Next Article in Journal
A Structure-Based Mechanism for the Denaturing Action of Urea, Guanidinium Ion and Thiocyanate Ion
Next Article in Special Issue
New Bacillus subtilis Strains Isolated from Prosopis glandulosa Rhizosphere for Suppressing Fusarium Spp. and Enhancing Growth of Gossypium hirsutum L.
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Coxon et al. Preliminary Data about Habitat Use of Subadult and Adult White Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in Eastern Australian Waters. Biology 2022, 11, 1443
Previous Article in Special Issue
Isolation and Characterization of Novel Biological Control Agent Clostridium beijerinckii against Meloidogyne incognita
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bacillus spp. as Bioagents: Uses and Application for Sustainable Agriculture

1
Department of Botany, Government College Women University Sialkot, Sialkot 51310, Pakistan
2
Department of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA
3
Department of Plant Pathology, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, Multan 60000, Pakistan
4
Department of Botany, Lahore College for Women University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
5
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan
6
State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agroecosystem, Center for Grassland Microbiome, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2022, 11(12), 1763; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11121763
Submission received: 9 November 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 30 November 2022 / Published: 5 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria: Mechanisms and Applications)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

To fulfill the food demand of the enormously growing population, different synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are used to grow crops. These synthetic products pose ill effects on humans and the environment. In recent times, the trend has shifted towards developing and utilizing bioproducts that are eco-friendly and sustainable to use in agriculture. They enhance productivity and restore equilibrium naturally in agroecological systems. In this regard, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) facilitate crop production in multiple ways. This review deals with the limitations and challenges of conventional pesticides following the different microbes used as bioproducts along with how Bacillus is one of the promising PGPR used in sustainable agriculture. Bacillus spp. improves crop growth in both direct and indirect ways through nitrogen fixation, P and K solubilization, phytohormones production, quorum quenching, biofilm formation, and lytic enzymes production. Moreover, Bacillus spp. boost plant resistance towards the notorious phytopathogens. As Bacillus spp. is eco-friendly, promotes plant growth, confers resistance against diseases, improves soil fertility, non-toxic, naturally occurring microbe, and supports sustainable agriculture, there is a need to explore the potential of native Bacillus spp. and to use them in bioproduct development to support sustainable agriculture.

Abstract

Food security will be a substantial issue in the near future due to the expeditiously growing global population. The current trend in the agriculture industry entails the extravagant use of synthesized pesticides and fertilizers, making sustainability a difficult challenge. Land degradation, lower production, and vulnerability to both abiotic and biotic stresses are problems caused by the usage of these pesticides and fertilizers. The major goal of sustainable agriculture is to ameliorate productivity and reduce pests and disease prevalence to such a degree that prevents large-scale damage to crops. Agriculture is a composite interrelation among plants, microbes, and soil. Plant microbes play a major role in growth promotion and improve soil fertility as well. Bacillus spp. produces an extensive range of bio-chemicals that assist in plant disease control, promote plant development, and make them suitable for agricultural uses. Bacillus spp. support plant growth by N fixation, P and K solubilization, and phytohormone synthesis, in addition to being the most propitious biocontrol agent. Moreover, Bacilli excrete extracellular metabolites, including antibiotics, lytic enzymes, and siderophores, and demonstrate antagonistic activity against phytopathogens. Bacillus spp. boosts plant resistance toward pathogens by inducing systemic resistance (ISR). The most effective microbial insecticide against insects and pests in agriculture is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Additionally, the incorporation of toxin genes in genetically modified crops increases resistance to insects and pests. There is a constant increase in the identified Bacillus species as potential biocontrol agents. Moreover, they have been involved in the biosynthesis of metallic nanoparticles. The main objective of this review article is to display the uses and application of Bacillus specie as a promising biopesticide in sustainable agriculture. Bacillus spp. strains that are antagonistic and promote plant yield attributes could be valuable in developing novel formulations to lead the way toward sustainable agriculture.

1. Introduction

A range of plant diseases are caused by a variety of pathogenic microorganisms, such as fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and protozoa, which drastically lower agricultural production and cause significant yield losses [1]. Pathogenic diseases are responsible for between 20–40% of crop productivity losses [2]. Numerous methods have been employed to stop the spread of plant diseases, such as the use of pesticides, crop rotation, less susceptible crops, and other management techniques, but due to the resistance to pesticides and the persistence of soil-borne pathogens, their effectiveness is generally low [3]. Additionally, overusing chemically synthesized fertilizers has not only detrimental impacts on the biosphere but also affects the functioning of the ecosystem and diminishes the sustainability of agriculture [4]. Eco-friendly options for managing plant diseases and boosting crop yields are now being researched and advocated as part of an integrated crop management system—ICMS [5]. Biological control, which is a crucial component of ICMS, is described as the deployment of beneficial microorganisms to lessen the detrimental impacts of phytopathogens and encourage advantageous plant responses [6]. One of the most researched biocontrol agents, as biopesticides, is the Bacillus species, which inhibits phytopathogens by the mechanisms of competition and antagonism [7].
Various microorganisms, including Hypericum gramineum, Pseudomonas fluorescence, and Streptomyces species, have been identified as biocontrol agents [8]. Bacillus species have emerged as an important biological control agent because of their ability to produce antibiotics and tough and resistant endospores to control a range of phytopathogens [9].
Plant growth-promoting attributes have been reported in a variety of Bacillus spp., including B. velezensis, B. subtilis, B. macerans, B. circulans, B. azotofixans, B. coagulans, and others [10]. Phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, production of siderophores, phytohormones, production of antimicrobial compounds, and systemically induced disease resistance are a few of the direct and indirect ways through which Bacillus spp. promote plant growth [11]. Antagonistically important species of the genus Bacillus are growing quickly. Abiotic stress resistance, rapid replication, and a broad spectrum of biocontrol capabilities are all characteristics of Bacillus spp. Volatile organic chemicals produced by B. subtilis are required for stimulating plant development and activating defense mechanisms in plants by boosting the induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants [12]. Various crops, including tomato, potato, cucumber, maize, common [11] bean, soybean, sunflower, wheat, pepper, and many others, have shown positive impacts of Bacillus spp. on growth and crop yield [13].

2. Limitations and Challenges in the Use of Conventional Pesticides

Pesticides are noxious substances that are discharged premeditatedly into the environment to kill living beings, such as herbicides (kill weeds), insecticides (kill insects), fungicides (kill fungi), and rodenticides (kill rodents) [14]. Pesticide use has amazingly contributed in terms of both yield enhancement and the quality of the crop. The use of pesticides has become a widely adopted practice. According to an estimate, about 5.2 billion pounds of pesticides are used all around the world every year [15]. Although excessive or careless use of pesticides without following recommended practices and safety norms poses serious effects on living organisms (including human wellbeing) and the atmosphere [16]. Atreya, et al. [17] stated that “the benefit of pesticide use is yield increase.” However, a realistic approach must be broader and keep social and environmental impacts into account. Firstly, pesticide use may mitigate people’s wellbeing, reduce productivity, and increase medical expenses. Secondly, it is also involved in environmental or ecosystem degradation that increases costs indirectly.
Problems related to food scarcity, soil nutrient loss, and remnants of pesticides in the environment have put prodigious pressure on the ecosystem and wellness of humans [18]. Rajmohan, et al. [19] reported that “pesticides have a unique structure and their interaction with the environment characterizes the nature of pesticides.” In most cases, the end users, including farmers and consumers who have awareness and knowledge of the serious effects of pesticides, may be left using synthetic pesticides in their practice. The vigorous substances of pesticides cause pollution in the soil environment, affecting microbes living there. Wołejko, et al. [20] examined that the “imidacloprid application at heavy concentrations reduce bacterial population and gradually upset microbial balance in the soil.” Baćmaga, et al. [21] reported that chlorothalonil affects both the microbiological and biochemical properties of soil (loamy sand and sandy loam). It stimulated the growth of heterotrophic and actinobacteria that suppress the growth of fungi. Chlorothalonil acts as an inhibitor of acid phosphatase, catalase, and dehydrogenase activities. Hence, it is very important to minimize the usage of pesticides along with improved safety profiles to reduce deleterious effects on the well-being of humans and the environment. Moreover, there is a requisite to focus on what type of chemicals are the most auspicious for ecological and pest management.

3. Microbes as Sources of Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture (Biopesticides and Sustainable Agriculture)

Biopesticides are obtained from microorganisms or natural sources [22]. They have been classified as follows; (a) botanical-biopesticides, (b) microbial-biopesticides, and (c) plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). Sustainable agriculture aims to reduce pests and disease incidence to such an extent that it does not sternly damage crops without disturbing nature’s balance [23]. Although chemical pesticides expeditiously kill a range of agricultural pests, over-dependence on these pesticides has given rise to several problems involving safety risks, environmental pollution, secondary pests breakout, a decrease in biodiversity, and insecticide resistance [24]. Contrary to this, biopesticides are renewable and a significant alternative to conventional pesticides. The sources of microbial-based biopesticides are displayed in Figure 1.
They are helpful due to their less toxicity, eco-safety, specificity, no development of resistance to pests, and improved crop quality and production [25]. For example, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is one of the biopesticides that is used globally as a tool for insect and pest control. It is also used in the management of phytopathogenic fungi via chitinolytic activity [26]. Kamarulzaman, et al. [27] carried out a comparative study to explore the effectiveness of biopesticides and conventional pesticides in paddy fields. In this study, a neem-based biopesticide (Azadirachta indica), its bioactive secondary metabolite (azadirachtin) bearing insecticidal properties, and conventional pesticides (niclosamideas) were tested. The productivity of rice (Oryza sativa) was increased by the application of biopesticides as compared to the conventional pesticide that offers an alternative for healthier rice cultivation. The primary aim of promoting biopesticides for sustainability is to establish a connection between socially admissible (health, culture, food security), economic growth (farming, marketing, income), and environmental stewardship (water, soil, climate, biodiversity). Along this configuration, the agriculture sector can attain feasibility, community welfare, and eco-safety [28].

4. Diversity of Species of the Genus Bacillus Existing in Agriculture Soil

In the detention of soil, the enormous diversity of microbes, inclusive of bacteria species, archaea, and fungi, are precariously intricate with each other and involved in ecosystem functioning. According to an estimate, 1 g of soil may consist of 1010 to 1011 bacteria, 6000–50,000 bacterial species, and up to 200 m of myco-fungal hyphae, and most of them are propitious for plants and soils [29]. In recent days, intensive farming (by utilizing synthetic fertilizers and chemicals) has been the primary source of food for a growing population. These industrially composed chemical products cause eco-pollution and reduce the microbial population in the soil [30]. To secure biosafety, researchers are involved in the production of nutritious food under sustainable agriculture [31]. The interconnection between the plant, soil, and microbiomes is presented in Figure 2.
Various researches have reported the utilization of biofertilizers instead of hazardous chemicals. The microbes grown on synthetic culture are known as microbial inoculants or biofertilizers. These effective biofertilizers originated from beneficial bioagents that can improve soil fecundity as well as crop yield [31]. Extensive research has reported some probiotic bacteria such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Azotobacter, Serratia, Serratia, Arthrobacter, Erwinia, Microbacterium, Serratia, Azospirillum, Flavobacterium, and Caulobacter [32]. The Bacillus species is one of the significant rhizobacteria species, such as Bacillus subtilis, B. thuringiensis, B. cereus, B. pumilus, etc., that promote plant growth and development and inhibit phytopathogens by the secretion of different exudates such as chitinase and beta-1,3 glucanase, etc. [33]. Some of the reported Bacillus species serving as biocontrol agents against various phytopathogens are presented in Table 1.

5. Bacillus spp. as PGPR (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria)

Bacteria that establish colonies in the rhizosphere (plant root zone) and boost plant growth are referred to as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria—PGPR [48]. The bacterial strains of the genus Bacillus are among the most well-known PGPR [12]. Bacillus spp. is noted by rhizosphere residents and usually shows growth-promoting activities [49]. Certain Bacillus spp. enhances plant growth either by increasing the absorption of nutrients or by the activation of the host’s defensive mechanism against phytopathogens; in addition, other species can repress the population of pathogenic microbes [50]. These growth-promoting abilities of Bacillus can make it a competent PGPR and beneficent in sustainable agriculture [51]. A research study of Sansinenea [52] reported the inoculation of PGPR induced stress resistance as well as enhanced the yield in numerous crop species like tomato, lettuce, wheat, rice, soybean, groundnut, broad bean, maize, chickpea, etc. Various species, including Bacillus azotofixans, B. subtilis, B. circulans, B. velezensis, B. coagulans, B. macerans, etc., are reported as PGPR [53].
Presently, a change in the world’s climate and deleterious environmental conditions are playing an important role in the reduction of crop development, growth, and yield [54]. The manifestation of new varieties of crops (against stress) by implying genetic engineering and molecular breeding is costly and labor-intensive. So recently, the usage of growth-promoting rhizobacteria has been gaining huge popularity as an alternative approach for amelioration of stress in different crops [55]. Accordingly, Nautiyal, et al. [56] observed PGP traits of B. amyloliquefaciens and its impact on Oryza sativa grown under salt-stress conditions. Salt-responsive genes, including NHX1, SOS1, BZ8, SAPK4, and SNRK2, have been reported in rice plants. The NHX1 and SOS1 were reported to be involved in Na+ and H+ exchange, respectively, and reduced cellular Na+ ion concentration. The SAPK4 gene controls ion homeostasis, improved growth, and development of plants under salt stress. The SNRK2 and BZ8 function in the ABA gene regulation pathway through osmotic signaling. In Brachypodium distachyon the application of B. subtilis increases the expression of LEA genes responding to drought stress [57]. Chen, et al. [58] reported B. amyloliquefaciens inoculation is helpful in the expression of genes that help maize plants against salt stress. The HKT1, NHX1, NHX2, and NHX3 genes are related to ion balance and assist maize plants in becoming salt tolerant. Another study by Zubair, et al. [59] highlighted two Bacillus strains, CJCL2 and RJGP41, for their potential role in mitigating cold stress and fostering plant growth in wheat plants. The reported genes for cold tolerance are DegS, desR, SodA, trxA, dpsU20, ResD, ohrR, desk, ComA, OpuAC, KatA, and perR. The pictorial representation of Bacillus spp. induced gene expression in plants under various stress conditions is presented in Figure 3.

6. Mechanisms of PGPR

Plant growth-promoting bacteria, through various direct and indirect mechanisms, suppress the phytopathogens and promote plant growth, as presented in Figure 4. These mechanisms are discussed in detail below:

6.1. Direct Mechanism of PGPR

Several PGPR promote plant growth in various ways. The direct PGPR mechanisms that affect plant growth are described below:

6.1.1. Nitrogen Fixation

The capability of Bacillus spp. to produce different types of metabolites has a direct impact on plant development and agricultural yield by boosting the nutrients that are available to the plants. Most of the required nutrients are applied to plants by fertilization. This technique not only causes greater economic loss but also produces a harmful impact on the surroundings. Biofertilizers containing phosphorous solubilizing and nitrogen-fixing Bacillus spp. are an acceptable way to minimize dependency on chemical fertilizers while maintaining food safety [60]. Despite being primarily (more than 80%) inaccessible in its atmospheric form, nitrogen (N) is essential for the optimal development of plants [61]. Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is a phenomenon in which microorganisms absorb elemental nitrogen from the environment and convert it into a compound that is used by plants as nutrients [62]. Nitrogenase, an enzyme produced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria, catalyzes molecular dinitrogen (N2) to ammonia (NH3) and then is absorbed by the roots of plants. BNF produces approximately 200 million tons of nitrogen annually in the ecosystems of the earth. The microorganisms that are involved in nitrogen fixation may be free-living or symbiotic in nature. By engaging in a-symbiotic nitrogen fixation, several Bacillus spp. can reduce the dependence on nitrogen-based synthetic fertilizers while promoting plant growth along with crop productivity. In crops, 12–70% of total nitrogen uptake is possible due to BNF [61]. In a research study, Kuan, et al. [63] examined the efficacy of B. pumilus as an atmospheric nitrogen fixer, the rise in nitrogen contents, and dry biomass in the maize plant.

6.1.2. Phosphate Solubilization

Phosphorus (P) is a primary macronutrient that is crucial for the development and growth of plants [64]. P-solubilization is defined as the mobility of bound inorganic P (Pi) through the desorption of P and dissolution of P-containing minerals, such as apatite (the group of phosphate minerals) [65]. Alori, Glick and Babalola [64] reported the excessive utilization of synthetic P fertilizers to uplift agricultural production to fulfill ever-increasing global food demand has the potential to pollute surface and groundwater, eutrophication of waterways, and deplete soil fertility. A variety of soil microbes are capable of solubilizing organic P into Pi, which can then be used by plants. These microbes enhance the growth as well as production of a broad range of crops. Saeid, et al. [66] examined the phosphorus solubilization ability of three selected bacterial strains belonging to Bacillus spp. (B. cereus, B. subtilis). Bacillus produced solubilizing exudates including five organic acids namely acetic, gluconic, succinic, lactic, and propionic acids. The presence of phosphorus was established. However, a coalition of three Bacillus spp. produced a significant quantity of organic acid content.

6.1.3. Potassium Solubilization

Potassium is the third fundamental plant macronutrient, following nitrogen and phosphorus [67]. This element takes part in several physiological and metabolic processes of the plants, including photosynthesis, stomata regulation, proper seed development, and promoting crop growth and yield [68]. In soils, K-containing minerals that discharge K through weathering are feldspar, muscovite, biotite, alkali, and illite [69]. However, a major dilemma is the unavailability of these minerals (for plants), but with the assistance of K solubilizing microorganisms inclusive of bacteria, actinomycetes, and molds, improved potassium dissolution can be achieved. The acid production by the bacteria is the mechanism by which K is released, such as Bacillus mucilaginosus and Priestia megaterium are the reported Bacillus spp. that assist in K dissolution [70]. Ali, et al. [71] observed the response of Solanum tuberosum plants to a biofertilizer containing Bacillus cereus investigated in a two-year field study. These potassium-solubilizing bacteria improve the growth parameters of potato plants more than untreated plants. Bacterial inoculation presents a notable increase in plant height and dry biomass. In addition to this, bio-fertilizers improve the total yield and the graded weight of potato tubers. An extensive range of bacteria, such as B. circulans and B. edaphicus has been analyzed to liberate potassium from minerals to a usable form available to the plants [33].

6.1.4. Phytohormones Production

Chemical messengers that are mediated in biochemical and physiological processes of higher plants that are active at very low concentrations refer as phytohormones [72]. Charles Darwin was the first person who suggested that certain chemical compounds capable of stimulating growth in crops are latterly known as phytohormones. Microorganisms can stimulate growth and enhance the resistance of plants by synthesizing phytohormones [73]. Plant roots are heavily surrounded by microbes because of root exudates that are rich in nutrient components [74]. Classical bacterial-phytohormones are ethylene, cytokinins, auxins, abscisic acid, and gibberellins [75]. In a research study, Kang, et al. [76] reported that due to climate change, the crops also experience a change in temperature that is drastically damaging crop growth and development. The PGPR professes an appealing strategy to counter the heat stress that causes detrimental effects on the crops. Accordingly, B. tequilensis (SSB07) is an actively growing bacterial strain in the rhizosphere of Chinese Cabbage that improves the growth of cabbage seedlings by producing a variety of gibberellins such as GA5, GA1, GA19, GA53, GA8, GA24, and GA3, as well as abscisic acid and IAA (indole3-acetic acid).
Auxins are a group of hormones that incite tissue differentiation, cell elongation, and cell division in plants [61]. IAA is a predominant auxin in plants that was chemically identified in the 1930s [77,78]. There is also much evidence documented that various soil microorganisms laboriously synthesize auxins in pure culture and in soil [78]. Ahmed and Hasnain reported in 2010 that two strains (P4 and S6) of the Bacillus spp. ameliorated the auxin content in inoculated plants observed by up to 433% as compared to 71.4% in the non-inoculated plants of S. tuberosum. Comparability of inoculated and non-inoculated plants disseminated, approximately 35% to 40% escalation in the shoot lengths and 40% and 50% increase in the root lengths by P4 and S6 strains respectively. Briefly, auxin-producing Bacillus spp. influence the stimulative effects on the development of plants.
Gibberellins (GAs) are a class of hormones that endeavor profound effects on the growth and development of plants [79]. GA act as a key for following processes in plants, including root and shoot elongation, seed germination, flowering, and fruiting pattern [80]. Further studies revealed GA as a crucial hormone in plants for many developmental processes, such as a transition from vegetative to reproductive growth; trichome development; flower, seed, and fruit development [81,82,83]. The findings of Khan, et al. [84] suggested that B. cereus could be used as a growth promoter and thermo-tolerant in soybean plants. In another study, the synthesis of four gases by B. licheniformis and B. pumilus has been described [85].
Both B. subtilis and B. licheniformis exhibit the synthesis of bacterial cytokinins [86]. Cytokinins are plant hormones that play a key role in physiological and growth-related processes [87]. Stomatal opening and an increase in shoot growth are produced by cytokinins [88]. Cytokinins take part in a variety of plant growth processes, inclusive of photosynthesis, chloroplast differentiation, cell division, regulation of leaf senescence, and nutrient metabolism [89]. Cytokinins presumably arrived from the root zone; however, they accumulate predominantly in the shoots but not in inoculated plants’ roots [90].
Ethylene is a simple hydrocarbon with gaseous nature. Additionally, it regulates stress responses, seedling growth, seed germination, leaf and petal abscission, organ senescence, and pathogen responses [91]. As plants are exposed to various environmental stresses, they speed up their ethylene production rate [92]. Interestingly, ethylene is different and unique due to its gaseous nature; likewise, it moves within the plant by diffusion and considers to be synthesized at or near its site of action [93]. Misra and Chauhan [94] stated that, generally, “salt stress actively corresponds with better ethylene production.” Salt-tolerant Bacillus strains synthesize ACC (an immediate precursor of ethylene) deaminase activity that raises the ethylene level in plants grown under salt stress and results in the growth promotion in Zea mays.
Stomatal closure, fruit ripening, and seed germination are the vital functions of Abscisic acid (ABA). Moreover, it is also engaged in bud dormancy and protective responses against abiotic stresses (salt and drought stress and heavy metal toxicity) [95]. According to Shahzad, et al. [96], salinity hinders crop yield and plant growth. The bacterial strain B. amyloliquefaciens has been observed to produce ABA and has the potential to increase resistance against salt stress in rice plants (Oryza sativa).

6.2. Indirect Mechanism of PGPR

The indirect mechanism of PGPR involved the following attributes, as explained below.

6.2.1. Siderophore Production by Bacillus spp.

Siderophores are low molecular weight, metal-chelating compounds that are produced under iron-limited conditions by some microbes and plants [97]. Iron (Fe) acts as a key element in various kinds of biological processes, e.g., metabolism of oxygen, synthesis of DNA and RNA, transfer of electrons, and enzymatic processes. Siderophores have the capability to lessen the accessibility of Fe for pathogens [98]. By functioning as biocontrol agents, microbes that create siderophores can restrict the spread of diseases and promote the growth of the plant [11]. Out of various Bacillus spp., B. licheniformis, B. anthracis, B. velezensis, B. thuringiensis, B. cereus, B. halodenitrificans, B. atrophaeus, B. mojavensis, B. pumilus, and B. subtilis are the well-known for siderophore production [99]. Siderophore is induced by numerous species of Bacillus, and these species actively participate in the reduction of different plant diseases. For instance, B. subtilis produced a siderophore, which was involved in the reduction of Fusarium wilt and increased the pepper yield [100]. Moreover, siderophores, as bioremediation agents, have the potential to bind different kinds of metals present in the environment [101]. Chelators and phyto-siderophores are two examples of the main metabolites produced by Bt strains that are involved in plant development [26].
Bt produces bacillibactin, a siderophore of the catecholate type that binds iron with an extremely great affinity. Siderophores might help the plant by delivering iron, or they might inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic fungi by competing for iron with Bt strains [102].

6.2.2. Induced Systemic Resistance—ISR

Non-pathogenic rhizobacteria have the capacity to lessen diseases in plants by mediating a plant defense process called “Induced Systemic Resistance” (ISR) [98]. It takes a combination of biotic and abiotic stimuli for plants to start developing the ISR (mechanism of resistance). Non-pathogenic rhizobacteria participate in mediating ISR and usually rely on the ethylene (ET) or jasmonate (JA) signaling pathways [103], while Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) is promoted through the help of salicylic acid (SA). SAR is responsible for the stimulation of a particular group of defense-related genes, while ISR is not involved in the triggering of any certain kinds of defense-related genes [104]. PGPR induces ISR in plants by releasing various metabolites, e.g., antibiotics, siderophores, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), etc. Through the release of these compounds, PGPR can trigger the mechanism of ISR in plants. Bacillus spp. can initiate ISR by the production of antioxidant defense enzymes. Different defense-related enzymes, e.g., polyphenol oxidase (PPO), superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POX), and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), are induced by B. subtilis. In tomato seedlings, the prolonged formation of antioxidant defense enzymes induces the mechanism of ISR against early and late blight diseases [105]. Some strains of Bacillus spp. reduced the chili anthracnose disease by the formation of phenolic compounds and induction of antioxidant defense enzymes [106]. In a related research study, Chen, et al. [107] examined that B. subtilis has the capability to inhibit disease incidence, increase the growth of seedlings, and enhance the defense-related enzyme activities in the cucumber plant. Similarly, Jain, et al. [108] observed that Bacillus spp. enhanced plant growth promotion activities and inhibited disease in soybean caused by Fusarium oxysporum and Rhizoctonia solani by the induction of defense-related enzymes (POX, PAL, PPO).

6.2.3. Production of Lytic Enzymes

Lytic enzyme production is an intrinsic characteristic of biocontrol agents in the prevention of disease-causing microbes [109]. The activity of lytic enzymes disrupts the cell walls of targeted pathogens by changing the structural stability and integrity [110]. Chitin is a major constituent of the cell walls of fungi, among other composition molecules [111]. Some bacterial strains (PGPR) can degrade fungal cell walls by producing hydrolytic enzymes, including chitinases, dehydrogenases, exo- and endo-polygalacturonases, lipases, phosphatases, proteases, β-glucanases, hydrolases, pectinolyases, and cellulases. Another study reported that the synthesis of lytic enzymes might also be helpful for bacteria to penetrate plant tissues and grow as endophytes [112]. Moreover, some of the Bacillus strains were reported as the producer of proteases that are helpful in the degradation of the cuticle of the nematodes. Santoyo, Urtis-Flores, Loeza-Lara, Orozco-Mosqueda and Glick [111] studied Bacillus thuringiensis, producing chitinases against B. cinerea, the causal agent of gray mold. Karthika, et al. [113] elucidated B. cereus and Burkholderia cepacia produce cellulase, β-1,3-glucanase, amylase, protease, lipase, and xylanase as a factor in the rupturing of certain soil-borne pathogenic microorganisms’ cell walls.

7. Plant Protection Activity Stimulated by Bacillus spp.

Strains of the Bacillus spp. are used as biological control agents (BCAs) to protect plants from pathogenic diseases. Chemical pesticides are being replaced by BCAs, which is a viable option. As a result, various researchers are focusing on exploring their interactions with pests, plants, and pathogenic and beneficial microbes, as well as their environmental impact and human implications. Important characteristics, including efficacy, formulation, stability, and viability, were all thoroughly investigated in many studies. There are several mechanisms by which PGPR protects plants against diseases. These mechanisms are discussed below:

7.1. Quorum Quenching

Communication inside the bacterial population is feasible with the help of quorum sensing molecules, N-acyl homoserine lactone (AHL). Such indicating molecules are the main reason for boosting the infectious diseases in the pathogenic microbes. Those microorganisms which release AHL lactonase enzyme behave as a biocontrol agent. AHL lactonase is an enzyme that hinders bacterial communication systems by breaking down the quorum-sensing signaling molecule. Quorum quenching was noticed in different Bacillus spp., including B. cereus, B. thuringiensis, and B. licheniformis [114].

7.2. Production of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Lower molecular weight lipophilic compounds with high vapor pressure and low boiling point are released by microbial metabolic processes. VOCs function as signal molecules both over short and long distances in the rhizosphere [115]. Additionally, 2,3-butanediol is a volatile organic compound produced by B. subtilis engaged in the mechanisms of plant defense. Phytopathogens were challenged by using the root exudates from peppers inoculated with B. subtilis. For example, volatile organic compounds were responsible for the growth inhibition of Trichoderma spp. and Ralstonia solanacearum. So, this study revealed that volatile organic compounds caused the excretion of root exudates and ultimately worked as an inducer of plant defense against soil-borne bacterial and fungal diseases [116].

7.3. Antibiotic Compounds

Antibiotic production by beneficial microorganisms [86] is the most effective biological control method for controlling plant diseases. Such chemicals are secreted by Bacillus spp. during sporulation and the stationary development stages [86]. Bacitracin, Kanosamine, fengycin or plipastatin, surfactins, zwittermicin A, kurstakin, gramicidin, and iturins are important antibiotic compounds produced by Bacillus spp. Bacitracin is another kind of antibiotic compound that has strong bactericidal activity. Different Bacillus spp., including B. subtilis and B. licheniformis, have been found to synthesize bacitracin [114]. Kanosamine is an antibiotic compound that has a high inhibitory effect on fungal pathogens of oomycetes and a moderate effect on Ascomycetes, Basidiomycetes, Deuteromycetes, and some bacteria. Production of Kanosamine was reported in several species of Bacillus, including B. pumilus and B. subtilis [117] or B. cereus. Fengycin A and B are also known as plipastatinare lipopeptide antibiotics. These antibiotic substances played a very active role in controlling mosquito larvae [118] and phytopathogens by breaking down their cellular structure and cell membrane permeability [119]. These compounds also help in the stimulation of the induced systemic resistance (ISR) pathway in plants [120]. They are used as biosurfactants and display the ability to breakdown the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [121] in several bacteria [122]. These antibiotic compounds are synthesized by various Bacillus spp. including B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, and B. licheniformis [107].

7.4. Biofilm Formation by Bacillus spp.

In the past, induction of systemic resistance and synthesis of antimicrobial compounds were two reported methods that biocontrol agents utilize to combat phytopathogens. However, current research in the field of biocontrol has focused on biofilm formation and root colonization as defense mechanisms against biocontrol activity. Several Bacillus spp. including B. velezensis, B. atrophaeus, and B. subtilis have been reported to colonize roots and create biofilms as a biocontrol strategy. In many Bacillus species, plant root exudates and various lipopeptides, including bacillomycin and surfactin, play a vital role in the formation of biofilm [123]. For instance Fan, Wang, Song, Ding, Wu, Wu, Gao and Borriss [10] reported that B. velezensis strain FZB42 induces biofilms in the roots of corn, mouse-ear cress, and duckweed. It was further examined that surfactin (lipopeptide) played a key role in root colonization and stimulation of biofilm synthesis in Bacillus spp. like B. atrophaeus and B. subtilis.

8. Multifaceted Role of Bacillus thuringiensis as a Biocontrol Agent

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an entomopathogenic bacteria that create parasporal crystal proteins (δ-endotoxins). These δ-endotoxins are poisonous to Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera, among other insect pests [124]. Throughout the previous century, Bt has been regarded as the most effective bioinsecticide [125]. Because Bt is a rapid-acting and host-specific bioinsecticide, it has few side effects on non-target organisms. Furthermore, its production and use are simple and inexpensive [126]. To generate transgenic crops that are resistant to pests, plant genetic engineering has successfully used Bt as a source of Cry genes [127].
The production of bacteriocins is the main antimicrobial activity of the Bt strain [125]. To strengthen the defense against different microorganisms, prokaryotes frequently produce a variety of antimicrobial peptides. Bacteriocins are tiny, thermotolerant antimicrobial peptides produced by ribosome synthesis in the stationary phase, with molecular weights ranging from 3 to 12 kDa. In a study, de la Fuente-Salcido, et al. [128] reported various types of bacteriocin produced by Bt strains. From the Bt subspecies, more than 18 different forms of bacteriocin have been identified and purified, including thuringiensis, morrisoni, tochigiensis, kurstaki, tolworthi, kenyae, and entomocidus. Bacteriostatic or bactericidal actions of Bt bacteriocins might be broad or specific.
Various Bt strains can compete with plant pathogenic bacteria through the production of various bacteriocins and AHL-degrading enzymes. AHL-degrading enzyme (AiiA), released by some Bt strains, can reduce the virulence of pathogenic bacteria like Erwinia carotovora, which causes soft rot in the roots of Capsicum annuum [129]. Furthermore, the inclusion of vegetative cells of Bt in combination with other bacterial (Streptomyces avermitilis and Citrobacter farmeri) and fungal (T. viride, T. parareesei, and Paecilomyces variotii) antagonists significantly increased their effectiveness to suppress Ralstonia solanacearum in Capsicum chinense [130] and S. lycopersicum [131]. Another study highlighted that the mixture of Bt, T. viride, and T. parareesei, demonstrated the strongest antagonistic effect (91.47%) against R. solanacearum [130].
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) produces crystal proteins (Cry), also called δ-endotoxins. Bacillus produces the most prominent group of insecticidal proteins, which are known as cry toxins. According to the nomenclature committee of Bt toxin, 78 distinct Cry toxins have been identified to date, with Cry1 being the most common [132]. A wide range of B. thuringiensis subspecies produces a variety of Cry toxins. B. thuringiensis var kurstaki produces 31 distinct forms of Cry proteins, the most common of which are Cry1Aa and Cry1Ac. B. thuringiensis israelensis is the main producer of Cry4, Cry10, and Cry11 toxins. Cry1 toxins are mostly active against Dipterans, Lepidopterans, and Coleopterans, whereas Cry2 toxins are mostly poisonous to Dipterans, Lepidopterans, and Hemipterans. Although there are many Cry proteins, however, only Cry1 has been economically utilized. There are a variety of commercial Bt bioinsecticides present in the market (e.g., Dipel, Thuricide, Biobit, Gnatrol, VectoBac, and so on).
The use of nanotechnology has enabled the study of Bt-based biopesticides to go to a new stage. The greater efficacy of nanotized Bt products has been noticed [53]. In a research study, Murthy, et al. [133] synthesized Bt powders with 32~1100 nm-sized particles, which had a greater mortality rate. Vineela, et al. [134] created Bt particles ranging in size from 105 to 210 nanometers that had insecticidal activity against Spodoptera litura as compared to the synthetic insecticide Profenophos. Cry toxins can be placed onto nanomaterials instead of being nanotized from Bt powders. In a study, Cry1Ac protein was filled with magnesium hydroxide nanoparticles, which enhanced the mortality rate of Helicoverpa armigera and boosted the adherence to cotton leaf surfaces [135]. Bt, the bacterial system that has received the greatest attention in the sector of plant biotechnology, is used to produce crop plants that are resistant to insects as well as biopesticides. Several crops, including Zea mays, Gossypium herbaceum, and S. tuberosum have been genetically modified to get improved yields [136].

9. Biosynthesis of Metallic Nanoparticles by Bacillus spp.

According to Xu, et al. [137], bioinspired synthesized nanoparticles can be eco-friendly compared with chemical synthesis and attracting much attention from researchers in recent years. Microbes, including bacteria, can synthesize nanoparticles extracellularly or intracellularly during incubation time after cultivation. These creatures reduce the toxicity of metal ions by consuming them as nutrition and reducing the metal ions to metal nanoparticles by various metal ion reductases. These reductases assist in awarding the bio nanoparticles more substantial functionally and provide stability. In a research study, Jeevanandam, et al. [138] prepared silver nanoparticles from B. amyloliquefaciens, B. cereus, B. indicus, and B. cecembensis, while B. subtilis and P. megaterium were used in the fabrication of gold nanoparticles. Ahmed, et al. [139] reported B. cereus strain is supportive in the concoction of ZnO2 nanoparticles that exhibit activity against Burkholderia glumae and B. gladioli which caused panicle blight in Oryza sativa.

10. Effect of Bacillus spp. on Uptake of Nutrients and Crop Yield

Meena, et al. [140] studied that the Bacillus spp. enhances the yield of various crops, e.g., wheat, maize, sugar beet, and spinach. Verma, et al. [141] observed the potency of Bacillus strains with the combination of other rhizobacteria on bean growth and yield, which had a substantial impact on nodule development in pulse crops. Similarly, ČOlo, et al. [142] reported that B. subtilis increased the growth parameters as well as the yield of the onion crop by producing IAA. Mukhtar, Shahid Mukhtar, et al. [143] examined the ability of B. safensis and P. megaterium to enhance plant growth parameters, e.g., dry weight of root, shoot, and weight of seed in wheat crop. Vinci, et al. [144] observed that the co-inoculation of Bacillus velezensis FZB42 and compost significantly improves growth parameters as well as increases the uptake of nutrients in the maize plant. Photosynthetic activity is also boosted in the leaves of maize plants due to the enhancement of the synthesis of metabolites, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), alanine, glucose, and fructose. The effect of Bacillus spp. on crop growth, crop yield, and uptake of nutrients with various crop species is presented in Table 2.

11. Conclusions

Pesticides have been proven to be a promising agent to fulfill the food demand of the growing population. However, these hazardous pesticides have caused human health problems, development of pest resistance, narrowing of biodiversity, and environmental challenges, raising concerns about the pesticides’ safety. Thus, the need to reduce reliance on these synthetic pesticides is pertinent. The application of PGPR is an auspicious solution for eco-friendly agriculture. Bacillus spp. have been elucidated as growth promoters in sustainable agriculture through both direct and indirect mechanisms. The N2-fixation, P and K Solubilization, phytohormones production by Bacillus strains, moreover synthesis of antibiotics, production of lytic enzymes, and ISR are direct and indirect mechanisms, respectively, and all these action mechanisms of Bacillus are supportive in the growth promotion of plants, pest resistance, and circumventing of disease. Some of the Bacillus spp. have been documented as promising biocontrol agents. Food production and its accessibility always are an overwhelming priority to feed the world’s population. So, the best route is to be cautious about chemical-based pesticides. Biopesticides have long been attracting global attraction due to their safer strategy than conventional pesticides. Considering the importance of sustainable agriculture [173,174,175,176], Bacillus spp.-based bioproducts could be a promising addition to sustainable agriculture as there is a limited product range available. There is a dire need to explore the potential of Bacillus spp. in combination with other compatible microbial agents to increase PGP activity and quality food production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H., A.R.K., and A.M.; writing—review and editing, All authors; visualization, A.R.K. and A.M.; supervision, S.H.; funding acquisition, S.H., M.V. and R.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chakraborty, S.; Newton, A.C. Climate change, plant diseases and food security: An overview. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Savary, S.; Ficke, A.; Aubertot, J.-N.; Hollier, C. Crop losses due to diseases and their implications for global food production losses and food security. Food Secur. 2012, 4, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ab Rahman, S.F.S.; Singh, E.; Pieterse, C.M.; Schenk, P.M. Emerging microbial biocontrol strategies for plant pathogens. Plant Sci. 2018, 267, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Aktar, M.W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Souza, R.d.; Ambrosini, A.; Passaglia, L.M.P. Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2015, 38, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lazarovits, G.; Turnbull, A.; Johnston-Monje, D. Plant Health Management: Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 388–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mnif, I.; Ghribi, D. Potential of bacterial derived biopesticides in pest management. Crop Prot. 2015, 77, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nemutanzhela, M.E.; Roets, Y.; Gardiner, N.; Lalloo, R. The use and benefits of Bacillus based biological agents in aquaculture. Sustain. Aquac. Tech. 2014, 19, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shafi, J.; Tian, H.; Ji, M. Bacillus species as versatile weapons for plant pathogens: A review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2017, 31, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Fan, B.; Wang, C.; Song, X.; Ding, X.; Wu, L.; Wu, H.; Gao, X.; Borriss, R. Bacillus velezensis FZB42 in 2018: The Gram-Positive Model Strain for Plant Growth Promotion and Biocontrol. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Goswami, D.; Thakker, J.N.; Dhandhukia, P.C. Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review. Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1127500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Compant, S.; Duffy, B.; Nowak, J.; Clement, C.; Barka, E.A. Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant diseases: Principles, mechanisms of action, and future prospects. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 4951–4959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Aloo, B.N.; Makumba, B.A.; Mbega, E.R. The potential of Bacilli rhizobacteria for sustainable crop production and environmental sustainability. Microbiol. Res. 2019, 219, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kim, K.-H.; Kabir, E.; Jahan, S.A. Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mahmood, I.; Imadi, S.R.; Shazadi, K.; Gul, A.; Hakeem, K.R. Effects of Pesticides on Environment. In Plant, Soil and Microbes; Springer International Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 253–269. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pelaez, V.; Mizukawa, G. Diversification strategies in the pesticide industry: From seeds to biopesticides. Ciência Rural 2017, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Atreya, K.; Sitaula, B.K.; Johnsen, F.H.; Bajracharya, R.M. Continuing Issues in the Limitations of Pesticide Use in Developing Countries. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 24, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, Y.; Liang, J.; Tang, L.; Li, H.; Zhu, Y.; Jiang, D.; Song, B.; Chen, M.; Zeng, G. Nano-pesticides: A great challenge for biodiversity? Nano Today 2019, 28, 100757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rajmohan, K.S.; Chandrasekaran, R.; Varjani, S. A Review on Occurrence of Pesticides in Environment and Current Technologies for Their Remediation and Management. Indian J. Microbiol. 2020, 60, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wołejko, E.; Jabłońska-Trypuć, A.; Wydro, U.; Butarewicz, A.; Łozowicka, B. Soil biological activity as an indicator of soil pollution with pesticides—A review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baćmaga, M.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. The influence of chlorothalonil on the activity of soil microorganisms and enzymes. Ecotoxicology 2018, 27, 1188–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kumar, A.; Patel, J.S.; Meena, V.S. Rhizospheric Microbes for Sustainable Agriculture: An Overview. In Role of Rhizospheric Microbes in Soil; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kogan, M. Integrated pest management: Historical perspectives and contemporary developments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1998, 43, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yadouleton, A.W.; Padonou, G.; Asidi, A.; Moiroux, N.; Bio-Banganna, S.; Corbel, V.; N’Guessan, R.; Gbenou, D.; Yacoubou, I.; Gazard, K.; et al. Insecticide resistance status in Anopheles gambiae in southern Benin. Malar J. 2010, 9, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Dhakal, R. Biopesticides: A Key to Sustainable Agriculture. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2019, 7, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Azizoglu, U. Bacillus thuringiensis as a Biofertilizer and Biostimulator: A Mini-Review of the Little-Known Plant Growth-Promoting Properties of Bt. Curr. Microbiol. 2019, 76, 1379–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kamarulzaman, P.S.D.; Yusup, S.; Osman, N.; Ramli@Yusof, N.H.; Kueh, B.W.B.; Talib, R. Effectiveness of neem based biopesticide to enhance rice (Oryza sativa) productivity. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2018, 7, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fenibo, E.O.; Ijoma, G.N.; Matambo, T. Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture: Current Status and Future Prospects. In New and Future Development in Biopesticide Research: Biotechnological Exploration; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 1–53. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mishra, J.; Prakash, J.; Arora, N.K. Role of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Management. Clim. Chang. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 4, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Youssef, M.M.A.; Eissa, M.F.M. Biofertilizers and their role in management of plant parasitic nematodes. J. Biotechnol. Pharm. Res. 2014, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kumar, V.V. Biofertilizers and Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture. In Role of Rhizospheric Microbes in Soil; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 377–398. [Google Scholar]
  32. Meena, R.K.; Singh, R.K.; Singh, N.P.; Meena, S.K.; Meena, V.S. Isolation of low temperature surviving plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) from pea (Pisum sativum L.) and documentation of their plant growth promoting traits. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2015, 4, 806–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meena, V.S.; Maurya, B.R.; Meena, S.K.; Meena, R.K.; Kumar, A.; Verma, J.P.; Singh, N.P. Can Bacillus Species Enhance Nutrient Availability in Agricultural Soils? In Bacilli and Agrobiotechnology; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 367–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yi, Y.; Luan, P.; Liu, S.; Shan, Y.; Hou, Z.; Zhao, S.; Jia, S.; Li, R. Efficacy of Bacillus subtilis XZ18-3 as a Biocontrol Agent against Rhizoctonia cerealis on Wheat. Agriculture 2022, 12, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhou, J.; Tu, T.; Gong, W.; Sun, W.; Wang, Y. Characterization of Bacillus velezensis E2 with abilities to degrade ochratoxin A and biocontrol against Aspergillus westerdijkiae fc-1. Toxicon 2022, 216, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, L.; Hua, X.; Jing, N.; Ji, T.; Zhou, C.; Liu, W.; Lv, B.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y. Isolation and characterization of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens YL-1 with ochratoxin A degradation ability and biocontrol activity against Aspergillus westerdijkiae. Biol. Control 2022, 175, 105052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khedher, S.B.; Mejdoub-Trabelsi, B.; Tounsi, S. Biological potential of Bacillus subtilis V26 for the control of Fusarium wilt and tuber dry rot on potato caused by Fusarium species and the promotion of plant growth. Biol. Control 2021, 152, 104444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Samaras, A.; Roumeliotis, E.; Ntasiou, P.; Karaoglanidis, G. Bacillus subtilis MBI600 Promotes Growth of Tomato Plants and Induces Systemic Resistance Contributing to the Control of Soilborne Pathogens. Plants 2021, 10, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Abbas, A.; Khan, S.U.; Khan, W.U.; Saleh, T.A.; Khan, M.H.U.; Ullah, S.; Ali, A.; Ikram, M. Antagonist effects of strains of Bacillus spp. against Rhizoctonia solani for their protection against several plant diseases: Alternatives to chemical pesticides. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2019, 342, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Myo, E.M.; Liu, B.; Ma, J.; Shi, L.; Jiang, M.; Zhang, K.; Ge, B. Evaluation of Bacillus velezensis NKG-2 for bio-control activities against fungal diseases and potential plant growth promotion. Biol. Control 2019, 134, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Samaras, A.; Efthimiou, K.; Roumeliotis, E.; Karaoglanidis, G.S. Biocontrol Potential and Plant-Growth-Promoting Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBI 600 against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici on Tomato, 1st ed.; International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS): Málaga, Spain, 2018; Volume 18, pp. 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  42. Xu, S.J.; Park, D.H.; Kim, J.-Y.; Kim, B.-S. Biological control of gray mold and growth promotion of tomato using Bacillus spp. isolated from soil. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2016, 41, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rahman, M.M.E.; Hossain, D.M.; Suzuki, K.; Shiiya, A.; Suzuki, K.; Dey, T.K.; Nonaka, M.; Harada, N. Suppressive effects of Bacillus spp. on mycelia, apothecia and sclerotia formation of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and potential as biological control of white mold on mustard. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2016, 45, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sakthivel, K.; Manigundan, K.; Gautam, R.; Singh, P.; Nakkeeran, S.; Sharma, S.K. Bacillus spp. for suppression of eggplant bacterial wilt pathogen in Andaman Islands: Isolation and characterization. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2019, 57, 131–137. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bhusal, B.; Mmbaga, M.T. Biological control of Phytophthora blight and growth promotion in sweet pepper by Bacillus species. Biol. Control 2020, 150, 104373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Adeniji, A.A.; Aremu, O.S.; Babalola, O.O. Selecting lipopeptide-producing, Fusarium-suppressing Bacillus spp.: Metabolomic and genomic probing of Bacillus velezensis NWUMFkBS10.5. Microbiologyopen 2019, 8, e00742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Jiang, C.-H.; Liao, M.-J.; Wang, H.-K.; Zheng, M.-Z.; Xu, J.-J.; Guo, J.-H. Bacillus velezensis, a potential and efficient biocontrol agent in control of pepper gray mold caused by Botrytis cinerea. Biol. Control 2018, 126, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gray, E.J.; Smith, D.L. Intracellular and extracellular PGPR: Commonalities and distinctions in the plant–bacterium signaling processes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 395–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Vessey, J.K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 2003, 255, 571–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kumar, A.; Prakash, A.; Johri, B.N. Bacillus as PGPR in Crop Ecosystem. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Ecosystems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 37–59. [Google Scholar]
  51. Govindasamy, V.; Senthilkumar, M.; Magheshwaran, V.; Kumar, U.; Bose, P.; Sharma, V.; Annapurna, K. Bacillus and PaeniBacillus spp.: Potential PGPR for Sustainable Agriculture. In Plant Growth and Health Promoting Bacteria; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 333–364. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sansinenea, E. Bacillus spp.: As plant growth-promoting bacteria. In Secondary Metabolites of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizomicroorganisms; Springer International Publishing: Midtown Manhattan, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 225–237. [Google Scholar]
  53. Saxena, A.K.; Kumar, M.; Chakdar, H.; Anuroopa, N.; Bagyaraj, D.J. Bacillus species in soil as a natural resource for plant health and nutrition. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 128, 1583–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Lata, C.; Muthamilarasan, M.; Prasad, M. Drought Stress Responses and Signal Transduction in Plants. In Elucidation of Abiotic Stress Signaling in Plants; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 195–225. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tiwari, S.; Lata, C.; Chauhan, P.S.; Nautiyal, C.S. Pseudomonas putida attunes morphophysiological, biochemical and molecular responses in Cicer arietinum L. during drought stress and recovery. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 99, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Nautiyal, C.S.; Srivastava, S.; Chauhan, P.S.; Seem, K.; Mishra, A.; Sopory, S.K. Plant growth-promoting bacteria Bacillus amyloliquefaciens NBRISN13 modulates gene expression profile of leaf and rhizosphere community in rice during salt stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 66, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Gagné-Bourque, F.; Mayer, B.F.; Charron, J.-B.; Vali, H.; Bertrand, A.; Jabaji, S. Accelerated Growth Rate and Increased Drought Stress Resilience of the Model Grass Brachypodium distachyon Colonized by Bacillus subtilis B26. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, L.; Liu, Y.; Wu, G.; Veronican Njeri, K.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, N.; Zhang, R. Induced maize salt tolerance by rhizosphere inoculation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9. Physiol. Plant. 2016, 158, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zubair, M.; Hanif, A.; Farzand, A.; Sheikh, T.M.M.; Khan, A.R.; Suleman, M.; Ayaz, M.; Gao, X. Genetic Screening and Expression Analysis of Psychrophilic Bacillus spp. Reveal Their Potential to Alleviate Cold Stress and Modulate Phytohormones in Wheat. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bhattacharyya, P.; Goswami, M.; Bhattacharyya, L. Perspective of beneficial microbes in agriculture under changing climatic scenario: A review. J. Phytol. 2016, 8, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Miljaković, D.; Marinković, J.; Balešević-Tubić, S. The Significance of Bacillus spp. in Disease Suppression and Growth Promotion of Field and Vegetable Crops. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mus, F.; Crook, M.B.; Garcia, K.; Garcia Costas, A.; Geddes, B.A.; Kouri, E.D.; Paramasivan, P.; Ryu, M.H.; Oldroyd, G.E.D.; Poole, P.S.; et al. Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation and the Challenges to Its Extension to Nonlegumes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 3698–3710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Alori, E.T.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O. Microbial Phosphorus Solubilization and Its Potential for Use in Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Spohn, M.; Zeißig, I.; Brucker, E.; Widdig, M.; Lacher, U.; Aburto, F. Phosphorus solubilization in the rhizosphere in two saprolites with contrasting phosphorus fractions. Geoderma 2020, 366, 114245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Saeid, A.; Prochownik, E.; Dobrowolska-Iwanek, J. Phosphorus solubilization by Bacillus species. Molecules 2018, 23, 2897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sharma, A.; Shankhdhar, D.; Shankhdhar, S.C. Potassium-Solubilizing Microorganisms: Mechanism and Their Role in Potassium Solubilization and Uptake. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sattar, A.; Naveed, M.; Ali, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Nadeem, S.M.; Yaseen, M.; Meena, V.S.; Farooq, M.; Singh, R.; Rahman, M.; et al. Perspectives of potassium solubilizing microbes in sustainable food production system: A review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 133, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Raghavendra, M.P.; Chandra Nayaka, S.; Nuthan, B.R. Role of Rhizosphere Microflora in Potassium Solubilization. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Masood, S.; Bano, A. Mechanism of Potassium Solubilization in the Agricultural Soils by the Help of Soil Microorganisms. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ali, A.M.; Awad, M.Y.; Hegab, S.A.; Gawad, A.M.A.E.; Eissa, M.A. Effect of potassium solubilizing bacteria (Bacillus cereus) on growth and yield of potato. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Han, X.; Zeng, H.; Bartocci, P.; Fantozzi, F.; Yan, Y. Phytohormones and Effects on Growth and Metabolites of Microalgae: A Review. Fermentation 2018, 4, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sokolova, M.G.; Akimova, G.P.; Vaishlia, O.B. Effect of phytohormones synthesized by rhizosphere bacteria on plants. Prikl. Biokhim. Mikrobiol. 2011, 47, 302–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Egamberdieva, D.; Wirth, S.J.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Abd Allah, E.F.; Hashem, A. Phytohormones and Beneficial Microbes: Essential Components for Plants to Balance Stress and Fitness. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Patel, K.; Goswami, D.; Dhandhukia, P.; Thakker, J. Techniques to Study Microbial Phytohormones. In Bacterial Metabolites in Sustainable Agroecosystem; Springer International Publishing: Midtown Manhattan, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kang, S.-M.; Khan, A.L.; Waqas, M.; Asaf, S.; Lee, K.-E.; Park, Y.-G.; Kim, A.-Y.; Khan, M.A.; You, Y.-H.; Lee, I.-J. Integrated phytohormone production by the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Bacillus tequilensis SSB07 induced thermotolerance in soybean. J. Plant Interact. 2019, 14, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Lomax, T.L.; Muday, G.K.; Rubery, P.H. Auxin transport. In Plant Hormones; Springer International Publishing: Midtown Manhattan, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 509–530. [Google Scholar]
  78. Quint, M.; Gray, W.M. Auxin signaling. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2006, 9, 448–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Hooley, R. Gibberellins: Perception, transduction and responses. In Signals and Signal Transduction Pathways in Plants; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Binenbaum, J.; Weinstain, R.; Shani, E. Gibberellin Localization and Transport in Plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 410–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Achard, P.; Genschik, P. Releasing the brakes of plant growth: How GAs shutdown DELLA proteins. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 60, 1085–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Hedden, P.; Sponsel, V. A Century of Gibberellin Research. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 34, 740–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Davière, J.-M.; Achard, P. Gibberellin signaling in plants. Development 2013, 140, 1147–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Khan, M.A.; Asaf, S.; Khan, A.L.; Jan, R.; Kang, S.-M.; Kim, K.-M.; Lee, I.-J. Thermotolerance effect of plant growth-promoting Bacillus cereus SA1 on soybean during heat stress. BMC Microbiol. 2020, 20, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Singh, B.N.; Hidangmayum, A.; Singh, A.; Shera, S.S.; Dwivedi, P. Synthesis and Application of Hydroxamic Acid: A Key Secondary Metabolite of Piriformospora indica. In Secondary Metabolites of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizomicroorganisms; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 391–404. [Google Scholar]
  86. Alina, S.O.; Constantinscu, F.; Petruţa, C.C. Biodiversity of Bacillus subtilis group and beneficial traits of Bacillus species useful in plant protection. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2015, 20, 10737–10750. [Google Scholar]
  87. Brenner, W.G.; Schmülling, T. Summarizing and exploring data of a decade of cytokinin-related transcriptomics. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Arkhipova, T.N.; Prinsen, E.; Veselov, S.U.; Martinenko, E.V.; Melentiev, A.I.; Kudoyarova, G.R. Cytokinin producing bacteria enhance plant growth in drying soil. Plant Soil 2007, 292, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Li, S.-M.; Zheng, H.-X.; Zhang, X.-S.; Sui, N. Cytokinins as central regulators during plant growth and stress response. Plant Cell Rep. 2020, 40, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Liu, F.; Xing, S.; Ma, H.; Du, Z.; Ma, B. Cytokinin-producing, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria that confer resistance to drought stress in Platycladus orientalis container seedlings. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 9155–9164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Schaller, G.E.; Kieber, J.J. Ethylene. Arab. Book 2002, 1, e0071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Iqbal, N.; Trivellini, A.; Masood, A.; Ferrante, A.; Khan, N.A. Current understanding on ethylene signaling in plants: The influence of nutrient availability. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 73, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chang, C. Q&A: How do plants respond to ethylene and what is its importance? BMC Biol. 2016, 14, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Misra, S.; Chauhan, P.S. ACC deaminase-producing rhizosphere competent Bacillus spp. mitigate salt stress and promote Zea mays growth by modulating ethylene metabolism. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Spaepen, S. Plant Hormones Produced by Microbes. In Principles of Plant-Microbe Interactions; Springer International Publishing: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shahzad, R.; Khan, A.L.; Bilal, S.; Waqas, M.; Kang, S.-M.; Lee, I.-J. Inoculation of abscisic acid-producing endophytic bacteria enhances salinity stress tolerance in Oryza sativa. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2017, 136, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Khan, N.; Bano, A.; Zandi, P. Effects of exogenously applied plant growth regulators in combination with PGPR on the physiology and root growth of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and their role in drought tolerance. J. Plant Interact. 2018, 13, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Beneduzi, A.; Ambrosini, A.; Passaglia, L.M.P. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2012, 35, 1044–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Ramadoss, D.; Lakkineni, V.K.; Bose, P.; Ali, S.; Annapurna, K. Mitigation of salt stress in wheat seedlings by halotolerant bacteria isolated from saline habitats. Springerplus 2013, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Yu, X.; Ai, C.; Xin, L.; Zhou, G. The siderophore-producing bacterium, Bacillus subtilis CAS15, has a biocontrol effect on Fusarium wilt and promotes the growth of pepper. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2011, 47, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ahmed, E.; Holmström, S.J.M. Siderophores in environmental research: Roles and applications. Microb. Biotechnol. 2014, 7, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Chaabouni, I.; Guesmi, A.; Cherif, A. Secondary Metabolites of Bacillus: Potentials in Biotechnology. In Bacillus thuringiensis Biotechnology; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Choudhary, D.K.; Johri, B.N. Interactions of Bacillus spp. and plants—With special reference to induced systemic resistance (ISR). Microbiol. Res. 2009, 164, 493–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Niu, D.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Song, X.; Wang, J.; Guo, J.; Zhao, H. Bacillus cereus AR156 activates PAMP-triggered immunity and induces a systemic acquired resistance through a NPR1 -and SA-dependent signaling pathway. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2016, 469, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Chowdappa, P.; Mohan Kumar, S.P.; Jyothi Lakshmi, M.; Upreti, K.K. Growth stimulation and induction of systemic resistance in tomato against early and late blight by Bacillus subtilis OTPB1 or Trichoderma harzianum OTPB3. Biol. Control 2013, 65, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Jayapala, N.; Mallikarjunaiah, N.H.; Puttaswamy, H.; Gavirangappa, H.; Ramachandrappa, N.S. Rhizobacteria Bacillus spp. induce resistance against anthracnose disease in chili (Capsicum annuum L.) through activating host defense response. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Chen, L.; Wang, N.; Wang, X.; Hu, J.; Wang, S. Characterization of two anti-fungal lipopeptides produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SH-B10. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8822–8827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Jain, D.; Saharan, V.; Pareek, S. Current Status of Bacillus thuringiensis: Insecticidal Crystal Proteins and Transgenic Crops. In Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Agronomic, Abiotic and Biotic Stress Traits; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 657–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Xie, J.; Shi, H.; Du, Z.; Wang, T.; Liu, X.; Chen, S. Comparative genomic and functional analysis reveal conservation of plant growth promoting traits in PaeniBacillus polymyxa and its closely related species. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Hakim, S.; Naqqash, T.; Nawaz, M.S.; Laraib, I.; Siddique, M.J.; Zia, R.; Mirza, M.S.; Imran, A. Rhizosphere Engineering with Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms for Agriculture and Ecological Sustainability. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 617157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Santoyo, G.; Urtis-Flores, C.A.; Loeza-Lara, P.D.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.C.; Glick, B.R. Rhizosphere Colonization Determinants by Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). Biology 2021, 10, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bodhankar, S.; Grover, M.; Hemanth, S.; Reddy, G.; Rasul, S.; Yadav, S.K.; Desai, S.; Mallappa, M.; Mandapaka, M.; Srinivasarao, C. Maize seed endophytic bacteria: Dominance of antagonistic, lytic enzyme-producing Bacillus spp. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Karthika, S.; Midhun, S.J.; Jisha, M.S. A potential antifungal and growth-promoting bacterium Bacillus sp. KTMA4 from tomato rhizosphere. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 142, 104049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Zamani, M.; Behboudi, K.; Ahmadzadeh, M. Quorum quenching by Bacillus cereus U92: A double-edged sword in biological control of plant diseases. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 555–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fincheira, P.; Quiroz, A. Microbial volatiles as plant growth inducers. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 208, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yi, H.-S.; Ahn, Y.-R.; Song, G.C.; Ghim, S.-Y.; Lee, S.; Lee, G.; Ryu, C.-M. Impact of a Bacterial Volatile 2,3-Butanediol on Bacillus subtilis Rhizosphere Robustness. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. van Straaten, K.E.; Ko, J.B.; Jagdhane, R.; Anjum, S.; Palmer, D.R.J.; Sanders, D.A.R. The structure of NtdA, a sugar aminotransferase involved in the kanosamine biosynthetic pathway in Bacillus subtilis, reveals a new subclass of aminotransferases. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 34121–34130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Das, K.; Mukherjee, A.K. Assessment of mosquito larvicidal potency of cyclic lipopeptides produced by Bacillus subtilis strains. Acta Trop. 2006, 97, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Chan, Y.-K.; Savard, M.E.; Reid, L.M.; Cyr, T.; McCormick, W.A.; Seguin, C. Identification of lipopeptide antibiotics of a Bacillus subtilis isolate and their control of Fusarium graminearum diseases in maize and wheat. BioControl 2009, 54, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Romero, D.; de Vicente, A.; Rakotoaly, R.H.; Dufour, S.E.; Veening, J.-W.; Arrebola, E.; Cazorla, F.M.; Kuipers, O.P.; Paquot, M.; Pérez-García, A. The Iturin and Fengycin Families of Lipopeptides Are Key Factors in Antagonism of Bacillus subtilis Toward Podosphaera Fusca. Mol. Plant-Microb. Interact 2007, 20, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Das, P.; Mukherjee, S.; Sen, R. Improved bioavailability and biodegradation of a model polyaromatic hydrocarbon by a biosurfactant producing bacterium of marine origin. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 1229–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rivardo, F.; Turner, R.J.; Allegrone, G.; Ceri, H.; Martinotti, M. Anti-adhesion activity of two biosurfactants produced by Bacillus spp. prevents biofilm formation of human bacterial pathogens. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 83, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Pandin, C.; Le Coq, D.; Canette, A.; Aymerich, S.; Briandet, R. Should the biofilm mode of life be taken into consideration for microbial biocontrol agents? Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Salehi Jouzani, G.; Pourjan Abad, A.; Seifinejad, A.; Marzban, R.; Kariman, K.; Maleki, B. Distribution and diversity of Dipteran-specific cry and cyt genes in native Bacillus thuringiensis strains obtained from different ecosystems of Iran. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 35, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Jouzani, G.S.; Valijanian, E.; Sharafi, R. Bacillus thuringiensis: A successful insecticide with new environmental features and tidings. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 2691–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Jain, S.; Vaishnav, A.; Kumari, S.; Varma, A.; Tuteja, N.; Choudhary, D.K. Chitinolytic Bacillus-Mediated Induction of Jasmonic Acid and Defense-Related Proteins in Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) Plant Against Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium oxysporum. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2016, 36, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Melo, A.L.d.A.; Soccol, V.T.; Soccol, C.R. Bacillus thuringiensis: Mechanism of action, resistance, and new applications: A review. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2014, 36, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. de la Fuente-Salcido, N.M.; Casados-Vázquez, L.E.; Barboza-Corona, J.E. Bacteriocins of Bacillus thuringiensis can expand the potential of this bacterium to other areas rather than limit its use only as microbial insecticide. Can. J. Microbiol. 2013, 59, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Park, S.-J.; Park, S.-Y.; Ryu, C.-M.; Park, S.-H.; Lee, J.-K. The role of AiiA, a quorum-quenching enzyme from Bacillus thuringiensis, on the rhizosphere competence. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 18, 1518–1521. [Google Scholar]
  130. Bora, L.C.; Kataki, L.; Talukdar, K.; Nath, B.C.; Sarkar, R. Molecular characterizations of microbial antagonists and development of bioformulations for management of bacterial wilt of Naga Chilli (Capsicum chinens Jacq.) in Assam. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2015, 3, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Elsharkawy, M.M.; Nakatani, M.; Nishimura, M.; Arakawa, T.; Shimizu, M.; Hyakumachi, M. Control of tomato bacterial wilt and root-knot diseases by Bacillus thuringiensis CR-371 and Streptomyces avermectinius NBRC14893. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2015, 65, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Crickmore, N. Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin Nomenclature. 2016. Available online: http://www.btnomenclature.Info (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  133. Murthy, K.S.; Vineela, V.; Devi, P.V. Generation of nanoparticles from technical powder of the insecticidal bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki for improving efficacy. Int. J. Biomed. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2014, 3, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Vineela, V.; Nataraj, T.; Reddy, G.; Vimala Devi, P.S. Enhanced bioefficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki against Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) through particle size reduction and formulation as a suspension concentrate. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2016, 27, 58–69. [Google Scholar]
  135. Rao, W.; Zhan, Y.; Chen, S.; Xu, Z.; Huang, T.; Hong, X.; Zheng, Y.; Pan, X.; Guan, X. Flowerlike Mg(OH)2 Cross-Nanosheets for Controlling Cry1Ac Protein Loss: Evaluation of Insecticidal Activity and Biosecurity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 3651–3657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Roh, J.Y.; Choi, J.Y.; Li, M.S.; Jin, B.R.; Je, Y.H. Bacillus thuringiensis as a specific, safe, and effective tool for insect pest control. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 17, 547–559. [Google Scholar]
  137. Xu, L.; Zhu, Z.; Sun, D.W. Bioinspired Nanomodification Strategies: Moving from Chemical-Based Agrosystems to Sustainable Agriculture. ACS Nano 2021, 15, 12655–12686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Jeevanandam, J.; Chan, Y.S.; Danquah, M.K. Biosynthesis of Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles. ChemBioEng Rev. 2016, 3, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ahmed, T.; Wu, Z.; Jiang, H.; Luo, J.; Noman, M.; Shahid, M.; Manzoor, I.; Allemailem, K.; Alrumaihi, F.; Li, B. Bioinspired Green Synthesis of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles from a Native Bacillus cereus Strain RNT6: Characterization and Antibacterial Activity against Rice Panicle Blight Pathogens Burkholderia glumae and B. gladioli. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Meena, V.S.; Bahadur, I.; Maurya, B.R.; Kumar, A.; Meena, R.K.; Meena, S.K.; Verma, J.P. Potassium-Solubilizing Microorganism in Evergreen Agriculture: An Overview. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer International Publishing: Midtown Manhattan, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  141. Verma, J.P.; Yadav, J.; Tiwari, K.N. Enhancement of Nodulation and Yield of Chickpea by Co-inoculation of Indigenous Mesorhizobium spp. and Plant Growth–Promoting Rhizobacteria in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 605–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Čolo, J.O.S.I.P.; Hajnal-Jafari, T.; ĐURIĆ, S.; Stamenov, D.; Hamidović, S.A.U.D. Plant Growth Promotion Rhizobacteria in Onion Production. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2014, 63, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Mukhtar, S.; Shahid, I.; Mehnaz, S.; Malik, K.A. Assessment of two carrier materials for phosphate solubilizing biofertilizers and their effect on growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Microbiol. Res. 2017, 205, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Vinci, G.; Cozzolino, V.; Mazzei, P.; Monda, H.; Savy, D.; Drosos, M.; Piccolo, A. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and different phosphorus sources on Maize plants as revealed by NMR and GC-MS based metabolomics. Plant Soil 2018, 429, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Akhtar, S.S.; Amby, D.B.; Hegelund, J.N.; Fimognari, L.; Großkinsky, D.K.; Westergaard, J.C.; Müller, R.; Moelbak, L.; Liu, F.; Roitsch, T. Bacillus licheniformis FMCH001 Increases Water Use Efficiency via Growth Stimulation in Both Normal and Drought Conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Upadhyay, S.K.; Saxena, A.K.; Singh, J.S.; Singh, D.P. Impact of Native ST-PGPR Bacillus pumilus; EU927414) on PGP Traits, Antioxidants Activities, Wheat Plant Growth and Yield under Salinity. Clim. Change Environ. Sustain. 2019, 7, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wagi, S.; Ahmed, A. Bacillus spp.: Potent microfactories of bacterial IAA. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Al-Ali, A.; Deravel, J.; Krier, F.; Béchet, M.; Ongena, M.; Jacques, P. Biofilm formation is determinant in tomato rhizosphere colonization by Bacillus velezensis FZB42. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 25, 29910–29920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Kalantari, S.; Marefat, A.; Naseri, B.; Hemmati, R. Improvement of bean yield and Fusarium root rot biocontrol using mixtures of Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Rhizobium. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2018, 43, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ansari, F.A.; Ahmad, I.; Pichtel, J. Growth stimulation and alleviation of salinity stress to wheat by the biofilm forming Bacillus pumilus strain FAB10. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 143, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Agarwal, M.; Dheeman, S.; Dubey, R.C.; Kumar, P.; Maheshwari, D.K.; Bajpai, V.K. Differential antagonistic responses of Bacillus pumilus MSUA3 against Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium oxysporum causing fungal diseases in Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 205, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Caulier, S.; Gillis, A.; Colau, G.; Licciardi, F.; Liépin, M.; Desoignies, N.; Modrie, P.; Legrève, A.; Mahillon, J.; Bragard, C. Versatile Antagonistic Activities of Soil-Borne Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. against Phytophthora infestans and Other Potato Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Singh, R.K.; Kumar, D.P.; Solanki, M.K.; Singh, P.; Srivastva, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Kashyap, P.L.; Saxena, A.K.; Singhal, P.K.; Arora, D.K. Optimization of media components for chitinase production by chickpea rhizosphere associated LysiniBacillus fusiformis B-CM18. J. Basic Microbiol. 2012, 53, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Wemheuer, F.; Hollensteiner, J.; Poehlein, A.; Liesegang, H.; Daniel, R.; Wemheuer, B. Draft Genome Sequence of the Endophyte Bacillus mycoides Strain GM5LP Isolated from Lolium perenne. Genome Announc. 2018, 6, e00011-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  155. Abdel Motaleb, N.A.; Abd Elhady, S.A.; Ghoname, A.A. AMF and Bacillus megaterium Neutralize the Harmful Effects of Salt Stress On Bean Plants. Gesunde Pflanzen 2019, 72, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Abdel Latef, A.A.H.; Zaid, A.; Abo-Baker, A.-B.A.-E.; Salem, W.; Abu Alhmad, M.F. Mitigation of Copper Stress in Maize by Inoculation with Paenibacillus polymyxa and Bacillus circulans. Plants 2020, 9, 1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Kranthi, K.R.; Stone, G.D. Long-term impacts of Bt cotton in India. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Chen, Y.; Cao, S.; Chai, Y.; Clardy, J.; Kolter, R.; Guo, J.-H.; Losick, R. A Bacillus subtilis sensor kinase involved in triggering biofilm formation on the roots of tomato plants. Mol. Microbiol. 2012, 85, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. de Lima, B.C.; Moro, A.L.; Santos, A.C.P.; Bonifacio, A.; Araujo, A.S.F.; de Araujo, F.F. Bacillus subtilis ameliorates water stress tolerance in maize and common bean. J. Plant Interact. 2019, 14, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Radhakrishnan, R.; Lee, I.-J. Gibberellins producing Bacillus methylotrophicus KE2 supports plant growth and enhances nutritional metabolites and food values of lettuce. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 109, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Park, Y.-G.; Mun, B.-G.; Kang, S.-M.; Hussain, A.; Shahzad, R.; Seo, C.-W.; Kim, A.-Y.; Lee, S.-U.; Oh, K.Y.; Lee, D.Y.; et al. Bacillus aryabhattai SRB02 tolerates oxidative and nitrosative stress and promotes the growth of soybean by modulating the production of phytohormones. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Woo, O.-G.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.-S.; Keum, H.L.; Lee, K.-C.; Sul, W.J.; Lee, J.-H. Bacillus subtilis strain GOT9 confers enhanced tolerance to drought and salt stresses in Arabidopsis thaliana and Brassica campestris. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 148, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Thumanu, K.; Sompong, M.; Phansak, P.; Nontapot, K.; Buensanteai, N. Use of infrared microspectroscopy to determine leaf biochemical composition of cassava in response to Bacillus subtilis CaSUT007. J. Plant Interact. 2015, 10, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Kandasamy, S.K.; Arumugam, C.; Sajitha, A.S.; Rao, S.P.; Selvaraj, S.; Vetrivel, R.; Selvarajan, R.; Alosaimi, A.M.; Khan, A.; Hussein, M.A.; et al. Paradisiaca/Solanum Tuberosum Biowaste Composited with Graphene Oxide for Flexible Supercapacitor. J. New Mater. Electrochem. Syst. 2021, 24, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Bahadir, P.S.; Liaqat, F.; Eltem, R. Plant growth promoting properties of phosphate solubilizing Bacillus species isolated from the Aegean Region of Turkey. Turk. J. Bot. 2018, 42, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Khan, A.; Singh, P.; Srivastava, A. Synthesis, nature and utility of universal iron chelator—Siderophore: A review. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 212–213, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Sood, G.; Kaushal, R.; Sharma, M. Significance of inoculation with Bacillus subtilis to alleviate drought stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Vegetos 2020, 33, 782–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Shah, R.; Amaresan, N.; Patel, P.; Jinal, H.N.; Krishnamurthy, R. Isolation and Characterization of Bacillus spp. Endowed with Multifarious Plant Growth-Promoting Traits and Their Potential Effect on Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Seedlings. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 4579–4587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Thilagar, G.; Bagyaraj, D.J.; Podile, A.R.; Vaikuntapu, P.R. Bacillus sonorensis, a Novel Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacterium in Improving Growth, Nutrition and Yield of Chilly (Capsicum annuum L.). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Boil. Sci. 2016, 88, 813–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Mendis, H.C.; Thomas, V.P.; Schwientek, P.; Salamzade, R.; Chien, J.-T.; Waidyarathne, P.; Kloepper, J.; De La Fuente, L. Strain-specific quantification of root colonization by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Bacillus firmus I-1582 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens QST713 in non-sterile soil and field conditions. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0193119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ahmad, I.; Akhtar, M.J.; Zahir, Z.A.; Naveed, M.; Mitter, B.; Sessitsch, A. Cadmium-tolerant bacteria induce metal stress tolerance in cereals. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 11054–11065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Kaloterakis, N.; van Delden, S.H.; Hartley, S.; De Deyn, G.B. Silicon application and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria consisting of six pure Bacillus species alleviate salinity stress in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 288, 110383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Jamil, N.; Hyder, S.; Valipour, M.; Yasir, M.; Iqbal, R.; Roy, R.; Zafar, M.U.; Ahmed, A. Evaluation of the Bioremediation Potential of Staphlococcus lentus Inoculations of Plants as a Promising Strategy Used to Attenuate Chromium Toxicity. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Fayaz, S.; Kanth, R.H.; Bhat, T.A.; Valipour, M.; Iqbal, R.; Munir, A.; Nazir, A.; Mir, M.S.; Ahanger, S.A.; Al-Ashkar, I.; et al. Leaf Color Chart (LCC)-Based Precision Nitrogen Management for Assessing Phenology, Agrometeorological In-dices and Sustainable Yield of Hybrid Maize Genotypes under Temperate Climate. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Mazlan, N.A.; Zaki, N.A.M.; Narashid, R.H.; Talib, N.; Manokaran, J.; Arshad, F.C.; Fauzi, S.S.M.; Dom, N.C.; Valipour, M.; Dambul, R.; et al. COVID-19 Restriction Movement Control Order (MCO) Impacted Emissions of Peninsular Malaysia Using Sentinel-2a and Sentinel-5p Satellite. Earth Syst. Environ. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Haider, M.W.; Nafees, M.; Valipour, M.; Iqbal, R.; Ali, S.; Asad, H.U.; Faried, H.N.; Aslam, M.; Iqbal, J.; Shahzad, M.A. Postharvest Eucalyptus Leaf Extract Application Extends the Sustainable Supply of Strawberries by Retaining Physicochemical Quality during Cold Storage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sources of microbial-based biopesticides.
Figure 1. Sources of microbial-based biopesticides.
Biology 11 01763 g001
Figure 2. Interconnection between the plant, soil, and microbes. Plant roots secrete a prodigious diversity of organic nutrients and signals that attract microbes. Consequently, microbes breakdown the complex nutrients from complex to simple available forms to plants.
Figure 2. Interconnection between the plant, soil, and microbes. Plant roots secrete a prodigious diversity of organic nutrients and signals that attract microbes. Consequently, microbes breakdown the complex nutrients from complex to simple available forms to plants.
Biology 11 01763 g002
Figure 3. Bacillus spp. induced expression of genes in plants grown under various stress conditions.
Figure 3. Bacillus spp. induced expression of genes in plants grown under various stress conditions.
Biology 11 01763 g003
Figure 4. Direct and indirect mechanisms of plant growth promoting activities of PGPR.
Figure 4. Direct and indirect mechanisms of plant growth promoting activities of PGPR.
Biology 11 01763 g004
Table 1. Bacillus species were reported as biocontrol agents against various phytopathogens.
Table 1. Bacillus species were reported as biocontrol agents against various phytopathogens.
Bacillus Species Plant SpeciesPathogensReferences
Bacillus subtilisWheatRhizoctonia cerealis[34]
Bacillus velezensisPear fruitsApergillus westerdijkiae[35]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensRice grainsAspergillus westerdijkiae[36]
Bacillus cereusPotatoFusarium oxysporum[37]
Bacillus subtilisTomatoPythium ultimum[38]
Bacillus spp.-Rhizoctonia solani[39]
Bacillus velezensis-Fusarium oxysporum, F. graminearum, Botrytis cinerea, Alternaria alternata, Fulvia fulva, and Ustilaginoidea virens.[40]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensTomatoFusarium oxysporum[41]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Bacillus subtilisTomatoBotrytis cinerea[42]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensMustardSclerotinia sclerotiorum[43]
B. vallismortis, B. amyloliquefaciens and B. thuringiensisEggplantRalstonia solanacearum[44]
Bacillus spp. Sweet pepperPhytophthora capsici[45]
Bacillus velezensisMaize cropFusarium graminearum and F. culmorum[46]
Bacillus velezensisPepperBotrytis cinerea[47]
Table 2. Multifaceted impacts of Bacillus sp. on various crops grown under various stress conditions.
Table 2. Multifaceted impacts of Bacillus sp. on various crops grown under various stress conditions.
Bacillus spp.Plant SpeciesImpactReferences
Bacillus licheniformisZea maysDrought tolerance[145]
Bacillus pumilusTriticum aestivumPGPR under salinity stress[146]
Bacillus cereusSolanum nigrumIAA producer[147]
Bacillus velezensisSolanum lycopersicumBiofilm formation [148]
B. subtilisPhaseolus vulgarisBio fertilizer [149]
B. pumilusTriticum aestivumBiofilm formation[150]
Bacillus pumilusFagopyrum esculentumAntifungal impact [151]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensSolanum tuberosumDisease management [152]
Lysinibacillus fusiformisCicer arietinumAnti-fungal activity [153]
Bacillus mycoidesLolium perennePGPR[154]
Priestia megateriumPhaseolus vulgaris L. Mitigate salinity stress[155]
Paenibacillus polymyxa and Bacillus circulansZea maysCopper stress tolerance [156]
Bacillus thuringiensisGossypium herbaceumGenetically modified crop (insecticide)[157]
Bacillus subtilisLycopersicon esculentum, Zea maysBiofilm formation
ameliorates water stress
[158,159]
Bacillus methylotrophicusLactuca sativaGAs production [160]
Bacillus pumilusZea maysN2 –fixation[63]
Bacillus aryabhattaiGlycine maxPhytohormones (ABA, IAA, CKs, GAs) production[161]
Bacillus subtilisArabidopsis thaliana and Brassia campestrisDrought and salt stresses[162]
B. subtilisManihot esculentaActs as PGPR and promotes biomass[163]
B. amyloliquefaciensMusa paradisiacaIAA [164]
Bacillus megateriumSolanum melongenaP-Solubilization[165]
Bacillus thuringiensis, P. megaterium and Bacillus subtilisCicer arietinumDrought tolerance[166]
Bacillus subtilisTriticum aestivum L. Alleviate drought stress[167]
Bacillus cereus, Bacillus velezensis and Bacillus thuringiensisLycopersicon esculentumPGPR[168]
Bacillus sonorensisCapsicum annuum L. P-solubilizer, siderophore, chitinase, IAA, hydrogen cyanide, and biofilm formation[169].
Bacillus firmus and Bacillus amyloliquefaciensZea mays and Glycine maxPGPR[170]
B. thuringiensisLavandula dentateDrought tolerance[171]
Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus mycoides, Bacillus methylotropicusCucumis sativus L.Reduce salinity stress[172]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, A.R.; Mustafa, A.; Hyder, S.; Valipour, M.; Rizvi, Z.F.; Gondal, A.S.; Yousuf, Z.; Iqbal, R.; Daraz, U. Bacillus spp. as Bioagents: Uses and Application for Sustainable Agriculture. Biology 2022, 11, 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11121763

AMA Style

Khan AR, Mustafa A, Hyder S, Valipour M, Rizvi ZF, Gondal AS, Yousuf Z, Iqbal R, Daraz U. Bacillus spp. as Bioagents: Uses and Application for Sustainable Agriculture. Biology. 2022; 11(12):1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11121763

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Aimen Razzaq, Adeena Mustafa, Sajjad Hyder, Mohammad Valipour, Zarrin Fatima Rizvi, Amjad Shahzad Gondal, Zubaida Yousuf, Rashid Iqbal, and Umar Daraz. 2022. "Bacillus spp. as Bioagents: Uses and Application for Sustainable Agriculture" Biology 11, no. 12: 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11121763

APA Style

Khan, A. R., Mustafa, A., Hyder, S., Valipour, M., Rizvi, Z. F., Gondal, A. S., Yousuf, Z., Iqbal, R., & Daraz, U. (2022). Bacillus spp. as Bioagents: Uses and Application for Sustainable Agriculture. Biology, 11(12), 1763. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11121763

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