Citation: Nilde Antonella Di Benedetto, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Daniela Campaniello, Mariagrazia Pia Cataldi, Antonio Bevilacqua, Milena Sinigaglia, Zina Flagella. The role of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria in improving nitrogen use efficiency for sustainable crop production: a focus on wheat[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 413-434. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.413
[1] | Naoual Bouremani, Hafsa Cherif-Silini, Allaoua Silini, Nour El Houda Rabhi, Ali Chenari Bouket, Lassaad Belbahri . Osmotolerant plant growth promoting bacteria mitigate adverse effects of drought stress on wheat growth. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 507-541. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024025 |
[2] | Elisa Gamalero, Bernard R. Glick . Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(2): 415-448. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024021 |
[3] | Amel Balla, Allaoua Silini, Hafsa Cherif-Silini, Francesca Mapelli, Sara Borin . Root colonization dynamics of alginate encapsulated rhizobacteria: implications for Arabidopsis thaliana root growth and durum wheat performance. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 87-125. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025006 |
[4] | Esther Menendez, Paula Garcia-Fraile . Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 502-524. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.502 |
[5] | Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu . Perspective on utilization of Bacillus species as plant probiotics for different crops in adverse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 220-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024011 |
[6] | Alaa Fathalla, Amal Abd el-mageed . Salt tolerance enhancement Of wheat (Triticum Asativium L) genotypes by selected plant growth promoting bacteria. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 250-271. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020016 |
[7] | Yulduzkhon Abdullaeva, Gulsanam Mardonova, Farkhod Eshboev, Massimiliano Cardinale, Dilfuza Egamberdieva . Harnessing chickpea bacterial endophytes for improved plant health and fitness. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 489-506. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024024 |
[8] | Rudoviko Galileya Medison, Litao Tan, Milca Banda Medison, Kenani Edward Chiwina . Use of beneficial bacterial endophytes: A practical strategy to achieve sustainable agriculture. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 624-643. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022040 |
[9] | Luis R. Silva, Catarina Bento, Ana Carolina Gonçalves, José David Flores-Félix, Martha Helena Ramírez-Bahena, Alvaro Peix, Encarna Velázquez . Legume bioactive compounds: influence of rhizobial inoculation. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 267-278. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.267 |
[10] | Alexandra Díez-Méndez, Raul Rivas . Improvement of saffron production using Curtobacterium herbarum as a bioinoculant under greenhouse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 354-364. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.354 |
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported a projection of world population of 9.1 billion in 2050. The demands for major grain crops, such as wheat, are projected to 70% increase by 2050 [1] mainly through the increasing in crop intensity. In the past decades, agricultural practices aimed at maximizing yields mainly by increasing fertilization, without considering the socio-economic and ecological consequences [2,3]. Indeed it would be of interest to ensure food production using sustainable technologies that reduce environmental impacts including ecosystem degradation and high greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable intensification was defined as "maximization of primary production per unit area without compromising the ability of the system to sustain its productive capacity" [4]. The issue of primary production sustainability is more acute for wheat, which is the main cereal crop used for human consumption in many areas worldwide, it provides 50 percent of humanity's dietary energy supply with corn and rice [5]. Also durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp durum), a crop well adapted to Mediterranean basin, is a staple food for a part of world population being mainly used for pasta production [6].
Among fertilizers, nitrogen is the nutrient that is most susceptible to loss and its availability is affected by soil type, tillage, N-source, crop rotation and precipitation [7]. Moreover, its recovery by the crop is usually less than 50% of the applied amount [8]. However, present concerns about crop and environmental sustainability are putting added emphasis on increasing the nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of crops. Improving NUE is among the main targets of crop research for Mediterranean environments [8].
Researchers, farmers, agricultural policy are focusing their attention towards potential innovative biotechnological solutions with lower environmental impact. Green biotechnologies have been proposed as new strategies for the management of the crops by improving the nutrient uptake efficiency, controlling biotic adversity, reducing the use of fertilizers, etc [9,10]. It is known that some microorganisms (called Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria, PGPB) are able to influence biological nitrogen fixation, solubilize phosphate, produce phyto-hormones and other molecules, favor positive mycorrhizal-plant interactions and defend the plants from pathogenic bacteria.
In particular, soil inoculation with PGPB is a promising tool of integrated management systems to increase the efficiency of plants' use of nutrients (from either soil or fertilizers) through microbial technology and the sustainability of the cropping systems. PGPB are around/on the root surface and comprise different genera, like Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Nitrobacter, largely studied but few proficient to colonize root, and other genera such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Bradyrhizobium, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella, Mesorhizobium, Rhizobium, etc. that are proficient to colonize the root surface, survive and compete with other microbiota [11].
After an initial overview on environmental problems due to the crop intensification, this study reports (ⅰ) the use of PGPB to improve the sustainability of cropping systems; (ⅱ) how PGPB interact with plants (in particular with wheat) for the improvement of resources uptake efficiency; (ⅲ) a focus on NUE in wheat.
The annual demand for major grain crops, such as wheat, will need to rise to about 3 billion tons from 2.1 billion today [4,12]. In opposition with the rapid increase of the world population, the rate of growth in agricultural production is expected to decrease as a consequence of climate changes. In particular, FAO's data show that annual crop production is expected to fall to 1.5% between now and 2030 and further to 0.9% between 2030 and 2050 [4].
Climate models predict a mean increase in temperature from 1.0 to 3.7 ℃ with an increase in frequency of heat waves by the end of 21st century. Similarly, for rainfall patterns longer drought periods are predicted alternating with heavy rainfall, which will lead to flash floods events. In Europe, climate change is considered the main reason for decreasing yield growth rate in wheat. In particular, summer precipitations are predicted to decrease and heat waves will become more common and severe, with a negative impact on crop productivity [12,13].
According to FAO the 90% of the growth in crop production will come from the agricultural intensification in particular from higher yields and increased cropping intensity. The remaining 10% will come from expanding arable land.
The agricultural intensification needed to increase crop production and food security, is linked to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHGs absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, trapping heat and warming the surface of the Earth. FAO's data show that GHGs emissions from agriculture including all the emissions produced in the different agricultural sectors (enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation, synthetic fertilizers, manure applied to soils, manure left on pastures, crop residues, cultivation of organic soils, burning of crop residues, burning of savanna, energy use) have been estimated at 10% of total global emissions [14]. The main GHGs associated with agriculture are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and the largest source of GHGs emissions within agriculture is enteric fermentation in ruminants, which is a major source of CH4 produced and released by livestock during ruminant digestion. In terms of the magnitude of emissions, it accounts for 40% of the whole agricultural GHGs emissions and is followed by the manure left on pasture (16%), the use of synthetic fertilizers (13%) and the rice cultivation (10%) [14].
However while emissions from ruminant fermentation have increased by 8% between 2004 and 2014, emissions generated during the application of synthetic fertilizers, have increased by 20% since 2004 representing the fastest growing emissions source in agriculture (Figure 1).
In particular, world total annual emissions from synthetic fertilizers have increased from 548 MtCO2 in 2004 to 659 MtCO2 in 2014 and it was estimated that, in 2014, about 108 million tons of nitrogen fertilizers have been used worldwide and the 50% of it was used for cereal crops [15].
Emissions from synthetic fertilizers consist of direct and indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen added to agricultural soils by farmers. Direct N2O emission is produced by microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification taking place on the addition site. The indirect N2O emission is produced by: (i) a portion of volatilized ammonia (NH3) that will be deposited on soil and in water and be subjected to nitrification process and (ii) a portion of nitrate NO3– that leaches and will be denitrified [16].
Soil is a complex system where the roots draw nutrients, ensuring the growth and development of the plants; on the other hand, the presence of insects, earthworms and microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) concur to influence the physiological and biological life of plants.
To ensure growth and productivity of crops, it is a common practice to add chemical fertilizers to quickly provide the essential nutrients to soil [17]. For the optimal growth and development of plants, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides are also added, but conversely, these compounds can damage plants and interfere with their ability to acquire some nutrients; an excessive use of these substances negatively affects human health and the environment [18,19].
Therefore, the need to use alternative systems with a lower environmental impact to ensure the best growth of plants is increasing and the use of PGPB seems to be a valid proposal.
Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Serratia are the most frequently microbial genera that have shown the ability to colonize plant rhizosphere and enhance plant growth [20].
Plants and microorganisms establish various relationships that facilitate beneficial (symbiotic and not) and/or harmful (pathogenic) interactions. During plant growth, microorganisms colonize the rhizosphere (defined by Walker et al. [21], as the narrow zone of soil directly surrounding the root system) and communicate with roots by producing plant growth-regulating substances. On the other hand, plants recognize microbe-derived compounds and modify their defense and growth mechanisms according to the type of microorganism [22].
These interactions occur both in phyllosphere (aerial plant surfaces) or rhizosphere (area surrounding the roots), but the environmental conditions for both sections are different. Phyllosphere is exposed to frequent changes of temperature, humidity, intensity light, etc., with consequent changes in nutrients availability. Concerning rhizosphere, it provides a better protection by changes in temperature and light intensity and guarantees a higher abundance of nutrients (more than 85% of the total organic carbon came from sloughed-off root cells and tissues or it is supply by plants as root exudates) [23]. Thus, numerous species of bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes, colonize the rhizosphere, free or coated on the surface of the roots, by establishing very complex relations.
Concerning plant-microorganisms interactions, bacteria can act as free-living bacteria, symbiotic (that form a symbiotic relationship with roots), endophytes (that colonize only a portion of interior tissue of plant having a direct access to organic compounds), and cyanobacteria (formerly called blue-green algae) [24].
An example of the beneficial interaction between plants and microorganisms is the symbiotic interaction between the roots of legumes and some Rhizobacteria that lead to the formation of root nodules where the fixing of atmospheric nitrogen into ammonium, occurs [25]. Rhizobium, Sinorhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium, e Azorhizobium (generally known as Rhizobia) share the same habitat with PGPB and interact throughout the roots colonization. Lucas-Garcia et al. [26], Saharan and Nehra [20] and Bhattacharyya and Jha [27] in their studies confirmed the positive effects of this cooperation showing that PGPB can facilitate the nodulation process and improve the nitrogen-fixation in the roots of legumes.
Through direct or indirect mechanisms, or synergistically, PGPB can act on the enhancement of the performances of plants. Due to the direct action, PGPB provide the plants with some bacterial-synthesized compounds, modulate plant hormone levels that stimulate the proliferation of plant cells and facilitate the uptake of nutrients by fixing atmospheric oxygen, solubilizing minerals (such as phosphorus) and producing siderophores able to sequester iron. While, through indirect actions PGPB produce antagonistic substances or induce resistance against pathogens to prevent their harmful effects [28].
Saharan and Nehra [20], Glick [24], Bhattacharyya and Jha [27], Ahemad and Kibret [11], Beneduzi et al. [29] de Souza et al. [2], Kundan et al. [30] and Oteino et al. [31], published interesting reviews and articles on direct and indirect mechanisms; the most important findings are summarized in Table 1.
DIRECT MECHANISMS | MICROORGANISMS |
PHOSPHATE SOLUBILIZATION Some rhizosphere colonizing bacteria enhance phosphorous availability by making soluble, insoluble phosphate inorganic compounds or by liberating organic phosphates. | Bacteria: Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Flavobacterium, Microbacterium, Pseudomonas, Serratia together with Pantoea and Klebsiella, Rhodococcus, Arthrobacter, Chryseobacterium, Gordonia, Phyllobacterium and Delftia. Rhizobia: Mesorhizobium ciceri and Mesorhizobium mediterraneum. Fungi: Aspergillus and Penicillium. |
NITROGEN FIXATION Atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is not accessible to most living organisms but through Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) it is reduced to ammonia (NH3). BNF is performed by symbiotic or non-symbiotic nitrogen fixing microorganisms. | Non-symbiotic: Cyanobacteria, Acetobacter, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, Anabaena, Arthrobacter, Azoarcus, Azomonas, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Derxia, Enterobacter, Gluconoacetobacter diazotrophicus, Herbaspirillum sp. Klebsiella, Nostoc, Pseudomonas, Rhodospirillum, RhodoPseudomonas and Xanthobacter. Symbiotic: Rhizobia, Frankia. |
INDOLEACETIC ACID (IAA) IAA performs many functions: (ⅰ) affects cell division, extension and differentiation of plants, (ⅱ) stimulates the germination of seeds and tubers, (ⅲ) exerts a control on processes of vegetative growth, (ⅳ) concurs to increase the rate of xylem and root growth, (ⅴ) initiates formations (lateral and adventitious) of the roots, (ⅵ) modulates responses to light, gravity and fluorescence, (ⅶ) affects photosynthesis, pigment formation, biosynthesis of various metabolites, (ⅷ) resists to stressful conditions. | Several microbial species are able to produce IAA, through five biosyntetic pathways: (1) Saprophytic species of Agrobacterium, Azospirillum, some species of Bradyrhizobium, Enterobacter, Erwinia herbicola, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Rhizobium through via indole-3-pyruvic acid and indole-3-acetic aldehyde; (2) Pseudomonads and Azospirilla through the conversion of tryptophan into indole-3-acetic aldehyde with tryptamine as intermediate compound; (3) Agrobacterium tumefaciens, E. herbicola, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas syringae and Pseudomonas putida through the formation of indole-3-acetamide; (4) Cyanobacterium (Synechocystis sp.) through the formation of indole-3-acetonitrile; (5) Azospirilla and Cyanobacteria are also able to produce IAA through a tryptophan-independent pathway. |
SIDEROPHORE PRODUCTION The production of siderophores can be classified as indirect mechanism when they are employed as means of biocontrol by microorganisms that do not use any other mechanism. By sequestering iron, PGPBs siderophore-producing reduce the availability of this element necessary for the growth of pathogens. Siderophore mediated iron scavenging in Gram-negative transport is better studied PGPB than Gram-positive PGPB. | Bradyrhizobium japonicum, Rhizobium leguminosarum and Sinorhizobium meliloti are the main microorganisms involved in siderophore production. Among Gram-negative bacteria, siderophore-producing belong to the Pseudomonas and Enterobacter genera, while Bacillus and Rhodococcus are the most representative among Gram-positive bacteria. |
ACC DEAMINASE ACTIVITY 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase is a bacterial enzyme involved to reduce the level of ethylene in plants. PGPB in response to tryptophan or other small molecules (see IAA section) synthetize and secrete IAA. This bacterial IAA, together with endogenous plant IAA, stimulate plant growth or induce the synthesis of the plant enzyme ACC synthase which converts the compound S-adenosyl methionine (SAM) to ACC, the immediate precursor of ethylene. | Acinetobacter, Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia, Serratia and Rhizobium etc. |
PRODUCTION OF ANTIBIOTIC /ANTIFUNGAL METABOLITES Phenazines, 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol, pyoluteorin, pyrrolnitrin, lipopeptides, and hydrogen cyanide. | Fluorescent Pseudomonads, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Paenibacillus, and Streptomyces. |
PRODUCTION OF LYTIC ENZYMES Chitinases, cellulases, β-1, 3 glucanases, proteases, and lipases lyse a portion of the cell walls of many pathogenic fungi. | Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotium rolfsii, Fusarium oxysporum, Phytophthora spp., Rhizoctonia solani, and Pythium ultimum. |
COMPETITION FOR NUTRIENTS | Actinobacteria, Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus sp., Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus licheniformis, Brevibacillus, Enterobacter sp., Jeotgalibacillus, Lysinibacillus, Paenibacillus, Paenibacillus polymyxa, Pseudomonas sp., Pseudomonas chlororaphis, P. fluorescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Terribacillus |
INDUCED SYSTEMIC RESISTANCE (ISR) "Induced resistance" is referred to the induced state of resistance in plants triggered by inducers (biological or chemical); this state protects non-exposed parts against possible attack by pathogenic microbes and herbivorous insects. | P. fluorescens, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas protegens. |
PGPB can be also employed as biocontrol agents, namely organisms able to kill other pathogens or organisms causing disease to crops. Agrobacterium, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Pseudomonas and Streptomyces belong to this group of PGPB [20]. The biocontrol activity of PGPB against soil-borne pathogens is due to mechanisms of microbial antagonism that results in a reduction of the saprophytic growth of pathogens and, consequently, in their frequency of infection. This reduction occurs through the competition for nutrients, colonization of habitats, induction of systemic resistance (ISR) in the plant host, production of antifungal metabolites. Furthermore, due to the ability of siderophore to sequester iron, PGPB subtract nutrients for the nutrition of pathogens [20].
Pseudomonas is the most important genus of Rhizobacteria acting as biocontrol agents; this is ubiquitous bacteria in agricultural soils. The way it uses to act as a biocontrol agent can be summarized as follows:
• It rapidly grows in vitro;
• It quickly uses seed and root exudates;
• It colonizes and multiplies in the rhizosphere and in the interior of the plant;
• It produces bioactive metabolites (i.e., antibiotics, siderophores, volatiles, and growth-promoting substances) and toxic metabolites (fenazine, pyrrolnitrin, 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG), pyoluteorin and cyclic lipopeptides [32];
• It competes with other microorganisms;
• It adapts to environmental stresses.
Unfortunately, pseudomonads are unable to produce resting spores (as do many Bacillus spp.) and this is a challenge to produce commercial formulates [20].
Among PGPB acting as biocontrol agents, a modified strain of non-pathogenic Agrobacterium radiobacter K84 has been used against Agrobacterium tumefaciens, responsible for the collar cancer. A. radiobacter K84 produces agrocina 84, an antibiotic compound, toxic for A. tumefaciens. Another application of Agrobacterium is due to its ability to survive and persist on the roots, which concurs to prevent the development of disease caused by pathogenic bacteria [33].
Since 1990s some researchers have reported the potential of PGPB to promote plant growth and enhance the yield of crops in different soil and environment; in particular, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus and Pseudomonas spp. were studied and applied in herbaceous crop systems as biofertilizers [34,35,36,37,38]. Some promising and controversial results on the mechanisms PGPB-plant root were reported [35,36,37,39,40]. There is not an official definition of biofertilizers; therefore, we refer to the definition of Vessey [41], "biofertilizer is a substance containing living microorganisms which, when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil, colonizes the rhizosphere or the interior of the plant and promotes growth by increasing the supply or availability of primary nutrients to the host plant". This definition separates biofertilizers from organic fertilizers, which contain organic compounds and directly increase soil fertility. Therefore, biofertilizers should contain living organisms, which improve nutrient use efficiency of the host plant, through different mechanisms. A key factor, reported by Dobbelaere et al. [42], is the production of growth substances such as exogenous microbial auxins and gibberellins that showed stimulatory effect on plant growth. Vessey [41] also reported an estimated N contribution by PGPB N fixing prokaryotes of ca. 1–60 Kg/ha per year, thus the biofertilizers could reduce the need for chemical fertilizers and decrease adverse environmental effects.
Five mechanisms are mainly studied as modes of action of PGPB as biofertilizers: (1) biological N2 fixation, (2) increasing the availability of nutrients in the rhizosphere, (3) inducing increases in root surface area, (4) enhancing other beneficial symbioses of the host, and (5) combination of thereof [24,41]. Table 2 offers an overview of the most important advances. To the best of our knowledge no study showed the application of "autochthonous bacteria" as biofertilizer. Moreover, the benefits of PGPB were observed only when organic or chemical fertilizers were added. A depth knowledge of (1) how and which bacteria are involved in N-transformation of "the modern" agricultural system and (2) abiotic factors (pH, temperature etc.) that control nitrification and denitrification is important to gain the application of PGPB in soil as biofertilizers.
Culture conditions | Species/cultivar | PGPB | Effects on plant growth and productivity | References |
Field | Triticum aestivum L. cultivar Buck Suren(R) | Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens | Grain yield increases were not significant. | [35] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | The inoculation increased: plant height, spiΫe number per unit of area, grains number per spike, 1 000-grains weight, grain yield, biological yield and grain protein content. | [37] |
In vitro | Triticum aestivum cv ProINTA | Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 | The beneficial Azospirillum-wheat association is not hampered by the presence of Tebuconazole. Azospirillum increased root surface and promoted coleoptile length. | [43] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Azospirillum brasilense | The biofertilization reduced production costs and increased productivity. | [36] |
Field | Wheat variety Zardana | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | The application of biofertilizer in combination with mineral fertilizer N 45 kg ha–1 and P2O5 30 kg ha–1 increased fresh yield from 11% to 59% and grain yield by 20–46%. | [39] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Methylobacterium spp. | Increased plant growth and productivity, in an environment-friendly manner. | [44] |
Field | Rice | Pseudomonas fluorescens and Azospirillum brasilense | PGPB inoculation increased aerial biomass production, harvest index, and grain yield of the Supremo 13 cultivar by 4.7%, 16%, and 20.2%, respectively. | [45] |
Field | Corn | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | Reduction in production costs with increased productivity. | [38] |
Greenhouse and field | Corn | Azospirillum brasilense | The inoculation of Az brasilense had the same grain yield when compared to nitrogen treatment. The grain production was increased by 29% in the treatment with Az brasilense and nitrogen compared to nitrogen fertilization alone. | [46] |
Field | Durum wheat (cv. Anco Marzio) | Bacillus sp. | Soil inoculation with PGPB had a positive impact on plant growth in combination with organic fertilizer was added. | [40] |
Field | Triticum aestivum L. | Bacillus sp. Stenotrophomonas spp. Acetobacter pasteurianus Stenotrophomonas spp | Plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) provided a significant increase in shoot and root length, and shoot and root biomass. The study indicates the potential of these PGPR for enhancing growth and nutrient content of wheat and other crops under field conditions. | [47] |
Pots and field | Wheat var. Inqlab-91 | Pseudomonas moraviensis and Bacillus cereus | PGPR consortium with sugarcane husk and maize straw (biofertilizer formulation) increased growth, maintained osmotic balance and enhanced the activities of antioxidant enzymes and yield parameters. | [48] |
Controlled conditions | Wheat | Streptomyces spp | These isolates can be used to design new biopesticides and biofertilizers with antibacterial and antifungal effect. | [49] |
Field | Wheat, maize | Paenibacillus polymyxa WLY78 | Nitrogen fixation, IAA production and phosphate solubilization performed by P. polymyxa WLY78 inside roots, stems and leaves and on root surfaces positively contributed to plant-growth promotion. | [50] |
Inoculation of PGPB to enhance performance and growth is particular interestingly in wheat. Veresoglou and Menexes [51] conducted a meta-analysis on 59 available articles focused on 228 field trials (only 12 trials on T. turgidum L. ssp. durum), and reported that T. aestivum ssp. vulgare may be a more responsive species when inoculated with Azospirillum spp. Moreover, the authors established linear regression models for the relationship between the effect sizes of seed yield and aboveground biomass separately for the field and pot trials. For durum wheat, the results must be confirmed. Some papers reported Azospirillium spp. and in particular Az brasilense, as one of the best PGPB able to promote growth, yield, nutrient uptake and productivity of wheat [47,52,53,54,55].
Pérez-Montano et al. [56] focused on the improvement of crop production by microorganisms for several cereals and leguminous and reported that in wheat, an ACC-deaminase producer Pseudomonas fluorescens strains concurred for the reduction of N, P and K fertilizer rates. Moreover, wheat crops resulted with higher grain yields, harvest index and protein content with lower fertilizer doses than those conventionally applied. An enhancement in grain yields was also found when two phosphate (PO43−)-solubilizing microorganisms (PSM), Bacillus circulans and Cladosporium herbarum were combined with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). This kind of consortia affected also the grain and soil quality and the nutrient uptake of wheat.
There are many papers dealing with the benefits of PGPB towards legumes, maize, potatoes and wheat, but there are few reports on durum wheat. This is a crop cultivated in the Middle East, North Africa, the former USSR, the North American Great Plains, India, and Mediterranean Europe.
Durum wheat grows on 8 to 10% of all the wheat cultivated area [57]. Despite of its low acreage, durum wheat is economically important and is considered the hardiest of all wheats. Pasta is the excellent product derived from durum wheat but other products than pasta are also made from this cereal; couscous, made from durum semolina, is consumed mainly in North Africa; flat bread made from durum wheat and bulgur are consumed in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria [57].
Depending on microorganisms, environmental and soil conditions, the interaction PGPB-durum wheat can act in different ways. Improvements in nutrient uptake (mainly N uptake), growth yield and grain quality, were reported by Saia et al. [40], Colla et al. [58], and Di Benedetto et al. [59].
Saia et al. [40] inoculated PGPB and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), alone and in combination, in durum wheat in a field experiment in Sicily. The authors observed that the presence of AMF in soil increased plant growth and N uptake of durum wheat compared to the uninoculated control irrespective of fertilization. PGPB provided beneficial effect on plant growth and nutrient uptake only when organic fertilizer was added. The authors concluded that soil inoculation with AMF and PGPB (alone or in combination) could be an alternative way for farmers to improve nutrient uptake and the sustainability of the agro-ecosystem, although further investigation are necessary.
Colla et al. [58] coated seeds of durum wheat with a microbial consortium of endophytic fungi (Glomus intraradices BEG72, Glomus mossae and Trichoderma atroviride MUCL 45632) with the aim to enhance growth, nutrient uptake, yield and grain quality. They found that this fungal cocktail enhanced the emergence time and shoot biomass of wheat seedlings, through an increase in root dry weight. Finally, an improved grain quality, in terms of protein, P, K and Fe concentration was recovered.
As few data are available on the interaction plant-PGPB isolated from Italian soil, in a recent work, Di Benedetto et al. [59] started a new research focused on the selection and characterization of PGPB, from a soil of South Italy (Capitanata, Apulia region) with high potential to enhance nutrient use efficiency. Competitive strains able to survive and establish in durum wheat rhizosphere, were isolated and three strains of Pseudomonas spp. showed characteristics of concern for the improvement of durum wheat nitrogen use efficiency.
Furthermore, two soils differing in both texture and organic carbon content, were sampled. At least about 400 isolates were collected. Odds in microbial cell number were observed in relation to the soil site. Mesophilic bacteria and actinobacteria showed the highest concentration. All the groups were tested in relation to the capacity to improve nitrogen availability and P-solubilization. In particular, some isolates of mesophilic bacteria, Pseudomonas spp., and actinobacteria were able to combine both nitrification and P-solubilization capacity. For the most promising strains a genetic characterization and a quantitative analysis of the parameters under study will be performed. Furthermore, the best strains will be inoculated in soil in order to test their ability to improve nutrient use efficiency in durum wheat.
Baffoni et al. [60] studied the interaction PGPB-durum wheat considering another point of view. They found that two bacterial strains, Lactobacillus plantarum SLG17 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FLN13 were able to reduce the incidence of Fusarium head blight (FHB), a severe disease caused by different Fusarium species. In a field experiment, a cocktail of the two microorganisms (applied from heading until anthesis) reduced FHB index and through some PCR-DGGE analyses the authors concluded that L. plantarum SLG17 was present in wheat seeds and probably act as endophytic bacteria. For these reasons, L. plantarum SLG17 and B. amyloliquefaciens FLN13 have been proposed as possible promising agents for the reduction of FHB incidence.
Mnasri et al. [61] studied the ability of sixty-two rhizospheric and endophytic bacterial strains in vitro and as seed coating for the control of two strains of Fusarium culmorum (Fc2 and Fc3) infecting durum wheat. The authors observed that 35% and 23% of the tested strains inhibited the in vitro growth of both strains. Some strains were able to produce volatile compounds that inhibit the growth, the sporulation and macroconidia germination of F. culmorum. The sequencing of the 16S rDNA genes of the bacteria showed that they belong to the genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Microbacterium. Then, in vitro, five strains were selected (four assigned to Bacillus and one to Pseudomonas genera) and inoculated together with two F. culmorum, in durum wheat. Results showed a reduction of the percentage of infected seeds and an improved germination and seedling vigor. Under greenhouse conditions, the virulence of the fungal strains and the specificity of the bacteria/fungi interaction, influenced the effectiveness of the biocontrol of F. culmorum.
The core nitrogen cycle involves four reduction and two oxidation pathways. In particular, biotic Nitrogen Fixation (Figure 2) [15] involves Azospirillum, Azotobacter [24], Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter [62], Klebsiella, Bradyrhizobium, Bacillus, Mesorhizobium, Rhizobium [2,11].
Ammonia oxidation is considered to be the rate-limiting step of nitrification [63] and has received greater scientific consideration than nitrite oxidation. It is catalyzed by an ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB, in particular Nitrosomonas sp.) and ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) affiliated with Thaumarchaeota phylum [64].
The greenhouse gas N2O is a by-product of this process. AOB follow three distinct pathways: (ⅰ) nitrifier nitrification, (ⅱ) nitrifier denitrification and (ⅲ) nitrifier-coupled denitrification. During nitrifier nitrification N2O is formed as a byproduct of the spontaneous oxidation of hydroxylamine, instead nitrifier denitrification and nitrifier-coupled denitrification are stepwise reductions controlled by enzimes during which N2O is one of the intermediate that could escape in the atmosphere. It is not known why AOB perform nitrifier denitrification, one hypothesis is that it is a response to NO2– toxicity under marginally aerobic conditions [65]. Alternatively, the coupling NH4+ oxidization to NO2– reduction make nitrifier denitrification energetically favorable under marginally aerobic condition.
The last step is nitrite oxidation performed by NOB (e.g. Nitrobacter, Nitrococcus, Nitrospina and Nitrospira) [64,66,67]. Some studies highlighted a possible role of PGPB on both ammonium and nitrite oxidation [11,24]. These hypothesis were confirmed by Di Benedetto et al. [59] who found some wild PGPB, putatively identified as Pseudomonas and Bacillus able to oxidize ammonia to NO2– ions (nitrosification) and then to NO3– ions (nitrification).
In nitrification processes the microbial functional importance changes depending on the kind of fertilization. In literature it is reported that in an alkaline soil the increase of nitrification by chemical nitrogen fertilizers is related to a change in community abundance and structure of AOB but not AOA [68]. As an effect of increased nitrogen fertilization a rising of AOB amo A genes and a little effect on AOA community composition [69] was observed.
The change of edaphic factors from excessive fertilization affects the great differences of nitrifiers in physiology and metabolic pathways [64]. In particular, Nicol et al. [70] considered the soil pH an important determinant of bacterial diversity and community structure because it probably influences the chemical form and availability of substrates. In fact, at low pH the growth and activity of ammonia oxidizers will be inhibited due to the increase of NH4+ ions despite of NH3 availability, the affinity to ammonia of AOB and AOA may drive to different growth [71].
Wang and Gu [67] reported that high salinity promoted bacteria growth but inhibits AOA; instead Erguder et al. [72] observed under low salinity (0.2–9 psu) and high C/N (12–25) that archaeal amoA genes were more abundant than Betaproteobacteria amoA genes.
In addition, the increases in organic matter favor AOA abundance and/or activity, while inorganic fertilizers lead to AOB and NOB dominated nitrification activity [66,73].
N is the principal component of the proteins that build cell and plant tissue. Cereals and other plant species can utilize N as NO3– and NH4+, which are the available inorganic forms of N absorbed by the roots from the soil solution [74]. In wheat, nitrogen is required to ensure photosynthetic activity, growth and grain yield and to produce grain storage proteins that have a key role in technological quality.
In wheat and rice, up to 80% of grain N content derives from leaves [75]. Most plants store nitrate in vacuoles and tolerate high ion concentrations, therefore nitrate might be also used an osmotic agent in plant [76]. Nitrate is used in various processes, including absorption, vacuole storage, xylem transport, reduction and incorporation into organic forms [77].
Nitrate assimilation is carried out mainly in the roots, being strongly dependent on the plant developmental stage and on the limitation of space for root growth [74]. In N assimilation process, nitrate is reduced to nitrite in the cytosol through the reaction catalyzed by the enzyme nitrate reductase (NR) using NAD(P)H as electron donors. The NR enzyme is positively regulated by NO3– at light at the transcriptional level and is down-regulated at the post-transcriptional level by reversible phosphorylation during the dark period [77]. In hexaploid wheat, two genes encoding NADH-NR have been identified [78]. Since nitrite is highly reactive, plant cells immediately transport the nitrite from the cytosol into chloroplasts in leaves and plastids in root; in these organelles, nitrite is further reduced to NH4+ by nitrite reductase (NiR) [74]. NiR forms a complex with ferredoxin that provides electrons for the reduction of NO2– to NH4+ [79].
Ammonia (NH4+) (inorganic N) is then assimilated into amino acids glutamine and glutamate, which serve to translocate organic N (N remobilization). The two main enzymes involved are glutamine synthetase (GS) and glutamate synthase or glutamine-2-oxoglutarate amino transferase (GOGAT), The GS is considered to be a possible rate-limiting step in ammonia assimilation. The synthesized amino acids glutamine and glutamate are used as amino group donors to all the other N-containing molecules, other amino acids used for storage, transport and protein synthesis and to nucleotides used as basic molecules for RNA and DNA synthesis [80].
It is possible to identify three main characteristics/mechanisms of the rhizosphere that influence N-uptake efficiency (ⅰ) root size-morphology (ⅱ) root N transporter system and (ⅲ) interaction root-microorganisms such as PGPB.
It is reported that NO3– and NH4+ uptake systems may be enhanced by the interaction with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) [8,81], plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) [82], humic substances [83], allelopathic compounds such as cumarin [84] and inhibited by the increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere [85].
The use of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) might be an alternative to increase NUE in important crops like wheat since these bacteria are able to increase root-system development and improve acquisition of nutrient including N.
NUE was evaluated through several methods (reviewed in Good et al. [86,87]). According to an extensively used definition, plant nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is defined as the grain yield produced per unit of applied N fertilizer. It is an integration of N uptake efficiency (NUpE) and N utilization efficiency (NUtE) defined respectively as the capacity of plants to acquire N from the soil and the fraction of plant-acquired N to be converted to total plant biomass or grain yield [8,88,89]. NUtE is very important to NUE of crops because its improvement would result directly in more biomass and yield.
Plant roots, including those of wheat, release organic acids, sugars, exudates and other rhizodeposits, which characterize the "rhizosphere". Rhizodeposition can differ among wheat cultivars [90] leading to differences in various aspects of the rhizosphere microbial ecology [91]. In view of the increase of N-uptake it would be of interest to suppress pathogens and enhance root colonization by beneficial PGPB [8], in particular, those with the potential to enhance (a) N availability in the rhizosphere (N fixing bacteria and nitrifying bacteria), (b) root length and density (i.e IAA producer bacteria), (c) systemic plant metabolism and (d) microbial phytoprotection (i.e siderophores producer bacteria).
N availability is enhanced by microbial mineralization of organic N yielding ammonium in the rhizosphere (see Table 1). In wheat, the first effect is to attain higher N levels at flowering stage [92]. In particular, N availability for roots is improved by N fixation. Thus, the community of N fixers plays a key role for plant N nutrition [93]. In wheat and in other cereals, conversion of N2 into NH3 is performed by non-nodulating N-fixing bacteria. N-fixing bacteria occur naturally in soils including wheat rhizosphere [94,95], and inoculation with N fixers may enhance wheat yield [40,96,97]. Their diversity and activity are influenced by plant species [98,99] and cultivar [95,100,101,102]. Several studies proposed the inoculation of Azospirillium spp. as N fixers bacteria [35,37,43,52] to achieve higher yields.
Furthermore enhanced acquisition of water and mineral nutrients can be expected if the root system colonizes soil more extensively. Under in vitro conditions, wheat inoculation with rhizosphere bacteria may enhance root number and/or length, as well as root hair elongation [42,103]. These inoculation effects on root system architecture and biomass have been also evidenced in wheat [51,104]. These effects may be induced by the inoculation of PGPB producer of Indol Acetic Acid (IAA).
Many bacteria and fungi modify root system architecture by manipulating plant hormonal balance by producing phytohormones such as auxins [22], cytokinins [105,106] or gibberellins.
For example, the wheat bacterium Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 synthesized abscisic acid, and modified lateral root development in Arabidopsis [107]. The effects appear to take place via auxin signal transduction pathway [8]. Microorganisms also interfere with ethylene metabolism in roots modifying wheat root development [108] by a direct microbial production of ethylene [109], or a reduction in ethylene concentration in plant roots by the deamination of ethylene precursor 1-aminocyclopropane carboxylic acid [110].
Some rhizosphere bacteria might directly affect N metabolism in plants. Oil seed rape (Brassica napus L.) roots inoculated with Achromobacter strain U80417 increased net influx rates of NO3–/NO2– [111]. Furthermore, it is known that the inoculation of Arabidopsis with Phyllobacterium brassicacearum STM196 enhanced the coding of two nitrate transporters, NRT2.5 and NRT2.6 [112]. In wheat, nitrate reductase activity of Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 contributed to N assimilation [104]. PGPB might also improve N-uptake by promoting plant health by inhibiting root pathogens [24].
The use of PGPB could be a frontier goal to achieve a positive effect on plants and reduce the negative impact of chemical and fertilizers on the environment.
Some strategies have been tailored, but there are few reports on wheat. This review covers the actual knowledge with a focus on the gaps and on some possible future routes for the research. To better understand the interactions PGPB-plant, depth studies on the following issues are required: (ⅰ) the isolation of "autochthonous non-pathogenic PGPB" from rhizosphere in different environments; (ⅱ) phenotypic and genotypic characterization to select PGPB strains able to enhance nitrogen use efficiency; (ⅲ) the inoculation of selected PGPB under controlled conditions to study the interaction microorganisms-plant. These are necessary steps before the final application in field. This review offers a perspective on what the future could demand for.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, et al. (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327: 812–818. |
[2] |
de Souza R, Ambrosini A, Passaglia LMP (2015) Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils. Genet Mol Biol 38: 401–419. doi: 10.1590/S1415-475738420150053
![]() |
[3] |
Adesemoye AO, Torbert HA, Kloepper JW (2009) Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria allow reduced application rates of chemical fertilizers. Microb Ecol 58: 921–929. doi: 10.1007/s00248-009-9531-y
![]() |
[4] | FAO (2009) How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization. |
[5] | FAO (2014) 19 December Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ news/story/ en/item/273303/icode. |
[6] | Troccoli A, Borrelli GM, De Vita P, et al. (2000) Durum wheat quality: a multidisciplinary concept. J Cereal Sci 32: 99–113. |
[7] |
Hatfield JL, Sauer TJ, Prueger JH (2001) Managing soils to achieve greater water use efficiency: a review. Agron J 93: 271–280. doi: 10.2134/agronj2001.932271x
![]() |
[8] |
Cormier F, Foulkes J, Randhirel B, et al. (2016) Breeding for increased nitrogen-use efficiency: a review for wheat (T. Aestivum L.). Plant Breeding 135: 255–278. doi: 10.1111/pbr.12371
![]() |
[9] |
Hirel B, Tétu T, Lea PJ, et al. (2011) Improving nitrogen use efficiency in crops for sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 3: 1452–1485. doi: 10.3390/su3091452
![]() |
[10] | Singh B, Ryan J (2015) Managing fertilizers to enhance soil health, In: International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris, France, 1–24. |
[11] | Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria: current perspective. J King Saud Univ Sci 26: 1–20. |
[12] | Powell N, Ji X, Ravash R, et al. (2012) Yield stability for cereals in a changing climate. Funct Plant Biol 39: 539–552. |
[13] | Semenov MA, Shewry PR (2011) Modelling predicts that heat stress, not drought, will increase vulnerability of wheat in Europe. Sci Rep 1: 66. |
[14] | FAOSTAT Database Collections (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Available from: http://faostat.fao.org/. |
[15] |
Canfield DE, Glazer AN, Falkowski PG (2010) The evolution and future of earth's nitrogen cycle. Science 330: 192–196. doi: 10.1126/science.1186120
![]() |
[16] | Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, et al. (2009) Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133: 247–266. |
[17] | Chen JH (2006) The combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers and/or biofertilizer for crop growth and soil fertility. International Workshop on Sustained Management of the Soil-Rhizosphere System for Efficient Crop Production and Fertilizer Use 16: 20. |
[18] | Gill HK, Garg H (2014) Pesticides: Environmental impacts and management strategies, In: Marcelo L, Editor, Pesticides-Toxic aspects, CC BY, 187–230. |
[19] |
Aktar W, Sengupta D, Chowdhury A (2009) Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdisc Toxicol 2: 1–12. doi: 10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7
![]() |
[20] | Saharan BS, Nehra V (2011) Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria: a critical review. Life Sci Med Res 21: 1–30. |
[21] |
Walker TS, Bais HP, Grotewold E, et al. (2003) Root exudation and rhizosphere biology. Plant Physiol 132: 44–51. doi: 10.1104/pp.102.019661
![]() |
[22] |
Ortiz-Castro R, Contreras-Cornejo HA, Macías-Rodríguez L, et al. (2009) The role of microbial signals in plant growth and development. Plant Signal Behav 4: 701–712. doi: 10.4161/psb.4.8.9047
![]() |
[23] |
Dimkpa C, Wein T, Folkard A (2009) Plant-Rhizobacteria interactions alleviate abiotic stress conditions..Plant Cell Environ 32: 1682–1694. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02028.x
![]() |
[24] | Glick BR (2012) Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria: mechanisms and applications. Scientifica 1–15. |
[25] | Leigh GJ (2002) Nitrogen fixation at the millennium, London: Elsevier Science. |
[26] |
Lucas-Garcia JA, Probanza A, Ramos B, et al. (2004) Effects of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobateria (PGPRs) on the biological nitrose fixation, nodulation and growth of Lupinus albus I. cv. Multolupa. Eng Life Sci 4: 71–77. doi: 10.1002/elsc.200400013
![]() |
[27] |
Bhattacharyya PN, Jha DK (2012) Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28: 1327–1350. doi: 10.1007/s11274-011-0979-9
![]() |
[28] |
Tabatabaei S, Ehsanzadeh P, Etesami H, et al. (2016) Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) producing Pseudomonas isolates inhibit seed germination and α amylase activity in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.). Spain J Agric Res 14: e0802. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2016141-8859
![]() |
[29] |
Beneduzi A, Ambrosini A, Passaglia LMP (2012) Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents. Genet Mol Biol 35: 1044–1051. doi: 10.1590/S1415-47572012000600020
![]() |
[30] | Kundan R, Pant G, Jadon N, et al. (2015) Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria: mechanism and current prospective. J Fertil Pestic 6: 2. |
[31] | Oteino N, Lalli RD, Kiwanuka S, et al. (2015) Plant growth promotion induced by phosphate solubilizing endophytic Pseudomonas isolates. Front Microbiol 6: 745. |
[32] | Haas D, Keel C (2003) Regulation of antibiotic production in root colonizing Pseudomonas spp. and relevance for biological control of plant disease. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41: 117–153. |
[33] | Peñalver R, López MM (1999) Cocolonization of the rhizosphere by pathogenic Agrobacterium strains and non pathogenic strains K84 and K1026, used for crown gall biocontrol. Appl Environ Microb 65: 1936–1940. |
[34] |
Okon Y, Labandera-Gonzales CA (1994) Agronomic applications of Azospirillum: an evaluation of 20 years worldwide field inoculation. Soil Biol Biochem 26: 1591–1601. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90311-5
![]() |
[35] |
Naiman AD, Latrónico A, García de Salamone IE (2009) Inoculation of wheat with Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens: impact on the production and culturable rhizosphere microflora. Eur J Soil Biol 45: 44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.11.001
![]() |
[36] |
Piccinin GG, Dan LGM, Braccini ALE, et al. (2011) Agronomic efficiency of Azospirillum brasilense in physiological parameters and yield components in wheat crop. J Agron 10: 132–135. doi: 10.3923/ja.2011.132.135
![]() |
[37] | Namvar A, Khandan T (2013) Response of wheat to mineral nitrogen fertilizer and biofertilizer (Azotobacter sp. and Azospirillum sp.) inoculation under different levels of weed interference. Ekologija 59: 85–94. |
[38] | Amiri A, Rafiee M (2013) Effect of soil inoculation with Azospirillum and Azotobacter bacteria on nitrogen use efficiency and agronomic characteristics of corn. Ann Biol Res 4: 77–79. |
[39] | Amanullah A, Kurd A, Khan S, et al. (2012) Biofertilizer-a possible substitute of fertilizers in production of wheat variety zardana in balochistan. Pakistan J Agric Res 25: 44–49. |
[40] | Saia S, Rappa V, Ruisi P, et al. (2015) Soil inoculation with symbiotic microorganisms promotes plant growth and nutrient transporter genes expression in durum wheat. Front Plant Sci 6: 815. |
[41] |
Vessey JK (2003) Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 255: 571–586. doi: 10.1023/A:1026037216893
![]() |
[42] | Dobbelaere S, Croonenborghs A, Thys A, et al. (1999) Phytostimulatory effect of Azospirillum brasilense wild type and mutant strains altered in IAA production on wheat. Plant Soil 212: 155–164. |
[43] |
Pereyra MA, Ballesteros FM, Creus CM, et al. (2009) Seedlings growth promotion by Azospirillum brasilense under normal and drought conditions remains unaltered in Tebuconazole-treated wheat seeds. Eur J Soil Biol 45: 20–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.09.015
![]() |
[44] |
Meena KK, Kumar M, Kalyuzhnaya MG, et al. (2012) Epiphytic pink-pigmented methylotrophic bacteria enhance germination and seedling growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum) by producing phyto-hormone. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 101: 777–786. doi: 10.1007/s10482-011-9692-9
![]() |
[45] |
García de Salamone IE, Funes JM, Di Salvo LP, et al. (2012) Inoculation of paddy rice with Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens: impact of plant genotypes on rhizosphere microbial communities and field crop production. Appl Soil Ecol 61: 196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.12.012
![]() |
[46] |
Ferreira AS, Pires RR, Rabelo PG, et al. (2013) Applied soil ecology implications of Azospirillum brasilense inoculation and nutrient addition on maize in soils of the Brazilian Cerrado under greenhouse and field conditions. Appl Soil Ecol 72: 103–108. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.05.020
![]() |
[47] | Majeed A, Abbasi MK, Hameed S, et al. (2015) Isolation and characterization of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria from wheat rhizosphere and their effect on plant growth promotion. Front Microbiol 6: 198. |
[48] | Hassan TU, Bano A (2016) Biofertilizer: a novel formulation for improving wheat growth, physiology and yield. Pak J Bot 48: 2233–2241. |
[49] |
Charousová I, Medo J, Halenárová E, et al. (2016) Effect of fertilization on biological activity of community of soil Streptomycetes. J Cent Eur Agr 17: 1134–1149. doi: 10.5513/JCEA01/17.4.1822
![]() |
[50] |
Hao T, Chen S (2017) Colonization of wheat, maize and cucumber by Paenibacillus Polymyxa Wly78. PloS One 12: e0169980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169980
![]() |
[51] | Veresoglou SD, Menexes G (2010) Impact of inoculation with Azospirillum spp. on growth properties and seed yield of wheat: a meta-analysis of studies in the ISI Web of Science from 1981 to 2008. Plant Soil 337: 469–480. |
[52] |
Pérez-Montano F, Alías-Villegas C, Bellogín RA, et al. (2014) Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: From microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiol Res 169: 325–336. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.09.011
![]() |
[53] |
Piccinin GG, Braccini ALE, Dan LGM, et al. (2013) Efficiency of seed inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense on agronomic characteristics and yield of wheat. Ind Crops Prod 43: 393–397. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.07.052
![]() |
[54] | Hungria M, Campo RJ, Souza EM, et al. (2010) Inoculation with selected strains of Azospirillum brasilense and A. lipoferum improves yields of maize and wheat in Brazil. Plant Soil 331: 413–425. |
[55] |
Díaz-Zorita M, Fernández-Canigia MV (2009) Field performance of a liquid formulation of Azospirillum brasilense on dryland wheat productivity. Eur J Soil Biol 45: 3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.07.001
![]() |
[56] |
Spaepen S, Dobbelaere S, Croonenborghs A, et al. (2008) Effects of Azospirillum brasilense indole-3-acetic acid production on inoculated wheat plants. Plant Soil 312: 15–23. doi: 10.1007/s11104-008-9560-1
![]() |
[57] | Available from: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/plantsciences/research/durum. |
[58] | Colla G, Rouphael Y, Bonini P, et al. (2015) Coating seeds with endophytic fungi enhances growth, nutrient uptake, yield and grain quality of winter wheat. Int J Plant Prod 9: 171–190. |
[59] | Di Benedetto NA, Campaniello D, Bevilacqua A, et al. (2016) Characterization of autochthonous plant growth promoting bacteria in relation to durum wheat nitrogen use efficiency, In: Proceedings of Plant Biology Europe Congress EPSO/FESPB, Prague Czech Republic, 26–30. |
[60] |
Baffoni L, Gaggia F, Dalanaj N, et al. (2015) Microbial inoculants for the biocontrol of Fusarium spp. in durum wheat. BMC Microbiol 15: 242. doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0573-7
![]() |
[61] |
Mnasri N, Chennaoui C, Gargouri S, et al. (2017) Efficacy of some rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria in vitro and as seed coating for the control of Fusarium culmorum infecting durum wheat in Tunisia. Eur J Plant Pathol 147: 501–515. doi: 10.1007/s10658-016-1018-3
![]() |
[62] |
Indiragandhi P, Anandham R, Madhaiyan M, et al. (2008) Characterization of plant growth-promoting traits of bacteria isolated from larval guts of diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Curr Microbiol 56: 327–333. doi: 10.1007/s00284-007-9086-4
![]() |
[63] | Xu G, Fan X, Miller T (2012) Plant nitrogen assimilation and use efficiency. Annu Rev Plant Biol 63: 153–182. |
[64] |
Han J, Shi J, Zeng L, et al. (2017) Impacts of continuous excessive fertilization on soil potential nitrification activity and nitrifying microbial community dynamics in greenhouse system. J Soils Sediments 17: 471–480. doi: 10.1007/s11368-016-1525-z
![]() |
[65] | Shaw LJ, Nicol GW, Smith Z, et al. (2006) Nitrosospira spp. can produce nitrous oxide via a nitrifier denitrification pathway. Environ Microbiol 8: 214–222. |
[66] |
Xia W, Zhang C, Zeng X, et al. (2011) Autotrophic growth of nitrifying community in an agricultural soil. ISME J 5: 1226–1236. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.5
![]() |
[67] |
Wang YF, Gu JD (2014) Effects of allylthiourea, salinity, and pH on ammonia/ammonium-oxidizing prokaryotes in mangrove sediment incubated in laboratory microcosms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98: 3257–3274. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-5399-3
![]() |
[68] |
Shen JP, Zhang LM, Zhu YG, et al. (2008) Abundance and composition of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and ammonia-oxidizing archaea communities of an alkaline sandy loam. Environ Microbiol 10: 1601–1611. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01578.x
![]() |
[69] |
Xiao R, Chen B, Liu Y, et al. (2014) Higher abundance of ammonia oxidizing archaea than ammonia oxidizing bacteria and their communities in Tibetan alpine meadow soils under long-term nitrogen fertilization. Geomicrobiol J 31: 597–604. doi: 10.1080/01490451.2013.875298
![]() |
[70] | Nicol GW, Leininger S, Schleper C, et al. (2008) The influence of soil pH on the diversity, abundance and transcriptional activity of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria. Environ Microbiol 10: 2966–2978. |
[71] |
Ai C, Liang GQ, Sun JW, et al. (2013) Different roles of rhizosphere effect and long-term fertilization in the activity and community structure of ammonia oxidizers in a calcareous fluvoaquic soil. Soil Biol Biochem 57: 30–42. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.08.003
![]() |
[72] |
Erguder TH, Boon N, Wittebolle L, et al. (2009) Environmental factors shaping the ecological niches of ammonia oxidizing archaea. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33: 855–869. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00179.x
![]() |
[73] |
O'Sullivan CA, Wakelin SA, Fillery IR, et al. (2013) Factors affecting ammonia-oxidising microorganisms and potential nitrification rates in southern Australian agricultural soils. Soil Res 51: 240–252. doi: 10.1071/SR13039
![]() |
[74] |
Mokhele B, Zhan X, Yang G, et al. (2012) Review: Nitrogen assimilation in crop plants and its affecting factors. Can J Plant Sci 92: 399–405. doi: 10.4141/cjps2011-135
![]() |
[75] |
Kant S, Bi YM, Rothstein SJ (2011) Understanding plant response to nitrogen limitation for the improvement of crop nitrogen use efficiency. J Exp Bot 62: 1499–1509. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq297
![]() |
[76] |
Wickert S, Marcondes J, Lemos MV, et al. (2007) Nitrogen assimilation in citrus based on CitEST data mining. Genet Mol Biol 30: 810–818. doi: 10.1590/S1415-47572007000500009
![]() |
[77] | Kaiser WM, Planchet E, Rümer S (2011) Nitrate reductase and nitric oxide, In: Foyer CH, Zhang H, Editors, Annual Plant Reviews, Nitrogen Metabolism in Plants in the Post-genomic Era, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 127–146. |
[78] |
Boisson M, Mondon K, Torney V, et al. (2005) Partial sequences of nitrogen metabolism genes in hexaploid wheat. Theor Appl Genet 110: 932–940. doi: 10.1007/s00122-004-1913-4
![]() |
[79] |
Sakakibara Y, Kimura H, Iwamura A, et al. (2012) A new structural insight into differential interaction of cyanobacterial and plant ferredoxins with nitrite reductase as revealed by NMR and X-ray crystallographic studies. J Biochem 151: 483–492. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvs028
![]() |
[80] | Lea PJ, Miflin BJ (2011) Nitrogen assimilation and its relevance to crop improvement, In: Zhang H, Editor, Annual Plant Reviews, Nitrogen Metabolism in Plants in the Post-genomic Era, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–40. |
[81] |
Hawkins HJ, George H (2001) Reduces 15N-nitrogen transport through arbuscular hyphae to Triticum aestivum L supplied with ammonium vs. nitrate nutrition. Ann Bot 87: 303–311. doi: 10.1006/anbo.2000.1305
![]() |
[82] | Mantelin S, Touraine B (2004) Plant growth promoting bacteria and nitrate availability: impacts on root development and nitrate uptake. J Exp Bot 394: 27–34. |
[83] |
Cacco G, Attina E, Gelsomino A, et al. (2000) Effect of nitrate and humic substances of different molecular size on kinetic parameters of nitrate uptake in wheat seedlings. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 163: 313–320. doi: 10.1002/1522-2624(200006)163:3<313::AID-JPLN313>3.0.CO;2-U
![]() |
[84] |
Abenavoli MR, De Santis CD, Sidari M, et al. (2001) Influence of coumarin on the net nitrate uptake in durum wheat. New Phytol 150: 619–627. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00119.x
![]() |
[85] | Bloom AJ, Burger M, Kimball BA, et al. (2014) Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field grown wheat. Nat Clim Chang 4: 477–480. |
[86] | Good AG, Shrawat AK, Muench, DG (2004) Can less yield more? Is reducing nutrient input into the environment compatible with maintaining crop production? Trends Plant Sci 9: 597–605. |
[87] |
Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Li YC (2008) The role of nutrient efficient plants in improving crop yields in the twenty first century. J Plant Nutr 31: 1121–1157. doi: 10.1080/01904160802116068
![]() |
[88] | Giuliani MM, Giuzio L, De Caro A, et al. (2011a) Relationships between nitrogen utilization and grain technological quality in durum wheat. I. Nitrogen translocation and nitrogen use efficiency for protein. Agron J 103: 1487–1494. |
[89] | Giuliani MM, Giuzio L, De Caro A, et al. (2011b) Relationships between nitrogen utilization and grain technological quality in durum wheat. II. Grain yield and quality. Agron J 103: 1668–1675. |
[90] | Wu H, Haig T, Pratley J, et al. (2001) Allelochemicals in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): cultivar difference in the exudation of phenolic acids. J Agric Food Chem 49: 3742–3745. |
[91] |
Germida J, Siciliano S (2001) Taxonomic diversity of bacteria associated with the roots of modern, recent and ancient wheat cultivars. Biol Fertil Soils 33: 410–415. doi: 10.1007/s003740100343
![]() |
[92] |
Cheng W, Johnson DW, Fu S (2003) Rhizosphere effects on decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67: 1418–1427. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2003.1418
![]() |
[93] |
Hsu SF, Buckley DH (2009) Evidence for the functional significance of diazotroph community structure in soil. ISME J 3: 124–136. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2008.82
![]() |
[94] |
Nelson DR, Mele PM (2006) The impact of crop residue amendments and lime on microbial community structure and nitrogenfixing bacteria in the wheat rhizosphere. Soil Res 44: 319–329. doi: 10.1071/SR06022
![]() |
[95] |
Venieraki A, Dimou M, Pergalis P, et al. (2011) The genetic diversity of culturable nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the rhizosphere of wheat. Microb Ecol 61: 277–285. doi: 10.1007/s00248-010-9747-x
![]() |
[96] | Behl RK, Ruppel S, Kothe E, et al. (2012) Wheat × Azotobacter × VA Mycorrhiza interactions towards plant nutrition and growth-a review. J Appl Bot Food Qual 81: 95–109. |
[97] |
Neiverth A, Delai S, Garcia DM, et al. (2014) Performance of different wheat genotypes inoculated with the plant growth promoting bacterium Herbaspirillum seropedicae. Eur J Soil Biol 64: 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2014.07.001
![]() |
[98] |
Perin L, Martínez-Aguilar L, Castro-González R, et al. (2006) Diazotrophic Burkholderia species associated with field-grown maize and sugarcane. Appl Environ Microbiol 72: 3103–3110. doi: 10.1128/AEM.72.5.3103-3110.2006
![]() |
[99] |
Reardon CL, Gollany HT, Wuest SB (2014) Diazotroph community structure and abundance in wheat-fallow and wheat-pea crop rotations. Soil Biol Biochem 69: 406–412. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.038
![]() |
[100] |
Coelho MRR, Marriel IE, Jenkins SN, et al. (2009) Molecular detection and quantification of nifH gene sequences in the rhizosphere of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) sown with two levels of nitrogen fertilizer. Appl Soil Ecol 42: 48–53. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.01.010
![]() |
[101] |
Christiansen-Weniger C, Groneman AF, van Veen JA (1992) Associative N2 fixation and root exudation of organic acids from wheat cultivars of different aluminium tolerance. Plant Soil 139: 167–174. doi: 10.1007/BF00009307
![]() |
[102] | Manske GGB, Behl RK, Luttger AB, et al. (2000) Enhancement of mycorrhizal infection, nutrient efficiency and plant growth by Azotobacter in wheat: evidence of varietal effects, In: Narula N, Editors, Azotobacter in Sustainable Agriculture, New Delhi: CBS Publishers, 136-147. |
[103] | Combes-Meynet E, Pothier JF, Moënne-Loccoz Y, et al. (2011) The Pseudomonas secondary metabolite 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol is a signal inducing rhizoplane expression of Azospirillum genes involved in plant-growth promotion. Mol Plant Microbe In 24: 271–284. |
[104] |
Baldani JI, Baldani VLD (2005) History on the biological nitrogen fixation research in graminaceous plants: special emphasis on the Brazilian experience. An Acad Bras Ciênc 77: 549–579. doi: 10.1590/S0001-37652005000300014
![]() |
[105] | Cassán F, Perrig D, Sgroy V, et al. (2009) Azospirillum brasilense Az39 and Bradyrhizobium japonicum E109, inoculated singly or in combination, promote seed germination and early seedling growth in corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.). Eur J Soil Biol 45: 28–35. |
[106] |
Moubayidin L, Di Mambro R, Sabatini S (2009) Cytokinin-auxin crosstalk. Trends Plant Sci 14: 557–562. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.06.010
![]() |
[107] | Cohen AC, Bottini R, Piccoli PN (2008) Azospirillum brasilense Sp 245 produces ABA in chemically-defined culture medium and increases ABA content in arabidopsis plants. Plant Growth Regul 54: 97–103. |
[108] |
Upadhyay SK, Singh DP, Saikia R (2009) Genetic diversity of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated from rhizospheric soil of wheat under saline condition. Curr Microbiol 59: 489–496. doi: 10.1007/s00284-009-9464-1
![]() |
[109] | Graham JH, Linderman RG (1980) Ethylene production by ectomycorrhizal fungi, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. pini, and by aseptically synthesized ectomycorrhizae and Fusarium-infected Douglas-fir roots. Can J Microbiol 26: 1340–1347. |
[110] |
Prigent-Combaret C, Blaha D, Pothier JF, et al. (2008) Physical organization and phylogenetic analysis of acdR as leucine-responsive regulator of the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase gene acdS in phytobeneficial Azospirillum lipoferum 4B and other Proteobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 65: 202–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00474.x
![]() |
[111] |
Bertrand H, Plassard C, Pinochet X, et al. (2000) Stimulation of the ionic transport system in Brassica napus by a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium (Achromobacter sp.). Can J Microbiol 46: 229–236. doi: 10.1139/cjm-46-3-229
![]() |
[112] |
Mantelin S, Desbrosses G, Larcher M, et al. (2006) Nitrate-dependent control of root architecture and N nutrition are altered by a plant growth-promoting Phyllobacterium sp. Planta 223: 591–603. doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-0106-y
![]() |
1. | Qiangqiang Xiong, Jinlong Hu, Haiyan Wei, Hongcheng Zhang, Jinyan Zhu, Relationship between Plant Roots, Rhizosphere Microorganisms, and Nitrogen and Its Special Focus on Rice, 2021, 11, 2077-0472, 234, 10.3390/agriculture11030234 | |
2. | Mariagrazia P. Cataldi, Sigrid Heuer, Tim H. Mauchline, Mark D. Wilkinson, Emily Masters-Clark, Nilde A. Di Benedetto, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Zina Flagella, Effect of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria on the Growth of Wheat Seedlings Subjected to Phosphate Starvation, 2020, 10, 2073-4395, 978, 10.3390/agronomy10070978 | |
3. | Umar Daraz, Yang Li, Qingye Sun, Mingzhu Zhang, Iftikhar Ahmad, Inoculation of Bacillus spp. Modulate the soil bacterial communities and available nutrients in the rhizosphere of vetiver plant irrigated with acid mine drainage, 2021, 263, 00456535, 128345, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128345 | |
4. | Oksana Lastochkina, 2019, Chapter 6, 978-3-030-15174-4, 97, 10.1007/978-3-030-15175-1_6 | |
5. | Valliappan Karuppiah, Yaqian Li, Jianan Sun, Murugappan Vallikkannu, Jie Chen, Vel1 regulates the growth of Trichoderma atroviride during co-cultivation with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and is essential for wheat root rot control, 2020, 151, 10499644, 104374, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104374 | |
6. | O. Lastochkina, S. Aliniaeifard, M. Seifikalhor, R. Yuldashev, L. Pusenkova, S. Garipova, 2019, Chapter 23, 978-981-13-6882-0, 579, 10.1007/978-981-13-6883-7_23 | |
7. | Rachael E. Antwis, Ellen L. Fry, Chloë E. James, Natalie Ferry, 2020, Chapter Nine, 9781108654418, 182, 10.1017/9781108654418.009 | |
8. | Umme Aminun Naher, Jatish Chandra Biswas, Md. Maniruzzaman, Faruk Hossain Khan, Md. Imran Ullah Sarkar, Afsana Jahan, Md. Hasibur Rahaman Hera, Md. Belal Hossain, Aminul Islam, Md. Rafiqul Islam, Md. Shahjahan Kabir, Bio-Organic Fertilizer: A Green Technology to Reduce Synthetic N and P Fertilizer for Rice Production, 2021, 12, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2021.602052 | |
9. | Ayesha MUSTAFA, Muhammad IMRAN, Muhammad ASHRAF, Khalid MAHMOOD, Perspectives of Using L-Tryptophan for Improving Productivity of Agricultural Crops: A Review, 2018, 28, 10020160, 16, 10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60002-5 | |
10. | Nilde Antonella Di Benedetto, Daniela Campaniello, Antonio Bevilacqua, Mariagrazia Pia Cataldi, Milena Sinigaglia, Zina Flagella, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Isolation, Screening, and Characterization of Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria from Durum Wheat Rhizosphere to Improve N and P Nutrient Use Efficiency, 2019, 7, 2076-2607, 541, 10.3390/microorganisms7110541 | |
11. | Zipora Tietel, Ella Simhon, Kelem Gashu, Devanesan Arul Ananth, Betty Schwartz, Yehoshua Saranga, Uri Yermiyahu, Nitrogen availability and genotype affect major nutritional quality parameters of tef grain grown under irrigation, 2020, 10, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-020-71299-x | |
12. | Giancarlo Pagnani, Angelica Galieni, Fabio Stagnari, Marika Pellegrini, Maddalena Del Gallo, Michele Pisante, Open field inoculation with PGPR as a strategy to manage fertilization of ancient Triticum genotypes, 2020, 56, 0178-2762, 111, 10.1007/s00374-019-01407-1 | |
13. | Yueyue Li, Min Zhao, Wenwen Chen, Hongyi Du, Xiaodong Xie, Daibin Wang, Ya Dai, Qingyou Xia, Genhong Wang, Comparative transcriptomic analysis reveals that multiple hormone signal transduction and carbohydrate metabolic pathways are affected by Bacillus cereus in Nicotiana tabacum, 2020, 112, 08887543, 4254, 10.1016/j.ygeno.2020.07.022 | |
14. | Alemayehu Getahun, Diriba Muleta, Fassil Assefa, Solomon Kiros, 2019, Chapter 7, 978-981-13-8800-2, 147, 10.1007/978-981-13-8801-9_7 | |
15. | Simin Irankhah, Ali Ganjeali, Mansour Mashreghi, Zahra Lari, Mixed inoculum of rhizobacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus enhance diosgenin contain and phosphorus uptake in Fenugreek under drought stress, 2021, 24522198, 100338, 10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100338 | |
16. | Oluwaseyi Samuel Olanrewaju, Ayansina Segun Ayangbenro, Bernard R. Glick, Olubukola Oluranti Babalola, Plant health: feedback effect of root exudates-rhizobiome interactions, 2019, 103, 0175-7598, 1155, 10.1007/s00253-018-9556-6 | |
17. | Becky Nancy Aloo, Vishal Tripathi, Ernest R. Mbega, Billy A. Makumba, 2021, Chapter 12, 978-3-030-65446-7, 267, 10.1007/978-3-030-65447-4_12 | |
18. | Alexander Calero Hurtado, Yanery Pérez Díaz, Dilier Olivera Viciedo, Elieni Quintero Rodríguez, Kolima Peña Calzada, Luke Leroy Theodore Nedd, Janet Jiménez Hernández, Effect of different application forms of efficient microorganisms on the agricultural productive of two bean cultivars, 2019, 72, 2248-7026, 8927, 10.15446/rfnam.v72n3.76272 | |
19. | Baby Kumari, Anjali Chandrol Solanki, M.A. Mallick, 2021, 9780128197158, 429, 10.1016/B978-0-12-819715-8.00015-X | |
20. | Kanika Khanna, Dhriti Kapoor, Priyanka Sharma, Palak Bakshi, Pooja Sharma, Poonam Saini, Puja Ohri, Bilal Ahmad Mir, Rupinder Kaur, Renu Bhardwaj, 2020, Chapter 26, 978-981-15-2155-3, 717, 10.1007/978-981-15-2156-0_26 | |
21. | Bakari Chaka, Wyclife Olal, Aloys Osano, Evans Suter, Martin Magu, Abdallah Marjan, Moses Kehongo, Geoffrey Mwendwa, The influence of Bomet red rock powder on composite organic fertilizers prepared from Tithonia diversifolia leaves and Musa acuminata (banana) stalks, 2020, 43, 0190-4167, 2685, 10.1080/01904167.2020.1793178 | |
22. | Aisha Sumbul, Rizwan Ali Ansari, Rose Rizvi, Irshad Mahmood, Azotobacter: A potential bio-fertilizer for soil and plant health management, 2020, 27, 1319562X, 3634, 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.08.004 | |
23. | Satyavir S. Sindhu, Ruchi Sharma, Swati Sindhu, Anju Sehrawat, 2019, Chapter 7, 978-981-13-5903-3, 101, 10.1007/978-981-13-5904-0_7 | |
24. | Sanjana Kaul, Suruchi Gupta, Tanwi Sharma, Manoj K. Dhar, 2018, Chapter 14, 978-3-319-75909-8, 341, 10.1007/978-3-319-75910-4_14 | |
25. | Rimsha Zainab, Ghulam Mujtaba Shah, Waqar Khan, Ayaz Mehmood, Rashid Azad, Khurram Shahzad, Zahid Hussain Shah, Fahad Alghabari, Tariq Sultan, Gyuhwa Chung, Efficiency of plant growth promoting bacteria for growth and yield enhancement of maize (Zea mays) isolated from rock phosphate reserve area Hazara Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, 2021, 1319562X, 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.01.025 | |
26. | Jana Fahrion, Carina Fink, Paul Zabel, Daniel Schubert, Mohamed Mysara, Rob Van Houdt, Bernhard Eikmanns, Kristina Beblo-Vranesevic, Petra Rettberg, Microbial Monitoring in the EDEN ISS Greenhouse, a Mobile Test Facility in Antarctica, 2020, 11, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00525 | |
27. | Douglas Mariani Zeffa, Luiz Júnior Perini, Mayara Barbosa Silva, Nicholas Vieira de Sousa, Carlos Alberto Scapim, André Luiz Martinez de Oliveira, Antônio Teixeira do Amaral Júnior, Leandro Simões Azeredo Gonçalves, P. Pardha-Saradhi, Azospirillum brasilense promotes increases in growth and nitrogen use efficiency of maize genotypes, 2019, 14, 1932-6203, e0215332, 10.1371/journal.pone.0215332 | |
28. | Vladimir Gorshkov, Elena Osipova, Mira Ponomareva, Sergey Ponomarev, Natalia Gogoleva, Olga Petrova, Olga Gogoleva, Azat Meshcherov, Alexander Balkin, Elena Vetchinkina, Kim Potapov, Yuri Gogolev, Viktor Korzun, Rye Snow Mold-Associated Microdochium nivale Strains Inhabiting a Common Area: Variability in Genetics, Morphotype, Extracellular Enzymatic Activities, and Virulence, 2020, 6, 2309-608X, 335, 10.3390/jof6040335 | |
29. | Akanksha Singh, Rupesh Chaubey, Stuti Srivastava, Sumit Kushwaha, Rakesh Pandey, 2021, Chapter 16, 978-981-15-6274-7, 343, 10.1007/978-981-15-6275-4_16 | |
30. | Zerihun T. Dame, Mahfuz Rahman, Tofazzal Islam, Bacilli as sources of agrobiotechnology: recent advances and future directions, 2021, 14, 1751-8253, 245, 10.1080/17518253.2021.1905080 | |
31. | Muthuraja Raji, Muthukumar Thangavelu, Isolation and screening of potassium solubilizing bacteria from saxicolous habitat and their impact on tomato growth in different soil types, 2021, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-021-02284-9 | |
32. | Umair Riaz, Laila Shahzad, Wajiha Anum, Anam Waheed, 2021, chapter 5, 9781799870623, 135, 10.4018/978-1-7998-7062-3.ch005 | |
33. | Shraddha Gang, Sheetal Sharma, Meenu Saraf, Martin Buck, Jorg Schumacher, Bacterial Indole-3-Acetic Acid Influences Soil Nitrogen Acquisition in Barley and Chickpea, 2021, 10, 2223-7747, 780, 10.3390/plants10040780 | |
34. | Arkadiusz Stępień, Katarzyna Wojtkowiak, Ewelina Kolankowska, Effect of Commercial Microbial Preparations Containing Paenibacillus azotofixans, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus subtilis on the Yield and Photosynthesis of Winter Wheat and the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Content in the Soil, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 12541, 10.3390/app122412541 | |
35. | Charles Oluwaseun Adetunji, Osikemekha Anthony Anani, Olugbemi T. Olaniyan, Abel Inobeme, Frances N. Olisaka, Eseosa Oluwadamilare Uwadiae, Omoregbe Nosa Obayagbona, 2021, Chapter 20, 978-981-16-2921-1, 507, 10.1007/978-981-16-2922-8_20 | |
36. | Anmol Gupta, Richa Mishra, Smita Rai, Ambreen Bano, Neelam Pathak, Masayuki Fujita, Manoj Kumar, Mirza Hasanuzzaman, Mechanistic Insights of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria Mediated Drought and Salt Stress Tolerance in Plants for Sustainable Agriculture, 2022, 23, 1422-0067, 3741, 10.3390/ijms23073741 | |
37. | Pragya Tiwari, Subir Kumar Bose, Hanhong Bae, 2021, Chapter 1, 978-3-030-73506-7, 1, 10.1007/978-3-030-73507-4_1 | |
38. | Michal Styczynski, Gabriel Biegniewski, Przemyslaw Decewicz, Bartosz Rewerski, Klaudia Debiec-Andrzejewska, Lukasz Dziewit, Application of Psychrotolerant Antarctic Bacteria and Their Metabolites as Efficient Plant Growth Promoting Agents, 2022, 10, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2022.772891 | |
39. | Federica Massa, Roberto Defez, Carmen Bianco, Exploitation of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria for Sustainable Agriculture: Hierarchical Approach to Link Laboratory and Field Experiments, 2022, 10, 2076-2607, 865, 10.3390/microorganisms10050865 | |
40. | Magdalena Anna Karaś, Sylwia Wdowiak-Wróbel, Wojciech Sokołowski, Selection of Endophytic Strains for Enhanced Bacteria-Assisted Phytoremediation of Organic Pollutants Posing a Public Health Hazard, 2021, 22, 1422-0067, 9557, 10.3390/ijms22179557 | |
41. | Salmina N. Mokgehle, Hintsa T. Araya, Nadia A. Araya, Michael W. Bairu, Manaka J. Makgato, Motiki M. Mofokeng, Phomolo Maphothoma, Christian P. du Plooy, Stephen O. Amoo, 2021, 9780128230480, 237, 10.1016/B978-0-12-823048-0.00001-0 | |
42. | Paola Ganugi, Andrea Fiorini, Gabriele Rocchetti, Paolo Bonini, Vincenzo Tabaglio, Luigi Lucini, A response surface methodology approach to improve nitrogen use efficiency in maize by an optimal mycorrhiza-to-Bacillus co-inoculation rate, 2022, 13, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2022.956391 | |
43. | Silvina Brambilla, Margarita Stritzler, Gabriela Soto, Nicolas Ayub, A synthesis of functional contributions of rhizobacteria to growth promotion in diverse crops, 2022, 24, 24522198, 100611, 10.1016/j.rhisph.2022.100611 | |
44. | Parul Chaudhary, Heena Parveen, Saurabh Gangola, Govind Kumar, Pankaj Bhatt, Anuj Chaudhary, 2021, Chapter 13, 978-981-16-3839-8, 217, 10.1007/978-981-16-3840-4_13 | |
45. | Azadeh Jamalzadeh, Mostafa Darvishnia, Gholam Khodakaramian, Doostmorad Zafari, Eydi Bazgir, Effect of antagonistic bacteria associated with canola on disease suppression, 2023, 0929-1873, 10.1007/s10658-022-02633-4 | |
46. | Aline Figueiredo Cardoso, Ediane Conceição Alves, Sidney D. Araújo da Costa, Alessandra Jackeline Guedes de Moraes, Dalton Dias da Silva Júnior, Paulo Manoel Pontes Lins, Gisele Barata da Silva, Bacillus cereus Improves Performance of Brazilian Green Dwarf Coconut Palms Seedlings With Reduced Chemical Fertilization, 2021, 12, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2021.649487 | |
47. | Wenjing Li, Yan Li, Jie Lv, Xuemin He, Jinlong Wang, Dexiong Teng, Lamei Jiang, Hengfang Wang, Guanghui Lv, Rhizosphere effect alters the soil microbiome composition and C, N transformation in an arid ecosystem, 2022, 170, 09291393, 104296, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.104296 | |
48. | Dwaipayan Sinha, Satarupa Dey, Anjana Singh, 2022, Chapter 14, 978-3-031-08829-2, 297, 10.1007/978-3-031-08830-8_14 | |
49. | Vitaliy V. Volkogon, Lyudmyla V. Potapenko, Mykola V. Volkogon, Vertical migration of nutrients and water-soluble organic matter in the soil profile under pre-sowing seed treatment with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, 2023, 6, 2571-581X, 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1054113 | |
50. | Arshad Jalal, Carlos Eduardo da Silva Oliveira, Andréa de Castro Bastos, Guilherme Carlos Fernandes, Bruno Horschut de Lima, Enes Furlani Junior, Pedro Henrique Gomes de Carvalho, Fernando Shintate Galindo, Isabela Martins Bueno Gato, Marcelo Carvalho Minhoto Teixeira Filho, Nanozinc and plant growth-promoting bacteria improve biochemical and metabolic attributes of maize in tropical Cerrado, 2023, 13, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2022.1046642 | |
51. | Mingma Thundu Sherpa, Niladri Bag, Sayak Das, Paolenmang Haokip, Laxuman Sharma, Isolation and characterization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated from organically grown high yielding pole type native pea (Pisum sativum L.) variety Dentami of Sikkim, India, 2021, 2, 26665174, 100068, 10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100068 | |
52. | Suman Chaudhary, Satyavir Singh Sindhu, Rinku Dhanker, Anju Kumari, Microbes-mediated sulphur cycling in soil: Impact on soil fertility, crop production and environmental sustainability, 2023, 09445013, 127340, 10.1016/j.micres.2023.127340 | |
53. | Galina V. Mirskaya, Yuriy V. Khomyakov, Nataliya A. Rushina, Vitaliy E. Vertebny, Elena P. Chizhevskaya, Vladimir K. Chebotar, Yuriy V. Chesnokov, Veronika N. Pishchik, Plant Development of Early-Maturing Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Inoculation with Bacillus sp. V2026, 2022, 11, 2223-7747, 1817, 10.3390/plants11141817 | |
54. | Saba Azeem, Syed Inayatullah Agha, Neelam Jamil, Bushra Tabassum, Shan Ahmed, Asif Raheem, Nusrat Jahan, Niaz Ali, Anwar Khan, Characterization and survival of broad-spectrum biocontrol agents against phytopathogenic fungi, 2022, 54, 03257541, 233, 10.1016/j.ram.2021.10.005 | |
55. | B. N. Aloo, E. R. Mbega, J. B. Tumuhairwe, B. A. Makumba, Advancement and practical applications of rhizobacterial biofertilizers for sustainable crop production in sub-Saharan Africa, 2021, 10, 2048-7010, 10.1186/s40066-021-00333-6 | |
56. | Becky Nancy Aloo, Ernest Rashid Mbega, Billy Amendi Makumba, John Baptist Tumuhairwe, Effects of Carrier Materials and Storage Temperatures on the Viability and Stability of Three Biofertilizer Inoculants Obtained from Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Rhizosphere, 2022, 12, 2077-0472, 140, 10.3390/agriculture12020140 | |
57. | Soumyadev Sarkar, Abigail Kamke, Kaitlyn Ward, Eli Hartung, Qinghong Ran, Brandi Feehan, Matthew Galliart, Ari Jumpponen, Loretta Johnson, Sonny T.M. Lee, Pseudomonas cultivated from Andropogon gerardii rhizosphere show functional potential for promoting plant host growth and drought resilience, 2022, 23, 1471-2164, 10.1186/s12864-022-09019-0 | |
58. | Danka Radić, Vera Karličić, Jelena Đorđević, Jelena Jovičić-Petrović, Igor Kljujev, Blažo Lalević, Vera Raičević, Soil yeasts promoting plant growth: benefits for the development of common wheat and white mustard, 2022, 109, 1392-3196, 27, 10.13080/z-a.2022.109.004 | |
59. | Ziliang Zhang, Bhupinder Singh Jatana, Barbara J. Campbell, Jasmine Gill, Vidya Suseela, Nishanth Tharayil, Cross‐inoculation of rhizobiome from a congeneric ruderal plant imparts drought tolerance in maize ( Zea mays ) through changes in root morphology and proteome , 2022, 111, 0960-7412, 54, 10.1111/tpj.15775 | |
60. | Mario Hernández-Guzmán, Valentín Pérez-Hernández, Yendi E. Navarro-Noya, Marco L. Luna-Guido, Nele Verhulst, Bram Govaerts, Luc Dendooven, Application of ammonium to a N limited arable soil enriches a succession of bacteria typically found in the rhizosphere, 2022, 12, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-022-07623-4 | |
61. | D. T. Nagrale, A. Chaurasia, S. Kumar, S. P. Gawande, N. S. Hiremani, Raja Shankar, N. Gokte-Narkhedkar, Y. G. Prasad, PGPR: the treasure of multifarious beneficial microorganisms for nutrient mobilization, pest biocontrol and plant growth promotion in field crops, 2023, 39, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-023-03536-0 | |
62. | Priya Mishra, Ankita Bhattacharya, Priyanka Verma, Chanda Bharti, Naveen Kumar Arora, 2022, Chapter 6, 978-981-16-4842-7, 205, 10.1007/978-981-16-4843-4_6 | |
63. | Oksana Lastochkina, Sasan Aliniaeifard, Darya Garshina, Svetlana Garipova, Liudmila Pusenkova, Chulpan Allagulova, Kristina Fedorova, Andrey Baymiev, Igor Koryakov, Mohammadhadi Sobhani, Seed priming with endophytic Bacillus subtilis strain-specifically improves growth of Phaseolus vulgaris plants under normal and salinity conditions and exerts anti-stress effect through induced lignin deposition in roots and decreased oxidative and osmotic damages, 2021, 263, 01761617, 153462, 10.1016/j.jplph.2021.153462 | |
64. | Theerthankar Das, Brandon C. Young, 2022, Chapter 1, 978-1-80355-795-3, 10.5772/intechopen.106775 | |
65. | Christopher R. Dumigan, Jade Muileboom, Jake Gregory, Anuja Shrestha, Omar A. Hewedy, Manish N. Raizada, Ancient Relatives of Modern Maize From the Center of Maize Domestication and Diversification Host Endophytic Bacteria That Confer Tolerance to Nitrogen Starvation, 2021, 12, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2021.660673 | |
66. | T. G. Weldmichael, D. Márton, B. Simon, E. Michéli, G. T. Reda, F. Adiyah, M. Cserháti, Bacterial Community Characterization and Microbial Respiration of Selected Arable Soils of Ethiopia, 2021, 54, 1064-2293, 1921, 10.1134/S1064229321120140 | |
67. | Ângela Fernandes, Christina Chaski, Carla Pereira, Marina Kostić, Youssef Rouphael, Marina Soković, Lillian Barros, Spyridon A. Petropoulos, Water Stress Alleviation Effects of Biostimulants on Greenhouse-Grown Tomato Fruit, 2022, 8, 2311-7524, 645, 10.3390/horticulturae8070645 | |
68. | Oksana Lastochkina, Sergey Ivanov, Svetlana Petrova, Darya Garshina, Alsu Lubyanova, Ruslan Yuldashev, Bulat Kuluev, Evgenia Zaikina, Dilara Maslennikova, Chulpan Allagulova, Irina Avtushenko, Albina Yakupova, Rashit Farkhutdinov, Role of Endogenous Salicylic Acid as a Hormonal Intermediate in the Bacterial Endophyte Bacillus subtilis-Induced Protection of Wheat Genotypes Contrasting in Drought Susceptibility under Dehydration, 2022, 11, 2223-7747, 3365, 10.3390/plants11233365 | |
69. | Angelica Mendoza Beltran, Claus Nordstrøm Scheel, Nuala Fitton, Jannick Schmidt, Jesper Hedal Kløverpris, Assessing life cycle environmental impacts of inoculating soybeans in Argentina with Bradyrhizobium japonicum, 2021, 26, 0948-3349, 1570, 10.1007/s11367-021-01929-7 | |
70. | Kalaivani K. Nadarajah, 2022, Chapter 1, 978-981-16-8917-8, 1, 10.1007/978-981-16-8918-5_1 | |
71. | Jun Haeng Nam, Alyssa Thibodeau, Yanping L. Qian, Michael C. Qian, Si Hong Park, Multidisciplinary evaluation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on soil microbiome and strawberry quality, 2023, 13, 2191-0855, 10.1186/s13568-023-01524-z | |
72. | Mahfuz Rahman, Md Nur Alam Miah, Whitney Dudding, 2022, Chapter 8, 978-3-030-85464-5, 169, 10.1007/978-3-030-85465-2_8 | |
73. | Abbas Soleymanifard, Mani Mojaddam, Shahram Lack, Mojtaba Alavifazel, Effect of Azotobacter Chroococcum and Nitrogen Fertilization on Some Morphophysiological Traits, Grain Yield, and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Safflower Genotypes in Rainfed Conditions, 2022, 53, 0010-3624, 773, 10.1080/00103624.2022.2028815 | |
74. | Fernanda Plucani do Amaral, Juexin Wang, Jacob Williams, Thalita R. Tuleski, Trupti Joshi, Marco A. R. Ferreira, Gary Stacey, Mapping Genetic Variation in Arabidopsis in Response to Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterium Azoarcus olearius DQS-4T, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 331, 10.3390/microorganisms11020331 | |
75. | Yu Zhao, Sicen Liu, Bing He, Min Sun, Jishou Li, Rong Peng, Liangliang Sun, Xiaopeng Wang, Youpeng Cai, Hehe Wang, Xueqing Geng, Phosphate-solubilising bacteria promote horticultural plant growth through phosphate solubilisation and phytohormone regulation, 2022, 0114-0671, 1, 10.1080/01140671.2022.2103156 | |
76. | Jaya Gangwar, Joseph Kadanthottu Sebastian, Juhi Puthukulangara Jaison, Jissa Theresa Kurian, Nano-technological interventions in crop production—a review, 2023, 29, 0971-5894, 93, 10.1007/s12298-022-01274-5 | |
77. | Shalja Verma, Anand Kumar Pandey, 2022, 9780323855778, 435, 10.1016/B978-0-323-85577-8.00022-6 | |
78. | Vanja Vlajkov, Ivana Pajčin, Snežana Vučetić, Stefan Anđelić, Marta Loc, Mila Grahovac, Jovana Grahovac, Bacillus-Loaded Biochar as Soil Amendment for Improved Germination of Maize Seeds, 2023, 12, 2223-7747, 1024, 10.3390/plants12051024 | |
79. | Gulcin Sevim, Fadime Ozdemir-Kocak, Dilek Unal, 2023, 9780323918831, 187, 10.1016/B978-0-323-91883-1.00013-9 | |
80. | Rubén Bottini, Federico J. Berli, M. Victoria Salomon, Patricia N. Piccoli, 2023, Chapter 5, 978-981-19-9569-9, 75, 10.1007/978-981-19-9570-5_5 | |
81. | O. V. Lastochkina, Ch. R. Allagulova, The Mechanisms of the Growth Promotion and Protective Effects of Endophytic PGP Bacteria in Wheat Plants Under the Impact of Drought (Review), 2023, 59, 0003-6838, 14, 10.1134/S0003683823010039 | |
82. | Hassan Etesami, Byoung Ryong Jeong, Bernard R. Glick, Potential use of Bacillus spp. as an effective biostimulant against abiotic stresses in crops—A review, 2023, 25902628, 100128, 10.1016/j.crbiot.2023.100128 | |
83. | Waqas Mohy-Ud-Din, Muhammad Javed Akhtar, Safdar Bashir, Hafiz Naeem Asghar, Muhammad Farrakh Nawaz, Feng Chen, Isolation of Glyphosate-Resistant Bacterial Strains to Improve the Growth of Maize and Degrade Glyphosate under Axenic Condition, 2023, 13, 2077-0472, 886, 10.3390/agriculture13040886 | |
84. | Oksana Lastochkina, Albina Yakupova, Irina Avtushenko, Artem Lastochkin, Ruslan Yuldashev, Effect of Seed Priming with Endophytic Bacillus subtilis on Some Physio-Biochemical Parameters of Two Wheat Varieties Exposed to Drought after Selective Herbicide Application, 2023, 12, 2223-7747, 1724, 10.3390/plants12081724 | |
85. | Rafael Massahiro Yassue, Giovanni Galli, Chun‐Peng James Chen, Roberto Fritsche‐Neto, Gota Morota, Genome‐wide association analysis of hyperspectral reflectance data to dissect the genetic architecture of growth‐related traits in maize under plant growth‐promoting bacteria inoculation, 2023, 7, 2475-4455, 10.1002/pld3.492 | |
86. | Murugan Kumar, Waquar Akhter Ansari, Mohammad Tarique Zeyad, Arjun Singh, Hillol Chakdar, Adarsh Kumar, Mohammad Samir Farooqi, Anu Sharma, Sudhir Srivastava, Alok Kumar Srivastava, Core microbiota of wheat rhizosphere under Upper Indo-Gangetic plains and their response to soil physicochemical properties, 2023, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1186162 | |
87. | Joaquin Gomis‐Cebolla, Colin Berry, Bacillus thuringiensis as a biofertilizer in crops and their implications in the control of phytopathogens and insect pests, 2023, 1526-498X, 10.1002/ps.7560 | |
88. | O. V. Lastochkina, S. R. Garipova, L. I. Pusenkova, D. Yu. Garshina, An. Kh. Baymiev, I. S. Koryakov, Effect of Endophytic Bacteria Bacillus subtilis on Seedling Growth and Root Lignification of Pisum sativum L. under Normal and Sodium Chloride Salt Conditions, 2023, 70, 1021-4437, 10.1134/S102144372360085X | |
89. | Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Sushil K. Sharma, Ajit Varma, Udai B. Singh, Adarsh Kumar, Ingudam Bhupenchandra, Jai P. Rai, Pawan K. Sharma, Harsh V. Singh, Zinc-solubilizing Bacillus spp. in conjunction with chemical fertilizers enhance growth, yield, nutrient content, and zinc biofortification in wheat crop, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1210938 | |
90. | Upasna Chettry, Sunita Upadhaya, Amilia Nongbet, Nikhil Kumar Chrungoo, S. R. Joshi, 2023, Chapter 8, 978-981-99-2815-6, 243, 10.1007/978-981-99-2816-3_8 | |
91. | Sameh H Youseif, Fayrouz H Abd El-Megeed, Mousa S Salous, Akram H Mohamed, Streptomyces biostimulants: an effective sustainable approach to reduce inorganic N input and maintain high yield of wheat crop in different soil types, 2023, 134, 1365-2672, 10.1093/jambio/lxad156 | |
92. | Israr Asghar, Maqsood Ahmed, Muhammad Ansar Farooq, Muhammad Ishtiaq, Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Akram, Adnan Umair, Abdulwahed Fahad Alrefaei, Muhammad Yousuf Jat Baloch, Aamna Naeem, Characterizing indigenous plant growth promoting bacteria and their synergistic effects with organic and chemical fertilizers on wheat (Triticum aestivum), 2023, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1232271 | |
93. | Lingjian Wang, Xinggang Tang, Xin Liu, Jinchi Zhang, Active permanent greening – a new slope greening technology based on mineral solubilizing microorganisms, 2023, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1219139 | |
94. | Jiayu Li, Juntao Wang, Hongwei Liu, Catriona A. Macdonald, Brajesh K. Singh, Microbial inoculants with higher capacity to colonize soils improved wheat drought tolerance, 2023, 16, 1751-7915, 2131, 10.1111/1751-7915.14350 | |
95. | Dibya Jyoti Hazarika, Sudipta Sankar Bora, Romen Singh Naorem, Darshana Sharma, Robin Chandra Boro, Madhumita Barooah, Genomic insights into Bacillus subtilis MBB3B9 mediated aluminium stress mitigation for enhanced rice growth, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-42804-9 | |
96. | Sekar Hamsa, Ruby Tiwari, Chanderkant Chaudhary, 2023, 9789815124033, 293, 10.2174/9789815124033123010019 | |
97. | Mingzheng Duan, Chengcui Yang, Liuyuan Bao, Duo Han, Huaizheng Wang, Yongzhi Zhang, Honggao Liu, Shunqiang Yang, Morchella esculenta cultivation in fallow paddy fields and drylands affects the diversity of soil bacteria and soil chemical properties, 2023, 14, 1664-8021, 10.3389/fgene.2023.1251695 | |
98. | Muazu Issifu, Labode Hospice Stevenson Naitchede, Elijah Miinda Ateka, Justus Onguso, Victoria Wambui Ngumi, Synergistic effects of substrate inoculation with Pseudomonas strains on tomato phenology, yield, and selected human health‐related phytochemical compounds, 2023, 6, 2639-6696, 10.1002/agg2.20435 | |
99. | Ankita Kumari, Archana Kumari, Himanshu Sharma, Priyanka Sharma, Sayan Bhattacharya, Tulika Mishra, Abdel Rahman Al-Tawaha, Milan Kumar Lal, Rahul Kumar Tiwari, Sayanti Mandal, Abhijit Dey, 2023, Chapter 4, 978-3-031-43728-1, 69, 10.1007/978-3-031-43729-8_4 | |
100. | Neha Sharma, Sandeep Sharma, 2023, Chapter 11, 978-981-99-3105-7, 287, 10.1007/978-981-99-3106-4_11 | |
101. | Vladislava S. Maslennikova, Vera P. Tsvetkova, Evgenia V. Shelikhova, Marina P. Selyuk, Tatyana Y. Alikina, Marsel R. Kabilov, Ivan M. Dubovskiy, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Mix Suppresses Rhizoctonia Disease and Improves Rhizosphere Microbiome, Growth and Yield of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), 2023, 9, 2309-608X, 1142, 10.3390/jof9121142 | |
102. | Wogene Solomon, Lamnganbi Mutum, Mariann Rakszegi, Tibor Janda, Zoltán Molnár, Harnessing the Synergy of the Cyanobacteria-Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria for Improved Maize (Zea mays) Growth and Soil Health, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 16660, 10.3390/su152416660 | |
103. | María Carmen Piñero, Jacinta Collado-González, Ginés Otálora, Josefa López-Marín, Francisco M. del Amor, Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria for Aquaponics as a New Strategy That Grants Quality and Nutrient Efficiency in Kohlrabi Cultivation, 2023, 9, 2311-7524, 1299, 10.3390/horticulturae9121299 | |
104. | Fei Li, Kuanling Xi, Yuke Li, Tang Ming, Yufeng Huang, Lijun Zhang, Genome-wide analysis of transmembrane 9 superfamily genes in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and their expression in the roots under nitrogen limitation and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PDR1 treatment conditions, 2024, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1324974 | |
105. | Hassan Etesami, Bernard R. Glick, Bacterial indole-3-acetic acid: A key regulator for plant growth, plant-microbe interactions, and agricultural adaptive resilience, 2024, 09445013, 127602, 10.1016/j.micres.2024.127602 | |
106. | 2024, 9780443188558, 157, 10.1016/B978-0-443-18855-8.16001-1 | |
107. | Marcos Renan Lima Leite, Romário Martins Costa, Mayanna Karlla Lima Costa, Janderson Moura da Silva, Sandra Mara Barbosa Rocha, Rafael de Sousa Miranda, Francisco de Alcantara Neto, Elaine Martins Costa, Alexson Filgueiras Dutra, Erika Valente de Medeiros, Arthur Prudencio de Araujo Pereira, Lucas William Mendes, Ademir Sérgio Ferreira Araujo, Application of silicate changes the network complexity of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in the rhizosphere of sugarcane genotypes, 2024, 29, 24522198, 100855, 10.1016/j.rhisph.2024.100855 | |
108. | María M. Labarthe, Guillermo A. Maroniche, Lorenzo Lamattina, Cecilia M. Creus, Nitric oxide synthase expression in Pseudomonas koreensis MME3 improves plant growth promotion traits, 2024, 108, 0175-7598, 10.1007/s00253-024-13029-1 | |
109. | Seerat Saleem, Naveed Ul Mushtaq, Wasifa Hafiz Shah, Aadil Rasool, Reiaz Ul Rehman, 2024, 9780443151996, 275, 10.1016/B978-0-443-15199-6.00017-8 | |
110. | Zakaria Asbai, Fatimazahra Boutaleb, Fatima Ezzahra Doublali, Oumaima Mrabet, Meryem Hadidi, Bouchaib Bahlaouan, Said El Antri, Nadia Boutaleb, Sustainable approach for nutrient release control in organic fertilisers by using phosphogypsum, 2024, 0020-7233, 1, 10.1080/00207233.2024.2322882 | |
111. | Aline Cardozo Rosman, Maria Clara de Oliveira Urquiaga, Flávia Thiebaut, Helkin Giovani Forero Ballesteros, Eduardo Alves Gamosa de Oliveira, Adriana Silva Hemerly, Dual RNA-seq of maize and H. seropedicae ZAE94 association, in different doses of nitrate, reveals novel insights into Plant-PGPB-environment relationship, 2024, 15, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2024.1346523 | |
112. | Charu Singh, Abhishek Chauhan, Jayati Arora, Anuj Ranjan, Hardeep Singh Tuli, Moyad Shahwan, Vishnu D. Rajput, Tatiana Minkina, Sambasivan Venkat Eswaran, Tanu Jindal, Exploration and Profiling of Potential Thermo-alkaliphilic Bacillus licheniformis and Burkholderia sp. from varied Soil of Delhi region, India and their Plant Growth-Promoting Traits, 2024, 12, 2320-8694, 60, 10.18006/2024.12(1).60.75 | |
113. | Ahmad Nemati, Mohammad Ali Aboutalebian, Mehrdad Chaichi, Mitigating the effects of water-deficit stress on potato growth and photosynthesis using mycorrhizal fungi and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, 2024, 0021-8596, 1, 10.1017/S0021859624000169 | |
114. | Viabhav Kumar Upadhayay, Sergio de los Santos Villalobos, S. T. M. Aravindharajan, Bharti Kukreti, Manoj Kumar Chitara, Vandana Jaggi, Adita Sharma, Ajay Veer Singh, 2024, Chapter 5, 978-981-97-0632-7, 95, 10.1007/978-981-97-0633-4_5 | |
115. | О. V. Lastochkina, Ch. R. Allagulova, Mechanisms of Growth Promotional and Protective Effects of Endophytic PGP-Bacteria in Wheat Plants Under the Impact of Drought (Review), 2023, 59, 0555-1099, 17, 10.31857/S0555109923010038 | |
116. | Reshma Patil, Aizi Nor Mazila Ramli, Ang Shu Xuan, Ng Zhi Xin, Nur Izyan Wan Azelee, Prakash Bhuyar, Unlocking the growth potential: harnessing the power of synbiotics to enhance cultivation of Pleurotus spp., 2024, 25, 1673-1581, 293, 10.1631/jzus.B2300383 | |
117. | O. V. Lastochkina, S. R. Garipova, L. I. Pusenkova, D. Yu. Garshina, An. Kh. Baymiev, I. S. Koryakov, Effect of Endophytic Bacteria Bacillus subtilis on Seedling Growth and Root Lignification of Pisum sativum L. under Normal and Sodium Chloride Salt Conditions, 2023, 70, 0015-3303, 514, 10.31857/S0015330322600838 | |
118. | Gaurav Pal, Samiksha Saxena, Kanchan Kumar, Anand Verma, Deepak Kumar, Pooja Shukla, Ashutosh Pandey, James White, Satish K. Verma, Seed endophytic bacterium Lysinibacillus sp. (ZM1) from maize (Zea mays L.) shapes its root architecture through modulation of auxin biosynthesis and nitrogen metabolism, 2024, 212, 09819428, 108731, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.108731 | |
119. | Idriss Djoko Kouam, Laverdure Tchamani, Germain Ntsoli, Marie Amperes Bedine, Roland Wilfried Titti, Aoudou Yaouba, 2024, Effect of Different Carriers and Storage Temperatures on the Viability of Bacillus thuringiensis B9 and Bacillus pacificus B11 Isolated from Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Rhizosphere, 27, 10.3390/IOCAG2023-17337 | |
120. | Abdulazeez Muzemil, Abdulrasheed Buhari, Emerging techniques for manipulating endocrine function in animal production: A comprehensive review, 2024, 8, 2602-3490, 92, 10.30704/http-www-jivs-net.1426047 | |
121. | Shubhi Singh, Smriti Gaur, 2024, 9780443133183, 137, 10.1016/B978-0-443-13318-3.00018-5 | |
122. | Wogene Solomon, Tibor Janda, Zoltan Molnar, X. Feng, M. Khondker, Impact of the microalgae-bacteria interaction on maize (Zea mays L.) health and yield, 2024, 125, 2117-4458, 03004, 10.1051/bioconf/202412503004 | |
123. | Olga Maslovska, Solomiia Komplikevych, Iryna Danylo, Ivan Parnikoza, Svitlana Hnatush, Plant growth-promoting potential of bacterial isolates from the rhizosphere of Deschampsia antarctica, 2024, 22, 17277485, 63, 10.33275/1727-7485.1.2024.728 | |
124. | Geovanny Rivera-Hernández, Guillermo Daniel Tijerina-Castro, Sandra Cortés-Pérez, Ronald Ferrera-Cerrato, Alejandro Alarcón, Evaluation of functional plant growth-promoting activities of culturable rhizobacteria associated to tunicate maize (Zea mays var. tunicata A. St. Hil), a Mexican exotic landrace grown in traditional agroecosystems, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1478807 | |
125. | Miłosz Zardzewiały, Natalia Matłok, Jan Turan, Maciej Balawejder, Józef Gorzelany, Yeast Solution Spray and Ozone Gas Fumigation as Methods of Protecting Tomato Plants Against Diseases, 2024, 28, 2449-5999, 215, 10.2478/agriceng-2024-0014 | |
126. | Khadija Fatima, Sara Afzal, Ushna Gulab, Adnan Shoukat, Iftikhar Ali, Isolation and Characterization of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria from Contaminated Soil and their Impact on Triticum Aestivum, 2024, 2, 3006-0478, 56, 10.69547/TSFJB.020105 | |
127. | Stevenson Thabah, S. R. Joshi, Performance Evaluation of Native Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Associated with Organic Tea Plantations for Development of Bioinoculants for Crop Plants, 2024, 81, 0343-8651, 10.1007/s00284-024-03962-9 | |
128. | Magdalena Knezevic, Tanja Beric, Aneta Buntic, Zoran Dinic, Dusica Delic, Slavisa Stankovic, Olivera Stajkovic-Srbinovic, Bio-based solution for improving plant growth under unfavourable conditions: Bacterial inoculants for bird’s foot trefoil and orchardgrass grown in acid soil, 2024, 48, 1821-2158, 195, 10.2298/BOTSERB2402195K | |
129. | Muhammad Qadir, Amjad Iqbal, Anwar Hussain, Adil Hussain, Farooq Shah, Byung-Wook Yun, Bong-Gyu Mun, Exploring Plant–Bacterial Symbiosis for Eco-Friendly Agriculture and Enhanced Resilience, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 12198, 10.3390/ijms252212198 | |
130. | Mohd. Zobair Iqbal, Kshitij Singh, Ram Chandra, Recent advances of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) for eco-restoration of polluted soil, 2024, 26667908, 100845, 10.1016/j.clet.2024.100845 | |
131. | Houda Ilahi, Alice Calvo, Sana Dhane, Mustapha Missbah El Idrissi, Lahcen Ouahmane, Mohamed Najib Alfeddy, Thomas Reitz, Fabiano Sillo, Raffaella Balestrini, Bacem Mnasri, Impact of bacterial inoculations on Pisum sativum L. biometric parameters and associated bacterial and AM fungal communities under semi-arid field conditions in Tunisia, 2025, 205, 09291393, 105757, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105757 | |
132. | Horia Domnariu, Kristin M. Trippe, Florina Botez, Elena Partal, Carmen Postolache, Long-term impact of tillage on microbial communities of an Eastern European Chernozem, 2025, 15, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-84590-y | |
133. | Islam A. Abd El-Daim, Gareth Raynes, Narcis Fernandez-Fuentes, Sarah Hawkins, Alan Cookson, Kerrie Farrar, Halotolerant bacterial endophyte Bacillus velezensis CBE mediates abiotic stress tolerance with minimal transcriptional modifications in Brachypodium distachyon, 2025, 15, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2024.1485391 | |
134. | Yujin Choi, Munkhtsatsral Ganzorig, Kyoung Lee, Analysis of the Genomes and Adaptive Traits of Skermanella cutis sp. nov., a Human Skin Isolate, and the Type Strains Skermanella rosea and Skermanella mucosa, 2025, 13, 2076-2607, 94, 10.3390/microorganisms13010094 | |
135. | Meenakshi Sanyal, Debjanee Chowdhury, Amit Ghosh, Subhendu Bandyopadhyay, 2025, Chapter 15, 978-3-031-75677-1, 315, 10.1007/978-3-031-75678-8_15 | |
136. | Irene Ollio, Manuel González Rosado, Eva Lloret, Silvia Martínez‐Martínez, Catalina Egea‐Gilabert, David Fernández Calviño, Raúl Zornoza, Juan A. Fernández, Integrating plant growth microorganisms in potato farming reduce soil CO2 emissions and improve crop quality, 2025, 41, 0266-0032, 10.1111/sum.13140 | |
137. | Angelo Rossini, Roberto Ruggeri, Francesco Rossini, Combining nitrogen fertilization and biostimulant application in durum wheat: effects on morphophysiological traits, grain production, and quality., 2025, 11254718, 100027, 10.1016/j.ijagro.2025.100027 | |
138. | Muhammad Anas, Aliza Falak, Sameel Hassan, Waseem Ahmed Khattak, Muhammad Hamzah Saleem, Khalid Ali Khan, Awais Khalid, Shah Fahad, Microbial Interactions and Bacterial Responses to Metal Stress in Plants: Mechanisms, Adaptations, and Applications for Sustainable Agriculture, 2025, 77, 2948-264X, 10.1007/s10343-025-01108-w | |
139. | Emiliano Ben Guerrero, Ana V. Lasa, Pablo Aguilera, Antonio J. Fernández-González, María Carolina Martínez, Jesús Mercado-Blanco, Manuel Fernández-López, Norma Paniego, Unveiling changes in the rhizosphere bacteriome of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) inbred lines linked to their resistance to the soil borne pathogen Verticillium dahliae Kleb, 2025, 206, 09291393, 105915, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2025.105915 | |
140. | Assiya Ansabayeva, Murat Makhambetov, Nazih Y. Rebouh, Mostafa Abdelkader, Hani S. Saudy, Karim M. Hassan, Mohamed A. Nasser, Mahmoud A. A. Ali, Mohamed Ebrahim, Plant Growth-Promoting Microbes for Resilient Farming Systems: Mitigating Environmental Stressors and Boosting Crops Productivity—A Review, 2025, 11, 2311-7524, 260, 10.3390/horticulturae11030260 | |
141. | Yaoquan Zhang, Zhuzhu Luo, Liangliang Li, Lili Nian, Lingling Li, Yining Niu, Renyuan He, Jiahe Liu, Nitrogen Fertilization Shapes Soil Microbial Diversity and Ecosystem Multifunctionality by Modulating Soil Nutrients, 2025, 13, 2076-2607, 540, 10.3390/microorganisms13030540 | |
142. | Mahima Misti Sarkar, Puja Saha, Biswanath Karmakar, Prabha Toppo, Paramita Paul, Tarun Kumar Dua, Piyush Mathur, Swarnendu Roy, Sugar-coating on the surface of silica nanoparticles attenuates the dose- and size-dependent toxicity of the nanoparticles for plant-based applications, 2025, 09819428, 109778, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2025.109778 | |
143. | Shilpi Singh, Piyush Kant Rai, Azmat Ali Khan, Sabiha Fatima, Kamlesh Choure, Jeong Chan Joo, Ashutosh Pandey, Whole genome analysis and biocontrol potential of endophytic Bacillus cereus EMS1 against Fusarium wilt in banana, 2025, 41, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-025-04326-6 | |
144. | Leandro Israel da Silva, Danilo José Machado de Abreu, Ederson da Conceição Jesus, Elisângela Elena Nunes Carvalho, Marlon Correa Pereira, Anita Fernanda dos Santos Teixeira, Moacir Pasqual, Joyce Dória, Optimizing Strawberry Flavour: The Role of Bacterial Inoculants in Enhancing Organoleptic Characteristics, 2025, 0721-7595, 10.1007/s00344-025-11711-w |
DIRECT MECHANISMS | MICROORGANISMS |
PHOSPHATE SOLUBILIZATION Some rhizosphere colonizing bacteria enhance phosphorous availability by making soluble, insoluble phosphate inorganic compounds or by liberating organic phosphates. | Bacteria: Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Flavobacterium, Microbacterium, Pseudomonas, Serratia together with Pantoea and Klebsiella, Rhodococcus, Arthrobacter, Chryseobacterium, Gordonia, Phyllobacterium and Delftia. Rhizobia: Mesorhizobium ciceri and Mesorhizobium mediterraneum. Fungi: Aspergillus and Penicillium. |
NITROGEN FIXATION Atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is not accessible to most living organisms but through Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) it is reduced to ammonia (NH3). BNF is performed by symbiotic or non-symbiotic nitrogen fixing microorganisms. | Non-symbiotic: Cyanobacteria, Acetobacter, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, Anabaena, Arthrobacter, Azoarcus, Azomonas, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Derxia, Enterobacter, Gluconoacetobacter diazotrophicus, Herbaspirillum sp. Klebsiella, Nostoc, Pseudomonas, Rhodospirillum, RhodoPseudomonas and Xanthobacter. Symbiotic: Rhizobia, Frankia. |
INDOLEACETIC ACID (IAA) IAA performs many functions: (ⅰ) affects cell division, extension and differentiation of plants, (ⅱ) stimulates the germination of seeds and tubers, (ⅲ) exerts a control on processes of vegetative growth, (ⅳ) concurs to increase the rate of xylem and root growth, (ⅴ) initiates formations (lateral and adventitious) of the roots, (ⅵ) modulates responses to light, gravity and fluorescence, (ⅶ) affects photosynthesis, pigment formation, biosynthesis of various metabolites, (ⅷ) resists to stressful conditions. | Several microbial species are able to produce IAA, through five biosyntetic pathways: (1) Saprophytic species of Agrobacterium, Azospirillum, some species of Bradyrhizobium, Enterobacter, Erwinia herbicola, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Rhizobium through via indole-3-pyruvic acid and indole-3-acetic aldehyde; (2) Pseudomonads and Azospirilla through the conversion of tryptophan into indole-3-acetic aldehyde with tryptamine as intermediate compound; (3) Agrobacterium tumefaciens, E. herbicola, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas syringae and Pseudomonas putida through the formation of indole-3-acetamide; (4) Cyanobacterium (Synechocystis sp.) through the formation of indole-3-acetonitrile; (5) Azospirilla and Cyanobacteria are also able to produce IAA through a tryptophan-independent pathway. |
SIDEROPHORE PRODUCTION The production of siderophores can be classified as indirect mechanism when they are employed as means of biocontrol by microorganisms that do not use any other mechanism. By sequestering iron, PGPBs siderophore-producing reduce the availability of this element necessary for the growth of pathogens. Siderophore mediated iron scavenging in Gram-negative transport is better studied PGPB than Gram-positive PGPB. | Bradyrhizobium japonicum, Rhizobium leguminosarum and Sinorhizobium meliloti are the main microorganisms involved in siderophore production. Among Gram-negative bacteria, siderophore-producing belong to the Pseudomonas and Enterobacter genera, while Bacillus and Rhodococcus are the most representative among Gram-positive bacteria. |
ACC DEAMINASE ACTIVITY 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase is a bacterial enzyme involved to reduce the level of ethylene in plants. PGPB in response to tryptophan or other small molecules (see IAA section) synthetize and secrete IAA. This bacterial IAA, together with endogenous plant IAA, stimulate plant growth or induce the synthesis of the plant enzyme ACC synthase which converts the compound S-adenosyl methionine (SAM) to ACC, the immediate precursor of ethylene. | Acinetobacter, Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia, Serratia and Rhizobium etc. |
PRODUCTION OF ANTIBIOTIC /ANTIFUNGAL METABOLITES Phenazines, 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol, pyoluteorin, pyrrolnitrin, lipopeptides, and hydrogen cyanide. | Fluorescent Pseudomonads, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Paenibacillus, and Streptomyces. |
PRODUCTION OF LYTIC ENZYMES Chitinases, cellulases, β-1, 3 glucanases, proteases, and lipases lyse a portion of the cell walls of many pathogenic fungi. | Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotium rolfsii, Fusarium oxysporum, Phytophthora spp., Rhizoctonia solani, and Pythium ultimum. |
COMPETITION FOR NUTRIENTS | Actinobacteria, Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus sp., Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus licheniformis, Brevibacillus, Enterobacter sp., Jeotgalibacillus, Lysinibacillus, Paenibacillus, Paenibacillus polymyxa, Pseudomonas sp., Pseudomonas chlororaphis, P. fluorescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Terribacillus |
INDUCED SYSTEMIC RESISTANCE (ISR) "Induced resistance" is referred to the induced state of resistance in plants triggered by inducers (biological or chemical); this state protects non-exposed parts against possible attack by pathogenic microbes and herbivorous insects. | P. fluorescens, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas protegens. |
Culture conditions | Species/cultivar | PGPB | Effects on plant growth and productivity | References |
Field | Triticum aestivum L. cultivar Buck Suren(R) | Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens | Grain yield increases were not significant. | [35] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | The inoculation increased: plant height, spiΫe number per unit of area, grains number per spike, 1 000-grains weight, grain yield, biological yield and grain protein content. | [37] |
In vitro | Triticum aestivum cv ProINTA | Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 | The beneficial Azospirillum-wheat association is not hampered by the presence of Tebuconazole. Azospirillum increased root surface and promoted coleoptile length. | [43] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Azospirillum brasilense | The biofertilization reduced production costs and increased productivity. | [36] |
Field | Wheat variety Zardana | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | The application of biofertilizer in combination with mineral fertilizer N 45 kg ha–1 and P2O5 30 kg ha–1 increased fresh yield from 11% to 59% and grain yield by 20–46%. | [39] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Methylobacterium spp. | Increased plant growth and productivity, in an environment-friendly manner. | [44] |
Field | Rice | Pseudomonas fluorescens and Azospirillum brasilense | PGPB inoculation increased aerial biomass production, harvest index, and grain yield of the Supremo 13 cultivar by 4.7%, 16%, and 20.2%, respectively. | [45] |
Field | Corn | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | Reduction in production costs with increased productivity. | [38] |
Greenhouse and field | Corn | Azospirillum brasilense | The inoculation of Az brasilense had the same grain yield when compared to nitrogen treatment. The grain production was increased by 29% in the treatment with Az brasilense and nitrogen compared to nitrogen fertilization alone. | [46] |
Field | Durum wheat (cv. Anco Marzio) | Bacillus sp. | Soil inoculation with PGPB had a positive impact on plant growth in combination with organic fertilizer was added. | [40] |
Field | Triticum aestivum L. | Bacillus sp. Stenotrophomonas spp. Acetobacter pasteurianus Stenotrophomonas spp | Plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) provided a significant increase in shoot and root length, and shoot and root biomass. The study indicates the potential of these PGPR for enhancing growth and nutrient content of wheat and other crops under field conditions. | [47] |
Pots and field | Wheat var. Inqlab-91 | Pseudomonas moraviensis and Bacillus cereus | PGPR consortium with sugarcane husk and maize straw (biofertilizer formulation) increased growth, maintained osmotic balance and enhanced the activities of antioxidant enzymes and yield parameters. | [48] |
Controlled conditions | Wheat | Streptomyces spp | These isolates can be used to design new biopesticides and biofertilizers with antibacterial and antifungal effect. | [49] |
Field | Wheat, maize | Paenibacillus polymyxa WLY78 | Nitrogen fixation, IAA production and phosphate solubilization performed by P. polymyxa WLY78 inside roots, stems and leaves and on root surfaces positively contributed to plant-growth promotion. | [50] |
DIRECT MECHANISMS | MICROORGANISMS |
PHOSPHATE SOLUBILIZATION Some rhizosphere colonizing bacteria enhance phosphorous availability by making soluble, insoluble phosphate inorganic compounds or by liberating organic phosphates. | Bacteria: Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Flavobacterium, Microbacterium, Pseudomonas, Serratia together with Pantoea and Klebsiella, Rhodococcus, Arthrobacter, Chryseobacterium, Gordonia, Phyllobacterium and Delftia. Rhizobia: Mesorhizobium ciceri and Mesorhizobium mediterraneum. Fungi: Aspergillus and Penicillium. |
NITROGEN FIXATION Atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is not accessible to most living organisms but through Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) it is reduced to ammonia (NH3). BNF is performed by symbiotic or non-symbiotic nitrogen fixing microorganisms. | Non-symbiotic: Cyanobacteria, Acetobacter, Achromobacter, Alcaligenes, Anabaena, Arthrobacter, Azoarcus, Azomonas, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Derxia, Enterobacter, Gluconoacetobacter diazotrophicus, Herbaspirillum sp. Klebsiella, Nostoc, Pseudomonas, Rhodospirillum, RhodoPseudomonas and Xanthobacter. Symbiotic: Rhizobia, Frankia. |
INDOLEACETIC ACID (IAA) IAA performs many functions: (ⅰ) affects cell division, extension and differentiation of plants, (ⅱ) stimulates the germination of seeds and tubers, (ⅲ) exerts a control on processes of vegetative growth, (ⅳ) concurs to increase the rate of xylem and root growth, (ⅴ) initiates formations (lateral and adventitious) of the roots, (ⅵ) modulates responses to light, gravity and fluorescence, (ⅶ) affects photosynthesis, pigment formation, biosynthesis of various metabolites, (ⅷ) resists to stressful conditions. | Several microbial species are able to produce IAA, through five biosyntetic pathways: (1) Saprophytic species of Agrobacterium, Azospirillum, some species of Bradyrhizobium, Enterobacter, Erwinia herbicola, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Rhizobium through via indole-3-pyruvic acid and indole-3-acetic aldehyde; (2) Pseudomonads and Azospirilla through the conversion of tryptophan into indole-3-acetic aldehyde with tryptamine as intermediate compound; (3) Agrobacterium tumefaciens, E. herbicola, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas syringae and Pseudomonas putida through the formation of indole-3-acetamide; (4) Cyanobacterium (Synechocystis sp.) through the formation of indole-3-acetonitrile; (5) Azospirilla and Cyanobacteria are also able to produce IAA through a tryptophan-independent pathway. |
SIDEROPHORE PRODUCTION The production of siderophores can be classified as indirect mechanism when they are employed as means of biocontrol by microorganisms that do not use any other mechanism. By sequestering iron, PGPBs siderophore-producing reduce the availability of this element necessary for the growth of pathogens. Siderophore mediated iron scavenging in Gram-negative transport is better studied PGPB than Gram-positive PGPB. | Bradyrhizobium japonicum, Rhizobium leguminosarum and Sinorhizobium meliloti are the main microorganisms involved in siderophore production. Among Gram-negative bacteria, siderophore-producing belong to the Pseudomonas and Enterobacter genera, while Bacillus and Rhodococcus are the most representative among Gram-positive bacteria. |
ACC DEAMINASE ACTIVITY 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase is a bacterial enzyme involved to reduce the level of ethylene in plants. PGPB in response to tryptophan or other small molecules (see IAA section) synthetize and secrete IAA. This bacterial IAA, together with endogenous plant IAA, stimulate plant growth or induce the synthesis of the plant enzyme ACC synthase which converts the compound S-adenosyl methionine (SAM) to ACC, the immediate precursor of ethylene. | Acinetobacter, Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia, Serratia and Rhizobium etc. |
PRODUCTION OF ANTIBIOTIC /ANTIFUNGAL METABOLITES Phenazines, 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol, pyoluteorin, pyrrolnitrin, lipopeptides, and hydrogen cyanide. | Fluorescent Pseudomonads, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Paenibacillus, and Streptomyces. |
PRODUCTION OF LYTIC ENZYMES Chitinases, cellulases, β-1, 3 glucanases, proteases, and lipases lyse a portion of the cell walls of many pathogenic fungi. | Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotium rolfsii, Fusarium oxysporum, Phytophthora spp., Rhizoctonia solani, and Pythium ultimum. |
COMPETITION FOR NUTRIENTS | Actinobacteria, Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus sp., Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus licheniformis, Brevibacillus, Enterobacter sp., Jeotgalibacillus, Lysinibacillus, Paenibacillus, Paenibacillus polymyxa, Pseudomonas sp., Pseudomonas chlororaphis, P. fluorescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Terribacillus |
INDUCED SYSTEMIC RESISTANCE (ISR) "Induced resistance" is referred to the induced state of resistance in plants triggered by inducers (biological or chemical); this state protects non-exposed parts against possible attack by pathogenic microbes and herbivorous insects. | P. fluorescens, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas protegens. |
Culture conditions | Species/cultivar | PGPB | Effects on plant growth and productivity | References |
Field | Triticum aestivum L. cultivar Buck Suren(R) | Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas fluorescens | Grain yield increases were not significant. | [35] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | The inoculation increased: plant height, spiΫe number per unit of area, grains number per spike, 1 000-grains weight, grain yield, biological yield and grain protein content. | [37] |
In vitro | Triticum aestivum cv ProINTA | Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 | The beneficial Azospirillum-wheat association is not hampered by the presence of Tebuconazole. Azospirillum increased root surface and promoted coleoptile length. | [43] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Azospirillum brasilense | The biofertilization reduced production costs and increased productivity. | [36] |
Field | Wheat variety Zardana | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | The application of biofertilizer in combination with mineral fertilizer N 45 kg ha–1 and P2O5 30 kg ha–1 increased fresh yield from 11% to 59% and grain yield by 20–46%. | [39] |
Field | Triticum aestivum | Methylobacterium spp. | Increased plant growth and productivity, in an environment-friendly manner. | [44] |
Field | Rice | Pseudomonas fluorescens and Azospirillum brasilense | PGPB inoculation increased aerial biomass production, harvest index, and grain yield of the Supremo 13 cultivar by 4.7%, 16%, and 20.2%, respectively. | [45] |
Field | Corn | Azospirillum and Azotobacter sp | Reduction in production costs with increased productivity. | [38] |
Greenhouse and field | Corn | Azospirillum brasilense | The inoculation of Az brasilense had the same grain yield when compared to nitrogen treatment. The grain production was increased by 29% in the treatment with Az brasilense and nitrogen compared to nitrogen fertilization alone. | [46] |
Field | Durum wheat (cv. Anco Marzio) | Bacillus sp. | Soil inoculation with PGPB had a positive impact on plant growth in combination with organic fertilizer was added. | [40] |
Field | Triticum aestivum L. | Bacillus sp. Stenotrophomonas spp. Acetobacter pasteurianus Stenotrophomonas spp | Plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) provided a significant increase in shoot and root length, and shoot and root biomass. The study indicates the potential of these PGPR for enhancing growth and nutrient content of wheat and other crops under field conditions. | [47] |
Pots and field | Wheat var. Inqlab-91 | Pseudomonas moraviensis and Bacillus cereus | PGPR consortium with sugarcane husk and maize straw (biofertilizer formulation) increased growth, maintained osmotic balance and enhanced the activities of antioxidant enzymes and yield parameters. | [48] |
Controlled conditions | Wheat | Streptomyces spp | These isolates can be used to design new biopesticides and biofertilizers with antibacterial and antifungal effect. | [49] |
Field | Wheat, maize | Paenibacillus polymyxa WLY78 | Nitrogen fixation, IAA production and phosphate solubilization performed by P. polymyxa WLY78 inside roots, stems and leaves and on root surfaces positively contributed to plant-growth promotion. | [50] |