SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Study on Bacterial Population Dynamics of Foregut, Midgut, and Hindgut Content of Perionyx excavatus (Perrier) Isolated from Eco-friendly, Non-hazardous Vermicompost

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ideal condition of earthworm gut promotes growth and multiplication of beneficial soil microorganisms eliminating pathogens and converts organic wastes into nutrients rich compost. The present study has been carried out to determine the population dynamics of earthworm gut bacteria and to find out relative abundance of different functional bacterial groups in the foregut, midgut, and hindgut of earthworm Perionyx excavatus. To assess bacterial diversity, a viable plate count method was adopted. In the different gut region of earthworm, aerobic heterotrophic, amylolytic, Bacillus, Gram-negative, proteolytic, fat hydrolyzing, nitrate-reducing, nitrifying, asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing, Azotobacter, and phosphate solubilizing bacterial populations ranged from 22.2 to 241.6 × 106, 8.0 to 171.60 × 106, 1.83 to 2.79 × 106, 10.68 to 23.04 × 104, 3.70 to 5.52 × 104, 59.60 to 208.40 × 104, 1.86 to 7.34 × 104, 10.94 to 19.78 × 104, 0.80 to 3.42 × 104, 7.83 to 13.70 × 104, 1.31 to 2.67 × 104 cfu/ml gut suspension, respectively. The results of the one-way ANOVA revealed that the bacterial load of most of the bacterial groups was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the hindgut region, followed by midgut and foregut. Only the density of the proteolytic group was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the midgut region followed by foregut and hindgut. Starch hydrolyzing bacteria constitute the largest group of bacteria in the gut content. From principal component analysis, two components were extracted with the eigenvalues of 8.485 and 1.132. Agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis revealed that the bacterial populations were clustered into four different groups. Quantitative variation among bacterial groups in earthworm’s gut seems to determine the soil health and composting efficiency; from this point of view, the present study will provide a better understanding about different functional bacterial groups of earthworm’s guts and might be helpful in sustainable agriculture and waste management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Zhang, W., Dima, C., & Cancan, Z. (2007). Functions of earthworm in ecosystem. Biodiversity Science, 15(2), 142.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Horn, M. A., Drake, H. L., & Schramm, A. (2006). Nitrous oxide reductase genes (nosZ) of denitrifying microbial populations in soil and the earthworm gut are phylogenetically similar. Applied and Environment Microbiology, 72(2), 1019–1026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nataraj, B., Hemalatha, D., Rangasamy, B., Maharajan, K., & Ramesh, M. (2017). Hepatic oxidative stress, genotoxicity and histopathological alteration in fresh water fish Labeo rohita exposed to organophosphorus pesticide profenofos. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 12, 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2017.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Majumder, R., & Kaviraj, A. (2019). Acute and sublethal effects of organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos on freshwater fish Oreochromis niloticus. Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2018.1425425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sinha, R. K., Agarwal, S., Chauhan, K., & Valani, D. (2010). The wonders of earthworms & its vermicompost in farm production: Charles Darwin’s ‘friends of farmers’, with potential to replace destructive chemical fertilizers. Agricultural Science, 01(02), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2010.12011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ravindran, B., Contreras-Ramos, S. M., & Sekaran, G. (2015). Changes in earthworm gut associated enzymes and microbial diversity on the treatment of fermented tannery waste using epigeic earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae. Ecological Engineering, 74, 394–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chao, H. L., Kong, H., Zhang, M., Sun, M., Ye, D., Huang, Z., Zhang, D., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Yuan, M., Liu, M., Hu, F., & Jiang, X. (2019). Metaphire guillelmi gut as hospitable micro-environment for the potential transmission of antibiotic resistance genes. Science of The Total Environment, 669, 353–361.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Drake, H. L., & Horn, M. A. (2007). As the worm turns: The earthworm gut as a transient habitat for soil microbial biomes. Annual Review of Microbiology, 61, 169–189.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards, C. A. , Domínguez, J. & Arancon, N. Q. (2004). The influence of vermicomposts on plant growth and pest incidence. In: S. H., Shakir & W. Z. A., Mikhail  (Eds.), Soil Zoology for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Cairo, pp 397–420. http://jdguez.webs.uvigo.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/The-influence-of-vermicompost-on-plant-growth-and-pest-incidence.pdf

  10. Munnoli, M. P. (2007). Management of industrial organic solid waste through vermi-culture biotechnology with special reference to microorganisms. PhD diss., Goa University, India. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/12461. Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

  11. Govindarajan, V. & Prabaharan. (2014). Gut micro-floral of earthworms: a review. American Journal of Biological and Pharmaceutical Research, 1(3), 125–130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265595977_GUT_MICRO-FLORA_OF_EARTHWORMS_A_REVIEW

  12. Lv, B., **ng, M., & Yang, J. (2018). Exploring the effects of earthworms on bacterial profiles during vermicomposting process of sewage sludge and cattle dung with high-throughput sequencing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 12528–12537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1520-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Horn, A. M., Andreas, S., & Harold, L. D. (2003). The earthworm gut: An ideal habitat for ingested N2O-producing microorganisms. Applied and Environment Microbiology, 69(3), 1662–1669.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Villar, D., Alves, D., Pérez-Díaz, S., & Mato,. (2016). Changes in microbial dynamics during vermicomposting of fresh and composted sewage sludge. Waste Management, 48, 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu, D. F., Lian, B., & Wang, B. (2016). Solubilization of potassium containing minerals by high temperature resistant Streptomyces sp isolated from earthworm’s gut. Acta Geochimica, 35(3), 262–270.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiyasudeen, K., Ibrahim, M. H., Quaik, S., & Ismail, S. A. (2015). Prospects of organic waste management and the significance of earthworms. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pathma, J., & Sakthivel, N. (2013). Molecular and functional characterization of bacteria isolated from straw and goat manure based vermicompost. Applied Soil Ecology, 70, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Parle, J. N. (1963). Micro-organisms in the intestines of earthworms. Microbiology, 31(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ranganathan, L. S., & Vinotha, S. P. (1998). Influence of pressmud on the enzymatic variations in the different reproductive stages of Eudrilus eugeniae (Kinberg). Current Science, 74(7), 634–635.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tracey, M. V. (1951). Cellulase and chitinase of earthworms. Nature, 167(4254), 776–777.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Edwards, C. A., & Fletcher, K. E. (1988). Interactions between earthworms and microorganisms in organic-matter breakdown. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 24(1–3), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pramanik, P., Ghosh, G. K., Ghosal, P. K., & Banik, P. (2007). Changes in organic–C, N, P and K and enzyme activities in vermicompost of biodegradable organic wastes under liming and microbial inoculants. Bioresource Technology, 98(13), 2485–2494.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Koubová, A., Chroňáková, A., Pižl, V., Sánchez-Monedero, M. A., & Elhottová, D. (2015). The effects of earthworms Eisenia spp. on microbial community are habitat dependent. European Journal of Soil Biology, 68, 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhu, B. K., Fang, Y. M., Zhu, D., Christie, P., Ke, X., & Zhu, Y. G. (2018). Exposure to nanoplastics disturbs the gut microbiome in the soil oligochaete Enchytraeus crypticus. Environmental Pollution, 239, 408–415.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu, D. F., Lian, B., Wu, C., & Guo, P. (2018). A comparative study of gut microbiota profiles of earthworms fed in three different substrates. Symbiosis, 74(1), 21–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pelczar, M. J., Bard, R. C., Burnett, G. W., Conn, H. J., Demoss, R. D., Euans, E. E., Weiss, F. A., Jennison, M. W., Meckee, A. P., Riker, A. J., Warren, J. & Weeks, O. B. (1957). Manual of microbiological methods, Society of American Bacteriology. McGraw Hill Book Company Inc.

  27. Lacey, L. A. ed. (1997). Manual of techniques in insect pathology. Academic Press.

  28. Zar, J. H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis. Pearson Education India.

  29. Gniazdowski, Z. (2017). New interpretation of principal components analysis. ar**v preprint ar**v, 1711, 10420.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Martin, A., Cortez, J., Barosis, I., & Lavelle, P. (1987). Les mucus intestinaux de Var de Terre, moteur de leurs interactions avec la microflore. Revue d’Écologie et de Biologie du Sol, 24, 549–558.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Barois, I., & Lavelle, P. (1986). Changes in respiration rate and some physico-chemical properties of a tropical soil during transit through Pontoscolex corethrurus (Glossoscolecidae, Oligochaeta). Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 18, 539–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Idowu, A. B., Edema, M. O., & Adeyi, A. O. (2006). Distribution of bacteria and fungi in the earthworm Libyodrillus violaceous (Annelida: Oligochaeta), a native earthworm from Nigeria. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 54(1), 49–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Birundha, M., Paul, J. J., & Mariappan, P. (2013). Growth and reproduction of Perionyx excavatus in different organic wastes. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 2(2), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stockli, A. (1928). Studien tiber den Einfluss der Regenwtirmer auf die Beschaffenheit des Bodens. Landwirtsch Jahrb Schweiz, 42, 1–121.

  35. Chowdhury, A., Hazra, A. K., Mahajan, S. & Choudhury, J. (2007). Microbial communities of earthworm (Perionyx excavatus Perrier) gut, cast and adjacent Soil in two different fields of west Bengal. Rec. Zoo. Surv. India. l07(Part-4), 101–113. http://faunaofindia.nic.in/PDFVolumes/records/107/04/0101-0113.pdf

  36. Kristufek, V., Ravasz, K., & Pizl, V. (1992). Changes in densities of bacteria and microfungi during gut transit in Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea caliginosa (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 24, 1499–1500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Valle-Molinares, R., Borges, S., & Rios-Velazquez, C. (2007). Characterization of possible symbionts in Onychochaeta borincana (Annelida: Glossoscolecidae). European Journal of Soil Biology, 43, S14–S18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mishra, P. C., & Dash, M. C. (1980). Digestive enzymes of some earthworms. Experientia, 36(10), 1156–1157.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., Cha, J. C., & Hur, H. G. (2004). Analysis of aerobic and culturable bacterial community structures in earthworm (Eisenia fetida) intestine. Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry, 47(3), 137–142.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ponomareva, S. I. (1953). The influence of the activity of earthworms on the creation of a stable structure in a sod-podzolized soil. Tr Pochv Inst Dokuchaeva., 41, 304–378.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ghosh, S., & Chatterjee, S. (2020). Isolation and characterization of Bacillus tequilensis from gut content of Perionyx excavatus and evaluation of its starch hydrolyzing property. Biosc. Biotech. Res. Comm., 13, 670–675. https://doi.org/10.21786/bbrc/13.2/45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Benitez, E., Nogales, R., Elvira, C., Masciandaro, G. & Ceccanti, B. (1999). Enzyme and earthworm activities during vermicomposting of carbaryl-treated sewage sludge. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, 28(4), 1099–1104. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800040006x

  43. Zhou, G. W., Yang, X. R., Sun, A. Q., Li, H., Lassen, S. B., Zheng, B. X., & Zhu, Y. G. (2019). Mobile incubator for iron (III) reduction in the gut of the soil-feeding earthworm Pheretima guillelmi and interaction with denitrification. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(8), 4215–4223.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sun, M., Chao, H., Zheng, X., Deng, S., Ye, M. & Hu, F. (2020). Ecological role of earthworm intestinal bacteria in terrestrial environments: a review. Science Total Environment, p.140008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140008

  45. Wang, H. T., Zhu, D., Li, G., Zheng, F., Ding, J., O’Connor, P. J., Zhu, Y. G., & Xue, X. M. (2019). Effects of arsenic on gut microbiota and its biotransformation genes in earthworm Metaphire sieboldi. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), 3841–3849.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to WBDST, DST-FIST, and DST-PURSE for providing instrumental facilities. The authors are thankful to the Head, Department of Zoology, and the authority of The University of Burdwan for giving all sorts of laboratory facilities to conduct this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Parasitology & Microbiology Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, The University of Burdwan, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

    Sucharita Ghosh & Soumendranath Chatterjee

  2. Chandannagar College, Chandannagar, West Bengal, India

    Dipanwita Sarkar Paria

Authors
  1. Sucharita Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dipanwita Sarkar Paria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soumendranath Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Sucharita Ghosh: conceptualization, validation, statistical analysis, data curation, methodology, and writing original draft. Soumendranath Chatterjee: study design, conceptualization, data curation, writing, review, editing, visualization, and supervision. Dipanwita Sarkar Paria: conceptualization, writing, review, editing, and visualization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soumendranath Chatterjee.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Proper approval from Institutional Biosafety Committee was obtained at starting of the research work.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghosh, S., Sarkar Paria, D. & Chatterjee, S. Comparative Study on Bacterial Population Dynamics of Foregut, Midgut, and Hindgut Content of Perionyx excavatus (Perrier) Isolated from Eco-friendly, Non-hazardous Vermicompost. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 194, 6126–6139 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-022-03970-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-022-03970-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation