Table 1.
Compost feedstock and green material types informing the treatments used for the experiment.
Table 2.
Physical-chemical characteristics of different compost treatments on various composting days.
Fig 1.
A, B: Principal component analysis (PCA) biplots of compost treatment (A) and composting days (B) according to their physical-chemical properties. Samples were clustered as per different compost types and composting days.
Fig 2.
Pearson correlation matrix between different physical-chemical variables (C); positive and negative correlations are displayed in blue and red, respectively.
Fig 3.
Alpha diversity metrics (Observed, Shannon, InvSimpson, and Simpson) of fungal eukaryotic communities under different composting treatments (A) and composting days. L, T, G, and LTG represent Lantana, Tithonia, Grass, and mixed (Lantana + Tithonia + Grass) based composts respectively. Day 21, day 42, day 63, and day 84 represent the effect of combined compost treatments at 21, 42, 63, and 84 days of composting.
Fig 4.
Alpha diversity metrics (Observed, Shannon, InvSimpson, and Simpson) of non-fungal eukaryotic communities under different composting treatments (A) and composting days (B). L, T, G, and LTG represent Lantana, Tithonia, Grass, and mixed (Lantana + Tithonia + Grass) based composts respectively. Day 21, day 42, day 63, and day 84 represent the effect of combined compost treatments at 21, 42, 63, and 84 days of composting.
Fig 5.
A-D: Relative abundances of fungal and non-fungal eukaryotic classes in various composting treatments (A, C respectively) and sampling days (B and D respectively). L, T, G, and LTG represent lantana, tithonia, grass, and mixed (lantana + tithonia + grass) based composts, respectively. 21, 42, 63, and 84 represent the effect of combined compost treatments at 21, 42, 63, and 84 days.
Table 3.
Mean relative abundance (%) of the most abundant fungal eukaryotic classes in different compost treatments and composting days.
Table 4.
Mean relative abundance (%) of the most abundant non-fungal eukaryotic classes in different compost treatments and composting days.
Fig 6.
A-D: Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) ordination plots based on the Bray-Curtis index at 95% confidence. The different compost groups are highlighted by ellipses.
Fig 7.
A-D: Venn diagram based on shared major core taxa of fungal and non-fungal eukaryotic communities under compost treatment (A and B), composting days (C and D).
Fig 8.
Correlation network showing interactions among fungal eukaryotic classes driving composting.
The network nodes represent genera, whereas the edges represent microbe-microbe interaction weights. Networks were constructed based on the top 20 classes. Various color codes in the networks represent labeled genera within the classes listed on the grid.
Fig 9.
Correlation network showing interactions among non-fungal eukaryotic classes driving composting.
The network nodes represent genera, whereas the edges represent microbe-microbe interaction weights. Networks were constructed based on the top 20 classes. Various color codes in the networks represent labeled genera within the classes listed on the grid.
Fig 10.
A, B: Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) plots showing the effect of explanatory physical-chemical variables on the different fungal (A) and non-fungal (B) microbiomes using a significance threshold of 0.05. C- Organic Carbon, N- Total Nitrogen, K- Potassium, NO3- Nitrates, NH4- Ammonia.