Can Different Populations of Worms Increase Your Plant Growth?

Introduction

Organic farming relies on natural fertilizers like composting to incorporate essential

nutrients into the soil to increase plant growth and overall crop yield. Worms aid in organic
farming because they are a vital decomposer that serve an important role in soil aeration, water
movement, infiltration, structure, nutrient cycling, and plant growth (Labenz, 2021). Worms eat
the organic matter that is in the soil and break it down for microorganisms that use the worm
excrement (castings) to produce nutrients (Ndegwa, 2000). Plants are then able to take in these
available nutrients to grow and survive. Different practices are now being used in organic
farming to try and enhance plant growth; one of these practices being vermiculture composting
or vermicomposting.

Vermicomposting relies on worms and microorganisms to break down organic waste

whereas the traditional thermophilic composting method relies on just microorganisms and heat
(Angima, et al. 2011). These are both great practices that transform organic waste into useful soil
amendments (Tognetti, et al. 2013), but with vermicomposting there’s an added benefit. The
worm castings provide beneficial bacteria, protozoa, fungi, as well as nutrients such as nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium to the soil (Angima, et al. 2011). A popular
worm used for vermicomposting is the red wigglers (Eisenia fetida) because they do not burrow
deep into the ground. Instead, these worms are found in decaying organic matter near the surface
of the soil where they will provide beneficial nutrients to the soil (Adams, 2020).

Worms are just one organism that can incorporate essential nutrients to the soil, the other
organisms being plants. More specifically, nitrogen fixation legumes such as peas (Pisum
sativum) are grown in rotations as a main source of nitrogen input (Jannoura, et al. 2013). As
peas grow, they capture nitrogen from the air and use it to grow throughout the growing season.
They also combine nitrogen into the soil for other crops to readily use (Dyson Farming, 2021).
Peas are used as a cover crop to incorporate nutrients into the soil that are vital for plant growth,
just like composting.

Given the importance of natural fertilizers like vermicomposting and peas as rotational
cover crops, my study explores how red wiggler populations have an overall effect on snap pea
(Pisum sativum var. macrocarpon) growth. Specifically, I hypothesize that red wigglers have a
positive impact on the growth of plants. Given my hypothesis, I predict that there is a positive
correlation between the number of red wigglers in soil and the height of snap pea growth. To test
my hypothesis, I conducted a study that placed four categories of worm populations into pots
with snap pea seeds to determine if the number of red wigglers had any effect on the growth of
snap peas.

Methods

Snap peas are a type of pea that have been crossed with green peas and snow peas to
provide a unique sweet flavor (Produce Blue Book, 2021). They have well developed round
seeds and an edible pod which makes this crop enjoyed in many culinary dishes. Snap peas are
grown internationally and grow best in temperate regions with silty, sandy, or clay loam soil that
has good drainage and a pH of 6 - 7.5 (Produce Blue Book, 2021). Snap peas are a high value
crop that are grown for produce and farmers love to grow these peas because of the high yields.
Growing could enhance the revenue of farmers by providing increased produce diversity and
higher profits because of the higher yields (Ferrarezi, et al. 2016). In the United States, Illinois,
Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin are some of the states that make up
snap pea farms. Together, these states make up about 135,000 acres of planted snap peas and in
2019 the overall crops harvested were about 5,000 hundredweight or 560,000 pounds (National
Agricultural Statistics Services, 2020).

I conducted the experiment first by obtaining six tubs that had 30 red wigglers inside of
them. I then went outside and dug up a mixture of sandy loam soil which also had some organic
matter in it such as broken leaves, sticks, moss, and roots. I tried to eliminate as much organic
matter as possible to try and remove any bias that could affect the experiment. I numerically
labeled 16 pots and placed the soil mixture into them. My experiment had four replicates for
each category of red wiggler population.
 Once I filled the pots, I placed one snap pea seed in each pot one inch down into the soil.
I then started placing the worms into each pot with their respectful categorical number. For
example, pots 1-4 had no worms, pots 5-8 had five worms, pots 9-12 had 10 worms, and pots
13-16 had 20 worms each in them. To eliminate confounding factors, I randomly generated
where the pots would sit on the shelf that they would be on throughout the duration of the
experiment. I placed the shelf in front of a window where each pot could get direct sunlight.
Once randomly placed on the shelf, I watered each pot with one cup of room temperature water
and the experiment began. Every week, for six weeks, I would measure in centimeters how much
the plant had grown and would water each plant with one cup of room temperature water.

Statistics

I used a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine my data. The software that
I used was Microsoft Excel and RStudio.

Results

When examining the data, results shown between the data of all snap pea growth and
between just the seeds that germinated were different. When I ran the analysis with the full
dataset, there was no significant difference between worm population and plant growth (F =
1.0181, Among df = 3, Within df =12, P = 0.4188). I then ran the analysis with data from just
seeds that germinated and there was a slight difference compared to the full dataset (F = 1.7159,
Among df = 3, Within df = 6, P = 0.2624). Figures 1 and 3 show that by week 6, the average
plants that had more growth overall were the plants with no worm populations. Figures 2 and 4
show the data from week 6 and in both datasets, populations of 10 worms had the second best
effect on plant growth and populations of 20 worms did the worst.
Figure 1: By week 6, the snap peas with no worm populations grew exponentially better than
any of the snap peas with varying worm populations. Populations with five and ten worms
showed varying growth. Worm populations of twenty did not show a positive effect in snap pea
growth.

Figure 2: Snap pea growth from different populations of worms. Bars are mean plant growth;
error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean. Significant differences were not
measured in week 6 among no worm populations, populations with five worms, populations with
ten worms, and populations with twenty worms (p = 0.4188; one-way ANOVA).

Analysis of Variance Table (Full Dataset)

Response: Week 6 Df Sum Sq Mean Sum Sq F Value P Value

Treatment 3 372.41 124.14 1.0181 0.4188

Residuals 12 1463.14 121.93

Table 1: Significant differences were not measured in week 6 among no worm populations,
populations with five worms, populations with ten worms, and populations with twenty worms (p
= 0.4188; one-way ANOVA).
Figure 3: By week 6, the snap peas with no worm populations grew exponentially better than
any of the snap peas with varying worm populations. Five and ten worm populations had similar
snap pea growth. Worm populations of twenty did not show a positive affect in snap pea growth.

Figure 4: Snap pea growth from different populations of worms. Bars are mean plant growth;
error bars represent one standard deviation from the mean. Significant differences were not
measured in week 6 among no worm populations, populations with five worms, populations with
ten worms, and populations with twenty worms (p = 0.2624; one-way ANOVA).
 Analysis of Variance Table (Germination Data Only)

Response: Week 6 Df Sum Sq Mean Sum Sq F Value P Value

Treatment 3 216.55 72.182 1.7159 0.2624

Residuals 6 252.40 42.067

Table 2: Significant differences were not measured in week 6 among no worm populations,
populations with five worms, populations with ten worms, and populations with twenty worms (p
= 0.2624; one-way ANOVA).

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that red wiggler populations do not have a significant
effect on the growth of snap peas. Large worm populations negatively impacted the growth of
snap peas whereas no worm populations positively impacted snap pea growth. Worm populations
of five and ten did better than larger populations, but also did worse than no worms. I observed a
slight contrast in the significant difference between the full dataset and the data of snap pea seeds
that germinated. This indicates that red wigglers might have an effect on snap pea growth, but
further experimentation needs to be conducted.

One possibility as to why I did not find evidence to support my hypothesis is that red
wigglers eat living and dead root tissues. When these worms are in a big population, especially in
a confined pot, they need a lot of food to keep them alive (Adams, 2020). When I took out all of
the organic matter, it might have depleted them of food and they might have resorted to eating
the roots of the growing seeds. Large populations of worms in confined pots also means that
there is lots of movement happening in the soil. Their burrows could have disrupted the root
system of the plant affecting the overall growth (Labenz, 2021). Other reasons could be that the
soil might have not had enough time to mix with the worm castings for nutrients. However, if
this were the case we would have seen equal growth across all of the replicates and not just
plants that responded better with no worms. Possible experiments I could conduct are not
directly putting worm populations in pots, but placing their populations in separate bins with soil
and letting that soil mix for a few weeks. I could then take that soil and use it as an organic
fertilizer to see whether it would increase plant growth compared to soil with no worm castings.
Conducting this experiment would be useful because it would tell us if worms in potted plants
really do have a negative effect on plant growth. Removing the worms from the pots and using
only their castings would allow us to observe plant growth without the disturbance from the
worms while still incorporating the beneficial nutrients that they provide. An experiment I could
also conduct is keeping the worm populations with the plant, but increasing the bin size and
leaving more organic matter in the soil mixture. This experiment would be useful because it
would tell us if increasing soil volume would help with the overall root system of the plant so the
worms are not disturbing them with their burrows. The organic matter would also be useful
because it would allow the worms to have other food sources rather than eating the roots.

I would advise people who would like to implement worms into their organic farming
methods to not directly put large worm populations into your potted crops. Whether you are a
large farming company or a garden hobbyist, I would consider vermicomposting as you would
benefit more from this method rather than directly having worms produce their casts into the soil
where your plant is trying to grow. From my findings, the worms in large populations could
disrupt the root system and if there is not enough food available for them, it could result in the
worms eating the plant's roots altogether. Either way, worms in confined pots with plants
negatively affect the overall growth of the plant.
 References

Adams, K. (2020, November 17). Earthworms in Potted Plants. Home Guides | SF Gate.
https://homeguides.sfgate.com/earthworms-potted-plants-68718.html

Angima, S., Noack, M., & Noack, S. (2011, October). Composting With Worms. University
of Vermont.
https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Extension-Master-Gardener/compostingwithworms
.pdf

Ferrarezi, R. S., Weiss, S. A., Geiger, T. S., & Beamer, P. K. (2016, October 1). Edible-pod
peas as high-value crops in the U.S. Virgin Islands. HortTechnology
https://journals.ashs.org/horttech/view/journals/horttech/26/5/article-p683.xml

Grotz, N., & Guerinot, M. L. (2002, February 14). Limiting nutrients: An old problem with
new solutions? Current Opinion in Plant Biology
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526602002479?casa_token=NmjY

Jannoura, R., Bruns, C., & Joergensen, R. G. (2013). Organic fertilizer effects on pea yield,
nutrient uptake, microbial root colonization and soil microbial biomass indices in organic
farming systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 49, 32-41.

Labenz, T. A. (n.d.). Earthworm Activity Increases Soil Health. Earthworm Activity

Increases Soil Health | NRCS Kansas.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ks/newsroom/features/?cid=stelprdb1242
736

National Agricultural Statistics Services. (2020, February). Vegetables 2019 Summary.

United States Department of Agriculture
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/vegean20.pdf

Ndegwa, P. M., & Thompson, S. A. (2000, October 6). Integrating Composting and
Vermicomposting in the Treatment and Bioconversion of Biosolids. Bioresource
Technology.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852400001048?casa_token=YtSH
_RZp_MkAAAAA%3AAa_3dBI4gjVFzeG7mkyEArE3MGuH0IYOwkYV5n_fi-YODC8
YdqdU_S499cDHJdxe8d2mp4QbPJU

Peas: Good to eat, good for the soil. Dyson Farming. (2021, September)
https://dysonfarming.com/peas-good-to-eat-good-for-the-soil/

Peas & Snow Peas. Produce Blue Book. (n.d.)

https://www.producebluebook.com/know-your-commodity/peas-snow-peas/

Tognetti, C., Laos, F., Mazzarino, M. J., & Hernandez, M. T. (2013, July 23). Composting
vs. Vermicomposting: A comparison of end product quality. Taylor & Francis
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1065657X.2005.10702212