initial
+ 5.0d (0.1) 0.39fg (0.02) 0.51b (0.14) feedstock (Chatterjee et al., 2012; Windeatt et al., 2014), but also on
Manure 5.4A (0.2) 0.37EF (0.01) 0.54B (0.02) the soil properties (Spokas et al., 2012; Andrew et al., 2013). In this
Compost 5.5A (0.1) 0.34F (0.01) 0.47B (0.01) study, biochar amendment increased maize yield and growth, although
Vermicompost − 5.5Ab (0.1) 0.35Fg (0.01) 0.42Bb (0.02)
+ 5.5b (0.1) 0.33g (0.01) 0.35b (0.02)
to a lesser extent. Therefore our results confirm the potential of bamboo
Yr 2 Control − 5.5Bb (0.1) 0.77BCc (0.05) 0.74Bb (0.05) biochar for improving agriculture performance in low fertility tropical
+ 5.8b (0.2) 0.55de (0.03) 0.55b (0.05) soils (Andrew et al., 2013). However, we observed that the beneficial ef-
Manure 5.9A (0.2) 0.48E (0.02) 0.52B (0.04) fect of biochar was not consistent over time. The use of biochar had a
Compost 5.9A (0.2) 0.47E (0.04) 0.49B (0.03)
beneficial impact on plant yield in the first and last years of the experi-
Vermicompost − 5.9Aa (0.1) 0.47Eef (0.05) 0.45Bb (0.02)
+ 5.9a (0.1) 0.39fg (0.02) 0.37b (0.04) ment for the control treatment while its effect was significant for the
Yr 3 Control − 5.0Bc (0.1) 1.59Aa (0.17) 2.09a (0.04) first and second years of the experiment when added in addition to
+ 5.5c (0.0) 0.93b (0.14) 1.57a (0.05) vermicompost. These results are in agreement with the general as-
Manure 5.5A (0.0) 0.84B (0.23) 1.51A (0.07) sumption that biochar can constitute an interesting substrate for im-
Compost 5.7A (0.1) 0.55CD (0.09) 1.41A (0.05)
proving the long-term productivity of soils (Lehmann et al., 2003;
Vermicompost − 5.8Aa (0.0) 0.51Dd (0.05) 1.30Aa (0.05)
+ 5.8a (0.0) 0.45c (0.05) 0.95a (0.05) Suzette et al., 2011) but longer term studies are now needed to elucidate
why the effects of bamboo biochar on plant productivity are variable.
Leachate
Further studies are also needed to investigate the mechanisms by
Yr 1 Control − 5.8Dd (0.0) 0.41Bb (0.01) 10.2Bb (0.54)
+ 7.1d (0.1) 0.40b (0.03) 9.81b (0.91) which bamboo biochar, and its interaction with organic amendment
Manure 7.4B (0.0) 0.40B (0.02) 8.95b (0.91) (vermicompost in our study), improves crop production (Spokas et al.,
Compost 7.4B (0.0) 0.39B (0.02) 7.94F (0.54) 2012; Biederman and Harpole, 2013; Lashari et al., 2013; Liu et al.,
Vermicompost − 7.4Bb (0.1) 0.39Bbc (0.05) 8.04EFcd (0.55)
2013).
+ 7.4b (0.0) 0.32bc (0.04) 7.13d (0.45)
Yr 3 Control − 7.0Ca (0.1) 1.07Aa (0.22) 13.7Aa (1.01)
+ 7.3a (0.1) 0.57a (0.20) 9.58b (0.57) 4.2. Soil and nutrient loss
Manure 7.4B (0.1) 0.67A (0.11) 9.29C (0.75)
Compost 7.4B (0.0) 0.49A (0.11) 8.84CDE (0.24) Although the effect of the type of organic amendment on plant
Vermicompost − 7.5Aa (0.0) 0.27Ac (0.0) 8.29DEFc (0.43)
growth and yield was limited, it was of primary importance for the reg-
+ 7.7a (0.0) 0.22c (0.03) 5.55e (1.05)
ulation of water hydrodynamics and nutrient loss. OM amendment re-
Total duced water runoff and leaching, soil detachment and mineral N loss
Yrs 1–3 Control − 4.24Aa (0.40) 27.27Aa (0.70)
by runoff and leaching. Among organic amendments, the lowest water
+ 2.84b (0.20) 22.02b (1.40)
Manure 2.76B (0.20) 20.81B (1.10) runoff and leaching, soil detachment and mineral N leaching values
Compost 2.24BC (0.20) 19.15C (0.80) were measured for the vermicompost treatment. Improved soil physical
Vermicompost − 1.99Cc (0.10) 18.50Cc (0.40) properties after OM amendment have been observed, including more
+ 1.71d (0.10) 14.35d (0.80)
elongated macropores, which are very important in terms of water con-
ductivity and water availability to plants and for improved water hold-
ing capacity (Marinari et al., 2000). Since vermicompost is more stable
significant difference between the different types of organic amend- and resistant to degradation than compost (Ngo et al., 2013; 2014),
ments. The lower soil moisture and higher water infiltration following this may explain why the water holding capacity and hydraulic conduc-
organic soil amendments also suggest improved water use efficiency, tivity of soils increased more in the presence of vermicompost than with
which is consistent with the increased plant growth. Surprisingly, al- compost. The increased plant growth which follows after the incorpora-
though maize growth and yields were higher in vermicompost tion of organic amendments may also generate higher transpiration
amended soil, this effect was only significant in the second year of the rates which in turn lead to improved plant nutrient and water use effi-
experiment. While in the other years there was no difference between ciency (Delgado and Follett, 2002). This scenario is consistent with the
buffalo manure, compost and vermicompost when applied alone. higher water retention in soil which was amended with vermicompost,
Thus, this study did not confirm the general assumption that thus suggesting increased water utilization by the maize plants. These
vermicompost has a more beneficial effect on plant growth than findings agree with results from previous laboratory studies which
composted or non-composted organic substrates (Theunissen et al., found reduced water and nutrient leaching from vermicompost
2010; Suthar, 2011). The different results may be explained by the fact amended soils (Jouquet et al., 2010, 2011).
that most of the studies which aimed to compare the influence of Finally, biochar has also been reported to influence soil physical
vermicompost and compost on plant growth and yield were carried properties, such as water retention, porosity and hydraulic conductivity
out in pots under optimal conditions in the laboratory or greenhouse (Asai et al., 2009; Novak et al., 2009; Clough et al., 2013; Githinji, 2014).
(i.e., Ferreras et al., 2006; Jouquet et al., 2011; Doan et al., 2013b), Indeed, we found that biochar had a positive influence on soil erosion
while our experiment occurred under natural rainfall conditions. As with reduced volumes of runoff water and soil detachment rates. Our
shown by Lazcano et al. (2011), under these conditions the positive ef- study also supported hypotheses concerning the positive influence of
fect of vermicompost is likely to depend on a large number of environ- biochar on water infiltration and nutrient retention in soil (Lehmann
mental factors. In this study, in the second year of the experiment, the et al., 2003; Steiner et al., 2008; Biederman and Harpole, 2013). As
overall maize growth and yield were the lowest and it was also the dri- highlighted by Clough et al. (2013), the short- and long-term influences
est year. Thus our results suggest that the positive influence of of biochar on SOM mineralization and N cycling are specific to individ-
vermicompost occurs when plants are subjected to environmental ual soil–biochar combinations. Biochar adsorption of NO− 3 occurs
 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154 153

when the pyrolysis temperature is N600 °C (Clough et al., 2013), which vermicompost from buffalo manure) on soil microbial properties. A laboratory exper-
iment. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 59, 15–21.
was the case for the biochar used in these experiments. The higher CEC Doan, T.T., Ngo, P.T., Rumpel, C., Nguyen, B.V., Jouquet, P., 2013b. Interactions between
of soils in the presence of biochar would also explain the higher adsorp- compost, vermicompost and earthworms influence plant growth and yield: a one-
tion of NH+ 4 . Finally, as suggested above for vermicompost, because bio-
year greenhouse experiment. Sci. Hortic. 160, 148–154.
Doan, T.T., Bouvier, C., Bettarel, Y., Bouvier, T., Henry-des-Tureaux, T., Janeau, J.L.,
char increased plant growth and water use, this could have resulted in Lamballe, P., Nguyen, B.V., Jouquet, P., 2014. Influence of buffalo manure, compost,
lower soil moisture. vermicompost and biochar amendments on bacterial and viral communities in soil
and adjacent aquatic systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 73, 78–86.
Dominguez, J., Edwards, C.E., 2004. Vermicomposting organic wastes: a review. In: Shakir,
5. Conclusion S.H., Mikhail, W.Z.A. (Eds.), Soil Zoology for Sustainable Development in the 21st cen-
tury. Le Caire 20, pp. 369–396.
This study clearly highlighted the importance of the type of the or- Dominguez, J., Gomez-Brandon, M., 2013. The influence of earthworms on nutrient dy-
namics during the process of vermicomposting. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 859–868.
ganic amendment on plant growth and yield, as well as soil, water
Farrell, M., Macdonald, L., Butler, G., Chirino-Valle, I., Condron, L.M., 2014. Biochar and
and mineral N losses. Vermicompost led to a slight improvement in fertiliser applications influence phosphorus fractionation and wheat yield. Biol. Fertil.
plant growth and yield. However, its effect was potentially more inter- Soils 50, 169–178.
Feller, C., Blanchart, E., Bernoux, M., Lal, R., Manlay, R., 2012. Soil fertility concepts over the
esting when the plants were in a situation of environmental stress
past two centuries: the importance attributed to soil organic matter in developed and
(year 2). This suggests that it could be a promising substrate for improv- developing countries. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 58, S3–S21.
ing the resistance of agrosystems to water stress. Organic amendment Ferreras, L., Gomez, E., Toresani, S., Firpo, I., Rotondo, R., 2006. Effect of organic amend-
also reduced water runoff, soil detachment and the transfer of NH+ ments on some physical, chemical and biological properties in a horticultural soil.
4
Bioresour. Technol. 97, 635–640.
and NO− 3 to water. These effects were more significant with Githinji, L., 2014. Effect of biochar application rate on soil physical and hydraulic proper-
vermicompost than with buffalo manure and compost. Thus, one of ties of a sandy loam. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 60, 457–470.
the key conclusions of this study is that the beneficial influence of Gutierrez-Miceli, F.A., Santiago-Borraz, J., Montes Molina, J.A., Nafate, C.C., Abud-Archila,
M., Oliva, L., Maria, A., Rincon-Rosales, R., Dendooven, L., 2007. Vermicompost as a
vermicompost is not limited to its influence on plant growth and soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum
yield. This amendment can also significantly reduce the negative impact esculentum). Bioresour. Technol. 98, 2781–2786.
of organic fertilization on water quality. In addition, we showed that Ievinsh, G., 2011. Vermicompost treatment differentially affects seed germination, seed-
ling growth and physiological status of vegetable crop species. Plant Growth Regul.
these positive effects are amplified in the presence of biochar. The sec- 65, 169–181.
ond key conclusion of this study therefore is that the combination of Jones, D.L., Rousk, J., Edwards-Jones, G., DeLuca, T.H., Murphy, D.V., 2012. Biochar-
these two technologies offers a unique opportunity to improve plant mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil
Biol. Biochem. 45, 113–124.
productivity but also to reduce the negative impact of agriculture on
Jouquet, P., Zangerlé, A., Rumpel, C., Brunet, D., Bottinelli, N., Tran Duc, T., 2009. Relevance
the environment. of the biogenic and physicogenic classification. A comparison of approaches to dis-
criminate the origin of soil aggregates. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60, 1117–1125.
Jouquet, P., Plumere, T., Doan, T.T., Rumpel, C., Tran, D.T., Orange, D., 2010. The rehabilita-
Acknowledgments
tion of tropical soils using compost and vermicompost is affected by the presence of
endogeic earthworms. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46, 125–133.
This project was supported financially by the SystéMO and BioGEAQ Jouquet, E.P., Bloquel, E., Doan, T.T., Ricoy, M., Orange, D., Rumpel, C., Duc, T.T., 2011. Do
projects and the French institutes IRD (unit research UMR-242-iEES compost and vermicompost improve macronutrient retention and plant growth in
degraded tropical soils? Compost Sci. Util. 19, 15–24.
Paris) and CNRS. We also would like to thank Patrice Lamballe from Kibblewhite, M.G., Ritz, K., Swift, M.J., 2008. Soil health in agricultural systems. Phil. Trans.
GRET and the Green Bamboo project. Doan Thu Thuy was supported R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 685–701.
by grants from the French embassy and IRD. Lal, R., 2005. Soil erosion and carbon dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 81, 137–142.
Lal, R., 2008. Soils and sustainable agriculture. Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, 57–64.
Lashari, M.S., Liu, Y.M., Li, L.Q., Pan, W.N., Fu, J.Y., Pan, G.X., Zheng, J.F., Zheng, J.W., Zhang,
References X.H., Yu, X.Y., 2013. Effects of amendment of biochar–manure compost in conjunction
with pyroligneous solution on soil quality and wheat yield of a salt-stressed cropland
Amossé, J., Bettarel, Y., Bouvier, C., Bouvier, T., Tran, D.T., Doan, T.T., Jouquet, P., 2013. The from Central China Great Plain. Field Crops Res. 144, 113–118.
flows of nitrogen, bacteria and viruses from the soil to water compartments are influ- Lazcano, C., Revilla, P., Malvar, R.A., Dominguez, J., 2011. Yield and fruit quality of four
enced by earthworm activity and organic fertilization (compost vs. vermicompost). sweet corn hybrids (Zea mays) under conventional and integrated fertilization with
Soil Biol. Biochem. 66, 197–203. vermicompost. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91, 1244–1253.
Andrew, C.-D., Samuel, A., Simon, J., Margaret, S.T., 2013. Heterogeneous global crop yield Lehmann, J., Pereira da Silva, J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., Glaser, B., 2003. Nutri-
response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (4), 044049. ent availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the
Asai, H., Samson, B.K., Stephan, H.M., Songyikhangsuthor, K., Homma, K., Kiyono, Y., Inoue, Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil
Y., Shiraiwa, T., Horie, T., 2009. Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice pro- 249, 343–357.
duction in Northern Laos 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Liu, X.Y., Zhang, A.F., Ji, C.Y., Joseph, S., Bian, R.J., Li, L.Q., Pan, G.X., Paz-Ferreiro, J., 2013.
Crop Res. 111, 81–84. Biochar's effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental
Barrow, C.J., 2012. Biochar: potential for countering land degradation and for improving conditions—a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 373, 583–594.
agriculture. Appl. Geogr. 34, 21–28. Marinari, S., Masciandaro, G., Ceccanti, B., Grego, S., 2000. Influence of organic and mineral
Biederman, L.A., Harpole, W.S., 2013. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nu- fertilisers on soil biological and physical properties. Bioresour. Technol. 72, 9–17.
trient cycling: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. Bioenerg. 5, 202–214. Ngo, P.T., Rumpel, C., Dignac, M.F., Billou, D., Tran, D.T., Jouquet, P., 2011. Transformation
Borchard, N., Wolf, A., Laabs, V., Aeckersberg, R., Scherer, H.W., Moeller, A., Amelung, W., of buffalo manure by composting or vermicomposting to rehabilitate degraded trop-
2012. Physical activation of biochar and its meaning for soil fertility and nutrient ical soils. Ecol. Eng. 37, 269–276.
leaching — a greenhouse experiment. Soil Use Manag. 28, 177–184. Ngo, P.T., Rumpel, C., Ngo, Q.A., Alexis, M., Vargas, G.V., Dang, D.K., Jouquet, P., 2013. Bio-
Bronick, C.J., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124, 3–22. logical and chemical reactivity and phosphorus forms of buffalo manure compost,
Chatterjee, S., Santos, F., Abiven, S., Itin, B., Stark, R.E., Bird, J.A., 2012. Elucidating the vermicompost and their mixture with biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 148, 401–407.
chemical structure of pyrogenic organic matter by combining magnetic resonance, Ngo, T.P., Rumpel, C., Doan, T.T., Henry-des-Tureaux, T., Dinh-Kim, D., Jouquet, P., 2014.
mid-infrared spectroscopy and mass spectrometry. Org. Geochem. 51, 35–44. Use of organic substrates for increasing soil organic matter quality and carbon se-
Cheng, Y., Cai, Z.C., Chang, S., Wang, J., Zhang, J.B., 2012. Wheat straw and its biochar have questration of tropical degraded soil (a 3 years mesocosms experiment). Future Sci.
contrasting effects on inorganic N retention and N2O production in a cultivated Black Issue Carbon Management 5, 155–168.
Chernozem. Biol. Fertil. Soils 48, 941–946. Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Laird, D.L., Ahmedna, M., Watts, D.W., Niandou, M.A.S., 2009.
Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D., 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a southeastern Coastal Plain soil. Soil
Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington DC, Sci. 174, 105–112.
pp. 517–518. Papathanasiou, F., Papadopoulos, I., Tsakiris, I., Tamoutsidis, E., 2012. Vermicompost as a
Clough, T.J., Condron, L.M., 2010. Biochar and the nitrogen cycle: introduction. J. Environ. soil supplement to improve growth, yield and quality of lettuce (Lactuca saliva L.).
Qual. 39, 1218–1223. J. Food Agric. Environ. 10, 677–682.
Clough, T.J., Condron, L.M., Kammann, C., Müller, C., 2013. A review of biochar and soil ni- Paz-Ferreiro, J., Fu, S., Méndez, A., Gascó, G., 2014. Interactive effects of biochar and the
trogen dynamics. Agronomy 3, 275–293. earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on plant productivity and soil enzyme activities.
Delgado, J.A., Follett, R.F., 2002. Carbon and nutrient cycles. J. Soil Water Conserv. 57, J. Soils Sediments 14, 483–494.
455–464. Podwojewski, P., Orange, D., Jouquet, P., Valentin, C., Nguyen, V.T., Janeau, J.L., Tran, D.T.,
Doan, T.T., Jusselme, D.M., Lata, J.C., Nguyen, B.V., Jouquet, P., 2013a. The earthworm spe- 2008. Land-use impacts on surface runoff and soil detachment within agricultural
cies Metaphire posthuma modulates the effect of organic amendments (compost vs. sloping lands in Northern Vietnam. Catena 74, 109–118.
154 T.T. Doan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 514 (2015) 147–154

Pramanik, P., Ghosh, G.K., Ghosal, P.K., Banik, P., 2007. Changes in organic — C, N, P and K Thiele-Bruhn, S., Bloem, J., de Vries, F.T., Kalbitz, K., Wagg, C., 2012. Linking soil biodiver-
and enzyme activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under lim- sity and agricultural soil management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 523–528.
ing and microbial inoculants. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 2485–2494. Vaccari, F.P., Baronti, S., Lugato, E., Genesio, L., Castaldi, S., Fornasier, F., Miglietta, F., 2011.
R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comput- Biochar as a strategy to sequester carbon and increase yield in durum wheat. Eur.
ing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria 3-900051-07-0 (accessed J. Agron. 34, 231–238.
at bhttp://www.R-project.orgN.). Valentin, C., Agus, F., Alamban, R., Boosaner, A., Bricquet, J.P., Chaplot, V., de Guzman, T., de
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conven- Rouw, A., Janeau, J.L., Orange, D., Phachomphonh, K., Do Duy, P., Podwojewski, P.,
tional agriculture. Nature 485, 229–232. Ribolzi, O., Silvera, N., Subagyono, K., Thiébaux, J.P., Tran, D.T., Vadari, T., 2008. Runoff
Spokas, K.A., Cantrell, K.B., Novak, J.M., Archer, D.W., Ippolito, J.A., Collins, H.P., Boateng, and sediment losses from 27 upland catchments in Southeast Asia: impact of rapid
A.A., Lima, I.M., Lamb, M.C., McAloon, A.J., Lentz, R.D., Nichols, K.A., 2012. Biochar: a land use changes and conservation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 128, 225–238.
synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Qual. 41, Windeatt, J.H., Ross, A.B., Williams, P.T., Forster, P.M., Nahil, M.A., Singh, S., 2014. Charac-
973–989. teristics of biochars from crop residues: potential for carbon sequestration and soil
Steiner, C., Blum, W.E.H., Zech, W., de Macedo, J.L.V., Teixeira, W.G., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., amendment. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 189–197.
2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop produc- World Reference Base for soil resources, 1998. World Soil Resources Reports, No. 84. FAO,
tion and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil Rome, p. 88.
291, 275–290. Zaller, J.G., 2007. Vermicompost as a substitute for peat in potting media: effects on ger-
Steiner, C., Glaser, B., Geraldes Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Blum, W.E.H., Zech, W., 2008. Ni- mination, biomass allocation, yields and fruit quality of three tomato varieties. Sci.
trogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferralsol Hortic. 112, 191–199.
amended with compost and charcoal. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 000, 1–7. Zhang, Z.J., Wang, H., Zhu, J., Suneethi, S., Zheng, J.G., 2012. Swine manure vermicomposting
Suthar, S., 2011. Utilizing livestock waste solids as bioresource for socio-economic sus- via housefly larvae (Musca domestica): the dynamics of biochemical and microbial
tainability: a report from rural India. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 10, 193–197. features. Bioresour. Technol. 118, 563–571.
Suzette, P.G., Jonathan, K.Y., David, G., 2011. The economic value of biochar in crop pro-
duction and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy 39, 6344–6350.
Theunissen, J., Ndakidemi, P.A., Laubscher, C.P., 2010. Potential of vermicompost produced
from plant waste on the growth and nutrient status in vegetable production. Int.
J. Phys. Sci. 5, 1964–1973.