Next Article in Journal
The Oldest Bryophyte Herbarium Specimens from Central Europe, Collected by M. E. Boretius in 1717: Taxonomy, Nomenclature, Datation and Ethnopharmacology
Next Article in Special Issue
Lanthanum Significantly Contributes to the Growth of the Fine Roots’ Morphology and Phosphorus Uptake Efficiency by Increasing the Yield and Quality of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Taproots
Previous Article in Journal
OsJAZ4 Fine-Tunes Rice Blast Resistance and Yield Traits
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variations in Nitrogen Accumulation and Use Efficiency in Maize Differentiate with Nitrogen and Phosphorus Rates and Contrasting Fertilizer Placement Methodologies
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Progress in Microbial Fertilizer Regulation of Crop Growth and Soil Remediation Research

by
Tingting Wang
1,
Jiaxin Xu
1,
Jian Chen
2,
Peng Liu
1,
Xin Hou
1,
Long Yang
1,* and
Li Zhang
1,*
1
College of Plant Protection, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271002, China
2
Institute of Food Quality and Safety, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing 221122, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(3), 346; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13030346
Submission received: 13 December 2023 / Revised: 16 January 2024 / Accepted: 22 January 2024 / Published: 24 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Plant Nutrition and Novel Fertilizers)

Abstract

:
More food is needed to meet the demand of the global population, which is growing continuously. Chemical fertilizers have been used for a long time to increase crop yields, and may have negative effect on human health and the agricultural environment. In order to make ongoing agricultural development more sustainable, the use of chemical fertilizers will likely have to be reduced. Microbial fertilizer is a kind of nutrient-rich and environmentally friendly biological fertilizer made from plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPR). Microbial fertilizers can regulate soil nutrient dynamics and promote soil nutrient cycling by improving soil microbial community changes. This process helps restore the soil ecosystem, which in turn promotes nutrient uptake, regulates crop growth, and enhances crop resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. This paper reviews the classification of microbial fertilizers and their function in regulating crop growth, nitrogen fixation, phosphorus, potassium solubilization, and the production of phytohormones. We also summarize the role of PGPR in helping crops against biotic and abiotic stresses. Finally, we discuss the function and the mechanism of applying microbial fertilizers in soil remediation. This review helps us understand the research progress of microbial fertilizer and provides new perspectives regarding the future development of microbial agent in sustainable agriculture.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The global population will continue to grow and is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, requiring a rapid increase in crop production [1]. Urbanization and industrialization have led to a significant reduction in arable land while at the same time causing damage to agroecosystems. The need to increase crop yields to feed a growing population on limited arable land requires significant inputs of agrochemicals into the agricultural environment [2]. However, the long-term use of these agrochemicals not only affects soil fertility but also contaminates agroecosystems through the introduction of toxic substances. These pollutants are persistent and accumulate in the environment over time, leading to the further contamination of the food chain and posing a threat to human health [3,4]. This limits the sustainable productivity of soils and poses a threat to the environment and human health. The fact that microorganisms are an important natural resource for the development of “green methods” has attracted great attention worldwide. Improving soil health and crop growth through the use of fertilizers enriched with beneficial microorganisms is essential to maintaining a balance between efficient crop production and sustainable agriculture [5].
The inter-root is an active area for microbial interactions with the plant root system [6]. In inter-root soils, plant growth benefits from several PGPR with multiple functions, and these beneficial bacteria play important roles in soil nutrient cycling, the decomposition of organic matter, the suppression of soil-borne diseases, and the improvement of crop growth and resistance. Some examples are biological nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, phosphorus and potassium solubilization, hormone secretion, the inhibition of pathogens, the induction of plant resistance, etc. [7,8]. In addition, plants also secrete secondary metabolites to feed the microorganisms around the inter-root. Interactions between plants and beneficial bacteria play an important role in maintaining the microenvironment around the plant root system, which is favorable for plant growth and development [9].
Microbial fertilizer is a type of bio-fertilizer containing beneficial microorganisms with specific functions [10]. The application of microbial fertilizers can help the soil form a new microbial community structure and promote the supply of nutrients to plants with the soil [11]. Numerous studies have shown that microbial fertilizers made from PGPR play an important role in improving soil fertility and promoting crop growth. They also help crops combat biotic and abiotic stresses. Today, microbial fertilizers are considered renewable and environmentally friendly, supporting sustainable agriculture. In this review, we summarize the mechanism of action of microbial fertilizers in promoting crop growth and resistance to environmental stresses, and we also discuss the application of microbial fertilizers in soil remediation.

2. Microbiological Fertilizer Classification

Microbial fertilizers can be classified into different types according to their functions. Briefly, they can be divided into three categories: bio-organic fertilizer, compound microbial fertilizer and microbial fungicide. Table 1 summarizes the beneficial growth-promoting bacterial strains of different types of microbial fertilizers on different crops.

2.1. Bio-Organic Fertilizer

Bio-organic fertilizer is primarily composed of livestock and poultry manure, crop residues, municipal waste, and other organic waste materials that have undergone harmless treatment. It is enriched with specific functional microorganisms and serves as a compound fertilizer for organic matter. Bio-organic fertilizer offers the dual benefits of microbial fungicide and traditional organic fertilizer. Along with its high organic matter content, it also contains specific microorganisms with unique functions [12]. In recent years, the rise in organic waste and pollutants has resulted in a gradual decline in farming quality, which subsequently impacts soil health [11]. Through the formulation of fertilizer application and the return of straw to the field and other measures, the fertilizer effect of organic fertilizer can be brought into play and the threat to the soil environment posed by excessive chemical fertilizer can be reduced, which is conducive to the promotion of the development of bio-organic fertilizer [13]. Compared with chemical fertilizer, bio-organic fertilizer has the efficacy of traditional organic fertilizer on the one hand and the special function of beneficial micro-organisms on the other hand; through the combination of the two, it plays the role of maximum fertilizer efficiency [14]. It has been found that bio-organic fertilizers often act as beneficial soil conditioners, improving soil quality, promoting the formation of soil aggregates, and enhancing the availability of nutrients to crops [15]. It has also been shown that bio-organic fertilizers increase soil microbiota and promote soil carbon and nitrogen cycling compared to chemical fertilizers. The most important function of bio-organic fertilizer is to recruit more beneficial soil microorganisms through the beneficial microorganisms it contains and colonize the inter-root area in large quantities, which is the place where microorganisms, soil, and plant roots interact with each other to allow better communication between them.

2.2. Microbial Agents

Microbial agents, also known as microbial inoculants, are defined as biofertilizers containing a range of live microbial products [16]. Beneficial bacteria with specific functions are isolated from bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, and algae to develop microbial inoculants [17,18]. Currently, new inoculants represented by PGPR have attracted widespread attention. PGPR, such as Klebsiella, Azotobacter, Azoospirillum, and Bacillus, proliferate in the inter-root soil. Bacillus and Pseudomonas, which are isolated from the rhizosphere, have been extensively utilized for the development of microbial inoculants based on the identification of microorganism diversity [19]. Research demonstrates that microbial inoculants incorporate a specific range of beneficial bacteria, which induce hormonal substances for plant growth through their inherent direct mechanisms, and counteract the threat of biotic or abiotic stress cues to plants. These inoculants do not pose a pathogenic effect on plant organisms, are environmentally friendly, promote plant adaption to the environment, enhance growth and development, harmonize nutrients in soil, yield diverse plant growth regulators, detoxify soil heavy metals, pesticides, and fungicides, and utilize biological control techniques for soil remediation. The initial studies on microbial inoculants primarily involved single strains that had singular functions and minimal impact on plant growth [20]. However, current research on microbial inoculants has shifted toward investigating multiple beneficial bacteria and multifunctional composite inoculants. As a result, this area of study has gained significant attention.

2.3. Complex Microbial Fertilizer

Composite microbial fertilizer integrates a variety of beneficial bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Azospirillum brasilense, and Streptomyces, synergistically activating characteristics such as the solubilization of phosphorus and potassium, and nitrogen fixation through optimal combination [21,22]. Compound microbial fertilizer primarily involves agricultural residues (avian excreta and straw) and beneficial microorganisms as the primary raw materials to produce a novel variety of fertilizers [23,24]. Complex microbial fertilizers incorporate chemical fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and beneficial microorganisms. They foster robust plant growth while possessing the immediacy of chemical fertilizers and the longevity of organic fertilizers. This effectively improves soil fertility and sustains healthy, thriving crops [25]. In this case, the beneficial bacteria contained in the composite microbial fertilizer produce secondary metabolites through the metabolic activities of the microorganisms, which dissolve the mineral elements in the soil and promote crop growth. Root-associated beneficial microorganisms are colonized, establishing a beneficial microbiome. This further interacts with rhizosphere secretions from the beneficial microorganisms to induce secondary metabolite production in plants, participate in plants’ defense systems, and produce growth regulators that promote plant growth and regulate crop development.
Table 1. Beneficial strains of growth-promoting bacteria of different types of microbial fertilizers in different crops.
Table 1. Beneficial strains of growth-promoting bacteria of different types of microbial fertilizers in different crops.
Types of Microbial FertilizersCropPlant Growth Promoting RhizobacteriaReferences
1Bio-organic fertilizerLettuceActinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, Gemmatimonadota
Ascomycota, and Basidiomycota
[26]
2Bio-organic fertilizerTobaccoActinobacteria, Chloroflexi, Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Firmicutes, Gemmatimonadota, StreptomyceBacillus, Arthrobacter, and Paenibacillus[27]
3Bio-organic fertilizerBeet, potato, winter, wheatActinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria,
Arthrobacter, and Paenibacillus
[28,29]
4Bio-organic fertilizerCauliflowerProteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, Bacteroidetes, and Chloroflexi[30]
5Bio-organic fertilizerTomatoProteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, Bacteroidota, Firmicutes, Firmicutes, and Verrucomicrobiota[31]
6Microbial inoculantsWatermelonPseudomonas, flavobacterium
Aspergillus, Myceliophthora, Trichoderma, and Humicola and Neocosmospora
[32]
7Microbial inoculantsRadishProteobacteria, Bacterioidetes, Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Planctomycetes[33]
8Microbial inoculantsRiceProteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Gemmatimonadetes, Actinobacteria, Planctomycetes
Ascomycota, and Chytridiomycota
[34]
9Microbial inoculantsPrunusdavidanaProteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Acidobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, Actinobacteria, Patescibacteria, Chloroflexi, Verrucomicrobia, Nitrospirae, Latescibacteria, and Rokubacteria[35]
10Microbial inoculantsCucumberAlphaproteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, Bacteroidetes, Chloroflexi, Planctomycetes, Firmicutes, Verrucomicrobia, Nitrospirae, Armatimonadetes, Cyanobacteria, TM7, Fibrobacteres,
and Chlorobi
[36]
11Compound microbial fertilizerSoybeannitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria[37]
12Compound microbial fertilizerSugarcaneTrichoderma harzianum, Gluconcetobacter diazotrophicus, and Pseudomonas fluorescents[38]

3. Microbial Fertilizers Regulate Crop Growth and Resistance

3.1. Microbial Fertilizers Regulate Crop Growth

Plant growth and development are intricately linked through mutual interactions between organisms in the root of plants and the rhizosphere. The rhizosphere prevails as a distinct habitat for the majority of microorganisms, serving as a direct source of their nutrients. In particular, bacteria that live around the roots, for example PGPR, are recognized as beneficial bacteria that promote plant growth and regulate plant growth and development. PGPR regulate plant growth and enhance yield via diverse direct action mechanisms, further augmenting plant nutrient assimilation [39]. The mechanisms of the direct action of PGPR encompass nitrogen fixation, the solubilization of phosphorus and potassium minerals, the generation of plant hormones, and the production of ferric iron carriers [40]. Table 2 illustrates the mechanisms by which various beneficial microorganisms regulate crop growth.

3.1.1. Nitrogen Fixation

Nitrogen is a critical nutrient element in the growth and development of plants. As the nitrogen in the atmosphere exists in its free state, most plants are incapable of directly utilizing it. Thus, the necessity arises to fix the free nitrogen and transmute it into nitrogen that can be absorbed and utilized by plants. Significantly, a plethora of studies have demonstrated that nitrogen can be fastened in an assimilable condition for crops via a distinct group of microorganisms, which are designated as biological nitrogen fixers (BNFs). These elements facilitate the colonization and nitrogen fixation of rhizosphere bacteria [55].
Nitrogen-fixing bacteria are non-symbiotic, free-living bacteria. They belongs to the family of Azotobacteria and are mainly used as a non-leguminous crop biofertilizer. The main nitrogen-fixing bacteria include symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria, free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and combined nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with leguminous plants include Rhizobium, Azotobacteria, and slow-growing rhizobacteria [56,57], Associative nitrogen-fixing bacteria with nonleguminous plants encompass Arthrobacter, Alcaligenes, Mycobacterium, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Azospirillum [58]. Among them, Rhizobium represents the epitome of symbiotic nitrogen fixation and is one of the most comprehensive studies on the symbiotic relationship between root nodules and nitrogen-fixing bacteria [59]. Rhizobium perceives flavonoid compounds exuded from plant root systems to produce signals for reciprocal communication with the root microbiome [60]. For instance, secretions from peanut root can stimulate the rhizobium of peanuts. Rhizobium is attracted to the root’s secretions, then forms nodules and fixes nitrogen in the roots of the host plant [61]. In addition, it was observed that the association of alfalfa with Rhizobium can enhance biological nitrogen fixation, stimulate plant growth, and more pertinently, rehabilitate heavily metal-contaminated soil while augmenting the resistance of plants to metals [62].

3.1.2. Phosphate Solubilizing

As an indispensable second nutrient element for plant growth and development, phosphorus contributes to important physiological processes such as plant metabolism, root growth and development, and flowering and fruiting [63]. Due to long-term application of chemical fertilizers, more than 70% of phosphorus in soil exists in inorganic form, and this inorganic phosphorus can easily react with Fe3+, Al3+ and Ca2+ in soil to form insoluble phosphate [64]. Consequently, the addition of beneficial microorganisms is required to solubilize phosphates from the soil. It has been reported that species of bacteria and fungi, including Bacillus, Rhizobium, Pseudomonas, Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Staphylococcus, are typical phosphorus-enhancing agents [65]. The presence of insoluble phosphate in soil requires its conversion into soluble phosphate by soil microorganisms. Soil bacteria and fungi are involved in the solubilization process of soil phosphate by producing different mechanisms of action. Some of the mechanisms of action include the secretion of organic acids by beneficial bacteria, the formation of chelates, ion exchange reactions, etc. [66]. These beneficial microorganisms secrete organic acids that lower soil pH, thereby increasing the effectiveness of phosphorus in the soil [67]. Through these dissolved phosphorus microorganisms producing organic acids, secreted enzymes, iron carriers, etc., metal ions in the soil are chelated to form a complex, which is converted into phosphate, which can be absorbed and utilized by plants [68,69]. They contribute to phosphate solubilization, increase phosphate utilization by the plant, and enhance physiological processes in the plant.

3.1.3. Potassium Dissolution

Potassium is the third most essential nutrient, following nitrogen and phosphorus. Potassium is abundant in soil and exists in various forms. It plays a pivotal role in a plant’s growth and development, influencing plant growth, root system development, and enhancing yield and quality. The majority of potassium exists as in mineral form, which plants cannot directly assimilate. It has been documented that utilizing the distinct mechanisms of bacteria and fungi enables the transformation of insoluble potassium into soluble potassium. For instance, Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Azotobacter, and Aspergillus are archetypal potassium solubilizers. Research indicates that the Bacillus and Klebsiella isolated from the root zone of chili could solubilize substantial amounts of potassium in the soil, with the potential for potassium dissolution to exceed 70% compared to that of the control [70]. Recently, a study has indicated that the isolation of potassium-solubilizing bacteria from the rice rhizosphere enhances soil potassium availability and subsequently stimulates growth and yield in rice [71].

3.1.4. Regulating Phytohormone Levels

Additionally, phytohormones, also referred to as plant stimulators, are produced by PGPR and promote plant development [49]. The growth and development of crops are controlled by stimulating the plants. Microorganisms manufacture phytohormone, which are organic substances that regulate various aspects of plant growth, including cell division and differentiation, organ development, fruit ripening, flower blossoming, and fruiting. Auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, ethylene, and abscisic acid are examples of phytohormones. Table 3 summarizes examples of phytohormones produced by different microorganisms in crops.
The widespread plant growth regulator auxin (also known as indole-3-acetic acid, indole-acetic acid, or IAA) is essential for promoting vegetative development [72]. The majority of PGPR generate indole acetic acid, which is essential for coordinating the host plant’s and microbiota’s interaction. In the rhizosphere, tryptophan (Trp), a substance found in root exudates, is exchanged between the plant-beneficial rhizobacterium and the host plant to facilitate communication [73]. As a signaling molecule that facilitates communication between Rhizobia and the host plant, tryptophan triggers PGPR to synthesize IAA through a variety of pathways [74]. IAA is an intrinsic regulator of plant development that mainly controls the growth of plant roots, promotes the creation of root hair, and stimulates the genesis of root epidermal cells. Furthermore, IAA influences photosynthesis, promotes plant cell differentiation and division, and aids in the creation of vascular bundles. One study used Helicobacter Azotrophicus inoculation to examine the impacts of root development in Arabidopsis thaliana in Brazil. The findings indicated that the growth hormone encouraged the production of lateral root meristematic tissues [75].
An essential plant hormone required for plant growth and development is cytokinin. It is primarily produced by inter-root bacteria, which use the synthesis of cytokinins to stimulate and support plant growth [76]. Plant growth and development activities, including root development and hair creation, stem and root elongation, light response regulation, and stomatal open-in promotion, are primarily driven by cytokinins. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that gibberellins (GA) are also produced by PGPR. Gibberellins primarily break dormancy in seeds and encourage germination; they also lengthen stems, induce the growth of floral organs, and increase fruit set. For example, gibberellin can protect the host plant against stress-related dangers when environmental conditions are unfavorable. Furthermore, certain species of inter-root bacteria release and manufacture ethylene, a special regulator of plant growth. They primarily control the growth and development of plants, encourage the growth of roots, and quicken the ripening of fruit. Ethylene’s mode of action greatly increases plant vegetative growth and development, hastens plant maturity, which lowers plant consumption of soil nutrients, and increases the amount of soil nutrients that can be retained in the soil, minimizing the need for phosphorus and potassium fertilizers.

3.1.5. Iron Carrier Production

Iron is essential for the growth and metabolism of plants, primarily for the regulation of several physiological processes. For instance, respiration, photosynthesis, and nitrogen fixation all guarantee the availability of nutrients for plant growth. Because of its great susceptibility to oxidation, iron in soil can precipitate insoluble iron oxide, which plants cannot absorb [77]. The slow rate of decomposition of the majority of the inorganic iron minerals in rhizosphere soil inhibits the growth and development of plants. By employing a variety of mechanisms, PGPR can increase iron solubility by generating a number of tiny molecules known as iron carriers [78,79]. Low-molecular-weight, organic secondary metabolites generated by specific bacteria are called iron carriers [80]. These organic compounds are mostly used by microorganisms as iron chelators, helping them to absorb iron. These iron chelators can reduce the stress that heavy metals place on the environment by chelating iron as well as other heavy metals. Iron carrier complexes are created on the cell membrane by metabolites released by iron carriers interacting with Fe3+. Eventually, these complexes are broken down to Fe2+, which plants can absorb and use to support development. Numerous studies support the idea that rhizobacteria connected to plants that promote plant growth are also able to produce iron transporters. For example, by producing iron carriers and P solubilization, PGPR isolated from soil can improve the nutritional growth features of tomato plants, thus increasing nutrient efficacy [81]. Importantly, the Burkholderia P10 strain clarifies how the P10 transcriptome affects the transformation of peanut root exudates. Furthermore, it greatly amplifies the P10 strain’s promotion of plant development by promoting the biosynthesis of iron carriers, the synthesis of IAA, and the expression of genes linked to phosphorus dissolution [82].
Table 3. Examples of phytohormones produced by different microorganisms in crops.
Table 3. Examples of phytohormones produced by different microorganisms in crops.
MicroorganismsCropPhytohormonesMechanism of ActionReferences
Rhizophila Y1CornIAA, ABARhizophila Y1 regulates phytohormone levels and alleviates salt stress in maize growth[83]
Bacillus velezensisStrawberriesIAABacillus velezensis produces large amounts of IAA for growth promotion[84]
Bacillus thuringiensis RZ2MS9CornIAAGenetic basis for the induction of IAA biosynthesis by Bacillus thuringiensis RZ2MS9 for maize growth[85]
Leifsonia soli SE134Cucumbers, TomatoGAGA secretion by L. soli SE134 may favor its ameliorative role in crop growth[86]
Bacillus subtilisMaize, Brassica pekinensisGABacillus subtilis secretes gibberellins that promote the growth of rice and cabbage[87]
Bacillus subtilisWheatGA, IAABacillus sp. increases endogenous IAA and GA levels in all genotypes of wheat[88]
B. subtilis CNBG-PGPR-1TomatoEthyleneB. subtilis CNBG-PGPR-1 regulates the ethylene pathway in tomato, scavenges ROS, and enhances plant salt tolerance[89]
Bacillus subtilisCornEthyleneSalt-tolerant Bacillus sp. strains reduce stress-inducing ethylene levels in host plants and alleviate salt stress[90]

3.2. Increasing Crop Resistance to Environmental Stress

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced during environmental stress during plant growth impair plant productivity by causing organelle damage and eventual cell death [91]. Plants experience both biotic and abiotic stressors during their reproductive processes, leading to lower agricultural yields [92]. Fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and other biological creatures are all included in biotic stress [93]. Fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and other biological organisms are all included in biotic stress [94]. To maintain the agricultural ecological balance, according to the pressure encountered, we should implement effective solutions to the current environmental pressure and deal with the influence of various pressures [95]. As a result, some defense mechanisms are used to lessen the severe stresses that plants face [96]. On one hand, the genetic modification of crop varieties can foster robust crops that can withstand environmental fluctuations. However, it is crucial to consider that this process of nurturing resistant crop varieties is time-consuming and demands a considerably high investment in time. Currently, the principal methodology employed to alleviate plant environmental stress is the utilization of advantageous growth-promoting microbe of root zone soil [97]. PGPR impart antagonistic substances in the rhizosphere through suppressing pathogen growth and competing for nutrients [98]. PGPR mainly use various metabolites and volatiles to regulate the structure of soil microbial communities, suppress soil pathogens, and improve soil health. For example, PGPR produce antibiotics, hydrolyte enzymes, and antimicrobial compounds for use in attacking pathogen growth, thereby protecting plants from pathogens. PGPR improve plant growth and resistance through a number of mechanisms of action, providing effective alternatives to traditional control methods [99].

3.2.1. Biotic Stress

  • Biological Control of Pest Management
Previously utilized pesticides and insecticides for biological control have a discernible negative impact on soil and human health. Some plant growth-inducing bacteria can protect plants from pests through pathogenic mechanisms, metabolites, and secretions. However, PGPR-based biocontrol agents are effective alternatives to synthetic pesticides and insecticides. For example, Bacillus and Pseudomonas are effective against pests [100]. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a prominent plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial biological insecticide, extensively applied to noctuidae, coleoptera, and diptera in insect classification [101]. Bacillus thuringiensis is a bactericidal protein and a quick-acting insecticide possessing minimal side effects on host plants and other beneficial micro-organisms [102]. It has been reported that Bacillus 90 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain 91k were evaluated in wheat studies and found to be effective against aphid populations [103]. PGPR secretion of volatile organic compounds helps defend against nematode damage and triggers ISR to resist pathogen attack [93]. It has been reported that the use of PGPR is effective in controlling potato nematode damage without secondary environmental pollution to the environment [104].
  • Plant Pathogen Management
The defense mechanisms of PGPR protect against pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and fungi by inducing systemic resistance (ISR) and systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in plants [105,106]. PGPR-dominant strains that induce ISR include Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Serratia. ISR is an activation response induced by a diverse array of beneficial and detrimental microorganisms, as well as environmental stressors. It is not possible to unequivocally discern the mechanism that induces ISR [106,107]. The primary mechanism by which PGPRs defend plants from biotic stress is their capacity to synthesize antibiotics [108]. Antibiotics are polyvalent microbe-derived substances of a low molecular weight possessing toxic organic components that can enhance plant growth and various metabolic activities [109]. Antibiotics are classified into two categories, namely volatile complex compounds and non-volatile complex compounds. Significantly, different types of beneficial bacterial genera in PGPR can produce antibiotics as a potent method to combat the invasion of pathogens. The dominant genus taxa producing antibiotics include Pseudomonas fluorescens, Bacillus, Actinobacteria, Enterobacteriaceae, and Arthrobacter. Antibiotics not only provide direct resistance to pathogens but also promote disease suppression in plant systems by inducing systemic resistance, conferring a competitive advantage to biocontrol agents. Nowadays, Pseudomonas fluorescens has the potential to protect against plant pathogen attacks as an effective control agent against plant pathogens [110]. Bacillus is a dominant genus within PGPR, efficiently combating plant pathogens. Bacillus also produces distinct antibiotic classes, primarily Bacillomycin, Rhizobiumin, and Mycobacteriumin. It is also known to generate antimicrobial surface-active agents [106]. In particular, Bacillus subtilis stops pathogens through biological control. In addition to this, Bacillus can produce iron carriers and extracellular polysaccharides to help regulate ionic balance and synthesize microbial metabolites to help control the threat of plant diseases. In addition, hydrolytic enzymes mainly include cellulases, proteases, chitinases, and lipases. Their main mechanism of action contributes to the hydrolysis of polymeric compounds, cleaving the cell walls, proteins, and DNA of pathogens to protect plants from pathogens. These volatile organic compounds can regulate the structure of soil microbial communities, in turn affecting the growth and development of fungi, plants, and animals. The accumulation of beneficial soil microorganisms can be stimulated via the application of biofertilizer with exogenous beneficial bacteria, in turn leading to the formation of beneficial flora against pathogens and ultimately to the recruitment of more disease-resistant microorganisms.

3.2.2. Abiotic Stress

  • Drought Stress
Among abiotic stresses, drought is an important factor affecting agricultural production. Water scarcity affects plant physiological processes, water–nutrient relationships, and the normal metabolic activities of the plant body [111,112]. Currently, several strategies are necessary to overcome drought stress. The use of PGPR as inoculants alleviates water supply deficiencies and effectively promotes water utilization. The primary mechanism for the palliative effect of PGPR in drought is derived from the regulation of plant hormones, volatile compounds, and cell wall polysaccharides, which influence the normal growth of crops [113]. Through these mechanisms of action, they helps plants maintain survival under extreme drought conditions. The synthesis of phytohormones by Pseudomonas, Bacillus and Rhizobium isolated by PGPR is conducted to stimulate plant growth and overcome the stress of drought stress [114]. Under arid conditions, the introduction of beneficial microbial agents can generate extracellular polysaccharides (EPS), synthesize proline, and secrete phenolic compounds, and regulate plant growth and development to resist dehydration stress [115]. Salicylic acid (SA), primarily produced by microorganism-derived phenolic compounds, serves as a critical signaling molecule in arid conditions. It effectively activates antioxidant genes and underived metabolic gene products to manage plant growth and development [116]. ACC is a precursor of ethylene, and PGPR-produced ACC deaminase can degrade ACC levels, preventing an excessive increase in ethylene and thereby resisting abiotic stress [117]. It has been reported that PGPR strains produce 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase, which protects tomato from the negative effects of drought stress and significantly enhances the drought tolerance of plants [118]. Another study also reported that under drought and salt stress conditions, three beneficial PGPR isolates increased the IAA content, decreased the ABA/ACC content and improved the photosynthetic efficiency of wheat, thereby increasing its tolerance to abiotic stresses [119]. Research suggests that interspecific hybrid corn employs the PGPR-based isolation of Pseudomonas putida, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Bacillus megaterium under conditions of drought stress. In the case of Pseudomonas putida treatment, seedling germination vitality, fresh and dry weight, dry matter content, and grain yield exhibit superior outcomes [120]. The inoculation of wheat in potting soil under drought conditions using two novel PGPR isolates, Bacillus subtilis-FAB1 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa-FAP3, stimulated plant growth and effective inter-root colonization, resulting in normal plant growth [121]. In recent years, the latest mechanisms of drought resistance have been mainly based on molecular and histological techniques to study some drought-resistant genes, contributing to our understanding of the multiple functions of rhizobia under drought conditions. It was shown that, using a metabolomics approach with untargeted liquid chromatography using UHPLC, sorghum was inoculated with key molecules for PGPR-induced tolerance to drought stress in sorghum [122]. Similarly, the characterization of chickpea physiological and biochemical traits under drought conditions via 16S-rRNA gene sequencing and the identification of the dominant PGPR strains such as Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus thuringiensis led to changes in the metabolome to reduce the effects of stress [123].
  • Salt Stress
In recent years, salt stress has become an important factor limiting plant growth. Excessive salinity leads to soil crusting, which further reduces the effective use of water by plants. Salinity directly affects the growth of the plant root system, which further impacts the entire growth process and metabolic activities of the plant [124]. Salinity directly affects chlorophyll content and carotenoids, denaturing the ultrastructure of the chloroplast, thereby reducing stomatal conductance and curtailing leaf photosynthesis. Increased levels of reactive oxygen species in plant cells are due to salt accumulation in the soil, leading to oxidative stress in plants [125]. Salinity can induce the accumulation of Na+ and Cl-, and at the same time impair the absorption of K+ and Ca2+, leading to an imbalance in ion homeostasis [126]. Consequently, it is necessary to employ strategic measures to mitigate the effects of salinity stress on plants. Extensive research indicates that PGPR can be leveraged to reduce crop yield losses resulting from salinity. PGPR influences plant physiological and biochemical processes through diverse mechanisms, mitigating the restrictions caused by salt stress on plant growth. Its primary mechanisms encompass the regulation of ion homeostasis, synthesis of protective agents against osmotic stress, activation of antioxidant enzymes, etc., all of which contribute to crop development [127]. Through the interplay of mechanisms and root zone microbiology, intricate signal networks regulate defensive mechanisms, alleviating stress [128]. It has been shown that inoculating rice seedlings with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella significantly increased plant height, root length, and plant dry weight, as well as promoting rice growth under salt stress conditions [129]. It has been reported that using Bacillus to investigate the growth of tomatoes under salt stress was found to induce systemic tolerance in tomato plants and had a significant impact on the diversity of the bacterial community [130]. It has also been reported that the beneficial Bacillus sphaericus SQR9 secretes spermidine, which induces salt tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and maize, enhancing their salt tolerance [131]. Therefore, PGPR can effectively resist the negative effects of salt stress, improve the salt tolerance of plants, and induce the development of resistance systems in plants.
  • Heavy Metal Stress
In addition to drought and salt stress, heavy metal pollution also has a negative impact on sustainable agricultural development. Due to increased heavy metal concentrations attributed to various anthropogenic activities, soil health has been compromised, directly influencing plant enzyme activity and nutrient transformation. Consequently, plant growth and development are hindered [132]. Thus, it is imperative to implement certain strategies to remediate contaminated soil. The utilization of microorganisms, specifically PGPR, in support of bioremediation technology has garnered widespread attention [133]. The primary objective of the microbiological remediation of soil heavy metals is to first immobilize the heavy metal, subsequently reduce its mobility, and ultimately remove it from the soil. The primary heavy metals include manganese, cadmium, iron, and zinc; the majority of microorganisms can absorb soil heavy metals through various mechanisms. The deposition in the affected soil exerts a detrimental effect on plant growth, root system development, photochemical properties, and nutrient assimilation [134]. The mechanism predominantly involves the binding of certain surface heavy metals by live microbial cells and surface-active substances. Concurrently, microorganisms undergo growth and metabolic processes that generate certain inorganic salts and hydrogen peroxide metabolites. These substances react with heavy metal ions to form precipitates [135,136]. In heavy metal-contaminated environments, microorganisms produce iron carrier chelators that can bind to various heavy metals, reducing their toxicity and promoting the growth of barley [137]. In a study on spinach, Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were inoculated to enhance transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, and relative water content, as well as to improve resistance to heavy metal stress. This process also increased the capabilities of the antioxidant defense system [138]. Husna et al. found that rhizobial Rhizobium bioinoculants, which solubilize phosphate and release glycosides, helped alleviate metal stress in soybean seedlings, enabling them to better cope with chromium and arsenic toxicity [139].
In Table 4, we summarize the mechanism of beneficial microorganisms to alleviate the abiotic stress of crops.

4. Soil Remediation

Soil is the culmination of enduring formation processes, a virtually non-renewable resource and an indispensable element of the environment. It serves as a filter and reservoir for water, provides water and nutrients for plants to grow, and provides a habitat for a large number of organisms. Due to the relentless pursuit of crop yield, the repeated application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and toxic substances has led to their accumulation in the soil, culminating in environmental degradation globally. Healthy soil has been irrevocably lost. Revitalizing the health of soil and addressing the environmental issues impacting current soil conditions is a significant endeavor.
In the past, conventional restoration strategies encompassed physical and chemical methodologies; however, these techniques presented limitations such as high costs, lengthy temporal durations, and potentially induced secondary soil pollution. The paramount task at present is to identify methodologies for the sustainable restoration of the ecological environment. In addition to traditional approaches, microbial remediation has emerged as a contemporary, effective, and sustainable instrument for rejuvenating soil health [146]. Plants and microorganisms are usually utilized in the remediation of contaminated soil. Plants primarily utilize their inherent capacity to absorb contaminants, while microorganisms predominantly degrade them. Bioremediation technology primarily relies on microorganisms and is considered a sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to degrading environmental pollutants [147]. The soil microbiome, which is a crucial element of bioremediation, plays a significant role in the mechanisms of soil microbial remediation [148]. The essence of bioremediation technology lies in harnessing the capability of microorganisms to degrade metabolites and facilitate the transformation of pollutants in the soil [149]. Presently, within agricultural practices cognizant of biotechnological reparation, the recuperation of soil fertility via microbial fertilizers composed of diverse beneficial microbial strains is implemented. The interplay between plants, microorganisms, and soil is considered in rectifying soil pollutants thereby facilitating healthy plant growth by providing an advantageous environment.
Microorganisms employ diverse mechanisms to degrade toxic pollutants and pesticide residues within the soil. Currently, biofertilizers containing plant growth-promoting rhizobia represent crucial tools for remediating soil degradation [150]. The microbial remediation strategy will evolve into a vital soil management methodology. PGPR exhibit a positive influence on the soil itself, recruiting a larger number of beneficial microorganisms to effectively decompose the accumulation of toxic substances in soil [151]. They have the capacity to convert toxic organic compounds into nontoxic forms. The degradation of organic pollutants by microorganisms mainly occurs through the enzymes they break down, which help to catalyze the transformation of soil pollutants [152]. In addition, several hydrolytic enzymes can degrade the toxicity of toxic molecules and act as biodegraders [153]. The utilization of the symbiotic relationship among plants, microorganisms, and soil can be employed to remediate pollutants in soil and promote healthy plant growth. The process of decontaminating soil heavy metals used by PGPR involves various methods, including iron carrier chelation, biological adsorption, and biodegradation [154]. The bioremediation of soil heavy metals primarily occurs through the interaction of inter-root microorganisms with soil physicochemical properties, which in turn regulates plant growth and stimulates the detoxification of heavy metals in the soil [155]. Soil microorganisms secrete metabolites that can release iron carriers and organic acids, which aid in the chelation of soil toxic metal ions and contribute to the adsorption of heavy metals [156]. The EPS produced by PGPR can adsorb some metal ions such as Cu2+, Pb2+Cr6+, etc., and at the same time, it can degrade polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and alkane compounds, thus degrading pollutants in the soil [157]. Exploiting the beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms in soil to mitigate heavy metal stress, these organisms can accumulate, transform, and decompose the soil heavy metals [158]. Furthermore, the organic acids produced by microorganisms react with soil metal ions to dissolve heavy metal ions [159]. Previously conducted studies have indicated that microbial inoculation, including PGPR, has a notable impact on soil properties. These organisms decrease the toxicity of the soil, enhance the resistance of plants to stressors, and stimulate plant growth [160]. Microbial fertilizers not only drastically reduce the application of chemical fertilizers but also minimize the utilization of pesticides [161]. Reports have shown that the use of resilient plant growth-promoting inter-root microorganisms can be used to convert chemical pesticides into non-toxic chemicals through detoxification, degradation, complex formation and activation using the microorganisms’ own mechanism of action [162]. Finally, Table 5 summarizes the examples of the microbial remediation of soil pollutants in recent years.

5. Future Perspective and Challenges

Microbial fertilizers are currently being used as an effective method of increasing crop yields. On one hand, they improve the nutrients necessary for plant growth and development. On the other hand, they are environmentally friendly to the soil and protect plants from environmental stresses. In recent years, biofertilizer has emerged as a green and sustainable development strategy that contributes to the future agricultural ecosystem’s sustainability. Additionally, the accurate application of microbial fertilizers should include a consideration of the interaction between soil properties, the soil environment, and host plants of strains to ensure precise biological fertilizer application. This approach helps minimize the impact on the agricultural ecosystem and enhance its efficiency. Overall, microbial fertilizers have a wide range of applications and serve as a green strategy to promote the sustainable development of agriculture [170]. We should have confidence in conducting further in-depth research for future investigations.
As we said, microbial fertilizer is a promising biofertilizer; however, it has some limitations and challenges. We should focus on the main challenges in the production of microbial fertilizer in view of food security. The most important choice in microbial production is that of a suitable carrier [171,172]. Apart from traditional organic wastes like straw and feces, carriers such as domestic garbage, coal powder, and nutrient soil are now being used. However, these carriers have complex compositions, and there is a risk of heavy metal and pathogenic bacteria residues, which could harm agricultural products. Microbial fertilizers are beneficial to plant growth, but they do not fully satisfy the needs of the plant and are subject to a number of environmental conditions. In addition, microorganisms may produce other substances in the process of degrading soil pollutants, which may disturb the ecological balance. Therefore, further research is necessary to understand microbial fertilizer in this context and enable its large-scale application and commercialization. In order to overcome these challenges, researchers should continue to explore several related strategies to achieve sustainable agricultural development and solve food security problems.

6. Conclusions

Despite the escalating state of soil environmental degradation and limited cropland, the growing population necessitates an augmentation of food production. Chemical fertilizers significantly augment crop yield in a short time span. To circumvent the adverse effects of chemicals, eco-friendly substitutes have been identified. The utilization of microbial fertilizers synthesized from PGPR is an ecologically sustainable agricultural strategy. By establishing a mutually beneficial interaction model among host plants, PGPR, and soil, these interactions regulate plant growth, resist environmental stress, rehabilitate contaminated soil (Figure 1). In summation, an overwhelming reliance on chemical fertilizers perpetuates ecological imbalance. Biological fertilizer composed of beneficial PGPR strains possesses numerous advantages. It is cost-effective, has significant potential for plant growth enhancement, improves plant resilience, and serves as a pivotal strategy for sustainable green agricultural development.

Author Contributions

T.W. contributed to re-structuring the review. J.X. and T.W. designed the figures and tables. L.Z., L.Y., P.L., X.H. and J.C. contributed to re-structuring the review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Foundation of “Shandong Province Modern Agricultural Technology System, grant number SDAIT-25-01”.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the review.

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of the Tobacco lab for their assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kerr, R.B.; Madsen, S.; Stüber, M.; Liebert, J.; Enloe, S.; Borghino, N.; Parros, P.; Mutyambai, D.M.; Prudhon, M.; Wezel, A. Can agroecology improve food security and nutrition? A review. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 29, 100540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Akanmu, A.O.; Olowe, O.M.; Phiri, A.T.; Nirere, D.; Odebode, A.J.; Umuhoza, N.J.K.; Asemoloye, M.D.; Babalola, O.O. Bioresources in Organic Farming: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chaudhary, S.; Sindhu, S.S.; Dhanker, R.; Kumari, A. Microbes-mediated sulphur cycling in soil: Impact on soil fertility, crop production and environmental sustainability. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 271, 127340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sabreena; Hassan, S.; Kumar, V.; Bhat, S.A.; Ganai, B.A. Unraveling Microbes as Potential Proxies for Remediation of Heavy Metal and Pesticide Contamination: A State-of-the Art Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2023, 17, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nosheen, S.; Ajmal, I.; Song, Y. Microbes as Biofertilizers, a Potential Approach for Sustainable Crop Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kuppe, C.W.; Schnepf, A.; von Lieres, E.; Watt, M.; Postma, J.A. Rhizosphere models: Their concepts and application to plant-soil ecosystems. Plant Soil 2022, 474, 17–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hyder, S.; Rizvi, Z.F.; de los Santos-Villalobos, S.; Santoyo, G.; Gondal, A.; Khalid, N.; Fatima, S.N.; Nadeem, M.; Rafique, K.; Rani, A. Applications of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for increasing crop production and resilience. J. Plant Nutr. 2023, 46, 2551–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Larsen, J.; Jaramillo-López, P.; Nájera-Rincon, M.; González-Esquivel, C. Biotic interactions in the rhizosphere in relation to plant and soil nutrient dynamics. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 449–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chamkhi, I.; El Omari, N.; Balahbib, A.; El Menyiy, N.; Benali, T.; Ghoulam, C. Is the rhizosphere a source of applicable multi-beneficial microorganisms for plant enhancement? Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 1246–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goyal, S.; Dhanker, R.; Hussain, T.; Ferreira, A.; Gouveia, L.; Kumar, K.; Mohamed, H.I. Modern Advancement in Biotechnological Applications for Wastewater Treatment through Microalgae: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bamdad, H.; Papari, S.; Lazarovits, G.; Berruti, F. Soil amendments for sustainable agriculture: Microbial organic fertilizers. Soil Use Manag. 2021, 38, 94–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yap, C.K.; Al-Mutairi, K.A. Effective Microorganisms as Halal-Based Sources for Biofertilizer Production and Some Socio-Economic Insights: A Review. Foods 2023, 12, 1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kiruba, N.J.M.; Saeid, A. An Insight into Microbial Inoculants for Bioconversion of Waste Biomass into Sustainable “Bio-Organic” Fertilizers: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 13049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mitter, E.K.; Tosi, M.; Obregón, D.; Dunfield, K.E.; Germida, J.J. Rethinking Crop Nutrition in Times of Modern Microbiology: Innovative Biofertilizer Technologies. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 606815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Daniel, A.I.; Fadaka, A.O.; Gokul, A.; Bakare, O.O.; Aina, O.; Fisher, S.; Burt, A.F.; Mavumengwana, V.; Keyster, M.; Klein, A. Biofertilizer: The Future of Food Security and Food Safety. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. O’Callaghan, M.; Ballard, R.A.; Wright, D. Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: Limitations and opportunities. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1340–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shahwar, D.; Mushtaq, Z.; Mushtaq, H.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Park, Y.; Alshahrani, T.S.; Faizan, S. Role of microbial inoculants as bio fertilizers for improving crop productivity: A review. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jack, C.N.; Petipas, R.H.; Cheeke, T.E.; Rowland, J.L.; Friesen, M.L. Microbial Inoculants: Silver Bullet or Microbial Jurassic Park? Trends Microbiol. 2021, 29, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Comeau, D.; Balthazar, C.; Novinscak, A.; Bouhamdani, N.; Joly, D.L.; Filion, M. Interactions Between Bacillus Spp., Pseudomonas Spp. and Cannabis sativa Promote Plant Growth. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 715758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Baez-Rogelio, A.; Morales-García, Y.E.; Quintero-Hernández, V.; Muñoz-Rojas, J. Next generation of microbial inoculants for agriculture and bioremediation. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 10, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yang, W.; Gong, T.; Wang, J.; Li, G.; Liu, Y.; Zhen, J.; Ning, M.; Yue, D.; Du, Z.; Chen, G. Effects of Compound Microbial Fertilizer on Soil Characteristics and Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 2740–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kaari, M.; Manikkam, R.; Annamalai, K.K.; Joseph, J. Actinobacteria as a source of biofertilizer/biocontrol agents for bio-organic agriculture. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 134, lxac047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhou, Y.; Xiao, C.; Yang, S.; Yin, H.; Yang, Z.; Chi, R. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of compound microbial fertilizer production in China. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1622–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ding, M.J.; Shang, N.J.; Huang, Y.; Liu, L.; Fan, W.; Peng, L.J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, J.H.; Zhou, Z.F. Isolation of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and Selection of Microbial Organic Fertilizer Carriers. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 21, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chojnacka, K.; Moustakas, K.; Witek-Krowiak, A. Bio-based fertilizers: A practical approach towards circular economy. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 295, 122223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jin, N.; Jin, L.; Wang, S.; Li, J.; Liu, F.; Liu, Z.; Luo, S.; Wu, Y.; Lyu, J.; Yu, J. Reduced Chemical Fertilizer Combined With Bio-Organic Fertilizer Affects the Soil Microbial Community and Yield and Quality of Lettuce. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 863325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ma, L.; Zhang, H.-Y.; Zhou, X.-K.; Yang, C.-G.; Zheng, S.-C.; Duo, J.-L.; Mo, M.-H. Biological control tobacco bacterial wilt and black shank and root colonization by bio-organic fertilizer containing bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa NXHG29. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 129, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jakienė, E.; Spruogis, V.; Romaneckas, K.; Dautartė, A.; Avižienytė, D. The bio-organic nano fertilizer improves sugar beet photosynthesis process and productivity. Zemdirb. Agric. 2015, 102, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, W.; Zhang, F.; Cui, G.; Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Cheng, H.; Liu, H.; Zhang, L. Effects of bio-organic fertilizer on soil fertility, microbial community composition, and potato growth. Scienceasia 2021, 47, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiao, X.; Li, J.; Lyu, J.; Feng, Z.; Zhang, G.; Yang, H.; Gao, C.; Jin, L.; Yu, J. Chemical fertilizer reduction combined with bio-organic fertilizers increases cauliflower yield via regulation of soil biochemical properties and bacterial communities in Northwest China. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 922149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Gao, B.; Wan, Y.; Li, Y.C.; Xie, J.; Tang, Y. Slow-released bio-organic–chemical fertilizer improved tomato growth: Synthesis and pot evaluations. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhao, J.; Wang, Y.; Liang, H.; Huang, J.; Chen, Z.; Nie, Y. The rhizosphere microbial community response to a bio-organic fertilizer: Finding the mechanisms behind the suppression of watermelon Fusarium wilt disease. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2018, 40, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jatav, M.K.; Kumar, M.; Trehan, S.P.; Dua, V.K.; Lal, S.S. Effect of microbial inoculation on nutritional economics of potato-radish crop sequence in north-west Himalayan region. Int. J. Agric. Stat. Sci. 2011, 7, 309–316. [Google Scholar]
  34. Xie, H.; Wu, K.; Iqbal, A.; Ali, I.; He, L.; Ullah, S.; Wei, S.; Zhao, Q.; Wu, X.; Huang, Q.; et al. Synthetic nitrogen coupled with seaweed extract and microbial inoculants improves rice (Oryza sativa L.) production under a dual cropping system. Ital. J. Agron. 2021, 16, 1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shi, H.; Lu, L.; Ye, J.; Shi, L. Effects of Two Bacillus Velezensis Microbial Inoculants on the Growth and Rhizosphere Soil Environment of Prunus davidiana. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 13639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Simranjit, K.; Kanchan, A.; Prasanna, R.; Ranjan, K.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Singh, A.K.; Shivay, Y.S. Microbial inoculants as plant growth stimulating and soil nutrient availability enhancing options for cucumber under protected cultivation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 35, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Fu, C.; Ma, W.; Qiang, B.; Jin, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, M. Effect of Chemical Fertilizer with Compound Microbial Fertilizer on Soil Physical Properties and Soybean Yield. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shukla, S.K.; Sharma, L.; Jaiswal, V.P.; Pathak, A.D.; Tiwari, R.; Awasthi, S.K.; Gaur, A. Soil quality parameters vis-a-vis growth and yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by integration of microbial consortium with NPK fertilizers. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Meena, M.; Swapnil, P.; Zehra, A.; Aamir, M.; Dubey, M.K.; Goutam, J.; Upadhyay, R.S. Beneficial Microbes for Disease Suppression and Plant Growth Promotion. In Plant-Microbe Interactions in Agro-Ecological Perspectives; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 395–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stamenković, S.; Beškoski, V.; Karabegović, I.; Lazić, M.; Nikolić, N. Microbial fertilizers: A comprehensive review of current findings and future perspectives. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 16, e09R01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kannan, D.; Kumari, V.J.; Prathiba, B. Degradation of Cyanide in Cassava (Manihot esculenta) Plant Leaves by Pseudomonas sp. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 6, 913–916. [Google Scholar]
  42. Travaglia, C.; Masciarelli, O.; Fortuna, J.; Marchetti, G.; Cardozo, P.; Lucero, M.; Zorza, E.; Luna, V.; Reinoso, H. Towards sustainable maize production: Glyphosate detoxification by Azospirillum sp. and Pseudomonas sp. Crop. Prot. 2015, 77, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kang, S.-M.; Radhakrishnan, R.; Lee, K.-E.; You, Y.-H.; Ko, J.-H.; Kim, J.-H.; Lee, I.-J. Mechanism of plant growth promotion elicited by Bacillus sp. LKE15 in oriental melon. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2015, 65, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Saxena, J.; Rana, G.; Pandey, M. Impact of addition of biochar along with Bacillus sp. on growth and yield of French beans. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 162, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ekin, Z.; Oguz, F.; Erman, M.; Ogun, E. The effect of Bacillus sp. OSU-142 inoculation at various levels of nitrogen fertilization on growth, tuber distribution and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 4418–4424. [Google Scholar]
  46. Akhtar, N.; Arshad, I.; Shakir, M.A.; Qureshi, M.A.; Sehrish, J.; Ali, L. Co-inoculation with rhizobium and Bacillus sp. to improve the phosphorus availability and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Anim. Plant Sci. JAPS 2013, 23, 190–197. [Google Scholar]
  47. Drew, E.A.; Denton, M.D.; Sadras, V.O.; Ballard, R.A. Agronomic and environmental drivers of population size and symbiotic performance of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae in Mediterranean-type environments. Crop Pasture Sci. 2012, 63, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ge, H. Characteristics of Azotobacter sp. strain AC11 and their effects on the growth of tomato seedlings under salt stress. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2019, 31, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Banik, A.; Dash, G.K.; Swain, P.; Kumar, U.; Mukhopadhyay, S.K.; Dangar, T.K. Application of rice (Oryza sativa L.) root endophytic diazotrophic Azotobacter sp. strain Avi2 (MCC 3432) can increase rice yield under green house and field condition. Microbiol. Res. 2019, 219, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Puca, M.; Gonzales, E.Y.; Jayos, E.E.; Llanos, K.N. Comparative study of the growth parameters of cowpea bean plants inoculated with Azotobacter sp. and urea. Afinidad 2022, 79, 70–78. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pereyra, C.M.; Lago, C.C.D.; Creus, C.M.; Pereyra, M.A. Azospirillum baldaniorum Sp 245 inoculation affects cell wall and polyamines metabolisms in cucumber seedling roots. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2023, 370, fnad005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abraham-Juarez, M.D.; Espitia-Vazquez, I.; Guzman-Mendoza, R.; Olalde-Portugal, V.; Ruiz-Aguilar, G.M.D.; Garcia-Hernandez, J.L.; Herrera-Isidron, L.; Nunez-Palenius, H.G. Development, Yield, and quality of melon fruit(Cucumis melo L.) inoculated with Mexican native strains of Bacillus subtilis (Ehrenberg). Agrociencia 2018, 52, 91–102. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cao, Y.-Y.; NI, H.-T.; Li, T.; Lay, K.-D.; Liu, D.-S.; He, X.-Y.; Ou, K.; Tang, X.-Y.; Wang, X.-B.; Qiu, L.-J. Pseudomonas sp. TK35-L enhances tobacco root development and growth by inducing HRGPnt3 expression in plant lateral root formation. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2549–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gholami, A.; Biyari, A.; Gholipoor, M.; Rahmani, H.A. Growth Promotion of Maize (Zea mays L.) by Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria under Field Conditions. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 1263–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Goyal, R.K.; Schmidt, M.A.; Hynes, M.F. Molecular Biology in the Improvement of Biological Nitrogen Fixation by Rhizobia and Extending the Scope to Cereals. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ma, M.C.; Jiang, X.; Wang, Q.F.; Guan, D.W.; Li, L.; Ongena, M.; Li, J. Isolation and Identification of PGPR Strain and its Effect on Soybean Growth and Soil Bacterial Community Composition. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2018, 20, 1289–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Xavier, G.R.; Jesus, E.d.C.; Dias, A.; Coelho, M.R.R.; Molina, Y.C.; Rumjanek, N.G. Contribution of Biofertilizers to Pulse Crops: From Single-Strain Inoculants to New Technologies Based on Microbiomes Strategies. Plants 2023, 12, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Santi, C.; Bogusz, D.; Franche, C. Biological nitrogen fixation in non-legume plants. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 743–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Zhang, Y.X.; Xu, Q.; Wang, G.J.; Shi, K.X. Mixed Enterobacter and Klebsiella bacteria enhance soybean biological nitrogen fixation ability when combined with rhizobia inoculation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 184, 109100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fahde, S.; Boughribil, S.; Sijilmassi, B.; Amri, A. Rhizobia: A Promising Source of Plant Growth-Promoting Molecules and Their Non-Legume Interactions: Examining Applications and Mechanisms. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sunitha, N.; Reddy, G.K.; Reddy, S.T.; Reddy, M.R.; Nagamadhuri, K. Performance of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as Influenced by Integrated Nutrient Management Under Fertigation. Legum. Res. Int. J. 2023, 46, 876–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Motamedi, M.; Zahedi, M.; Karimmojeni, H.; Baldwin, T.C.; Motamedi, H. Rhizosphere-Associated Bacteria as Biofertilizers in Herbicide-Treated Alfalfa (Medicago sativa). J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 23, 2585–2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gupta, R.; Kumari, A.; Sharma, S.; Alzahrani, O.M.; Noureldeen, A.; Darwish, H. Identification, characterization and optimization of phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria (PSRB) from rice rhizosphere. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Pan, L.; Cai, B. Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria: Advances in Their Physiology, Molecular Mechanisms and Microbial Community Effects. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Teng, Z.; Shao, W.; Zhang, K.; Huo, Y.; Li, M. Characterization of phosphate solubilizing bacteria isolated from heavy metal contaminated soils and their potential for lead immobilization. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Timofeeva, A.; Galyamova, M.; Sedykh, S. Prospects for Using Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms as Natural Fertilizers in Agriculture. Plants 2022, 11, 2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ahmad, A.; Moin, S.F.; Liaqat, I.; Saleem, S.; Muhammad, F.; Mujahid, T.; Zafar, U. Isolation, Solubilization of Inorganic Phosphate, and Production of Organic Acids by Individual and Co-inoculated Microorganisms. Geomicrobiol. J. 2023, 40, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kalayu, G. Phosphate Solubilizing Microorganisms: Promising Approach as Biofertilizers. Int. J. Agron. 2019, 2019, 4917256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rawat, P.; Das, S.; Shankhdhar, D.; Shankhdhar, S.C. Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms: Mechanism and Their Role in Phosphate Solubilization and Uptake. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Devi, R.; Kaur, T.; Negi, R.; Kour, D.; Chaubey, K.K.; Yadav, A.N. Indigenous plant growth-promoting rhizospheric and endophytic bacteria as liquid bioinoculants for growth of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Biologia 2023, 78, 2623–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Khanghahi, M.Y.; Pirdashti, H.; Rahimian, H.; Nematzadeh, G.; Sepanlou, M.G. Potassium solubilising bacteria (KSB) isolated from rice paddy soil: From isolation, identification to K use efficiency. Symbiosis 2018, 76, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pantoja-Guerra, M.; Valero-Valero, N.; Ramírez, C.A. Total auxin level in the soil–plant system as a modulating factor for the effectiveness of PGPR inocula: A review. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2023, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dashti, N.H.; Al-Sarraf, N.Y.A.; Cherian, V.M.; Montasser, M.S. Isolation and characterization of novel plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) isolates from tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) rhizospherical soil: A novel IAA producing bacteria. Kuwait J. Sci. 2021, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hassan, T.U.; Bano, A. The stimulatory effects of L-tryptophan and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on soil health and physiology of wheat. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Carrillo-Flores, E.; Arreola-Rivera, J.; Pazos-Solis, D.M.; Bocanegra-Mondragon, M.; Fierro-Romero, G.; Mellado-Rojas, M.E.; Beltran-Pena, E. Participation of Auxin Transport in the Early Response of the Arabidopsis Root System to Inoculation with Azospirillum Brasilense. Phyton-Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 91, 2383–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tsukanova, K.A.; Сhеbоtаr, V.K.; Meyer, J.J.M.; Bibikova, T.N. Effect of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria on plant hormone homeostasis. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 113, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ellermann, M.; Arthur, J.C. Siderophore-mediated iron acquisition and modulation of host-bacterial interactions. Free. Radic. Biol. Med. 2017, 105, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Nosrati, R.; Dehghani, S.; Karimi, B.; Yousefi, M.; Taghdisi, S.M.; Abnous, K.; Alibolandi, M.; Ramezani, M. Siderophore-based biosensors and nanosensors; new approach on the development of diagnostic systems. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 117, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ferreira, M.J.; Silva, H.; Cunha, A. Siderophore-Producing Rhizobacteria as a Promising Tool for Empowering Plants to Cope with Iron Limitation in Saline Soils: A Review. Pedosphere 2019, 29, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ghosh, S.K.; Bera, T.; Chakrabarty, A.M. Microbial siderophore—A boon to agricultural sciences. Biol. Control. 2020, 144, 104214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rehan, M.; Al-Turki, A.; Abdelmageed, A.H.A.; Abdelhameid, N.M.; Omar, A.F. Performance of Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) Isolated from Sandy Soil on Growth of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Plants 2023, 12, 1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Han, L.Z.; Zhang, H.; Bai, X.; Jiang, B. The peanut root exudate increases the transport and metabolism of nutrients and enhances the plant growth-promoting effects of burkholderia pyrrocinia strain P10. BMC Microbiol. 2023, 23, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Li, X.; Sun, P.; Zhang, Y.; Jin, C.; Guan, C. A novel PGPR strain Kocuria rhizophila Y1 enhances salt stress tolerance in maize by regulating phytohormone levels, nutrient acquisition, redox potential, ion homeostasis, photosynthetic capacity and stress-responsive genes expression. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 174, 104023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chebotar, V.K.; Chizhevskaya, E.P.; Vorobyov, N.I.; Bobkova, V.V.; Pomyaksheva, L.V.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Konovalov, S.N. The Quality and Productivity of Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) Improved by the Inoculation of PGPR Bacillus velezensis BS89 in Field Experiments. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Figueredo, E.F.; da Cruz, T.A.; de Almeida, J.R.; Batista, B.D.; Marcon, J.; de Andrade, P.A.M.; Hayashibara, C.A.d.A.; Rosa, M.S.; Azevedo, J.L.; Quecine, M.C. The key role of indole-3-acetic acid biosynthesis by Bacillus thuringiensis RZ2MS9 in promoting maize growth revealed by the ipdC gene knockout mediated by the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 266, 127218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kang, S.-M.; Khan, A.L.; You, Y.-H.; Kim, J.-G.; Kamran, M.; Lee, I.-J. Gibberellin Production by Newly Isolated Strain Leifsonia soli SE134 and Its Potential to Promote Plant Growth. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 24, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Kang, S.M.; Hamayun, M.; Khan, M.A.; Iqbal, A.; Lee, I.J. Bacillus subtilis JW1 enhances plant growth and nutrient uptake of Chinese cabbage through gibberellins secretion. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2019, 92, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mirskaya, G.V.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Rushina, N.A.; Vertebny, V.E.; Chizhevskaya, E.P.; Chebotar, V.K.; Chesnokov, Y.V.; Pishchik, V.N. Plant Development of Early-Maturing Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Inoculation with Bacillus sp. V2026. Plants-Basel 2022, 11, 1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Feng, L.; Li, Q.; Zhou, D.; Jia, M.; Liu, Z.; Hou, Z.; Ren, Q.; Ji, S.; Sang, S.; Lu, S.; et al. B. subtilis CNBG-PGPR-1 induces methionine to regulate ethylene pathway and ROS scavenging for improving salt tolerance of tomato. Plant J. 2023, 117, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. 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]
  91. Nadeem, S.M.; Ahmad, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Javaid, A.; Ashraf, M. The role of mycorrhizae and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in improving crop productivity under stressful environments. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Borah, P.; Gogoi, N.; Asad, S.A.; Rabha, A.J.; Farooq, M. An Insight into Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria-Mediated Mitigation of Stresses in Plant. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 42, 3229–3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Aioub, A.A.A.; Elesawy, A.E.; Ammar, E.E. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and their role in plant-parasitic nematodes control: A fresh look at an old issue. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2022, 129, 1305–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Khan, N.; Bano, A.; Ali, S.; Babar, M.A. Crosstalk amongst phytohormones from planta and PGPR under biotic and abiotic stresses. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 90, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shameer, S.; Prasad, T.N.V.K.V. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for sustainable agricultural practices with special reference to biotic and abiotic stresses. Plant Growth Regul. 2018, 84, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bhat, B.A.; Tariq, L.; Nissar, S.; Islam, S.T.; Islam, S.U.; Mangral, Z.; Ilyas, N.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Muthusamy, G.; Kim, W.; et al. The role of plant-associated rhizobacteria in plant growth, biocontrol and abiotic stress management. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 133, 2717–2741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Basu, A.; Prasad, P.; Das, S.N.; Kalam, S.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Reddy, M.S.; El Enshasy, H. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as Green Bioinoculants: Recent Developments, Constraints, and Prospects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Khoshru, B.; Mitra, D.; Khoshmanzar, E.; Myo, E.M.; Uniyal, N.; Mahakur, B.; Das Mohapatra, P.K.; Panneerselvam, P.; Boutaj, H.; Alizadeh, M.; et al. Current scenario and future prospects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: An economic valuable resource for the agriculture revival under stressful conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 3062–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chandran, H.; Meena, M.; Swapnil, P. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria as a Green Alternative for Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. 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]
  102. 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] [PubMed]
  103. Naeem, M.; Aslam, Z.; Khaliq, A.; Ahmed, J.N.; Nawaz, A.; Hussain, M. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria reduce aphid population and enhance the productivity of bread wheat. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2018, 49, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Katoch, V.; Shavnam; Sharma, S.; Negi, M. Utilization of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) for Managing Recently Reported Potato Cyst Nematodes, Globodera spp. in North Himalayan Regions of India. Potato Res. 2023, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. de Andrade, L.A.; Santos, C.H.B.; Frezarin, E.T.; Sales, L.R.; Rigobelo, E.C. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Agricultural Production. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Khoshru, B.; Mitra, D.; Joshi, K.; Adhikari, P.; Rion, S.I.; Fadiji, A.E.; Alizadeh, M.; Priyadarshini, A.; Senapati, A.; Sarikhani, M.R.; et al. Decrypting the multi-functional biological activators and inducers of defense responses against biotic stresses in plants. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Gowtham, H.G.; Singh, S.B.; Shilpa, N.; Aiyaz, M.; Nataraj, K.; Udayashankar, A.C.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Murali, M.; Poczai, P.; Gafur, A.; et al. Insight into Recent Progress and Perspectives in Improvement of Antioxidant Machinery upon PGPR Augmentation in Plants under Drought Stress: A Review. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dutta, P.; Muthukrishnan, G.; Gopalasubramaiam, S.K.; Dharmaraj, R.; Karuppaiah, A.; Loganathan, K.; Periyasamy, K.; Pillai, M.A.; Upamanya, G.; Boruah, S.; et al. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and its mechanisms against plant diseases for sustainable agriculture and better productivity. Biocell 2022, 46, 1843–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Beneduzi, A.; Ambrosini, A.; Passaglia, L.M. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2012, 35, 1044–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lucas, J.A.; Velasco, A.G.-V.; Ramos, B.; Gutierrez-Mañero, F.J. Changes of enzyme activities related to oxidative stress in rice plants inoculated with random mutants of a Pseudomonas fluorescens strain able to improve plant fitness upon biotic and abiotic conditions. Funct. Plant Biol. 2017, 44, 1063–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ahluwalia, O.; Singh, P.C.; Bhatia, R. A review on drought stress in plants: Implications, mitigation and the role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 5, 100032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kour, D.; Yadav, A.N. Bacterial Mitigation of Drought Stress in Plants: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Sati, D.; Pande, V.; Pandey, S.C.; Samant, M. Recent Advances in PGPR and Molecular Mechanisms Involved in Drought Stress Resistance. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 23, 106–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bouremani, N.; Cherif-Silini, H.; Silini, A.; Bouket, A.C.; Luptakova, L.; Alenezi, F.N.; Baranov, O.; Belbahri, L. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): A Rampart against the Adverse Effects of Drought Stress. Water 2023, 15, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rosa, A.P.; Dias, T.; Mouazen, A.M.; Cruz, C.; Santana, M.M. Finding optimal microorganisms to increase crop productivity and sustainability under drought—A structured reflection. J. Plant Interact. 2023, 18, 2178680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Khan, N.; Zandi, P.; Ali, S.; Mehmood, A.; Shahid, M.A.; Yang, J. Impact of Salicylic Acid and PGPR on the Drought Tolerance and Phytoremediation Potential of Helianthus annus. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda, M.; Glick, B.R.; Santoyo, G. ACC deaminase in plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB): An efficient mechanism to counter salt stress in crops. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 235, 126439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gowtham, H.G.; Singh, B.; Murali, M.; Shilpa, N.; Prasad, M.; Aiyaz, M.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Niranjana, S.R. Induction of drought tolerance in tomato upon the application of ACC deaminase producing plant growth promoting rhizobacterium Bacillus subtilis Rhizo SF 48. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 234, 126422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Barnawal, D.; Bharti, N.; Pandey, S.S.; Pandey, A.; Chanotiya, C.S.; Kalra, A. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhance wheat salt and drought stress tolerance by altering endogenous phytohormone levels and TaCTR1/TaDREB2 expression. Physiol. Plant. 2017, 161, 502–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kálmán, C.D.; Nagy, Z.; Berényi, A.; Kiss, E.; Posta, K. Investigating PGPR bacteria for their competence to protect hybrid maize from the factor drought stress. Cereal Res. Commun. 2023, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ansari, F.A.; Ahmad, I.; Pichtel, J. Synergistic effects of biofilm-producing PGPR strains on wheat plant colonization, growth and soil resilience under drought stress. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2023, 30, 103664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Carlson, R.; Tugizimana, F.; Steenkamp, P.A.; Dubery, I.A.; Hassen, A.I.; Labuschagne, N. Rhizobacteria-induced systemic tolerance against drought stress in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 232, 126388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Khan, N.; Bano, A.; Rahman, M.A.; Guo, J.; Kang, Z.Y.; Babar, A. Comparative Physiological and Metabolic Analysis Reveals a Complex Mechanism Involved in Drought Tolerance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Induced by PGPR and PGRs. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Egamberdieva, D.; Wirth, S.; Bellingrath-Kimura, S.D.; Mishra, J.; Arora, N.K. Salt-Tolerant Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Enhancing Crop Productivity of Saline Soils. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Saghafi, D.; Delangiz, N.; Lajayer, B.A.; Ghorbanpour, M. An overview on improvement of crop productivity in saline soils by halotolerant and halophilic PGPRs. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Isayenkov, S.V.; Maathuis, F.J.M. Plant Salinity Stress: Many Unanswered Questions Remain. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Bhat, M.A.; Kumar, V.; Bhat, M.A.; Wani, I.A.; Dar, F.L.; Farooq, I.; Bhatti, F.; Koser, R.; Rahman, S.; Jan, A.T. Mechanistic Insights of the Interaction of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) With Plant Roots Toward Enhancing Plant Productivity by Alleviating Salinity Stress. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Hoque, N.; Hannan, A.; Imran, S.; Paul, N.C.; Mondal, F.; Sadhin, M.R.; Bristi, J.M.; Dola, F.S.; Hanif, A.; Ye, W.; et al. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria-Mediated Adaptive Responses of Plants Under Salinity Stress. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 42, 1307–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Khumairah, F.H.; Setiawati, M.R.; Fitriatin, B.N.; Simarmata, T.; Alfaraj, S.; Ansari, M.J.; El Enshasy, H.A.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Najafi, S. Halotolerant Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Isolated From Saline Soil Improve Nitrogen Fixation and Alleviate Salt Stress in Rice Plants. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 905210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lee, S.A.; Kim, H.S.; Sang, M.K.; Song, J.; Weon, H.-Y. Effect of Bacillus mesonae H20-5 Treatment on Rhizospheric Bacterial Community of Tomato Plants under Salinity Stress. Plant Pathol. J. 2021, 37, 662–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chen, L.; Liu, Y.; Wu, G.; Zhang, N.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, R. Beneficial Rhizobacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9 Induces Plant Salt Tolerance through Spermidine Production. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2017, 30, 423–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Asad, S.A.; Farooq, M.; Afzal, A.; West, H. Integrated phytobial heavy metal remediation strategies for a sustainable clean environment—A review. Chemosphere 2019, 217, 925–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Zainab, N.; Amna; Khan, A.A.; Azeem, M.A.; Ali, B.; Wang, T.; Shi, F.; Alghanem, S.M.; Munis, M.F.H.; Hashem, M.; et al. PGPR-Mediated Plant Growth Attributes and Metal Extraction Ability of Sesbania sesban L. in Industrially Contaminated Soils. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ullah, A.; Bano, A.; Javed, H. PGPR assisted bioremediation of heavy metals and nutrient accumulation in Zea mays under saline sodic soil. Pak. J. Bot. 2021, 53, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Lee, S.Y.; Lee, Y.-Y.; Cho, K.-S. Inoculation effect of heavy metal tolerant and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for rhizoremediation. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 21, 1419–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Lal, S.; Ratna, S.; Ben Said, O.; Kumar, R. Biosurfactant and exopolysaccharide-assisted rhizobacterial technique for the remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil: An advancement in metal phytoremediation technology. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 10, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ghorbel, S.; Aldilami, M.; Zouari-Mechichi, H.; Mechichi, T.; AlSherif, E.A. Isolation and characterization of a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium strain MD36 that promotes barley seedlings and growth under heavy metals stress. 3 Biotech 2023, 13, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Desoky, E.-S.M.; Merwad, A.-R.M.; Semida, W.M.; Ibrahim, S.A.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Rady, M.M. Heavy metals-resistant bacteria (HM-RB): Potential bioremediators of heavy metals-stressed Spinacia oleracea plant. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 198, 110685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Husna; Hussain, A.; Shah, M.; Hamayun, M.; Iqbal, A.; Qadir, M.; Alataway, A.; Dewidar, A.Z.; Elansary, H.O.; Lee, I.-J. Phytohormones producing rhizobacteria alleviate heavy metals stress in soybean through multilayered response. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 266, 127237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Lim, J.-H.; Kim, S.-D. Induction of Drought Stress Resistance by Multi-Functional PGPR Bacillus licheniformis K11 in Pepper. Plant Pathol. J. 2013, 29, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Bresson, J.; Varoquaux, F.; Bontpart, T.; Touraine, B.; Vile, D. The PGPR strain Phyllobacterium brassicacearum STM196 induces a reproductive delay and physiological changes that result in improved drought tolerance in Arabidopsis. N. Phytol. 2013, 200, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Akbar, A.; Han, B.; Khan, A.H.; Feng, C.; Ullah, A.; Khan, A.S.; He, L.; Yang, X. A transcriptomic study reveals salt stress alleviation in cotton plants upon salt tolerant PGPR inoculation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 200, 104928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Khan, V.; Umar, S.; Iqbal, N. Palliating Salt Stress in Mustard through Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Regulation of Secondary Metabolites, Osmolytes, Antioxidative Enzymes and Stress Ethylene. Plants 2023, 12, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Becze, A.; Vincze, E.B.; Varga, H.M.; Gyöngyvér, M. Effect of plant growth-promoting spirulina on Zea mays development and growth of under heavy metal and salt stress condition. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 547–557. [Google Scholar]
  145. Naqqash, T.; Aziz, A.; Gohar, M.; Khan, J.; Ali, S.; Radicetti, E.; Babar, M.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Haider, G. Heavy metal-resistant rhizobacteria fosters to alleviate the cadmium toxicity in Arabidopsis by upregulating the plant physiological responses. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Mehmood, M.A.; Zhao, H.; Cheng, J.; Xie, J.; Jiang, D.; Fu, Y. Sclerotia of a phytopathogenic fungus restrict microbial diversity and improve soil health by suppressing other pathogens and enriching beneficial microorganisms. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 259, 109857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Teng, Y.; Chen, W. Soil Microbiomes—A Promising Strategy for Contaminated Soil Remediation: A Review. Pedosphere 2019, 29, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Liu, H.; Tan, X.; Guo, J.; Liang, X.; Xie, Q.; Chen, S. Bioremediation of oil-contaminated soil by combination of soil conditioner and microorganism. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 2121–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Zheng, W.; Cui, T.; Li, H. Combined technologies for the remediation of soils contaminated by organic pollutants. A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 2043–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Batista, B.D.; Singh, B.K. Realities and hopes in the application of microbial tools in agriculture. Microb. Biotechnol. 2021, 14, 1258–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bhanse, P.; Kumar, M.; Singh, L.; Awasthi, M.K.; Qureshi, A. Role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in boosting the phytoremediation of stressed soils: Opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Chemosphere 2022, 303, 134954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Alegbeleye, O.O.; Opeolu, B.O.; Jackson, V.A. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Critical Review of Environmental Occurrence and Bioremediation. Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 758–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Santillan, J.Y.; Muzlera, A.; Molina, M.; Lewkowicz, E.S.; Iribarren, A.M. Microbial degradation of organophosphorus pesticides using whole cells and enzyme extracts. Biodegradation 2020, 31, 423–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Patel, P.R.; Shaikh, S.S.; Sayyed, R.Z. Dynamism of PGPR in bioremediation and plant growth promotion in heavy metal contaminated soil. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2016, 54, 286–290. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  155. Mishra, J.; Singh, R.; Arora, N.K. Alleviation of Heavy Metal Stress in Plants and Remediation of Soil by Rhizosphere Microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Fan, C.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yin, N.; Cai, X.; Yuan, X.; Senadheera, S.; Cho, Y.; Ok, Y.S. A critical review of the interactions between rhizosphere and biochar during the remediation of metal(loid) contaminated soils. Biochar 2023, 5, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Morcillo, R.J.L.; Manzanera, M. The Effects of Plant-Associated Bacterial Exopolysaccharides on Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Metabolites 2021, 11, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Agarwal, P.; Vibhandik, R.; Agrahari, R.; Daverey, A.; Rani, R. Role of Root Exudates on the Soil Microbial Diversity and Biogeochemistry of Heavy Metals. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2023, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Ren, Z.; Cheng, R.; Chen, P.; Xue, Y.; Xu, H.; Yin, Y.; Huang, G.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, L. Plant-associated Microbe System in Treatment of Heavy Metals–contaminated Soil: Mechanisms and Applications. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Cicatelli, A.; Ferrol, N.; Rozpadek, P.; Castiglione, S. Editorial: Effects of Plant-Microbiome Interactions on Phyto- and Bio-Remediation Capacity. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Hassen, W.; Neifar, M.; Cherif, H.; Najjari, A.; Chouchane, H.; Driouich, R.C.; Salah, A.; Naili, F.; Mosbah, A.; Souissi, Y.; et al. Pseudomonas rhizophila S211, a New Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacterium with Potential in Pesticide-Bioremediation. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Shahid, M.; Khan, M.S.; Singh, U.B. Pesticide-tolerant microbial consortia: Potential candidates for remediation/clean-up of pesticide-contaminated agricultural soil. Environ. Res. 2023, 236, 116724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Fu, R.M.; Chang, H.P.; Zhu, M.F.; Chen, W.L. Research, Application Demonstration of Key Technology for Microbial Remediation of Saline-Alkali Soil. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2018, 20, 2556–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Gao, M.; Gao, B.; Zhang, X.; Fan, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, C. Effects of Plant Growth–Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the Phytoremediation of Pyrene-Nickel-Contaminated Soil by Juncus effusus. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Jiang, H.-Y.; Wu, H.-K.; Yuan, P.-P.; Guo, J.-J.; Wang, L.; Dai, Y.-J. Biodegradation of sulfoxaflor by Pseudomonas stutzeri CGMCC 22915 and characterization of the nitrile hydratase involved. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2022, 170, 105403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Esringü, A.; Turan, M.; Güneş, A.; Karaman, M.R. Roles of Bacillus megateriumin Remediation of Boron, Lead, and Cadmium from Contaminated Soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 1741–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Muratova, A.; Golubev, S.; Romanova, V.; Sungurtseva, I.; Nurzhanova, A. Effect of Heavy-Metal-Resistant PGPR Inoculants on Growth, Rhizosphere Microbiome and Remediation Potential of Miscanthus × giganteus in Zinc-Contaminated Soil. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Liaquat, F.; Munis, M.F.H.; Arif, S.; Haroon, U.; Shengquan, C.; Qunlu, L. Cd-tolerant SY-2 strain of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: A potential PGPR, isolated from the Nanjing mining area in China. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Wang, P.; Wei, H.; Ke, T.; Fu, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Chen, C.; Chen, L. Characterization and genome analysis of Acinetobacter oleivorans S4 as an efficient hydrocarbon-degrading and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacterium. Chemosphere 2023, 331, 138732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Vishwakarma, K.; Kumar, N.; Shandilya, C.; Mohapatra, S.; Bhayana, S.; Varma, A. Revisiting Plant–Microbe Interactions and Microbial Consortia Application for Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture: A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 560406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Wang, K.; Hou, J.; Zhang, S.; Hu, W.; Yi, G.; Chen, W.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, Q. Preparation of a new biochar-based microbial fertilizer: Nutrient release patterns and synergistic mechanisms to improve soil fertility. Sci. Total. Environ. 2023, 860, 160478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Parveen, N.; Mishra, R.; Singh, D.V.; Kumar, P.; Singh, R.P. Assessment of different carrier materials for the preparation of microbial formulations to enhance the shelf life and its efficacy on the growth of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2023, 39, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the mechanisms of microbial fertilizers on crop growth and soil regulation. (Image was created with the tools of Biorender (https://app.biorender.com/, accessed on 18 November 2023).
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the mechanisms of microbial fertilizers on crop growth and soil regulation. (Image was created with the tools of Biorender (https://app.biorender.com/, accessed on 18 November 2023).
Plants 13 00346 g001
Table 2. Mechanisms of crop growth regulation by various beneficial microbes.
Table 2. Mechanisms of crop growth regulation by various beneficial microbes.
MicroorganismsCropMechanism of ActionReferences
Pseudomonas sp.Maize, cassava, spring wheat, tomato, ArabidopsisthalianaPromotion of nutrient uptake, regulation of hormone levels, ISR, ACC-deaminase activity, siderophore, nitrogen fixation, solubilization of phosphorus[41,42]
Bacillus sp.Soya, oriental melons, potatoes, barley, maizeVocs, antibacterial compound, organic acids, exopolysaccharides, different enzymes, ISR[43,44,45]
Rhizobium sp.Soya, peanuts,Nitrogenfixation, exopolysaccharides, phosphate solubilization[46,47]
Azotobacter sp.Rice, tomato, cowpea bean,Nitrogenfixation, dissolved phosphorus and potassium, generation of IAA, siderophore[48,49,50]
Azospirillum sp.CucumberSiderophore, indole-3-aceticacid, ISR[51]
PseudomonasputidaMelonDifferent enzymes, solubilization of phosphorus, siderophore[52]
PseudomonasaeruginosaTobaccoDissolved phosphorus and potassium, growth hormone[53]
BacillusaryabhattaiTomato, maize, beanGrowth hormone, solubilization of phosphorus[54]
Table 4. Examples of abiotic stress mitigation by different species of PGPRs.
Table 4. Examples of abiotic stress mitigation by different species of PGPRs.
MicroorganismsCropType of Abiotic StressMechanism of ActionReferences
Bacillus licheniformis K11PepperDrought stressAuxin and ACC deaminase producing PGPR B. licheniformis K11 could reduce drought stress in drought-affected regions[140]
Bacillus subtilis-FAB1, Pseudomonas azotoformans-FAP3WheatDrought stressFAB1 and FAP3 strains show unique multifunctional plant growth-stimulating properties and effective root and rhizosphere colonization to promote wheat growth during drought[121]
Phyllobacterium brassicacearumArabidopsis thalianaDrought stressBacteria induce growth and development and coordinate to improve water use efficiency in plants[141]
Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus pumilusCottonSalt stressB. subtilis and B. pumilus significantly enhance salt stress tolerance in cotton plants during salt stress conditions.[142]
B. subtilis CNBG-PGPR-1TomatoSalt stressCNBG-PGPR-1 significantly improved the cellular homeostasis and photosynthetic efficiency of leaves and reduced ion toxicity and osmotic stress caused by salt in tomato[89]
Pseudomonas fluorescensMustardSalt stressTwo strains increase cell viability and reduce leaf damage and superoxide production[143]
Viridibacillus sp.MaizeHeavy mental stressInoculation with the strain promoted plant growth and development and alleviated the effects of stress on the plant[144]
Morganella morganii strainsArabidopsis thalianaHeavy mental stressPGPR can protect plants from Cd toxicity, and Cd-tolerant rhizobacterial strains can remediate heavy metal-polluted sites and improve plant growth[145]
Acinetobacter beijerinckii, Raoultella planticolaSoybeanHeavy mental stressPGPR strain promotes host antioxidant production and alters physiological and metabolic responses in soybean, enabling it to better cope with chromate and arsenic toxicity and grow well under stress[139]
Table 5. A case study of microbial remediation of contaminated and degraded soils.
Table 5. A case study of microbial remediation of contaminated and degraded soils.
MicroorganismsMain PollutantsRepair ResultsReferences
Pseudomonas spp., Bacillus substilis, B. megateriumsaline–alkaline soil0These complex microbial agents could not only reduce the salt content and pH but also increase the organic content of the saline soil[163]
Klebsiella sp.Pyrene–nickel-contaminated soilThe pyrene degradation rate was 97.3% and 97.1% in pyrene-contaminated soil and pyrene–Ni-contaminated soil, respectively[164]
Pseudomonaspesticide-contaminated agricultural soilPseudomonas stutzeri CGMCC 22915 rapidly degraded sulfoxaflor to sulfoxaflor-amide via hydration.[165]
Bacillus megateriumBoron (B)- lead (Pb)- and cadmium (Cd)-contaminated soilReduced boron (B), lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) in soil and remediation of soil environment[166]
Mycolicibacterium sp. Pb113 and Chitinophaga sp. Zn19Heavy metal-contaminated soilTwo inoculants promote manzanita growth and improve soil zinc pollution remediation efficiency[167]
plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium strain MD36Heavy metal-contaminated soilStrain MD36 effectively improves growth and yield of heavy metal-contaminated soils and bioremediation of HM-contaminated saline soils and water[137]
Stenotrophomonas maltophiliaCadmium (Cd)-contaminated soilThe SY-2 strain of S. maltophilia possesses significant metal tolerance and bioremediation potential against cadmium[168]
Acinetobacter oleivoransSoil contamination by hydrocarbonsAcinetobacter oleivorans S4 promoted plant growth and degraded total oil hydrocarbons in soil[169]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, T.; Xu, J.; Chen, J.; Liu, P.; Hou, X.; Yang, L.; Zhang, L. Progress in Microbial Fertilizer Regulation of Crop Growth and Soil Remediation Research. Plants 2024, 13, 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13030346

AMA Style

Wang T, Xu J, Chen J, Liu P, Hou X, Yang L, Zhang L. Progress in Microbial Fertilizer Regulation of Crop Growth and Soil Remediation Research. Plants. 2024; 13(3):346. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13030346

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Tingting, Jiaxin Xu, Jian Chen, Peng Liu, Xin Hou, Long Yang, and Li Zhang. 2024. "Progress in Microbial Fertilizer Regulation of Crop Growth and Soil Remediation Research" Plants 13, no. 3: 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13030346

APA Style

Wang, T., Xu, J., Chen, J., Liu, P., Hou, X., Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2024). Progress in Microbial Fertilizer Regulation of Crop Growth and Soil Remediation Research. Plants, 13(3), 346. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13030346

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