Next Article in Journal
Vegetation Indices for Predicting the Growth and Harvest Rate of Lettuce
Next Article in Special Issue
The Potential of Hydroponic Seed Minituber Enrichment with the Endophyte Bacillus subtilis for Improving the Yield Components and Quality of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Destructive Hyperspectral Imaging and Machine Learning-Based Predictive Models for Physicochemical Quality Attributes of Apples during Storage as Affected by Codling Moth Infestation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inoculation with Potassium Solubilizing Bacteria and Its Effect on the Medicinal Characteristics of Paris polyphylla var. yunnanensis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/agriculture13051089
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Recent Use of Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Promote the Growth of Agricultural Food Crops

by
Lucy Reed
1,* and
Bernard R. Glick
2,*
1
Bayer CropScience Inc., 810-180 Kent St., Ottawa, ON K1P 0B6, Canada
2
Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(5), 1089; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051089
Submission received: 25 April 2023 / Revised: 8 May 2023 / Accepted: 18 May 2023 / Published: 19 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria in Crop Production)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the past 15–20 years, the employment of Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) to facilitate the growth of agricultural food crops has increased dramatically. These beneficial soil bacteria, whose use and demonstrations of efficacy have previously been largely limited to the laboratory, have now been shown to be effective under field conditions. In addition, the mechanisms that these bacteria utilize to facilitate plant growth are now mostly well characterized. Moreover, several companies across the globe have commercialized a number of PGPB and there is every indication that this trend will continue to grow. As a consequence of these developments, in this review article, a large number of recent reports on the successful testing of many different types of PGPB and their effects on various food crops is discussed.

1. Introduction

The human population is currently ~8 billion people and, according to some estimates, the world will contain ~10 billion inhabitants by 2050 [1]. In addition, the existing level of global food productivity must intensify to be sufficient to meet this increase in the world population. Moreover, the income growth that is expected to occur in lower- and middle-income countries by 2050 will put an additional demand on global agriculture [2]. Several potential solutions to this conundrum have been suggested [3] and it is essential that global agricultural productivity be significantly increased. Some of the major ways of increasing food availability to sustain the world’s future needs include: (i) decreasing food wastage, (ii) increasing the use of agricultural chemicals, including both fertilizers and pesticides, (iii) developing and employing more transgenic plants in worldwide agricultural practice, and (iv) dramatically increasing the use of plant-growth-promoting microorganisms (both bacteria and fungi) [3]. None of these approaches by themselves are likely to be sufficient to provide the increased level of global agricultural productivity that will be needed to feed the growing global population by 2050, and it is expected that different countries in the world will employ a combination of these approaches. For a start, many obvious benefits can occur through the increased use of transgenic plants. For example, genetically modifying plants to obtain increased crop yields can lower the amount of agricultural land that is needed for plant production [4]. While not necessarily always tested in the field, over the past twenty years, scientists have developed a number of approaches to increasing the yields of some agricultural plants [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. In contrast to the very active pursuit of higher-yield transgenic plants, the agricultural potential of naturally occurring plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) has barely been explored. However, we believe that, in the future, PGPB will likely provide a highly effective means of promoting plant growth throughout the many different agricultural environments that exist globally [13,14].

2. Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB)

Soil contains a very large number of bacteria, with the highest concentrations of these bacteria typically being found around the roots of plants, i.e., in the plant rhizosphere [3,15,16]. These bacteria may be beneficial for plant growth (i.e., PGPB), inhibitory to plant growth (i.e., phytopathogenic bacteria), or not have any discernible effect on plant growth (i.e., commensal bacteria). This typical bacterial localization reflects the fact that most plant roots commonly exude a significant fraction, i.e., from 5–30%, of all of the carbon that is fixed by the plant through the process of photosynthesis, and provide this fixed carbon to soil microbes that use it as a food source [17,18,19]. Considerable evidence suggests that different plants attract different types of soil bacteria [16,20,21,22,23,24,25]. This occurs as a consequence of the fact that each plant’s root exudes contain a unique mixture of small molecules (mostly sugars, amino acids, and organic acids) that attract a specific portion of the soil bacterial population.
The interest in PGPB is a consequence of their ability to positively affect plant growth and development as follows: (i) increasing the plant biomass, (ii) increasing the plant nutrient content (including nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and iron) [3], (iii) increasing the root and/or shoot length, (iv) increasing the rate of the seed germination, (v) protecting plants against various disease-causing pathogens (including phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi, as well as nematodes and insects) [26,27,28,29], and (vi) increasing the plant tolerance to various abiotic stresses (such as temperature extremes, high salt levels, root oxygen concentration, flooding, and drought) [3,30,31,32,33,34,35].
Some PGPB bind to and colonize the root outer surface (i.e., the rhizoplane), while others enter the plant root and permanently colonize the spaces between the root cells (i.e., they are endophytic), and other bacteria form nodules on the plant roots (i.e., they are said to symbiotic). Notwithstanding the fact that different PGPB preferentially interact with different plants and occupy different niches within those plants (i.e., root surface, root or shoot interior, or within a root nodule), all PGPB appear to use the same mechanisms to promote plant growth. Conceptually, the mechanisms that PGPB use to facilitate plant growth are considered to be either direct or indirect. Direct mechanisms include anything performed or produced by the PGPB that directly affects the growth of the plant (Figure 1). The direct mechanisms that are employed by PGPB include: facilitating the solubilization and uptake of minerals such as iron, potassium, and phosphorus; nitrogen fixation; the synthesis of phytohormones such as cytokinin, gibberellin, and auxin; and the modulation of plant ethylene and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) levels via the enzyme ACC deaminase [3,36,37,38]. On the other hand, indirect mechanisms include the PGPB preventing or lowering the damage or growth inhibition to the target plant using a phytopathogen (Figure 1). The indirect mechanisms that are employed by PGPB include: antibiotic and hydrogen cyanide synthesis; the solubilization and sequestration of iron that might otherwise be used by phytopathogens; the synthesis of fungal cell-wall-degrading enzymes; outcompeting pathogens; the synthesis of volatile organic compounds; auxin synthesis; the modulation of plant ethylene levels; inducing systemic resistance; and quorum quenching [3,36,37,38]. To date, all the PGPB that have been studied possess a few, but not all, of these mechanisms. This is because having too many non-essential genes functioning simultaneously will put a metabolic load on a bacterium, thereby decreasing its overall environmental fitness [39].
One way in which PGPB can provide plants with an extensive range of plant-growth-promoting mechanisms, without creating a metabolic load for the PGPB, is by having these organisms act in concert with other PGPB in the soil as part of a bacterial consortium [11,25,40] or microbiome containing both PGPB and plant-growth-promoting fungi [16,41,42,43].
In addition to bacteria, rhizospheric soils contain a large number of mycorrhizae, plant-beneficial fungi that have been estimated to form a relationship with more than 90% of all land plants [44,45,46,47]. Mycorrhizae colonize plant roots, either intracellularly or extracellularly, with ectomycorrhizae extracellularly colonizing the outside of plant roots (commonly in gymnosperms and other woody plants) and the more common endomycorrhizae (also referred to as arbuscular mycorrhiza; AM) colonizing roots intracellularly. This 400–460-million-year-old relationship between plants and mycorrhizae has been suggested to have co-evolved with land plants and is, in fact, argued to be responsible for the development of all land plants [44]. In the relationship between mycorrhizae and plants, energy sources and carbon compounds move from the plant to the fungus, thereby enabling its growth and development, while inorganic resources (i.e., minerals) and water concomitantly move from the fungus to the plant, thereby aiding its development [47]. Mycorrhizae act as effective extensions of plant roots in their uptake of minerals and water. Some soil bacteria bind to both plant roots and mycorrhizal hyphae and actively contribute to the mycorrhizal symbiosis [46,48,49,50]. The interaction of PGPB with mycorrhizae and plants facilitates the growth of plants under a wide range of stressful conditions [51].

3. Recent Research in PGPB and Agricultural Food Crops

The greatest utility of plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) has been for agricultural and horticultural practices, including their use as inoculants for food crops. This area has been extensively researched [52] and is work that continues presently. Early investigations of PGPB occurred in the mid-20th century in India and the former Soviet Union. This research was extensive and sometimes indicated mixed results; however, more recent studies have elaborated on the mechanisms used by these bacteria and demonstrated a plethora of positive results under a wide range of conditions [37,38,53,54]. The elucidation of the plant-growth-promoting mechanisms of PGPB, significant advances in microbe identification and characterization, and an increased interest in alternative fertilizers have allowed for work to continue in this area.
Selected examples of the published research over the last decade examining the effects of plant-growth-promoting bacteria on various major food crop types are summarized in Table 1. Overall, there are many examples of the successful inoculation of PGPB with major crops such as maize, rice, soybeans canola, and wheat in greenhouse and field-scale experiments. A diversity of other crops is present in the literature, albeit to a lesser extent, with crops such as pulses (e.g., peas, lentils, fava beans, lima beans, Adzuki beans, kidney beans, pinto beans, mung beans, black-eyed peas, lupins, and cowpea, etc.), vegetables, fruit crops, and trees. Table 1 summarizes the results of many studies and indicates that PGPB provide a large number of benefits to treated plants, including facilitating root growth, germination rates, yield, leaf area, chlorophyll content, nitrogen content, root and shoot (dry and fresh) weights, and delayed leaf senescence. There has been some debate in the past about the transferability of the positive impacts of inoculation from in vivo results to in-field results [52,55]. However, Table 1 shows a number of field and greenhouse studies that emphasize that the efficacy of inoculation is being explored in practical settings and that there is now considerable work that correlates the increased benefits of PGPB inoculation at the in vivo level to field results [56].
A notable trend in the work that has been reported recently is towards microbial mixing, either with multiple bacterial species, a bacterial consortia of numerous species, or in combination with mycorrhizal (plant-beneficial fungi) species. For example, mixtures of microbial strains have enhanced plant growth over single-strain inoculation in a number of studies on canola [76,79], rice [88], maize [89,99,104], fava bean [64], wheat [60,64], and barley [64]. The co-inoculation of PGPB with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) performed better than single-microorganism inoculation in maize under salt stress conditions [100,105], wheat [172,175] in drought stress [178], and also increased the N-fixation in beans [61].
Several studies have examined soybean co-inoculation. The inoculation of soybean with PGPB plus other bacterial or fungal microorganisms showed substantial soybean grain yield increases [149], oil yield increases [155], and increased levels of nodulation [144]. A notable exception was a large-scale multi-field experiment, where an increased soybean yield was lacking in all but two of the locations, with an Azospirillum sp. and Bradyrhizobium sp. co-inoculation. However, the authors noted that a consideration of the strain type and adaption to local environments may be a constraint on the system [153]. A meta-analysis of 42 co-inoculation studies (1987–2018) of Bradyrhizobium spp. and rhizobacteria in soybean did not show significant increases in yield in the field, but did indicate that co-inoculation increases nodulation, which may aid the crop to overcome various stresses [179].
In addition to mixing with other microbia, research has explored mixing PGPB with some plant components in combined inoculants. A humic acid co-inoculation with PGPB species showed benefits for maize, cassava, and okra [83,92]. A combination of PGPB with silicon was beneficial to the growth of wheat [176]. Potatoes co-inoculated with biochar, a prospective PGPB carrier, did not yield any benefits [127]. A combination of the plant hormone salicylic acid and PGPB showed positive results for relieving plant stress in canola [76]. Some combined ingredient inoculants may have prospects for use in agriculture if there are synergies to be realized for the end user.
A reduction in fertilizer application, such as a reduction in nitrogen application, has continued to be a point of study for PGPB, including the use of nitrogen-fixing PGPB. Numerous studies have shown improvements in nitrogen use efficiency in wheat and maize with inoculation, where nitrogen requirements could be significantly reduced [87,99,103,175]. It has also been demonstrated that PGPB growth promotion could provide results that are equivalent to increased rates of N fertilization in maize [94,95] and canola [68,76]. Measuring the yield of rice and potato also showed that PGPB, in combination with a reduced rate of fertilizer application, was effective for plant growth promotion [124,128,132,135]. PGPB combined with AMF also demonstrated the possibility of an increased nitrogen assimilation in cassava [82], which speaks to the diversity of crop types explored in this area and the possible enhancements with an AMF co-inoculation. In the area of phosphorus fertilization, the phosphorus use efficiency was increased in maize with PGPB [106] and in canola [73]. An inoculation with phosphate-solubilizing bacteria showed a higher canola seed yield [69]. Masking of the effects of PGPB via the use of optimal levels of fertilization was demonstrated in a greenhouse study; in this case, the authors surmised that the results may have been influenced by the soil conditions [101] and are consistent with the notion that PGPB are most effective in poor soil or suboptimal growing conditions [180].
As food cropping on farms worldwide is ubiquitously exposed to abiotic stressors, PGPB continue to be studied for their benefits for plants subject to drought, salt, and cold. Regarding studies in drought conditions, PGPB have been shown to yield positive results when used to inoculate peppers [117] and cereal crops [168,170]. Saline soils are also a challenge for cereal crop production and PGPB use was able to both promote the growth of cereals and remediate soils [59,81,169,171]. The bacteria were selected for their salt-resistant characteristics and used in field experiments with canola, where many yield components were enhanced by the PGPB inoculation [80]. Other recent experiments in saline conditions include work with rice [133,137] and maize [90]. Additionally, the rice tolerance to cold conditions was enhanced by an inoculation using rhizospheric bacterial isolates [136].
The plant defense benefits of PGPB have also been explored with biotic challenges. An investigation into insect feeding and PGPB inoculation was tested with aphid feeding in canola [74] and wheat, where it was hypothesized that multiple factors of growth promotion were at play, including siderophores and increased plant defense mechanisms [174]. Additionally, a potato–PGPB inoculation study was conducted with Colorado potato beetles, with observed yield increases [123]. The production of ground tubers is especially susceptible to fungal (as well as bacterial) disease and PGPB inoculants have shown protective effects in experiments with Rhizoctonia solani in potato [118,137] and Erwinia and Ralstonia in sweet potato [162]. Tomato fungal disease resistance [164], as well as blight in maize, has also been demonstrated [102]. For both abiotic and biotic stressors, the mechanisms of plant growth promotion are generally well understood [37].
The majority of recent studies have shown overall benefits for plant and grain yield, but other yield components are also of interest. For example, oil yield increases in canola [71,80] and soybean [152,155] are important outcomes of PGPB crop inoculation. Other studies have looked at the yield of human nutritional components, such as the amplified bioavailability of iron in rice [131,139] and the enhancement of nutrients in beans [67], apples [57], and wheat [166].
Concerning plant health, other nutrient enhancements have been observed with PGPB inoculations. Inoculated strawberry plants have been shown to overcome calcium deficiencies in soil [158]. An increased nutrient efficiency has been seen in wheat [177], including an increased phosphorus mobilization and uptake [167]. Inoculation with PGPB has also led to increased nutritional benefits for potato, through the enhancement of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus solubility [125].
As for the sourcing of PGPB organisms for research, novel bioprospecting is a possibility. Interestingly, a PGPB that promoted maize growth was isolated from the gut of an earthworm in a study by Houida et al. [107]. PGPB, from soils in the part of the world where potato is the origin species, were efficacious in enhancing potato growth [118]. Bacterial isolates from nodules of chickpea plants have also proved to be effective PGPB [85].
When optimizing the utility of PGPB in practice, the experimental work provides clues to be considered. For example, the cultivar response of a plant species may vary with different PGPB inocula, as seen with rice [130]. The plant growth stage of the PGPB application is important, as seen in maize [91], as well as the inoculant formulation [92]. Additionally, differences have been seen with inoculant substrates, where a liquid formulation was more effective at increasing the maize yield than a solid formulation [98]. The existing microbiota in the soil also need to be considered, as differences in native populations can cause variances in the plant yield responses with a PGPB inoculation, even with nitrogen fertilization [99]. There is a possibility of significant variability in terms of promoting plant growth in the field, but in general terms, if the mechanistic basis of plant growth promotion in a particular scenario is understood on a fundamental level, there is a high probability that PGPB will behave as expected in the field.
The number and diversity of plant-growth-promoting bacteria products that are commercially available for agriculture have increased significantly over the last 20 years. These products are available for a variety of plant types, including major crops, and are available to growers in most regions of the world. Table 2 summarizes a selection of these commercial PGPB products. The majority of the commercial products available are nitrogen-fixing microbes, with some inoculants that are phosphate, potassium, and zinc solubilizers, as well as phytostimulators, biocontrol organisms [181], and sulfur solubilizers. Biocontrol agents tend to contribute indirectly to plant growth, while the other commercial PGPB stimulate this growth directly. It should be noted that confidence in the efficacy of these products should be apparent with the presence of prominent and diverse organizations in this commercial niche and the existence of open collaboration models to develop innovative and efficacious products for growers. Practical considerations for the delivery of these commercial inoculants should include their efficacy, the availability of ingredients, product safety, the method of delivery, shelf life, and the regulatory requirements in various jurisdictions.

4. Summary and Conclusions

In a world where the population continues to increase and agricultural land is limited, safely increasing the food supply with biological approaches may be addressed by the increased use of either transgenic plants or plant-growth-promoting bacteria and fungi. These biological advances complement innovative means for growing plants, e.g., using hydroponics [182]. Fortunately, over the past 15–20 years, and since our first review of this topic [52], there has been a dramatic increase in the development, testing, and use of PGPB worldwide to facilitate the growth of a wide range of plants under a large variety of conditions. While many reports of the successful use of PGPB do not include a detailed characterization of the mechanisms used by these bacteria, it has become abundantly clear that under nearly every imaginable condition, when PGPB are tested, they are remarkably efficacious. Interestingly, and in contrast to 20 years ago, PGPB have been shown to be effective not only under laboratory conditions, but also in the field. Moreover, many PGPB have now been commercialized and are available in many countries across the globe. Unfortunately, PGPB still comprise only a very small fraction of the global market of products used for promoting plant growth. To increase the use of PGPB, it is necessary to educate the global agricultural industry and public to understand that naturally occurring PGPB, which have been interacting with plants for millions of years, can provide a safe and effective means for facilitating plant growth.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.R. and B.R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R. and B.R.G.; writing—review and editing, L.R. and B.R.G.; visualization, B.R.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We thanks the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that improved the quality of the review.

Conflicts of Interest

L.R. is employed in Ottawa, Canada y Bayer CropScience Inc., a leading manufacturer of input crop protection, seeds and traits products for agriculture.

References

  1. Gu, D.; Andreev, K.; Dupre, M.E. Major trends in population growth around the world. China CDC Wkly. 2021, 3, 604–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Grafton, R.Q.; Williams, J.; Jiang, Q. Food and water gaps to 2050: Preliminary results from the global food and water system (GFWS) platform. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Glick, B.R. Beneficial Plant-Bacterial Interactions, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; p. 383. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kovak, E.; Blaustein-Rejto, D.; Qaim, M. Genetically modified crops support climate change mitigation. Clim. Chang. Sustain. 2022, 27, 627–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ashikari, M.; Sasaki, A.; Ueguchi-Tanaka, M.; Itoh, H.; Nishimura, A.; Datta, S.; Ishiyama, K.; Saito, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Khush, G.S. Loss-of-function of a rice gibberellin biosynthetic gene, GA20 oxidase (GA20ox-2), led to the rice “green revolution”. Breed. Sci. 2002, 52, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zsögön, A.; Cermák, T.; Naves, E.R.; Notini, M.M.; Edel, K.H.; Weinl, S.; Freschi, L.; Voytas, D.F.; Kudla, J.; Peres, L.E.P. De novo domestication of wild tomato using genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 1211–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mayta, M.L.; Arce, R.C.; Zurbriggen, M.D.; Valle, E.M.; Hajirezaei, M.-R.; Zanor, M.; Carrillo, N. Expression of a chloroplast-targeted cyanobacterial flavodoxin in tomato plants increases harvest index by altering plant size and productivity. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, J.; Lawit, S.J.; Weers, B.; Sun, J.; Mongar, N.; Van Hemert, J.; Melo, R.; Meng, X.; Rupe, M.; Clapp, J.; et al. Overexpression of zmm28 increases maize grain yield in the field. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 23850–23858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chaudhary, P.; Khati, P.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, R.; Sharma, A. Impact of nanochitosan and Bacillus spp. on health, productivity and defense response in Zea mays under field condition. 3 Biotech 2021, 11, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yu, Q.; Liu, S.; Yu, L.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Yu, H.; Li, Y.; Yang, J.; et al. RNA demethylation increases the yield and biomass of rice and potato plants in field trials. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 1581–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, J.; Cook, J.; Nearing, J.T.; Zhang, J.; Raudonis, R.; Glick, B.R.; Langille, M.G.I.; Cheng, Z. Harnessing the plant microbiome to promote the growth of agricultural crops. Microbiol. Res. 2021, 245, 126690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Samantara, K.; Bohra, A.; Mohapatra, S.R.; Prihatini, R.; Asibe, F.; Singh, L.; Reyes, V.P.; Tiwari, A.; Maurya, A.K.; Croser, J.S.; et al. Breeding more crops in less time: A perspective on speed breeding. Biology 2022, 11, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Glick, B.R. Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 169, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Orozco-Mosqueda, M.C.; Fadiji, E.A.; Babalola, O.O.; Glick, B.R.; Santoyo, G. Rhizobiome engineering: Unveiling complex rhizosphere interactions to enhance plant growth and health. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 263, 127137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lynch, J.M. The Rhizosphere; Wiley-Interscience: Chichester, UK, 1990; p. 458. [Google Scholar]
  16. Glick, B.R.; Gamalero, E. Recent developments in the study of plant microbiomes. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Walker, T.S.; Bais, H.P.; Grotewold, E.; Vivanco, J.M. Root exudation and rhizosphere biology. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bais, H.P.; Weir, T.L.; Perry, L.G.; Gilroy, S.; Vivanco, J.M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2006, 7, 233–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Upadhyay, S.K.; Srivastava, A.K.; Rajput, V.D.; Chauhan, P.K.; Bhojiya, A.A.; Jain, D.; Chaubey, G.; Dwivedi, P.; Sharma, B.; Minkina, T. Plant exudates: Mechanistic insight of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for sustainable crop production. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 916488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bulgarelli, D.; Schlaeppi, K.; Spaepen, S.; van Themaat, E.V.L.; Schulze-Lefert, P. Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2013, 64, 807–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Reinhold-Hurek, B.; Bünger, W.; Burbano, C.S.; Sabale, M.; Hurek, T. Roots shaping their microbiome: Global hotspots for microbial activity. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2015, 53, 403–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sasse, J.; Martinoia, E.; Northen, T. Feed your friends: Do plant exudates shape the root microbiome? Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Compant, S.; Samad, A.; Faist, H.; Sessitsch, A. A review on the plant microbiome: Ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application. J. Adv. Res. 2019, 19, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, N.R.; Haney, C.H. Harnessing the genetic potential of the plant microbiome. Biochemist 2020, 42, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, M.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Xu, F.; Ding, M.; Ye, W.; Kawai, Y.; Toda, Y.; Hayashi, Y.; Suzuki, T.; et al. Plasma membrane H + -ATPase expression increases rice yield via simultaneous enhancement of nutrient uptake and photosynthesis. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hao, Y.; Charles, T.C.; Glick, B.R. ACC deaminase from plant growth promoting bacteria affects crown gall development. Can. J. Microbiol. 2007, 53, 1291–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Toklikishvili, N.; Dandurishvili, N.; Tediashvili, M.; Giorgobiani, N.; Szegedi, E.; Glick, B.R.; Vainstein, A.; Chernin, L. Inhibitory effect of ACC deaminase-producing bacteria on crown gall formation in tomato plants infected by Agrobacterium tumefaciens or A. vitis. Plant Pathol. 2010, 59, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vicente, C.S.L.; Nascimento, F.; Espada, M.; Barbosa, P.; Mota, M.; Glick, B.R.; Oliveira, S. The role of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus associated bacteria in pine wilt disease. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e46661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Akanmu, A.O.; Babalola, O.O.; Venturi, V.; Ayilara, M.S.; Saanu, A.B.; Amoo, A.E.; Sobowale, A.A.; Fadiji, A.E.; Glick, B.R. Plant disease management: Leveraging on the plant-microbe-soil interface in the biorational use of organic amendments. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 700507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, J.; McConkey, B.J.; Cheng, Z.; Guo, S.; Glick, B.R. Identification of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria-responsive proteins in cucumber roots under hypoxic stress using a proteomic approach. J. Proteomics 2013, 84, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gepstein, S.; Glick, B.R. Strategies to ameliorate abiotic stress-induced plant senescence. Plant Molec. Biol. 2013, 82, 623–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ali, S.; Charles, T.C.; Glick, B.R. Amelioration of damages caused by high salinity stress by plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 80, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Forni, C.; Duca, D.; Glick, B.R. Mechanisms of plant response to salt and drought stress and their alteration by rhizobacteria. Plant Soil 2017, 410, 335–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gamalero, E.; Glick, B.R. The use of plant growth-promoting bacteria to prevent nematode damage to plants. Biology 2020, 9, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gamalero, E.; Glick, B.R. Recent advances in bacterial amelioration of plant drought and salt stress. Biology 2022, 11, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gamalero, E.; Glick, B.R. Mechanisms used by plant growth-promoting bacteria. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Nutrient Management; Maheshwari, D.K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 17–46. [Google Scholar]
  37. Glick, B.R. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: Mechanisms and applications. Scientifica 2012, 2012, 963401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Olanrewaju, O.S.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O. Mechanisms of action of plant growth promoting bacteria. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 33, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Glick, B.R. Metabolic load and heterologous gene expression. Biotechnol. Adv. 1995, 13, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Santoyo, G.; Guzman-Guzman, P.; Parra-Cota, F.I.; de los Santos-Villalobos, S.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.C.; Glick, B.R. Plant growth stimulation by microbial consortia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yaish, M.W.; Al-Harrasi, I.; Alansari, A.S.; Al-Yahyai, R.; Glick, B.R. The use of high throughput DNA sequence analysis to assess the endophytic microbiome analysis of date palm roots grown under different levels of salt stress. Internat. Microbiol. 2016, 19, 143–155. [Google Scholar]
  42. Orozco-Mosqueda, M.C.; Rocha-Granados, M.C.; Glick, B.R.; Santoyo, G. Microbiome engineering to improve biocontrol and plant growth-promoting mechanisms. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 208, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Phour, M.; Sehrawat, A.; Sindhu, S.S.; Glick, B.R. Interkingdom signaling in plant-rhizomicrobiome interactions for sustainable agriculture. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 241, 126589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brundrett, M.C. Coevolution of roots and mycorrhizas of land plants. New Phytol. 2002, 154, 275–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Parniske, M. Arbuscular mycorrhiza: The mother of plant root endosymbiosis. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 763–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bonfante, P.; Anca, I.-A. Plants, mycorrhizal fungi, and bacteria: A network of interactions. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 63, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, M.; Arato, M.; Borghi, L.; Nouri, E.; Reinhardt, D. Beneficial services of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi—From ecology to application. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Frey-Klett, P.; Garbaye, J.; Tarkka, M. The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited. New Phytol. 2007, 176, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Lingua, G.; Bona, E.; Manassero, P.; Marsano, F.; Todeschini, V.; Cantamessa, S.; Copetta, A.; D’Agostino, G.; Gamalero, E.; Berta, G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting pseudomonads increases anthocyanin in strawberry fruits (Fragaria x ananassa var. Selva) in conditions of reduced fertilization. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 16207–16225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bona, E.; Cantamessa, S.; Massa, N.; Manassero, P.; Marsano, F.; Copetta, A.; Lingua, G.; D’Agostino, G.; Gamalero, E.; Berta, G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting pseudomonads improve yield, quality and nutritional value of tomato: A field study. Mycorrhiza 2017, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ramasamy, K.; Joe, M.M.; Kim, K.; Lee, S.; Shagol, C.; Gangasamy, A.; Chung, J.; Islam, M.R.; Sa, T. Synergistic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for sustainable agricultural production. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fertil. 2011, 44, 637–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Reed, M.L.E.; Glick, B.R. Applications of free-living plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Anton. Leeuwenhoek 2004, 86, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  53. Alori, E.T.; Emmanuel, O.C.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O. Plant-archaea relationships: A potential means to improve crop production in arid and semiarid regions. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Adeleke, B.S.; Babalola, O.O.; Glick, B.R. Plant growth-promoting root-colonizing bacterial endophytes. Rhizosph. 2021, 20, 100433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Reed, M.L.; Glick, B.R. Applications of plant growth-promoting bacteria for plant and soil systems. In Applications of Microbial Engineering; Taylor and Francis: Enfield, CT, USA, 2013; pp. 181–229. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jiménez-Gómez, A.; Saati-Santamaría, Z.; Kostovcik, M.; Rivas, R.; Velázquez, E.; Mateos, P.F.; Menéndez, E.; García-Fraile, P. Selection of the root endophyte Pseudomonas brassicacearum CDVBN10 as plant growth promoter for Brassica napus L. Crops. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aras, S.; Arıkan, Ş.; İpek, M.; Eşitken, A.; Pırlak, L.; Dönmez, M.F.; Turan, M. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria enhanced leaf organic acids, FC-R activity and Fe nutrition of apple under lime soil conditions. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2018, 40, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gamez, R.; Cardinale, M.; Montes, M.; Ramirez, S.; Schnell, S.; Rodriguez, F. Screening, plant growth promotion and root colonization pattern of two rhizobacteria (Pseudomonas fluorescens Ps006 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Bs006) on banana cv. Williams (Musa acuminata Colla). Microbiol. Res. 2019, 220, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Chang, P.; Gerhardt, K.E.; Huang, X.-D.; Yu, X.-M.; Glick, B.R.; Gerwing, P.D.; Greenberg, B.M. Plant growth-promoting bacteria facilitate the growth of barley and oats in salt-impacted soil: Implications for phytoremediation of saline soils. Int. J. Phytorem. 2014, 16, 1133–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Baris, O.; Sahin, F.; Turan, M.; Orhan, F.; Gulluce, M. Use of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) seed inoculation as alternative fertilizer inputs in wheat and barley production. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 2457–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tajini, F.; Trabelsi, M.; Drevon, J.-J. Combined inoculation with Glomus intraradices and Rhizobium tropici CIAT899 increases phosphorus use efficiency for symbiotic nitrogen fixation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 19, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Martins, S.J.; de Medeiros, F.H.V.; de Souza, R.M.; de Resende, M.L.V.; Junior, P.M.R. Biological control of bacterial wilt of common bean by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Biologic. Cont. 2013, 66, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gabre, V.V.; Venancio, W.S.; Moraes, B.A.; Furmam, F.G.; Galvão, C.W.; Gonçalves, D.R.P.; Etto, R.M. Multiple effect of different plant growth promoting microorganisms on beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) crop. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2020, 63, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bechtaoui, N.; Raklami, A.; Tahiri, A.-I.; Benidire, L.; El Alaoui, A.; Meddich, A.; Göttfert, M.; Oufdou, K. Characterization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and their benefits on growth and phosphate nutrition of faba bean and wheat. Biol. Open 2019, 8, bio043968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ahmad, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Asghar, H.N.; Arshad, M. The combined application of rhizobial strains and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria improves growth and productivity of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) under salt-stressed conditions. Ann. Microbiol. 2012, 62, 1321–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gangwar, R.K.; Bhushan, G.; Singh, J.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Singh, A. Combined effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and fungi on mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). Int. J. Pharma. Sci. Res. 2013, 4, 4422. [Google Scholar]
  67. Stefan, M.; Munteanu, N.; Stoleru, V.; Mihasan, M. Effects of inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on photosynthesis, antioxidant status and yield of runner bean. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2013, 18, 8132–8143. [Google Scholar]
  68. El-Howeity, M.; Asfour, M. Response of some varieties of canola plant (Brassica napus L.) cultivated in a newly reclaimed desert to plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and mineral nitrogen fertilizer. Annal. Agric. Sci. 2012, 57, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hu, X.; Roberts, D.P.; Xie, L.; Maul, J.E.; Yu, C.; Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Liao, X. Development of a biologically based fertilizer, incorporating Bacillus megaterium A6, for improved phosphorus nutrition of oilseed rape. Can. J. Microbiol. 2013, 59, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Naseri, R.; Maleki, A.; Naserirad, H.; Shebibi, S.; Omidian, A. Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on reduction nitrogen fertilizer application in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2013, 14, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  71. Nosheen, A.; Bano, A.; Ullah, F. The role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on oil yield and biodiesel production of canola (Brassica napus L.). Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2013, 35, 1574–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Padda, K.P.; Puri, A.; Chanway, C.P. Plant growth promotion and nitrogen fixation in canola (Brassica napus) by an endophytic strain of Paenibacillus polymyxa and its GFP-tagged derivative in a long-term study. Botany 2016, 94, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Valetti, L.; Iriarte, L.; Fabra, A. Growth promotion of rapeseed (Brassica napus) associated with the inoculation of phosphate solubilizing bacteria. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 132, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nasab, R.S.; Yali, M.P.; Bozorg-Amirkalaee, M. Effects of humic acid and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on induced resistance of canola to Brevicoryne brassicae L. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2019, 109, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Farhangi-Abriz, S.; Tavasolee, A.; Ghassemi-Golezani, K.; Torabian, S.; Monirifar, H.; Rahmani, H.A. Growth-promoting bacteria and natural regulators mitigate salt toxicity and improve rapeseed plant performance. Protoplasma 2020, 257, 1035–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D. Application of growth activators and Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria as a method of introducing a “farm to fork” strategy in crop management of winter oilseed. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cinkocki, R.; Lipková, N.; Javoreková, S.; Petrová, J.; Maková, J.; Medo, J.; Ducsay, L. The Impact of growth-promoting Streptomycetes isolated from Rhizosphere and bulk soil on Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.) growth parameters. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jamalzadeh, A.; Darvishnia, M.; Khodakaramian, G.; Bazgir, E.; Zafari, D. Genetic diversity and plant growth-promoting activity of the dominant bacteria from canola plants in Western Iran. Egypt. J. Biologic. Cont. 2021, 31, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. de Aquino, G.S.; Shahab, M.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Moreira, A. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria increased canola yield and root system. J. Plant Nutr. 2023, 46, 1400–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ibrahim, G.A. The role of salt-tolerant plant growth promoting bacteria in increasing the resistance of canola to salt-stress. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2022, 13, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Valizadeh-rad, K.; Motesharezadeh, B.; Alikhani, H.A.; Jalali, M.; Etesami, H.; Javadzarin, I. Morphophysiological and nutritional responses of canola and wheat to water deficit stress by the application of plant growth-promoting bacteria, nano-silicon, and silicon. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 1, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lopes, E.A.P.; Silva, A.D.A.; Mergulhão, A.C.E.S.; Silva, E.V.N.; Santiago, A.D.; Figueiredo, M.V.B. Co-inoculation of growth promoting bacteria and Glomus clarum in micropropagated cassava plants. Rev. Caatinga 2019, 32, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Canellas, L.P.; Canellas, N.O.; da Silva, R.M.; Spaccini, R.; Mota, G.P.; Olivares, F.L. Biostimulants Using Humic Substances and Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria: Effects on Cassava (Manihot esculentus) and Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) Yield. Agronomy 2022, 13, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Patel, D.; Jha, C.K.; Tank, N.; Saraf, M. Growth enhancement of chickpea in saline soils using plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. J. Plant Growth Regulat. 2012, 31, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gopalakrishnan, S.; Srinivas, V.; Samineni, S. Nitrogen fixation, plant growth and yield enhancements by diazotrophic growth-promoting bacteria in two cultivars of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Biocatal. Agric. Biotech. 2017, 11, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mathimaran, N.; Jegan, S.; Thimmegowda, M.N.; Prabavathy, V.R.; Yuvaraj, P.; Kathiravan, R.; Sivakumar, M.N.; Manjunatha, B.N.; Bhavitha, N.C.; Sathish, A. Intercropping transplanted pigeon pea with finger millet: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria boost yield while reducing fertilizer input. Front. Sust. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Venancio, W.S.; Gomes, J.M.; Nakatani, A.S.; Hungria, M.; Araujo, R.S. Lettuce production under reduced levels of N-fertilizer in the presence of plant growth-promoting Bacillus spp. bacteria. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 13, 1941–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gholami, A.; Biyari, A.; Gholipoor, M.; Asadi Rahmani, H. Growth promotion of maize (Zea mays L.) by plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria under field conditions. Commun. Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 1263–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jarak, M.; Mrkovački, N.; Bjelić, D.; Jošić, D.; Hajnal-Jafari, T.; Stamenov, D. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on maize in greenhouse and field trial. Afric. J. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 6, 5683–5690. [Google Scholar]
  90. Rojas-Tapias, D.; Moreno-Galván, A.; Pardo-Díaz, S.; Obando, M.; Rivera, D.; Bonilla, R. Effect of inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on amelioration of saline stress in maize (Zea mays). Appl. Soil Ecol. 2012, 61, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Noumavo, P.A.; Kochoni, E.; Didagbé, Y.O.; Adjanohoun, A.; Allagbé, M.; Sikirou, R.; Gachomo, E.W.; Kotchoni, S.O.; Baba-Moussa, L. Effect of different plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on maize seed germination and seedling development. Amer. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Canellas, L.P.; da Silva, S.F.; Olk, D.C.; Olivares, F.L. Foliar application of plant growth-promoting bacteria and humic acid increase maize yields. J. Food, Agric. Environ. 2015, 13, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  93. Zahid, M.; Abbasi, M.K.; Hameed, S.; Rahim, N. Isolation and identification of indigenous plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from Himalayan region of Kashmir and their effect on improving growth and nutrient contents of maize (Zea mays L.). Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dartora, J.; Guimarães, V.F.; Menezes, C.R.; Freiberger, M.B.; Castoldi, G.; Gonçalves, E. Maize response to inoculation with strains of plant growth-promoting bacteria. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 2016, 20, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kuan, K.B.; Othman, R.; Abdul Rahim, K.; Shamsuddin, Z.H. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria inoculation to enhance vegetative growth, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen remobilisation of maize under greenhouse conditions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nkebiwe, P.M.; Weinmann, M.; Müller, T. Improving fertilizer-depot exploitation and maize growth by inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria: From lab to field. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2016, 3, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Breedt, G.; Labuschagne, N.; Coutinho, T.A. Seed treatment with selected plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria increases maize yield in the field. Annal. Appl. Biol. 2017, 171, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Berger, B.; Patz, S.; Ruppel, S.; Dietel, K.; Faetke, S.; Junge, H.; Becker, M. Successful formulation and application of plant growth-promoting Kosakonia radicincitans in maize cultivation. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 6439481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Di Salvo, L.P.; Cellucci, G.C.; Carlino, M.E.; de Salamone, I.E.G. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria inoculation and nitrogen fertilization increase maize (Zea mays L.) grain yield and modified rhizosphere microbial communities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 126, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ghorchiani, M.; Etesami, H.; Alikhani, H.A. Improvement of growth and yield of maize under water stress by co-inoculating an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and a plant growth promoting rhizobacterium together with phosphate fertilizers. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2018, 258, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lin, Y.; Watts, D.B.; Kloepper, J.W.; Torbert, H.A. Influence of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on corn growth under different fertility sources. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 1239–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Cui, W.; He, P.; Munir, S.; He, P.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, J.; Wu, Y.; Yang, L.; He, P. Efficacy of plant growth promoting bacteria Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B9601-Y2 for biocontrol of southern corn leaf blight. Biol. Control 2019, 139, 104080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sandini, I.E.; Pacentchuk, F.; Hungria, M.; Nogueira, M.A.; da Cruz, S.P.; Nakatani, A.S.; Araujo, R.S. Seed Inoculation with Pseudomonas fluorescens Promotes Growth, Yield and Reduces Nitrogen Application in Maize. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 22, 1369–1375. [Google Scholar]
  104. Efthimiadou, A.; Katsenios, N.; Chanioti, S.; Giannoglou, M.; Djordjevic, N.; Katsaros, G. Effect of foliar and soil application of plant growth promoting bacteria on growth, physiology, yield and seed quality of maize under Mediterranean conditions. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Moreira, H.; Pereira, S.I.; Vega, A.; Castro, P.M.; Marques, A.P. Synergistic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting bacteria benefit maize growth under increasing soil salinity. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 257, 109982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pereira, N.C.M.; Galindo, F.S.; Gazola, R.P.D.; Dupas, E.; Rosa, P.A.L.; Mortinho, E.S.; Filho, M.C.M.T. Corn yield and phosphorus use efficiency response to phosphorus rates associated with plant growth promoting bacteria. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Houida, S.; Yakkou, L.; Kaya, L.O.; Bilen, S.; Fadil, M.; Raouane, M.; El Harti, A.; Amghar, S. Biopriming of maize seeds with plant growth-promoting bacteria isolated from the earthworm Aporrectodea molleri: Effect on seed germination and seedling growth. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 75, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Katsenios, N.; Andreou, V.; Sparangis, P.; Djordjevic, N.; Giannoglou, M.; Chanioti, S.; Kasimatis, C.-N.; Kakabouki, I.; Leonidakis, D.; Danalatos, N. Assessment of plant growth promoting bacteria strains on growth, yield and quality of sweet corn. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 11598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Laditi, M.; Nwoke, C.; Jemo, M.; Abaidoo, R.C.; Ogunjobi, A. Evaluation of microbial inoculants as biofertilizers for the improvement of growth and yield of soybean and maize crops in savanna soils. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 7, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Batista, B.D.; Lacava, P.T.; Ferrari, A.; Teixeira-Silva, N.S.; Bonatelli, M.L.; Tsui, S.; Mondin, M.; Kitajima, E.W.; Pereira, J.O.; Azevedo, J.L. Screening of tropically derived, multi-trait plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and evaluation of corn and soybean colonization ability. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 206, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. El-Katatny, M.H.; Idres, M.M. Effects of single and combined inoculations with Azospirillum brasilense and Trichoderma harzianum on seedling growth or yield parameters of wheat (Triticum vulgaris L., Giza 168) and corn (Zea mays L., hybrid 310). J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 37, 1913–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kushwaha, P.; Kashyap, P.L.; Srivastava, A.K.; Tiwari, R.K. Plant growth promoting and antifungal activity in endophytic Bacillus strains from pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Braz. J. Microbiol. 2020, 51, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Phour, M.; Sindhu, S.S. Amelioration of salinity stress and growth stimulation of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) by salt-tolerant Pseudomonas species. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 149, 103518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Čolo, J.; Hajnal-Jafari, T.; Duric, S.; Stamenov, D.; Hamidović, S. Plant growth promotion rhizobacteria in onion production. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2014, 63, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Muhammad Syafiq, T.H.T.; Nusaibah, S.A.; Rafii, M.Y. Effectiveness of bioinoculants Bacillus cereus and Trichoderma asperellum as oil palm seedlings growth promoters. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2021, 44, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Duc, N.; Mayer, Z.; Pék, Z.; Helyes, L.; Posta, K. Combined inoculation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma spp. for enhancing defense enzymes and yield of three pepper cultivars. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017, 15, 1815–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Admassie, M.; Woldehawariat, Y.; Alemu, T.; Gonzalez, E.; Jimenez, J.F. The role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in alleviating drought stress on pepper plants. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 272, 107831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ghyselinck, J.; Velivelli, S.L.; Heylen, K.; O’Herlihy, E.; Franco, J.; Rojas, M.; De Vos, P.; Prestwich, B.D. Bioprospecting in potato fields in the Central Andean Highlands: Screening of rhizobacteria for plant growth-promoting properties. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 36, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Selva Kumar, S.; Ram Krishna Rao, M.; Deepak Kumar, R.; Panwar, S.; Prasad, C.S. Biocontrol by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria against black scurf and stem canker disease of potato caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Arch. Phytopath. Plant Prot. 2013, 46, 487–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hanif, M.K.; Hameed, S.; Imran, A.; Naqqash, T.; Shahid, M.; Van Elsas, J.D. Isolation and characterization of a β-propeller gene containing phosphobacterium Bacillus subtilis strain KPS-11 for growth promotion of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Tkachenko, O.V.; Evseeva, N.V.; Boikova, N.V.; Matora, L.Y.; Burygin, G.L.; Lobachev, Y.V.; Shchyogolev, S.Y. Improved potato microclonal reproduction with the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria Azospirillum. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1167–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Naqqash, T.; Hameed, S.; Imran, A.; Hanif, M.K.; Majeed, A.; van Elsas, J.D. Differential response of potato toward inoculation with taxonomically diverse plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Trdan, S.; Vučajnk, F.; Bohinc, T.; Vidrih, M. The effect of a mixture of two plant growth-promoting bacteria from Argentina on the yield of potato, and occurrence of primary potato diseases and pest–short communication. Acta Agric. Scandin. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2019, 69, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ekin, Z. Integrated use of humic acid and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria to ensure higher potato productivity in sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yasmin, F.; Othman, R.; Maziz, M.N.H. Yield and nutrient content of sweet potato in response of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) inoculation and N fertilization. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 13, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  126. Tkachenko, O.V.; Evseeva, N.V.; Terentyeva, E.V.; Burygin, G.L.; Shirokov, A.А.; Burov, A.М.; Matora, L.Y.; Shchyogolev, S.Y. Improved production of high-quality potato seeds in aeroponics with plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Potato Res. 2021, 64, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Liu, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, M.; Wan, H.; Chen, Z.; Yang, N.; Duan, J.; Wei, Z.; Hu, T.; Liu, F. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) strain Bacillus licheniformis with biochar amendment on potato growth and water use efficiency under reduced irrigation regime. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Banayo, N.P.M.; Cruz, P.C.S.; Aguilar, E.A.; Badayos, R.B.; Haefele, S.M. Evaluation of biofertilizers in irrigated rice: Effects on grain yield at different fertilizer rates. Agriculture 2012, 2, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Bashir, A.; Mirza, M. Response of rice to inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in control lab environment and field experiment. Pak. J. Bot. 2014, 46, 1121–1124. [Google Scholar]
  130. de Salamone, I.E.G.; Funes, J.M.; Di Salvo, L.P.; Escobar-Ortega, J.S.; D’Auria, F.; Ferrando, L.; Fernandez-Scavino, A. 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. 2012, 61, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Sharma, A.; Shankhdhar, D.; Shankhdhar, S. Enhancing grain iron content of rice by the application of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Win, K.T.; Oo, A.Z.; Ohkama-Ohtsu, N.; Yokoyama, T. Bacillus pumilus strain TUAT-1 and nitrogen application in nursery phase promote growth of rice plants under field conditions. Agronomy 2018, 8, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hafez, E.M.; Alsohim, A.S.; Farig, M.; Omara, A.E.-D.; Rashwan, E.; Kamara, M.M. Synergistic effect of biochar and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on alleviation of water deficit in rice plants under salt-affected soil. Agronomy 2019, 9, 847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Shultana, R.; Kee Zuan, A.T.; Yusop, M.R.; Saud, H.M. Characterization of salt-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and the effect on growth and yield of saline-affected rice. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Cavite, H.J.M.; Mactal, A.G.; Evangelista, E.V.; Cruz, J.A. Growth and yield response of upland rice to application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 40, 494–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. de Souza, E.M.; Lamb, T.I.; Lamb, T.A.; dos Santos Silva, A.; da Fré de Carvalho, S.; Nyland, V.; Lopes, M.C.B.; Grohs, M.; Marconatto, L.; dos Anjos Borges, L.G. Rhizospheric soil from rice paddy presents isolable bacteria able to induce cold tolerance in rice plants. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 1993–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Kumar, A.; Singh, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Rastogi, R.P.; Verma, J.P. Salt-tolerant plant growth-promoting Bacillus pumilus strain JPVS11 to enhance plant growth attributes of rice and improve soil health under salinity stress. Microbiol. Res. 2021, 242, 126616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Padukkage, D.; Geekiyanage, S.; Reparaz, J.M.; Bezus, R.; Balatti, P.A.; Degrassi, G. Bradyrhizobium japonicum, B. elkanii and B. diazoefficiens interact with rice (Oryza sativa), promote growth and increase yield. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kartik, V.P.; Chandwani, S.; Amaresan, N. Augmenting the bioavailability of iron in rice grains from field soils through the application of iron solubilizing bacteria. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 76, ovac038. [Google Scholar]
  140. Yen, K.S.; Sundar, L.S.; Chao, Y.-Y. Foliar Application of Rhodopseudomonas palustris enhances the rice crop growth and yield under field conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Chandra, D.; Sharma, A.K. Field evaluation of consortium of bacterial inoculants producing ACC deaminase on growth, nutrients and yield components of rice and wheat. J. Crop Sci. Biotech. 2021, 24, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Abbasi, S.; Zahedi, H.; Sadeghipour, O.; Akbari, R. Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on physiological parameters and nitrogen content of soybean grown under different irrigation regimes. Res. Crops 2013, 14, 798–803. [Google Scholar]
  143. Aung, T.T.; Buranabanyat, B.; Piromyou, P.; Longtonglang, A.; Tittabutr, P.; Boonkerd, N.; Teaumroong, N. Enhanced soybean biomass by co-inoculation of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and its effects on microbial community structures. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2013, 7, 3858–3873. [Google Scholar]
  144. Masciarelli, O.; Llanes, A.; Luna, V. A new PGPR co-inoculated with Bradyrhizobium japonicum enhances soybean nodulation. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 169, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Egamberdieva, D.; Wirth, S.; Behrendt, U.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Berg, G. Biochar treatment resulted in a combined effect on soybean growth promotion and a shift in plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Mondani, F.; Khani, K.; Honarmand, S.J.; Saeidi, M. Evaluating effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the radiation use efficiency and yield of soybean (Glycine max) under water deficit stress condition. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Yousaf, S.; Zohaib, A.; Anjum, S.; Tabassum, T.; Abbas, T.; Irshad, S.; Javed, U.; Farooq, N. Effect of seed inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on yield and quality of soybean. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 32, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Bakhshandeh, E.; Gholamhosseini, M.; Yaghoubian, Y.; Pirdashti, H. Plant growth promoting microorganisms can improve germination, seedling growth and potassium uptake of soybean under drought and salt stress. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 90, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.; Kuramae, E.E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moreira, A.; Costa, N.R.; Alves, C.J.; Pascoaloto, I.M.; Rondina, A.B.; Hungria, M. Effects of growth-promoting bacteria on soybean root activity, plant development, and yield. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Abulfaraj, A.A.; Jalal, R.S. Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria to enhance salinity stress in soybean (Glycine max L.) plants. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 3823–3834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. May, A.; Coelho, L.F.; Pedrinho, A.; Batista, B.D.; Mendes, L.W.; Mendes, R.; Morandi, M.A.B.; Barth, G.; Viana, R.S.; Vilela, E.S.D. The use of indigenous bacterial community as inoculant for plant growth promotion in soybean cultivation. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2021, 69, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Ai, W.; Guo, T.; Lay, K.D.; Ou, K.; Cai, K.; Ding, Y.; Liu, J.; Cao, Y. Isolation of soybean-specific plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria using soybean agglutin and evaluation of their effects to improve soybean growth, yield, and soil nutritional status. Microbiol. Res. 2022, 261, 127076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. de Borja Reis, A.F.; Rosso, L.H.M.; Adee, E.; Davidson, D.; Kovács, P.; Purcell, L.C.; Below, F.E.; Casteel, S.N.; Knott, C.; Kandel, H. Seed inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense in the US soybean systems. Field Crops Res. 2022, 283, 108537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ngosong, C.; Tatah, B.N.; Olougou, M.N.E.; Suh, C.; Nkongho, R.N.; Ngone, M.A.; Achiri, D.T.; Tchakounté, G.V.T.; Ruppel, S. Inoculating plant growth-promoting bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi modulates rhizosphere acid phosphatase and nodulation activities and enhance the productivity of soybean (Glycine max). Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 934339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Yaghoubian, I.; Modarres-Sanavy, S.A.M.; Smith, D.L. Plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) as an eco-friendly option to mitigate water deficit in soybean (Glycine max L.): Growth, physio-biochemical properties and oil content. Plant Phys. Biochem. 2022, 191, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Ramesh, A.; Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, M.P.; Yadav, N.; Joshi, O.P. Plant growth-promoting traits in Enterobacter cloacae subsp. dissolvens MDSR9 isolated from soybean rhizosphere and its impact on growth and nutrition of soybean and wheat upon inoculation. Agric. Res. 2014, 3, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Prakash, J.; Arora, N.K. Development of Bacillus safensis-based liquid bioformulation to augment growth, stevioside content, and nutrient uptake in Stevia rebaudiana. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ipek, M.; Pirlak, L.; Esitken, A.; Figen Dönmez, M.; Turan, M.; Sahin, F. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) increase yield, growth and nutrition of strawberry under high-calcareous soil conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 37, 990–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Artyszak, A.; Gozdowski, D. The effect of growth activators and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the soil properties, root yield, and technological quality of sugar beet. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Ambrosini, A.; Beneduzi, A.; Stefanski, T.; Pinheiro, F.G.; Vargas, L.K.; Passaglia, L.M. Screening of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated from sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Plant Soil. 2012, 356, 245–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Dawwam, G.; Elbeltagy, A.; Emara, H.; Abbas, I.; Hassan, M. Beneficial effect of plant growth promoting bacteria isolated from the roots of potato plant. Annal. Agric. Sci. 2013, 58, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Yu, Y.-Y.; Xu, J.-D.; Gao, M.-Z.; Huang, T.-X.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.-Y.; Wang, Y.-P.; Luo, Y.-M.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, Y.-H. Exploring plant growth promoting rhizobacteria potential for green agriculture system to optimize sweet potato productivity and soil sustainability in northern Jiangsu, China. Euro. J. Agron. 2023, 142, 126661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Olivares, F.L.; Aguiar, N.O.; Rosa, R.C.C.; Canellas, L.P. Substrate biofortification in combination with foliar sprays of plant growth promoting bacteria and humic substances boosts production of organic tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 183, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Abo-Elyousr, K.A.; Khalil Bagy, H.M.; Hashem, M.; Alamri, S.A.; Mostafa, Y.S. Biological control of the tomato wilt caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis using formulated plant growth-promoting bacteria. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.C.; Duan, J.; DiBernardo, M.; Zetter, E.; Campos-García, J.; Glick, B.R.; Santoyo, G. The production of ACC deaminase and trehalose by the plant growth promoting bacterium Pseudomonas sp. UW4 synergistically protect tomato plants against salt stress. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Rana, A.; Joshi, M.; Prasanna, R.; Shivay, Y.S.; Nain, L. Biofortification of wheat through inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and cyanobacteria. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2012, 50, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Turan, M.; Gulluce, M.; von Wirén, N.; Sahin, F. Yield promotion and phosphorus solubilization by plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria in extensive wheat production in Turkey. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 818–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Kasim, W.A.; Osman, M.E.; Omar, M.N.; Abd El-Daim, I.A.; Bejai, S.; Meijer, J. Control of drought stress in wheat using plant-growth-promoting bacteria. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 32, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Nadeem, S.M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Naveed, M.; Nawaz, S. Mitigation of salinity-induced negative impact on the growth and yield of wheat by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in naturally saline conditions. Annal. Microbiol. 2013, 63, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Naveed, M.; Hussain, M.B.; Zahir, Z.A.; Mitter, B.; Sessitsch, A. Drought stress amelioration in wheat through inoculation with Burkholderia phytofirmans strain PsJN. Plant Growth Regulat. 2014, 73, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Upadhyay, S.; Singh, D. Effect of salt-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on wheat plants and soil health in a saline environment. Plant Biol. 2015, 17, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Saia, S.; Fragasso, M.; De Vita, P.; Beleggia, R. Metabolomics provides valuable insight for the study of durum wheat: A review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 3069–3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ul Hassan, T.; Bano, A. The stimulatory effects of L-tryptophan and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on soil health and physiology of wheat. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Naeem, M.; Aslam, Z.; Khaliq, A.; Ahmed, J.N.; Nawaz, A.; Hussain, M. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria reduce aphid population and enhance the productivity of bread wheat. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2018, 49, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Varinderpal-Singh; Sharma, S.; Kunal; Gosal, S.; Choudhary, R.; Singh, R.; Adholeya, A.; Bijay-Singh. Synergistic use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and spectral properties for improving nutrient use efficiencies in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Akhtar, N.; Ilyas, N.; Hayat, R.; Yasmin, H.; Noureldeen, A.; Ahmad, P. Synergistic effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and silicon dioxide nano-particles for amelioration of drought stress in wheat. Plant Phys. Biochem. 2021, 166, 160–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Ebrahimi, M.; Safari Sinegani, A.A.; Sarikhani, M.R.; Aliasgharzad, N. Inoculation effects of isolated plant growth promoting bacteria on wheat yield and grain N content. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 46, 1407–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Rehman, M.M.U.; Zhu, Y.; Abrar, M.; Khan, W.; Wang, W.; Iqbal, A.; Khan, A.; Chen, Y.; Rafiq, M.; Tufail, M.A. Moisture-and period-dependent interactive effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and AM fungus on water use and yield formation in dryland wheat. Plant Soil 2022, 6, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Zeffa, D.M.; Fantin, L.H.; Koltun, A.; de Oliveira, A.L.; Nunes, M.P.; Canteri, M.G.; Gonçalves, L.S. Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on co-inoculation with Bradyrhizobium in soybean crop: A meta-analysis of studies from 1987 to 2018. PeerJ 2020, 8, e7905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Timmusk, S.; Paalme, V.; Pavlicek, V.; Bergquist, J.; Vangala, A.; Danilas, T.; Nevo, E. Bacterial distribution in the rhizosphere of wild barley under contrasting microclimates. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e17968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Basu, A.; Prasad, P.; Das, S.N.; Kalam, S.; Sayyed, R.; Reddy, M.; El Enshasy, H. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) as green bioinoculants: Recent developments, constraints, and prospects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Stegelmeier, A.A.; Rose, D.M.; Joris, B.R.; Glick, B.R. The use of PGPB to promote plant hydroponic growth. Plants 2022, 11, 2783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agriculture 13 01089 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the plant-growth-promoting effects used by PGPB. Abbreviations: HCN, hydrogen cyanide; VOC, volatile organic compounds; ISR, induced systemic resistance; P, phosphorus; K, potassium; Fe, iron; and N, nitrogen.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the plant-growth-promoting effects used by PGPB. Abbreviations: HCN, hydrogen cyanide; VOC, volatile organic compounds; ISR, induced systemic resistance; P, phosphorus; K, potassium; Fe, iron; and N, nitrogen.
Agriculture 13 01089 g001
Table
Table 1. Some examples of agricultural food crop responses to PGPB inoculation. AMF are arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Table 1. Some examples of agricultural food crop responses to PGPB inoculation. AMF are arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
PlantBacteriaExperimental ConditionsResultsReferences
AppleAlcaligenes sp.
Agrobacterium sp.
Staphylococcus spp.
Bacillus sp.
Pantoea sp.		Outdoor pots
-
Increased citric, malic, malonic, butyric, and lactic acid content in the leaf by 25.1%, 21.8%, 29.6%, 18.0%, and 18.2%, respectively
[57]
BananaBacillus amyloliquefaciens
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Greenhouse
-
Increased leaf area (69% to 80%)
-
Increased growth similar to or slightly greater than with 100% chemical fertilization
-
Increased root length by 40% to 49.5%
[58]
Barley
Oats		Pseudomonas sp.
Pseudomonas corrugate		Growth pouchGreenhouseField
-
Salt stress
-
In the greenhouse, Pseudomonas corrugate increased root biomass of barley and oats by 200% and 50%, respectively
-
In field tests, shoot biomass of oats tripled when treated with Pseudomonas sp. and doubled with Pseudomonas corrugate
[59]
Barley
Wheat		Bacillus megaterium
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus megaterium
Azospirillum brasilense		Field
-
Increased grain yield (27.5% to 31.9%), straw (1.1% to 5.3%), and total yield (15.1% to 27.8%) in wheat with individual strains
-
Mixtures of strains increased grain yield (54.7%), straw (2.1%), and total yield (6.7%) in wheat
-
Increased grain yield (15.1% to 27.8%), straw (10.8% to 15.5%), and total yield (14.5% to 18.5%) in barley with individual strains
-
Mixtures of strains increased yield (57.8%), straw (14.6%), and yield (17.5%) in barley
[60]
Bean, common
(Phaseolus vulgaris)		Rhizobium tropiciGreenhouse
-
Co-inoculation with AMF Glomus intraradices
-
Increased soil P (30% to 40%) and N (29% to 42%)
-
Increased nodule number (63% to 70%), nodule mass (40% to 43%), shoot dry weight (23% to 24%), and root growth (39% to 48%)
[61]
Bean, common
(Phaseolus vulgaris)		Bacillus subtilisGreenhouse
-
Biocontrol of bacterial wilt caused by Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens (Cff)
-
Disease control of 42% to 76%
[62]
Bean, common
(Phaseolus vulgaris)		Bacillus subtilis
Burkholderia sp.		Greenhouse Field
-
Co-inoculation with AMF, Rhizobium tropici, and Trichoderma asperellum
-
Increased shoot and root accumulation, number of nodules, and yield components (24.63%)
[63]
Bean, faba
Wheat		Acinetobacter sp.
Rahnella sp.Ensifer meliloti		Field
-
Co-inoculation with rhizobia
-
Single and mixture increased fava bean pod weight (up to 123.78%)
-
Increased wheat spike dry weight up to 63.05%
-
Highest values when plants were inoculated with mixture
[64]
Bean, mung
(Vigna radiata L.)		Pseudomonas syringae
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Outdoor pots
-
Salt stress conditions
-
Co-inoculation with Rhizobium phaseoli
-
Increased shoot fresh weight (145%), root fresh weight (173%), number of pods per plant (150%), pod fresh weight (182%), and total dry matter (269%)
[65]
Bean, mung
(Vigna radiata L.)		Rhizobium sp.
Pseudomonas putida		Pot experiment
-
Co-inoculation with fungi Aspergillus niger, Rhizopus sp., and Trichoderma viride
-
Dual inoculation of Pseudomonas putida with Trichoderma viride increased root length (up to 86.57%), shoot length (up to 56.91%), root dry weight (up to 94.42%), and shoot dry weight (up to 56.09%)
[66]
Bean, runnerBacillus pummilus
Bacillus mycoides		Field
-
Increased grain yield (41.40%) and soluble protein content (16.24%)
[67]
CanolaAzotobacter chroococcum
Azospirillum brasilense
Paenibacillus polymyxa		Field
-
Azospirillum brasilense + 30 kg N/fed produced the highest increases in both seed yield/plant and seed yield/hectare
-
Seed yield increased by 40% over two growing seasons
[68]
Canola Bacillus megaterium Greenhouse
-
Highest seed yield with combined bacterial and chemical fertilizer treatment
[69]
CanolaAzotobacter chroococcum
Pseudomonas putida		Field
-
Azotobacter and Pseudomonas increased yield components by 15.8% and 13.7%
[70]
CanolaAzospirillum sp.
Azotobacter chroococcum		Field
-
Increased seed oil content
[71]
CanolaPaenibacillus polymyxaGrowth chamber
-
Increased seedling length, biomass, and fixed N by 70%, 200%, and 27%, respectively
-
Increased pod mass (greater than 50%)
[72]
CanolaBacillus spp.
Serratia spp.
Arthrobacter spp.
Pantoea spp.		Field
-
Increased seed yield from 21% to 44%
[73]
CanolaPseudomonas fluorescens Azotobacter chroococcum Azospirillum brasilense (combined commercial product)Greenhouse
-
Inoculation increased stress tolerance to cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae)
[74]
CanolaPseudomonas sp.
Azospirillum brasilense		Greenhouse
-
Pseudomonas, together with salicylic acid, alleviated salt stress effects
[75]
Canola Pseudomonas brassicacearum In vitro
Greenhouse
Field
-
Inoculation in field tests increased pod number, pod dry weight, and shoot dry weight by 216.0%, 174.3%, and 197.8%, respectively
[56]
CanolaAzotobacter chroococcum Azospirillum brasilense
Bacillus megaterium		Field
-
Under reduced nitrogen fertilization conditions, mixture of species increased seed yield (7.7% to 9.8%) and fat yield (9.2% to 11.4%)
[76]
CanolaStreptomyces sp.Growth chamber
-
Increased root length (53.14%), shoot length (65.6%), and plant fresh weight (60%)
[77]
CanolaPseudomonas sp.
Frigoribacterium sp.
Sphingomonas sp.
Sphingobacterium sp.
Microbacterium sp.
Bacillus sp.
Rhodococcus sp.		Greenhouse
-
Pseudomonas sp. had the greatest effect on increased seedling growth and germination
[78]
CanolaAzomonas sp.
Azospirillum brasiliense
Methylobacterium komagatae
Rhizobium sp.		Greenhouse
-
M. komagacae increased root area by 44%
-
M. komagacae and A. brasiliense increased grain yield up to 55%
[79]
CanolaAcinetobacter radioresistens
Enterobacter cloacae		In vitro
Field
-
Salt stress conditions
-
Increased fresh weight, dry weight, total seed weight, and oil yield (187.53%, 112.32%, 368.14% ,and 90.24%, respectively, for A. radioresistens) and 162.67%, 109%, 306.8%, and 84.39%, respectively, for E. cloacae)
[80]
Canola, wheatPseudomonas sp.
Bacillus sp.		Greenhouse
-
Silicon co-inoculation with Pseudomonas strain reduced stress indicators the most for both crops
-
Salt stress conditions
[81]
CassavaAzospirillum amazonense Herbaspirillum seropedicae
Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus		Greenhouse
-
Co-inoculation with AMF Glomus clarum
-
Inoculated plants assimilated N in equal proportion to those that received mineral nitrogen
-
Herbaspirillum seropedicae was the most efficient to fix N
[82]
Cassava
Okra		Herbaspirillum seropedicae
Burkholderia silvatlantica
Burkholderia sp.		Outdoor pots
Field
-
Combined PGPB and humic acid mixture
-
Pot trials showed increased root weight of 200%
-
Plant treatment in the field increased yields of cassava and okra by 70% and 50%, respectively
[83]
ChickpeaPseudomonas pseudoalcaligens
Pseudomonas putida		Pot experiments
-
In salt stress conditions
-
Both PGPB increased leaf size, lateral roots, number of leaves, and number of fruits
[84]
ChickpeaPantoea dispersa
Chryseobacterium indologenes
Pseudomonas geniculata Stenotrophomonas pavanii Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
Chryseobacterium sp.
Chryseobacterium indologenes
Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila		Field
-
Increased nodule number (46%), nodule mass (50%), shoot mass (42%), and grain yield (25%)
-
Increased organic carbon (24%), total nitrogen (19%), and available phosphorous (29%)
[85]
Finger Millet Pigeon Pea Pseudomonas spp.Field
-
Co-inoculation with AMF
-
Intercropping yield increase due to inoculation was 126% to 128%
[86]
LettuceBacillus amyloliquefaciens
Bacillus pumilus
Bacillus subtilis		Field
-
Increased plant vigor and head weight by 49%
[87]
MaizeAzospirillum lipoferum
Azospirillum brasilense
Azotobacter chroococcum		Field
-
Coinoculation with Azotobacter and Azospirillum increased dry weight up to 115%
[88]
MaizePseudomonas sp
Bacillus sp.
Azotobacter chroococcum		Greenhouse
Field
-
Increased height (up to 17.15%) and dry weight (up to 35.48%)
-
Highest dry weight and yield were with coinoculation with all three strains
[89]
Maize Azotobacter chroococcum Growth chamber
-
Salt-tolerant strains partially ameliorated yield decrease in salt stress conditions
[90]
MaizePseudomonas fluorescens
Pseudomonas putida
Azospirillum lipoferum		Field
-
A. lipoferum increased plant height by 37% and below ground mass by 56%
[91]
MaizeHerbaspirillum seropedicaeField
-
Application of inoculant at the V8 growth stage as foliar spray resulted in an increased grain yield of 38%
-
Co-inoculation with humic acid
[92]
Maize Bacillus spp.
Pseudomonas spp.		Greenhouse
-
Significantly increased root and shoot yield and nitrogen and phosphorus uptake by plant tissue
[93]
MaizeAzospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum sp.
Enhydrobacter sp.
Rhizobium sp. 		Field
-
Rhizobium sp. 8121 and Azospirillum sp. L26 increased yield equivalent to nitrogen inoculation of 160 kg/ha
[94]
MaizeKlebsiella sp.
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Bacillus pumilus
Acinetobacter sp.		Greenhouse
-
Nitrogen-fixing Bacillus pumilus S1r1 increased ear yield up to 30.9%
[95]
MaizePseudomonas sp.
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens		Greenhouse Field
-
Pseudomonas sp. DSMZ 13134 improved biomass yield, but mixed reproducibility across experiments
[96]
MaizeLysinibacillus sphaericus
Paenibacillus alvei
Bacillus safensis
Bacillus pumilus
Brevundimonas vesicularis		Field
-
Yield increased from 24% to 34% over two growing seasons
[97]
MaizeKosakonia radicincitansField
-
Grain and silage yields increased by 18.7% to 32.8% and 14.9% to 29.3%, respectively
-
Differences observed on inoculant formulation–solid formulation produced 9.7% to 18.7% grain yield increases, while liquid formulation produced 20% to 32.8%
[98]
MaizeAzospirillum brasilense
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Field
-
Combined strain inoculant significantly increased grain yield
-
Differential effects observed depending on existing microbial biota in soil
-
Paired with N fertilization, grain yield and root length increased
[99]
Maize Pseudomonas fluorescens Field
-
Co-inoculation with AMF Funneliformis mosseae in water-stressed conditions increased grain yield by 31%
[100]
MaizeBacillus spp.
Pseudomonas moraviensis sp.		Greenhouse
-
Inoculation effect not apparent at later growth stages with multiple fertilization treatments
-
The fertilizers, at optimal N rate, may mask the influence of PGPB on growth parameters
[101]
Maize Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Greenhouse
Field
-
61.38% decrease in Bipolaris maydis blight disease index
-
Marketable yield increased by 7.28% to 10.89%
[102]
MaizePseudomonas fluorescens
Azospirillum brasilense		Field
-
P. fluorescens increased plant biomass from 20% to 24%
-
Grain yield increased from 29% to 31%
[103]
MaizeBacillus megaterium
Azotobacter chroococcum
Bacillus subtilis		Field
-
B. subtilis increased total solids content in seeds (92%), as well as crude fiber content (46%)
-
Increased grain yield from 5.5% to 13.4%
[104]
MaizePseudomonasreactans
Pantoea alli		Growth chamber
-
Coinoculation with AMF (Rhizoglomus irregulare) ameliorated salt stress effects by promoting biomass increase of 35% and significantly increased nitrogen content in shoots
[105]
MaizeAzospirillum brasilense
Bacillus subtilis
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Field
-
B. subtilis and A. brasilense inoculation resulted in respective increases of 100.5% and 54.6% on phosphorus use efficiency
-
Differential response in yield depending on inoculation strain and phosphorus rate
[106]
MaizeAeromonas encheleia
Pseudomonas azotoformans		In vitro and greenhouse
-
A. encheleia increased germination by 78%
-
Increased root elongation and biomass
[107]
MaizeBacillus mojavensis
Bacilllus subtilis
Bacillus pumilus
Bacillus pseudomycoides		Field
-
B. mojavensis increased yield by 16%, B. subtilis by 13.8%, B. pumilus by 11.8%, and B. pseudomycoides by 9.8%
[108]
Maize
Soybean		Azospirillum sp.Field
-
Dry shoot yield not enhanced for either maize or soybean
-
Significant differences in yield between different soil types
[109]
Maize
Soybean		Bacillus sp.
Burkholderia ambifaria		Greenhouse
-
Dry weight shoot increased by at least 47% for both strains and crops
-
Increase in maize root dry weight from 136.9% to 247.8%
-
Soybean root dry weight did not increase after inoculation with either strain
[110]
Maize
Wheat		Azospirillum brasilenseField
Outdoor pots
-
Co-inoculation with Trichoderma harzianum
-
Single and double inoculation with A. brasilense and T. harzianum increased wheat yield growth
-
Treatment with A. brasilense doubled plant fresh and dry weight
-
Increased wheat spike length (40%), dry grain weight of 100 grains (50% to 180%), and number of grains per spike (65%)
[111]
MilletBacillus spp.Greenhouse
-
Biological control of Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotium rolfsii, and Fusarium solani by 35.68% to 71.96%
-
Increased plant biomass
[112]
Mustard
(Brassica juncea)		Pseudomonas argentinensis
Pseudomonas azotoformans		Greenhouse
-
Salt stress conditions
-
Increased root and shoot dry weight by 139% to 291%
[113]
OnionBacillus subtilisPseudomonas fluorescens
Azotobacter chroococcum		Field
-
Highest bulb size and onion yield with Bacillus subtilis and Azotobacter chroococcum
-
All inocula increased plant height 60 days post-sowing
[114]
PalmBacillus cereusGreenhouse
-
Co-inoculation with Trichoderma asperellum increased root dry mass
-
Individual inoculation increased plant top and root dry weights
[115]
PepperPseudomonas fluorescensField
-
With AMF and Trichoderma, triple inoculation significantly increased fruit yield
[116]
PepperBacillus spp.
Pseudomonas spp.
Stenotrophomonas spp.
Enterobacter spp.
Achromobacter spp.
Comamonas spp.
Acinetobacter spp.
Burkholderia spp.
Serratia spp.
Ocrobactrum spp.
Pantoea spp.
Rhizobium spp.
Aeromonas spp.
Klebsiella spp.		Greenhouse
-
Drought-tolerant isolates increased root and shoot length by 23.6% to 52.8% and 41% to 79.6%, respectively
[117]
PotatoPseudomonas koreensis
Pseudomonas corrugata
Enterobacter sp.
Pseudomonas koreensis
Psuedomonas fluorescens
Bacillus spp.		Growth chamber
-
Three isolates significantly increased plant growth in healthy plantlets and seven isolates increased plant growth in R. solani-diseased plantlets compared to commercial Bacillus spp. strain
[118]
PotatoBacillus subtilisGreenhouse Field
-
Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani
-
Increased tuber biomass, tuber number per plant, and plant biomass in greenhouse and the field
[119]
PotatoBacillus subtilisGreenhouse
-
Increased root and shoot length by 20.89% and 19.18%, respectively
-
Increased root and shoot dry weight by 95.94% and 60.83%, respectively
[120]
PotatoAzospirillum brasilenseGreenhouse to Field
-
Tuber yield per square meter increased by more than 45% for all cultivars
-
Overall tuber weight increased by 30%
[121]
PotatoAzospirillum sp.
Agrobacterium sp.
Pseudomonas sp.
Enterobacter sp.
Rhizobium sp.		Growth chamber
-
Azospirillum sp. yielded greatest increases for plant growth and N uptake
[122]
PotatoPseudomonas fluorescens
Azospirillum brasilense		Field
-
Yield increase of 17% to 31%
[123]
PotatoBacillus megaterium
Bacillus subtilis		Field
-
With humic acid, increased total potato tuber yield by ~140% compared to NPK fertilization tuber yield of 111%
[124]
PotatoBacillus sphaericus
Erwinia sp.,
Klebsiella sp.,
Azospirillum brasilense		Field
-
Klebsiella and application of 33 kg N/ha demonstrated the highest N, P, K, Ca, and Mg contents of storage roots
[125]
PotatoAzospirillum brasilenseGrowth chamber
-
Increased shoot height (16%) and in-leaf blade number (14%)
-
Yield per square meter increased by an average of 17% in two cultivars
[126]
PotatoBacillus licheniformisGreenhouse
-
Inoculation with biochar
-
No increase in plant growth and water use efficiency
-
Increased leaf gas exchange rates, including photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate at early seedling stage
[127]
RiceAzospirillum sp.
Trichoderma sp.
Unidentified rhizobacteria		Field
-
Azospirillum-based biofertilizer increased seasonal yields from 5% to 18%
[128]
RiceAzospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum lipoferum
Pseudomonas sp.		Laboratory
Field
-
Azospirillum brasilense increased grain weight by 39.5%
-
Azospirillum lipoferum increased grain weight by 18.5%
-
Pseudomonas increased grain weight by 13.8%
[129]
RiceAzospirillum brasilense
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Field
-
Biomass increased from 1.9% to 8.7%
-
Yield increased from 7.3% to 20.2%
-
Differential responses depending on rice cultivar, increases for both semi-dwarf and tall varieties with inoculation
[130]
RicePseudomonas putidaPseudomonas fluorescens
Azospirillum lipoferum		Field
-
P. putida nearly doubled the grain iron content
[131]
Rice Bacillus pumilus Field
-
Combination of inoculation and 100% fertilization on 21-day-old seedling increased biomass
-
Growth and yield similar to 50% fertilization
[132]
RicePseudomonas koreensis
Bacillus coagulans		Field
-
When PGPB were combined with biochar, the salt stress effect was eliminated for 1000 grain weight yield
[133]
RiceBacillus tequilensis
Bacillus aryabhattai		Greenhouse
-
Increased grain yield under saline conditions
[134]
Rice Acidovorax delafieldii Greenhouse
-
Inoculation, in combination with 50% recommended rate of fertilization, as effective for yield enhancement as full-rate fertilization
[135]
Rice Kosakonia sp.
Staphylococcus sp.		Greenhouse
-
Increased survival rates in cold stress conditions, 69% and 85%, respectively
-
No yield (1000 grain weight) loss with cold stress
[136]
Rice Bacillus pumilusOutdoor pots
-
Increased plant height by 12.90% to 26.48%, root length by 9.55% to 23.09%, chlorophyll content by 10.13% to 27.24%, carotenoids by 8.38% to 25.44%, plant fresh weight by 12.33% to 25.59%, and dry weight by 8.66% to 30.89%
[137]
RiceBradyrhizobium japonicum
Bradyrhizobium elkanii		Field
-
B. elkanii increased rice growth to the greatest extent by approximately 1000 kg/ha
[138]
RiceBacillus cereus
Staphylococcus coagulans
Psuedomonas aeruginosa
Bacillus paramycoides
Psuedomonas aeruginosa
Psuedomonas aeruginosa
Bacillus tequilensis
Bacillus wiedmannii		Field trials
-
Iron content of grain increased from 37.46% to 54.97%
-
1000 grain weight increased from 11.88% to 38.11% for all bacterial treatments
[139]
RiceRhodopseudomonas palustrisField
-
Increased root length (25%), root dry weight (57%), productive tillers per plants (26%), average grains per plant (38%), grain yield (33%), and 1000 grain weight (1.6%)
[140]
Rice
Wheat		Ochrobactrum anthropic
Pseudomonas fluorescens  Pseudomonas palleroniana		Field
-
Increased grain yield by 65.6% in rice and 74.4% in wheat
-
Increased straw yield by 26.8% in rice and 36.9% in wheat
[141]
SoybeanRhizobium japonicum
Azotobacter chroococcum
Azospirillum brasilense		Field
-
Drought stress conditions
-
Inoculation increased membrane stability, chlorophyll content, nitrogen content, and relative water content
[142]
SoybeanBradyrhizobium japonicum
Azospirillum sp.		Outdoor pots
Field
-
Increased seed yield by three to six times
-
Increased nodule dry weight by 26.51% and 18.83%
[143]
SoybeanBacillus amyloliquefaciens
Bradyrhizobium japonicum		Growth chamber
-
Co-inoculation with two strains increased nodulation
[144]
SoybeanPseudomonas chlororaphis
Enterobacter asburiae
Cellulosimicrobium cellulans
Pseudomonas putida
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
Stenotrophomonas sp.		Greenhouse
-
Increased root and shoot dry weight from 28% to 63%
[145]
SoybeanBacillus subtilis
Bacillus licheniformis		Field
-
Water deficit stress
-
Inoculation increased grain yield (22.9%), followed by protein content (18.8%) and radiation use efficiency (15.2%)
[146]
SoybeanBradyrhizobium japonicum
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Field
-
Inoculation with P. fluorescens more effective than R. japonicum in improving grain yield and quality
[147]
SoybeanBacillus cereus
Bacillus megaterium		In vitro
Outdoor pots
-
In salt and drought conditions, bacterial co-inoculants combined with single fungal strain produced the greatest increases in germination properties and seedling biomass
[148]
SoybeanBradyrhizobium japonicum
Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens
Bacillus subtilis
Azospirillum brasilense Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens
Rhizobium tropici		Greenhouse
Field
-
Increased root diameter (1.6%), root length (28.5%), root volume (19.7%), root surface area (17.8%), number of nodules (29%), nodule dry weight (27.2%), root dry weight (13.5%), and shoot dry weight (3.8%)
-
Field yield increase of 485 kg/ha
[149]
SoybeanPseudomonas fluorescens Pseudomonas putida
Bacillus subtilis		In vitro
Greenhouse
-
Salt stress conditions
-
Increased stem length and shoot fresh weight
[150]
SoybeanEnterobacter spp.
Pseudomonas spp.
Xanthomonas spp.		Greenhouse
-
Selection of a consortium of native microbes as inoculants
-
Increased seedling radicle length, hypocotyl length, and total dry weight by 44%, 30%, and 29%, respectively
[151]
SoybeanEnterobacter spp. Outdoor pots
Field
-
Some strains increased seed weight per plant by up to 65%, pod number per plant (79.82%), and seed oil content (5.23%)
[152]
SoybeanAzospirillum brasilense
Bradyrhizobium japonicum		Field
-
25 field studies conducted across soybean-growing regions in U.S.
-
Seed yield response with co-inoculation was significant in 2 of 25 sites
[153]
SoybeanArthobacter sp.
Bacillus sp.
Lysinibacillus sp.
Paenibacillus sp.
Sinomonas sp.
Kosakosania radicincitans		Field
-
Co-inoculation with AMF
-
Mixture of PGPB and AMF increased the number of root nodules by 67.2% and 57%, respectively
-
Co-application of PGPB and AMF increased the number of root nodules by 68.4%
-
Increased grain yield ranged between 0.50 and 1.16 tons/ha in all applied treatments
[154]
SoybeanAzotobacter chroococcum Piriformospora indicaField
-
In drought stress conditions, increased oil content by 9.37% to 12.87%
-
Co-inoculation more effective than single-strain inoculation
[155]
Soybean
Wheat		Enterobacter cloacae subsp. dissolvens Field
-
Increased soybean shoot and seed weight up to 13.77% and 16.09%, respectively
-
Increased wheat shoot and seed weight by 39.13% and 49.14%, respectively
[156]
Stevia Bacillus safensisGreenhouse
-
Increased fresh and dry weight
-
Increased concentration of stevioside by 153.12%
[157]
StrawberryAlcaligenes sp.
Staphylococcus spp.
Agrobacterium sp.
Pantoea sp.
Bacillus sp.		Greenhouse
-
Calcareous soil conditions increased growth measurements with all bacterial treatments
-
Alcaligenes sp. increased fruit yield, number, and weight by 47.5%, 34.7%, and 9.4%, respectively
[158]
Sugar beetAzotobacter chroococcum
Azospirillum brasilense
Bacillus megaterium		Field
-
Reduction in N fertilization requirements with no yield cost
-
increased sugar yield
[159]
SunflowerAchromobacter sp.
Chryseobacterium sp.
Azospirillum sp.
Burkholderia sp.		Growth chamber
-
Increased dry shoot weight by 58% to 77%
-
Enhanced N uptake by 62% to 140%
[160]
Sweet potatoBacillus cereus
Achromobacter xylosoxidans		Greenhouse
-
Increased plant growth and N, P, K, Ca, and Mg uptake in 60-day-old plants
[161]
Sweet PotatoBacillus cereus
Bacillus subtilis
Serratia sp.		Field
-
Increased potato yield by 26.44% over two trial years
-
Reduction in Erwinia and Ralstonia detected in soil
[162]
Tomato Herbaspirillum seropedicae Greenhouse Field
-
Inoculation with vermicompost
-
Increased root, fruit biomass (87.1%), and brix (a measure of sweetness)
[163]
TomatoPseudomonas fluorescens
Pseudomonas sp.		Field
-
AMF combination inoculation
-
Mixture of bacteria and fungi increased fruit weight (35%)
[50]
TomatoBacillus subtilis
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Pseudomonas fluorescens		Greenhouse
-
Biocontrol of tomato wilt caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. Michiganensis
-
B. amyloliquefaciens reduced disease severity by 74.4%, P. fluorescens by 40%, and B. subtilis by 53.3%
[164]
TomatoPseudomonas sp.Greenhouse
-
Salt stress conditions
-
Wild-type and trehalose-over-producing mutant strains significantly increased root and shoot length, total dry weight, and chlorophyll content
[165]
WheatProvidencia sp.
Anabaena sp.		Field
-
Increased protein content up to 18.6%
-
Increased Fe, Mn, and Cu contents by 105.3%, 36.7%, and 150.0%, respectively
[166]
WheatBacillus subtilis
Bacillus megaterium
Azospirillum brasilense		Field
-
Increased grain yield by 19% to 24%
[167]
WheatBacillus amyloliquefaciens
Azospirillum brasilense		Growth chamber
-
Drought stress conditions
-
Reduced drought stress on wheat
[168]
WheatPseudomonas putida
Enterobacter cloacae
Serratia ficaria
Pseudomonas fluorescens		Field
-
Salt stress conditions
-
Increased grain yield by 20% to 31%
[169]
WheatBurkholderia phytofirmansField
-
Increased grain yield (by 18 to 21%)
-
Decreased adverse effects of drought on relative water contents and CO2 assimilation rate
-
Increased photosynthetic rate, water use efficiency, and chlorophyll content
[170]
WheatBacillus pumilus
Bacillus aquimaris
Bacillus arsinicus
Arthrobacter sp.
Bacillus cereus
Bacillus mendocina
Bacillus subtilis		Field
-
Salt stress conditions
-
B. subtilis SU 47 reduced Na content in wheat leaves by 23% and increased yield by 17.8%
[171]
WheatBacillus amyloliquefaciens
Bacillus brevis
Bacillus circulans
Bacillus coagulans
Bacillus firmus
Bacillus halodenitrificans
Bacillus laterosporus
Bacillus licheniformis
Bacillus megaterium
Bacillus mycoides
Bacillus pasteurii
Bacillus polymyxa
Bacillus subtilis		Field
-
Co-inoculation with commercial AMF
-
Inoculation with microorganisms (AMF or PGPB, or both) increased the above-ground biomass yield in both the fertilized and unfertilized treatments
[172]
WheatPseudomonas moraviensis
Bacillus cereus		Field
-
P. moraviensis increased seeds/spike (15%) and seed weight (22%)
-
B. cereus increased seeds/spike (18%) and seed weight (21%)
[173]
Wheat Bacillus sp.
Pseudomonas sp.		Field
-
Increased grain yield for two varieties by 35.5% to 38.9%
[174]
WheatPseudomonas jessenii
Pseudomonas synxantha		Field
-
Co-inoculation with AMF spp.
-
Increased grain yield by 16.7% with 25% less N, P fertilizer
[175]
WheatBacillus sp.
Azospirillum lipoferum
Azospirillum brasilense		Greenhouse
-
Combination of nanoparticles of silicon and PGPB
-
Drought conditions
-
Increased biomass (fresh and dry weight) and chlorophyll-a and -b content by 138.78%, 65.70%, 128.57%, and 283.33%, respectively
[176]
WheatAgrobacterium sp.
Azotobacter chroococcum		Greenhouse
-
Enhanced N, Zn, and P content with inoculation
-
Increased total dry weight (shoot, root, spike, and leaves) by 35%, 32.4%, and 28.5%, respectively
[177]
WheatBacillus amyloliquefaciensGreenhouse
-
Co-inoculation with AMF
-
Drought stress conditions
-
PGPB increased water use efficiency by 27.9% to 34.3% and AMF increased by 20% to 22.1%
-
Grain yield increased by 12.13% to 34.34% with PGPB and 20.03% to 30.77% with AMF
-
Co-inoculation of AMF and PGPB promoted water use efficiency increase of 11.12% to 27.77% and grain yield of 18.26% to 21.68%
-
AMF–PGPB co-inoculation increased chlorophyll and carotenoid contents during anthesis
[178]
Table
Table 2. Examples of commercial products using plant-growth-promoting bacteria.
Table 2. Examples of commercial products using plant-growth-promoting bacteria.
PGPB IngredientProductCompanyIntended Crop
Azoarcus sp.
Azorhizobium sp.
Azospirillum sp.		TwinNMapleton Agri Biotec, Mapleton, AustraliaAgricultural and horticultural crops
Azospirillum brasilenseAzoFerBiofabrica, Mexico City, MexicoMaize and field crops
Azotobacter chroococcumDimargonBiocultivos, Ibague, ColumbiaSoybean and coffee
Azotobacter chroococcum
Azospirillum brasilense
Bacillus megaterium		AzoterAzoter, Gyor, HungaryAgricultural and horticultural crops
Azospirillum brasilense
Azotobacter chroococcum
Pseudomonas fluorescens		RoshdAfzaBiorun company, Karaj, IranMaize, rice, cereals, sugarcane, and fruit trees
Azotobacter chroococcum
Bacillus megaterium		Phylazonit MPhylazonit, Nyiregyhaza, HungaryMaize, soybean, cereal, canola, and sunflower
Azotobacter chroococcum
Pseudomonas fluorescensin		Bio GoldBio Power Lanka, Columbo, Sri LankaAgricultural and horticultural crops
Azotobacter vinelandii
(with Rhizophagus irregularis)		Rhizosum NSyngenta, Basel, SwitzerlandMaize, rice, soybean, canola, sunflower, sugar beet, and sorghum
Bacillus spp.
(with Glomus intraradices)		CataPultBio-Tech Organics, Virginia, AustraliaWinter cereals
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
(with Trichoderma virens)		QuickRootsNovozymes BioAg Ltd., Bagsvaerd, DenmarkMaize, soybean, canola, pulse, sunflower, and sugar beet
Bacillus mucilaginosusK Sol-BAgriLife, Hyderabad, IndiaPulse crops
Bacillus subtilisSerenade ASOBayer CropScience, Monheim, GermanyFruit and vegetable crops
Bacillus subtilis
Bradyrhizobium japonicum		Nodulator N/TBASF, Ludwigshafen, GermanySoybean
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus licheniformis
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
Bacillus megaterium
Bacillus pumilus
Pseudomonas putida
Paenibacillus ploymyxa		BioLevel-PhosNBiolevel Ltd., Chipping Norton, UKMaize, small grains, potato, vegetables, and specialty crops
Bradyrhizobium spp.NoduMaxUPL OpenAg, Lagos, NigeriaSoybean
Bradyrhizobium japonicumBiagro10Biagro, Cambe, BrazilMaize, soybean, wheat, pulse crops, sugarcane, and coffee
Bradyrhizobium japonicumLiquifixLegume Technology Ltd., East Bridgford, UKSoybean
Bradyrhizobium japonicumOptimize LVNovozymes BioAg Ltd., Bagsvaerd, DenmarkSoybean
Bradyrhizobium japonicumRizoliq TopRizobacter, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaSoybean
Bradyrhizobium japonicum
Rhizobium sp.		LegumeFixLegume Technology, Nottingham, UKSoybean and pulse crops
Bradyrhizobium japonicum
Delftia acidovorans		Bioboost+Lallemand, Montreal, CanadaCanola
Methylobacterium symbioticumUtrisha NCorteva Agriscience, Indianapolis, IN, USAMaize, rice, soybeans, canola, sunflower, sugar beet, and sorghum
Paenibacillus polymyxaCustom N2Custom Biologicals, Deerfield Beach, FL, USA.Agricultural and horticultural crops
Pseudomonas chlororaphisCedomonLantmännen BioAgri, Uppsala, SwedenBarley and oats
Thiobacillus thiooxidansSymbion-SStanes, Coimbatore, IndiaAgricultural and horticultural crops
Thiobacillus thiooxidansZN Sol-BAgriLife, Hyderabad, IndiaRice, sugarcane, orchard crops, and vegetables
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Reed, L.; Glick, B.R. The Recent Use of Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Promote the Growth of Agricultural Food Crops. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1089. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051089

AMA Style

Reed L, Glick BR. The Recent Use of Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Promote the Growth of Agricultural Food Crops. Agriculture. 2023; 13(5):1089. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051089

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reed, Lucy, and Bernard R. Glick. 2023. "The Recent Use of Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Promote the Growth of Agricultural Food Crops" Agriculture 13, no. 5: 1089. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051089

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop