Skip to main content
AIMS Microbiology logoLink to AIMS Microbiology
. 2017 Jun 21;3(3):502–524. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.502

Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world

Esther Menendez 1,*, Paula Garcia-Fraile 2,*
PMCID: PMC6604988  PMID: 31294173

Abstract

The increasing human population expected in the next decades, the growing demand of livestock products—which production requires higher amounts of feed products fabrication, the collective concern about food quality in industrialized countries together with the need to protect the fertility of soils, in particular, and the environment, in general, constitute as a whole big challenge that worldwide agriculture has to face nowadays. Some soil bacteria harbor mechanisms to promote plant growth, which include phytostimulation, nutrient mobilization, biocontrol of plant pathogens and abiotic stresses protection. These bacteria have also been proved as promoters of vegetable food quality. Therefore, these microbes, also so-called Plant Probiotic Bacteria, applied as biofertilizers in crop production, constitute an environmental friendly manner to contribute to produce the food and feed needed to sustain world population. In this review, we summarize some of the best-known mechanisms of plant probiotic bacteria to improve plant growth and develop a more sustainable agriculture.

Keywords: plant growth promotion, biofertilizer, sustainable agriculture, beneficial bacteria

1. Plant Probiotic Bacteria: Why Are They Necessary?

Nowadays, there is a global scenario of lack of resources to feed an ever-growing worldwide human population. Agriculture is the main primary sector involved in food production and should overcome the problem, producing sufficient nutriment for the global population. However, the reality is not as expected. Intensive agriculture has increased the occurrence of pests and diseases, promoting the use of pesticides. Moreover, intensive agriculture is based on the application of increased levels of chemical fertilizers. Both pesticides and chemical fertilizers, when used indiscriminately, can affect human and livestock health and accumulate in soils and water, polluting ecosystems. Intensive agriculture has more associated problems, i.e. reduction of the diversification of croplands, shortage of soil nutrients, loss of genetic diversity, contribution to global warming, etc. These problems become more evident in Asia and Africa, were overpopulation is a serious issue [1].

According to the Population Division of the United Nations, the world human population is estimated to reach around 9.5 billion people in 2050, and this fact will be accompanied by significant shifts in diets in developing countries, including more intake of animal origin calories, which should be satisfied by more intensive animal agriculture that will also demand more food consumption in a short period in time [2],[3]. This situation inevitably implies a search for more efficient procedures to produce animal feed and food for humans, with higher yields and more resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses [4],[5], while protecting animal and human health and, at the same time, being friendly with the environment.

On the other hand, high-quality food demand is also increasing in both developed and developing countries [6].

In this sense, the application of microorganisms, especially bacteria, with plant growth promoting features, the so-called plant probiotics, may be a possible solution to increase crop production while avoiding the above mentioned problems related to the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and, moreover, allowing the obtention of better quality products [6],[7].

The term Plant Probiotic Bacteria (PPB) was first mentioned by Haas and Keel [8] to name a group of microorganisms benefiting plants, which fulfils three essential criteria that combined result in better plant protection: (i) effectiveness and competitiveness in niche colonization, (ii) the ability to create induced systemic resistance (ISR) in their hosts and (iii) presence of direct antagonistic traits on pathogens. Subsets of this PPB are the ones that can be found in soils and rhizosphere, which are referred as Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), term that had been proponed before by Kloepper and Schrot [9]. PGPR are naturally occurring soil bacteria, which have the ability to benefit plants in several ways, inducing the improvement of their productivity and immunity. These soil bacteria are present in the rhizosphere, in which plant roots and their exudates exert a great influence in the living being relationships occurring in this part of the soil.

PPB can be classified according to their interactions with the host plant, being divided into 2 groups: (i) free-living rhizobacteria, which live outside plant cells and enhance plant growth as a result of the metabolites that they release in the rhizosphere, and (ii) endophytes, which live inside plant tissues and/or cells and directly exchange metabolites with their host plant, positively affecting their growth [10],[11]. Most endophytic bacteria live in the intercellular spaces of the host plant; however, there are some bacteria able to form truly mutualistic interactions with their hosts and penetrate plant cell inside. Moreover, some of them are able to integrate their physiology and even go through a process of bacterial differentiation within the plant cells, resulting in the formation of specialized structures. The best known mutualistic symbiotic bacteria are the rhizobia, which establish symbiotic associations with leguminous plants, fixing atmospheric nitrogen for the plant in a specialized root structure, commonly called root nodules [12],[13]. Other examples of mutualistic bacteria associated with plants are Frankia, which induces the formation of nodules in actinorrhizic plants, such as Alnus trees, where bacterial nitrogen fixation takes place [14] or the symbiosis between cyanobacteria and cycads, amongst others [15].

A plethora of studies showed the worldwide use of PPB or PGPR as biofertilizers, contributing to the increase of crop yields and to the improvement of soil fertility; thus, these bacteria have the potential to contribute to more sustainable agriculture and forestry [16][19]. Bacterial biofertilizers are products in which formulation one or several bacteria that improve the nutrient status of the plants (i.e. plant growth and yield) are contained. These bacteria can benefit plant nutrient uptake through three mechanisms: (i) replace soil nutrients and/or (ii) make nutrients available to plants and/or (iii) increase plant access to those nutrients [20]. Nonetheless, these plant growth-promoting bacteria may have other mechanisms to promote plant growth, such as phytohormone biosynthesis, mechanisms to reduce or avoid environmental stresses and/or the prevention of plant diseases induced by pathogens.

In this review, we summarize the main mechanisms of plant growth promotion presented by bacterial species, which were reported as able to improve crops yields and hence refer to updated studies that have evaluated the potential applications of a wide diversity of bacterial isolates in different plants, mostly with agronomical interest. Finally, we will discuss some aspects of the current application of those strains as biofertilizers and suggest future perspectives concerning the role of bacterial-based biofertilizers in sustainable agro-ecosystems.

2. Plant Growth Promoting Mechanisms

Rhizobacteria can promote plant growth through a broad range of mechanisms, which can be grouped according to their mode of action in: (i) the synthesis of substances that can be assimilated directly by plants, (ii) the mobilization of nutrients, (iii) the induction of plant stress resistance, (iv) the prevention of plant diseases. PGPR presenting one or several of those plant growth-promoting traits are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Plant growth-promoting mechanims exhibited by Plant Probiotic Bacteria in several crops.

Plant growth promotion (PGP) traits PGP Rhizobacteria (genus level) Crop type References
Nitrogen fixation Azoarcus rice [21]
Azorhizobium wheat [22]
Azospirillum several cereals, sugarcane, bean, soybean [23][27]
Azotobacter several cereals, lineseed, tobacco, sunflower, tea, coffee, coconut tree, beetroot, tomato [28],[29],[30]
Bacillus rice [31],[32]
Brevundimonas wheat [33]
Burkholderia rice [34],[35]
Enterobacteriales maize, wheat, sugarcane [33],[36],[37]
Frankia Alnus [38]
Gluconacetobacter sugarcane [39]
Herbaspirillum sugarcane, bean, rice, sorghum, maize [40],[41],[42]
Paenibacillus rice, canola [31],[43]
Pseudomonas rice [32]
Rhizobium and related genera leguminous plants [44]

Phytohormone biosynthesis (auxins, gibberelings, cytokynins, ethylene and ACC desaminase synthesis) Azobacter cucumber [45]
Bacillus potato, cucumber, oriental thuja, pepper, rice [33],[46][49]
Enterobacteriales sugarcane, wheat, pepper, soybean [33],[37],[50],[51]
Hartmannibacter summer barley [52]
Paenibacillus lodgepole pine, rice, barley, wheat [31],[53],[54]
Phyllobacterium Arabidopsis [7],[55]
Pseudomonas wheat, mung bean [56],[57]
Rhizobium and related genera pepper, tomato, lettuce, carrot, strawberries, carnation, chickpea, mung bean, hop clover [6],[57][63]
Sphinogomonas tomato, soybean [51],[64]
Streptomyces indian lilac, cocoa [65],[66]

Phosphate solubilization Bacillus rice [31]
Burkholderia rice [67]
Enterobacteriales wheat [33]
Herbaspirillum rice [67]
Paenibacillus rice [31]
Phyllobacterium strawberries [7]
Rhizobium and related genera pepper, tomato, lettuce, carrot, strawberries, carnation, chickpea [6],[58],[60],[61],[62]
Streptomyces wheat [68]

Potassium solubilization Bacillus wheat, maize Sudan grass, eggplants, pepper, cucumber, cotton, rape, groundnut [69][74]
Enterobacteriales tobacco [74],[75]
Frauteria tobacco [76]
Microbacterium tobacco [75]
Paenibacillus black pepper [74]
Pseudomonas tobacco, tea [77]

Siderophore production Bacillus maize, pepper, rice [31],[78]
Chryseobacterium tomato [79]
Enterobacteriales wheat [33]
Micrococcus maize, canola [80]
Phyllobacterium strawberries [7]
Pseudomonas potato, maize [78]
Rhizobium and related genera pepper, tomato, lettuce, carrot, strawberries, carnation, chickpea [6],[58],[60],[61],[62]
Stenotrophomonas maize, canola [80]
Streptomyces indian lilac, cocoa [65],[66]

Biocontrolers (production of plant cell wall degrading enzymes, induced disease suppression, resistance to stresses…) Bacillus maize, peanut, Chinese cabbage, cucumber, tomato, lettuce, banana, berries, pepper, cucumber, mint [81][84]
Enterobacteriales tomato, wheat, apple tree [33],[85],[86],[87]
Mycobacterium maize [81]
Paenibacillus tomato, pepper, barley, wheat [54],[88],[89]
Pseudomonas cotton, maize, pidgeon pea, wheat, rice, cucumber, tomato [31],[81],[84],[90],[91],[92]
Rhizobium and related genera peanut, pidgeon pea [82],[91]
Streptomyces cocoa, wheat [66],[68]

2.1. Interesting molecules and substances assimilation and/or biosynthesis

2.1.1. PPB and nitrogen fixation

Although is quite abundant in the Earth, nitrogen (N) is the most limiting nutrient for plants, whose require it for the formation of aminoacids and subsequently, proteins. Some prokaryotes have the exclusive of managing the process of combination or conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into organic forms, which can be finally assimilated by plants [93]. Amongst free-living rhizobacteria, members of the genera Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Beijerinckia, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Burkholderia, Gluconoacetobacter and Herbaspirillum were reported as nitrogen-fixing microorganisms. The genus Azospirillum is commonly associated with cereals in temperate zones, increasing crop yields in most of them, as well as in some legumes and sugarcane [23][27]. Members of the genus Azotobacter are able to fix nitrogen in rice crops [30]. Moreover, some species of this genus are tested as biofertilizers for several cereals, such as wheat, barley, oat, rice or maize; oil plants, such as, linseeds and sunflowers; and other variety of plants, such as beetroot, tobacco, tea, coffee and coconuts (reviewed in [29]).

Some species belonging to the genera Gluconacetobacter, Azospirillum and Herbaspirillum are frequent sugarcane endophytes and act as nitrogen fixers contributing to this plant nutrition [23],[39],[40]. The genus Herbaspirillum has also been identified as a nitrogen fixing endophyte of several crops [40],[41],[42]. Last but not least, the genera Bacillus and Paenibacillus are free-living nitrogen fixers and have other PGP traits, which make them suitable candidates for application [94],[95].

Moreover, some of those free-living bacteria may enter roots of some crops, such as species of Azoarcus, Azospirillum and Burkholderia in rice roots, which increase the nitrogen concentration of this specific crop [21],[35],[96],[97] or nitrogen-fixing Azorhizobium strains in wheat plants [22]. Interestingly, some strains of the genera Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium, which were found in association with rice and wheat roots, increase this nutrient concentration in those plant yields [98],[99],[100].

On the other hand, certain diazotrophic bacteria are able to establish truly mutualistic symbiosis within plant tissues, mainly through the formation of root nodules. These symbioses are found between rhizobia and legumes, rhizobia and Parasponia, Frankia and actinorhizal plants and cyanobacteria and cycads [15],[38],[44],[101],[102],[103].

2.1.2. PPB and phytohormone biosynthesis

Many bacterial endophytes are able to synthetize phytohormones, which are defined as organic molecules involved in several processes of the different stages of plant growth and development. The biosynthesis of these phytohormones by certain microorganisms might be involved in plant pathogenesis; however, a wide spectrum of beneficial bacteria are able to produce them and have them involved in plant growth and development as plant growth promotion traits [104],[105].

Amongst the phytohormone-producing PGP rhizobacteria, we will focus in the ones producing auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins and ethylene. Each one of these phytohormones are involved in key processes of plant development [106].

Auxins are phytohormones produced by several bacteria, being these compounds key signalling molecules for bacterial communication in order to coordinate activities. Amongst these auxins, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) is the best known and most active auxin in plants. Cytokinins promote cytokinesis, vascular cambium sensitivity, vascular differentiation and root apical dominance. Gibberellins are involved in seed germination and emergence, stem and leaf growth, floral induction and flower and fruit development. In last place, ethylene is a plant hormone known to regulate several processes such as fruit ripening, flower blooming or leaves abscission. However, it also promotes seed germination, secondary root formation and root-hair elongation. All of these phytohormones are present in PGP rhizobacteria [107][112].

Auxin-producing Bacillus spp. have been reported to exert a positive effect in the development of several crops, such as Solanun tuberosum (potato) or Oryza sativa (rice) [31],[46],[47]. Moreover, members of the genus Bacillus were reported as cytokinin producers [47],[48],[49]. Bacillus megaterium and also Azotobacter chroococcum strains were found to produce cytokinins and promote cucumber growth [45]. Liu et al. [48] reported that oriental thuja seedlings inoculated with cytokinin-producing Bacillus subtilis strains have better resistance to drought stress. Moreover, a gibberellins-producing strain of Bacillus cereus enhances the growth of red pepper plants [113].

The genus Paenibacillus was also reported as a good phytohormone producer. Bent et al. [53] have reported elevated root IAA level in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) plantlets inoculated with a strain of Paenibacillus polymyxa. Moreover, other studies report the effects of the genus Paenibacillus as phytohormone producer for rice, barley and wheat plant crops [31],[54].

Enterobacter and related Enterobacteriales are also good phytohormone producers and have PGP effects in sugarcane, wheat, pepper and soybean, amongst others [33],[37],[50],[51],[114].

Interestingly, rhizobia are also described as phytohormone synthesizers. IAA-producing rhizobial strains improve the growth of several crops, such as Capsicum annuum (pepper), Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), Fragaria anannasa (strawberry), Dianthus caryophyllus (red carnation), Lactuca sativa (lettuce) and Daucus carota (carrot) [6],[57][63]. Moreover, Rhizobium leguminosarum strains isolated from Delta Nile rice fields in rotation with clover were reported as producers of auxins and gibberellins, amongst other phytohormones [99],[100].

The genus Sphingomonas was also reported as phytohormone-producing bacteria; tomato plants inoculated with the gibberellin-producing Sphingomonas sp. LK11 strain showed a significant increment in several growth attributes [63]. Moreover, in a recent study, Asaf et al. [51] reported the positive effect and the production of phytohormones of Sphingomonas and Serratia, an enterobacteria, in soybean plant development.

In case of actinobacteria, there are some studies reported that endophytic Streptomyces strains produce IAA and are potential plant growth promoters in Azadirachta indica (indian lilac) and cocoa [65],[66].

Some bacteria produce ACC deaminase (1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase), to hydrolyze the ethylene precursor in plants (ACC), to obtain ammonia and α-ketobutyrate, which can be used as a source nitrogen and carbon. Therefore, these bacteria modulate ethylene levels in plants and hence, prevent some of the negative effects produced by high ethylene concentrations [115][119]. Moreover, these molecules have an important role in the nodulation process between a rhizobial strain and a legume (reviewed in [120]). Amongst rhizobia, there are many members presenting ACC deaminase production. Rhizobium leguminosarum strains producing ACC-deaminase promoted pepper and tomato plant growth [6]. Ensifer meliloti strain expressing an exogenous acdS gene (ACC deaminase gene) enhances plant development in Medicago lupulina (hop clover) [63].

Moreover, the exogenous expression of an acdS gene in a Mesorhizobium strain improved chickpea plants growth under salt stress [59]. It is also shown that other members of rhizobia, such as Phyllobacterium genus, are able to produce this compound. For example, strain STM196 of Phyllobacterium brassicacearum emits ethylene and contributes to root hair elongation in Arabidopsis thaliana [55]. Also, β-rhizobia members are able to synthesize ACC deaminase (reviewed in [120]).

Although a high number of rhizobial and related species are able to produce ACC deaminase, the genus Pseudomonas is the first producer of this particular molecule [118]. Indeed, ACC deaminase was first purified from a Pseudomonas strain [121]. Shaharoona et al. [56] reported that two ACC-deaminase-containing Pseudomonas strains improved the growth and yield of wheat crops, with varying levels of NPK nutrients. Magnucka and Pietr [122] reported that various strains of ACC-producing Pseudomonas benefit the growth of wheat seedlings. Zerrouk et al. [123] showed that a Pseudomonas strain isolated from date palm rhizosphere, was able to improve the development of maize plants under two different stresses, as revealed by the increase in all parameters measured under both salt and aluminum stress.

Moreover, a combination of Rhizobium and Pseudomonas ACC-deaminase-producing strains improve the growth, physiology and quality of mung beans under saline stress conditions and of Pisum sativum (pea) cultivated on alluvial soils [57] and a combination of Serratia and Pseudomonas ACC-deaminase-producing strains improved the yield of wheat plants in saline conditions [124].

Suarez et al. [52] described an ACC-deaminase producing strain of Hartmannibacter diazotrophicus, which act as PGPR increasing plant growth in barley (Hordeum vulgare) in saline soils.

2.2. PPB and nutrient mobilization

2.2.1. Phosphorous solubilizers (PSB)

Phosphorous (P) is the second essential nutrient for plants, after nitrogen (N) and the major part of the reservoirs are not available for them. This element is quite insoluble in soils and accordingly, this element was applied exogenously in traditional agriculture as chemical P fertilizers. Nevertheless, when applied as fertilizer to crop fields, P passes rapidly to become insoluble and thus, unavailable to plants [125],[126].

Therefore, the use of P-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) might represent a green substitute for these environment-damaging chemical P fertilizers. Soil bacteria such as the genera Micrococcus, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Deftia, Azotobacter, Klebsiella, Pantoea and Flavobacterium, amongst others, have been reported to be efficient phosphate solubilizers [127],[128],[129]. Moreover, there are many phosphate-solubilizing rhizobial strains, which promote the growth of several crops, such as Daucus carota, Lactuca sativa, strawberries, ornamental plants and legumes, amongst other crops of economic interest [58],[60],[61] and a Phyllobacterium strain able to solubilize phosphates improves the quality of strawberries [7]. Garcia-Fraile et al. [6] reported two Rhizobium leguminosarum strains that solubilize phosphate and are proper PGPR for pepper and tomato plants. The genus Mesorhizobium has also strains that are good P-solubilizers, promoting the growth of chickpea and barley [59],[130].

Liu et al. [131] isolated several PSB strains from betel nut (Areca catechu), a slender palm growing in tropical regions, which improve its host growth. These PSB strains belong to different genera, such as Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Shigella, Enterobacter, Escherichia, Acinetobacter, Kurthia and Rhizobium. Also in tropical soils, a strain of Burkholderia, a β-rhizobia member, was reported as PSB for Lycopodium cernuum plants.

In a screening for PSB, Panda et al. [132] isolated strains belonging to the genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Micrococcus, Staphylococcus, Microbacterium and Delftia from various crops and demonstrated that these strains also have antagonistic properties. Streptomyces spp. were also described as PSB for wheat plants [68].

2.2.2. Potassium solubilizers (KSB)

After nitrogen and phosphorous, potassium (K) is the third nutrient essential for plant growth. Some rhizobacteria are able to make available the insoluble potassium forms [133]. There is quite a diversity of K-solubilizing bacterial genera (KSB) [74]. Amongst Firmicutes, there are many examples of KSB. The genera Bacillus and Paenibacillus are one of the most reported KSB. Bacillus edaphicus has been reported to increase potassium uptake in wheat [134] and Paenibacillus glucanolyticus was found to increase the dry weight of black pepper [135]. Sudan grass inoculated with the potassium-solubilizing bacterium Bacillus mucilaginosus had higher biomass yields [136]. Wheat and maize plants inoculated with the KSB Bacillus mucilaginosus under laboratory controlled conditions showed increased plant biomass and chlorophyll content in leaves [73]. Also, Bacillus mucilaginosus in coinoculation with the phosphate-solubilizing Bacillus megaterium promoted the growth of groundnut, eggplant, pepper and cucumber [70],[71],[72]. Amongst Proteobacteria, the genus Pseudomonas was described as KSB, benefiting growth and development of tea plants (Camellia sinensis) [77] and tobacco [75]. More recently, a strain of the genus Frauteria was described as KSB for tobacco [76]. Zhang and Kong [75] also found a KSB strain belonging to the genus Microbacterium (M. foliorum), an Actinobacteria, which has positive effect on tobacco plants.

2.2.3. Siderophore production in PPB

Siderophores are organic compounds with the main function to kidnap the ferric iron (Fe3+) from the environment [137]. In the cases when Fe3+ is a limiting nutrient to the plants, siderophores from soil microorganisms fix this problem. However, the accurate mechanisms of how plants are supplied with Fe by these microbes supply are not well understood yet [138],[139]. Siderophores from endophytic Streptomyces strains are able to promote Azadirachta indica and Theobroma cacao plant growth [64],[65]. Rhizobial strains able to produce siderophores have been reported as potential biofertilizers, improving the production of carrot, lettuce, pepper, tomato, strawberry, red carnation and chickpea [6],[58],[50][62]. Moreover, the strain PEPV15 of Phyllobacterium endophyticum, a siderophore-producing strain, promotes the growth and quality of strawberries [7]. Ghavami et al. [80] isolated several strains belonging to the genera Micrococcus and Stenotrophomonas from the rhizosphere of Brassica napus (canola). Some of these strains produce siderophores, which contributed to the improvement of maize and canola plant growth under greenhouse conditions. Siderophores produced by Chryseobacterium sp. C138 are effective in supplying Fe to iron-starved tomato plants [79].

2.3. PPB as biocontrolers and plant protectors

2.3.1. PPB conferring resistance to stresses

Abiotic stress in plants, originated in situations such as drought, flooding conditions, extreme temperatures or salinity, heavy metal-produced phytotoxicity and oxidative stress, are the primary cause of crop loss worldwide [140],[141].

Liddycoat et al. [142] described Pseudomonas strains that enhance asparagus seed germination and seedling growth under water-stress conditions generated in greenhouse conditions. Moreover, P. fluorescens strain MSP-393 acts as a PGPR for several crops grown in the saline soils of coastal ecosystems and P. putida Rs-198 promotes cotton seedlings growth (increases germination rate) under saline stress. These Pseudomonas species act as protectors against salt stress, increasing Mg2+, K+ and Ca2+ absorption, decreasing Na+ uptake and improving endogenous IAA production [80],[143]. The inoculation of maize plants cultivated in salt-stress conditions with rhizobial strains showed a similar efficiency to the showed by the application of N fertilizer in the same crop [81]. El-Akhal et al. [82] described that strains of Paenibacillus alcaligenes, Bacillus polymyxa and Mycobacterium phlei are able to improve Arachis hypogaea growth and nutrient uptake under high temperature conditions as well as under salinity.

Yaish et al. [144] isolated many diverse rhizobacterial genera from date palm plantlets, which most of them present various PGPR traits, contributing to plant growth and development in conditions of high degree of salinity.

Rhizobacteria with PGPR mechanisms are also phytoremediators, which have the ability of degrading pollutants, allowing plant development in contaminated soils (reviewed in [141],[145],[146]). Species of the genera Sphingomonas and Microbacterium make plants of Alyssum murale to uptake Ni from contaminated soils [147]. Moreover, Ni can be accumulated by Brassica juncea plants inoculated with Pseudomonas and Bacillus strains, which produced siderophores, ACC-deaminase and phytohormones [148]. In a similar way, Dimkpa et al. [149] described that the siderophores produced by a strain of Streptomyces acidiscabies bind Ni, helping to cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) plants to develop in nickel-contaminated soils. The genera Pseudomonas, Azospirillum and Rhizobium, apart from their well know PGPR potential, were also reported as protectors of Medicago sativa seeds in copper-contaminated soils [150].

2.3.2. PPB and prevention of plant diseases

The mechanisms of bacterial plant disease prevention may be direct or indirect, depending on if pathogens are inhibited as a result from PGPR metabolism or the PGPR strains compete with pathogens. The production of antibiotics, siderophores and cell wall degrading enzymes are mechanisms that can be included in this section [78],[151].

Some PGPR synthesize antibiotic substances that inhibit the growth of some plant pathogens [152],[153]. For instance, Pseudomonas spp. produces antibiotics that inhibit Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici, the causal agent of take-all (white heads) of wheat [154]. Moreover, different species of the genera Klebsiella, Bacillus, Acinetobacter and Paenibacillus, which were resistant to high concentrations of selenium (Se), acted as biocontrolers of the same pathogen of wheat [155].

A high number of strains belonging to Bacillus spp. are able to produce antibiotics that are active against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, as well as many pathogenic fungi [156]. Bacillus cereus UW85 contributes to the biocontrol of alfalfa damping-off [157]. Two strains of Bacillus subtilis are able to produce antibiotics against several pathogens affecting soybean seeds, as well as enhance the development of this plant [158].

Plant cell wall hydrolytic enzymes (cellulases, chitinases and β-glucanases) are also involved in the biocontrol of pathogens, mostly fungi, since cellulose, chitin and β-glucan are the major fungal cell wall components. Bacteria producing chitinases and β-glucanases inhibit fungal growth. Kumar et al. [91] have reported that Sinorhizobium fredii KCC5 and Pseudomonas fluorescens LPK2 produce chitinases and β-glucanases and control the disease produced by Fusarium udum. Other Pseudomonas spp., which exhibits chitinases and β-glucanases production, inhibits the infection of Rhizoctonia solani and Phytophthora capsici, two of the most destructive crop pathogens in the world [159]. A combination of a cellulase-producing Micromonospora and an antibiotic-producing Streptomyces species were shown to suppress root rot of Banksia grandis plants caused by the pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi [160]. Several cellulase-producing actinobacterial genera were reported as biocontrolers of the damping-off disease of cucumber plants, caused by Pythium aphanidermatum [161].

The genus Micromonospora, actinobacterial genus also reported as plant probiotic [162], is able to induce systemic resistance in tomato plants affected by Botrytis cinerea [163]. This genus was described a high producer of hydrolytic enzymes [164].

Some rhizobacteria are able to synthesize proteins with toxic properties against certain crop insect pests. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki HD-1 has been widely used in the forest industry for controlling the gypsy moth [165]. Also, bacteria belonging to the genera Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus, which are enterobacteria associated with entomopathogenic nematodes, inhibit harmful insects, existing nematodal-bacterial formulations for controlling insect populations in the fields [166]. Bano and Muqarab [167] reported that a biopesticide formulated with PGPR strains of Pseudomonas putida and Rothia sp. induced plant defence responses against Spodoptera litura, a worm affecting tomato plants. In a recent study, a combination of two Pseudomonas species and a specie of AMF protect tomato plants against root-knot nematodes [168].

Microbial siderophores, apart from being a PGP trait itself, are also involved in the control of plant pathogens by limiting the Fe available for the phytopathogens [78],[146]. In this sense, Pseudomonas siderophores control Fuxarium oxysporum infection in potato plants [169]. Pseudomonas and Bacillus strains produce siderophores that inhibit several fungal pathogens in maize plants [170]. Yu et al. [171] reported that a siderophore-producing strain, which is identified as Bacillus subtilis, exerts a biological control effect on Fusarium wilt and promotes pepper growth. Verma et al. [65] reported that endophytic Streptomyces strains isolated from Indian lilac (Azadirachta indica) produce siderophores with biocontrol potential.

Bacterial species producing phytohormones are also proper biocontrolers for phytoplasm-induced diseases. Gamalero et al. [172] reported how an ACC deaminase-producing Pseudomonas strain help the plant to reduce the stress generated by the infection of the flavescence doreé phytoplasms.

Some members of Enterobacteriales are able to increase the induced systemic response to pathogens and ameliorate stress related to environmental conditions, such as salinity. For example, a strain of Serratia marcescens showing PGPR traits benefit salt-stressed wheat plants [86].

In general terms, Bacillus and Paenibacillus reveal themselves as proper biocontrolers and PGPR [173]. Senthilkumar et al. [174] described the use of various strains of these genera against the charcoal rot disease in soybean, caused by the fungus Rhizoctonia bataticola. Herrera et al. [175] reported the isolation of Paenibacillus spp. and Pantoea spp. strains from wheat seeds, which showed PGPR traits and were efficient biocontrolers alone and in combination against the fungus Fusarium graminearum in wheat and barley kernels. Andreolli et al. [176] isolated a diversity of bacterial endophytes from grapevines of different ages, showing that Bacillus spp. were the best PGPR and biocontrolers with activity against Botrytis cinerea and other fungi.

3. Conclusions and Future Perspectives of the Application of PPB for a Sustainable Agriculture

Nowadays, worldwide agriculture faces several challenges: (i) enough sustainable food and feed production to satisfy the increasing demand of a raising human population with an expanding demand of livestock products, (ii) using limited resources (i.e. fertile soils), (iii) caring about environmental problems induced by traditional practises of intensive farming and (iv) fulfilling the food quality requirements of the markets in developed countries. In a great effort to summarize all the issues related to traditional agriculture, Pretty et al. [177] published a list of 100 questions that must be taken into account for a future worldwide agriculture. Some questions described in the first section of this manuscript deal with the application of organic fertilizers (biofertilizers) to improve food productivity and the authors suggest that native soil organisms can be exploited for that purpose.

In this review, we summarized a plethora of studies recently published, which show the potential of plant probiotic bacteria to produce benefits for plants in several ways. These benefits include phytostimulation, nutrient mobilization and biocontrol of plant pathogens. Moreover, this group of beneficial bacteria might help alleviating stresses produced by several factors, such as salinity or heavy-metal accumulation, amongst others. These bacteria have also been proved as promoters of vegetable food quality.

Therefore, it seems that plant probiotic bacteria, applied as biofertilizers formulated with single strains or with a consortia of isolates combining different beneficial effects, could serve as a possible solution to feed the world while protecting ecosystems and improving food quality. Consequently, the establishment of a dialogue among scientists, politicians and farmers as well as the existence of research programs and policies should be occurring oftenly in order to join efforts for the development effective and safe products based of PPB, which will bring benefits not just for producers, but for the whole human being as well as for the entire Planet.

Acknowledgments

EM acknowledges ICAAM-Institute of Mediterranean Agricultural and Environmental Sciences for funding her position through the strategic project UID/AGR/00115/2013. PGF is thankful to the European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic (CZ. 1. 07/2. 3. 00/30. 0003), which funds her position.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Pimentel D. World overpopulation. Environ Dev Sustain. 2012;14:151. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, et al. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:20260–20264. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116437108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Béné C, Barange M, Subasinghe R, et al. Feeding 9 billion by 2050—Putting fish back on the menu. Food Sec. 2015;7:261. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Khush G. Green revolution: the way forward. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:815–822. doi: 10.1038/35093585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Araus J, Li J, Parry M, et al. Phenotyping and other breeding approaches for a New Green Revolution. J Integr Plant Biol. 2014;56:422–424. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Garcia-Fraile P, Carro L, Robledo M, et al. Rhizobium promotes non-legumes growth and quality in several production steps: towards a biofertilization of edible raw vegetables healthy for humans. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38122. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Flores-Felix JD, Silva LR, Rivera LP, et al. Plants probiotics as a tool to produce highly functional fruits: the case of Phyllobacterium and vitamin C in strawberries. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0122281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Haas D, Keel C. Regulation of antibiotic production in root-colonizing Pseudomonas spp. and relevance for biological control of plant disease. Ann Rev Phytopathol. 2003;41:117–153. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kloepper J, Schrot M. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on radishes. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. 1978;2:879–882. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gray EJ, Smith DL. Intracellular and extracellular PGPR: commonalities and distinctions in the plant-bacterium signaling processes. Soil Biol Biochem. 2005;37:395–412. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hardoim PR, van Overbeek LS, Berg G, et al. The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolucionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2015;79:293–320. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00050-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brewin NJ. Development of the legume root nodule. Ann Rev Cell Biol. 1991;7:191–226. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cb.07.110191.001203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Suzaki T, Kawaguchi M. Root nodulation: a developmental program involving cell fate conversion triggered by symbiotic bacterial infection. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014;21:16–22. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2014.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pawlowski K, Demchenko KN. The diversity of actinorhizal symbiosis. Protoplasma. 2012;249:967–979. doi: 10.1007/s00709-012-0388-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vessey JK, Pawlowski K, Bergman B. Root-based N2-fixing symbioses: Legumes, actinorhizal plants, Parasponia sp. and cycads. Plant Soil. 2005;274:51–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khalid A, Arshad M, Shaharoona B, et al. Microbial Strategies for Crop Improvement. Berlin: Springer; 2009. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and Sustainable Agriculture; pp. 133–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bhattacharyya PN, Jha DK. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28:1327–1350. doi: 10.1007/s11274-011-0979-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.García-Fraile P, Menéndez E, Rivas R. Role of bacterial biofertilizers in agriculture and forestry. AIMS Bioeng. 2015;2:183–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vejan P, Abdullah R, Khadiran T, et al. Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural sustainability—a review. Molecules. 2016;21:573. doi: 10.3390/molecules21050573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Malusá E, Vassilev N. A contribution to set a legal framework for biofertilisers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98:6599–6607. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-5828-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Reinhold-Hurek B, Hurek T. Interactions of gramineous plants with Azoarcus spp. and other Diazotrophs: identification, localization, and perspectives to study their function. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 1998;17:29–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sabry SRS, Saleh SA, Batchelor CA, et al. Endophytic establishment of Azorhizobium caulinodans in wheat. Proc Biol Sci. 1997;264:341–346. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tejera N, Lluch C, Martínez-Toledo MV, et al. Isolation and characterization of Azotobacter and Azospirillum strains from the sugarcane rhizosphere. Plant Soil. 2005;270:223–232. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yadegari M, Rahmani HA, Noormohammadi G, et al. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria increase growth, yield and nitrogen fixation in Phaseolus vulgaris. J Plant Nutr. 2010;33:1733–1743. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Isawa T, Yasuda M, Awazaki H, et al. Azospirillum sp. strain B510 enhances rice growth and yield. Microbes Environ. 2010;25:58–61. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.me09174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hungria M, Nogueira MA, Araujo RS. Co-inoculation of soybeans and common beans with rhizobia and azospirilla: strategies to improve sustainability. Biol Fert Soils. 2013;49:791–801. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sahoo RK, Ansari MW, Pradhan M, et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of native Azospirillum strains from rice fields to improve crop productivity. Protoplasma. 2014;251:943–953. doi: 10.1007/s00709-013-0607-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ramakrishnan K, Selvakumar G. Effect of biofertilizers on enhancement of growth and yield on Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) Int. J Res Bot. 2012;2:20–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wani SA, Chand S, Ali T. Potential use of Azotobacter chroococcum in crop production: an overview. Curr Agri Res J. 2013;1:35–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sahoo RK, Ansari MW, Dangar TK, et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterisation of efficient nitrogen-fixing Azotobacter strains from rice fields for crop improvement. Protoplasma. 2014;251:511–523. doi: 10.1007/s00709-013-0547-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Beneduzi A, Peres D, Vargas LK, et al. Evaluation of genetic diversity and plant growth promoting activities of nitrogen-fixing bacilli isolated from rice fields in South Brazil. App Soil Ecol. 2008;39:311–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Habibi S, Djedidi S, Prongjunthuek K, et al. Physiological and genetic characterization of rice nitrogen fixer PGPR isolated from rhizosphere soils of different crops. Plant Soil. 2014;379:51–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rana A, Saharan B, Joshi M, et al. Identification of multi-trait PGPR isolates and evaluating their potential as inoculants for wheat. Ann Microbiol. 2011;61:893–900. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kao CM, Chen SC, Chen YS, et al. Detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in rice fields with PCR-based technique. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 2003;48:521–552. doi: 10.1007/BF02931334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Govindarajan M, Balandreau J, Kwon SW, et al. Effects of the inoculation of Burkholderia vietnamensis and related endophytic diazotrophic bacteria on grain yield of rice. Microb Ecol. 2007;55:21–37. doi: 10.1007/s00248-007-9247-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Berge O, Heulin T, Achouak W, et al. Rahnella aquatilis, a nitrogen-fixing enteric bacterium associated with the rhizosphere of wheat and maize. Can J Microbiol. 1991;37:195–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Taulé C, Mareque C, Barlocco C, et al. The contribution of nitrogen fixation to sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), and the identification and characterization of part of the associated diazotrophic bacterial community. Plant Soil. 2012;356:35–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Simonet P, Normand P, Moiroud A, et al. Identification of Frankia strains in nodules by hybridization of polymerase chain reaction products with strain-specific oligonucleotide probes. Arch Microb. 1990;153:235–240. doi: 10.1007/BF00249074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Muñoz-Rojas J, Caballero-Mellado J. Population dynamics of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus in sugarcane cultivars and its effect on plant growth. Microb Ecol. 2003;46:454–464. doi: 10.1007/s00248-003-0110-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Elbeltagy A, Nishioka K, Sato T, et al. Endophytic colonization and in planta nitrogen fixation by a Herbaspirillum sp. isolated from wild rice species. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:5285–5293. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.11.5285-5293.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Valverde A, Velazquez E, Gutierrez C, et al. Herbaspirillum lusitanum sp. nov., a novel nitrogen-fixing bacterium associated with root nodules of Phaseolus vulgaris. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2003;53:1979–1983. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.02677-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alves GC, Videira SS, Urquiaga S, et al. Differential plant growth promotion and nitrogen fixation in two genotypes of maize by several Herbaspirillum inoculants. Plant Soil. 2015;387:307–321. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Puri A, Padda KP, Chanway CP. Evidence of nitrogen fixation and growth promotion in canola (Brassica napus L.) by an endophytic diazotroph Paenibacillus polymyxa P2b-2R. Biol Fert Soils. 2016;52:119–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Peix A, Ramírez-Bahena MH, Velázquez E, et al. Bacterial associations with legumes. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2015;34:17–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Aloni R, Aloni E, Langhans M, et al. Role of cytokinin and auxin in shaping root architecture: regulating vascular differentiation, lateral root initiation, root apical dominance and root gravitropism. Ann Bot. 2006;97:883–893. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcl027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ahmed A, Hasnain S. Auxin producing Bacillus sp.: Auxin quantification and effect on the growth Solanum tuberosum. Pure Appl Chem. 2010;82:313–319. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sokolova MG, Akimova GP, Vaishlya OB. Effect of phytohormones synthesized by rhizosphere bacteria on plants. App Biochem Microbiol. 2011;47:274–278. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu F, Xing S, Ma H, et al. Cytokinin-producing, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria that confer resistance to drought stress in Platycladus orientalis container seedlings. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97:9155–9164. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-5193-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ortiz-Castro R, Valencia-Cantero E, López-Bucio J. Plant growth promotion by Bacillus megaterium involves cytokinin signaling. Plant Signal Behav. 2008;3:263–265. doi: 10.4161/psb.3.4.5204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kang SM, Khan AL, Waqas M, et al. Gibberellin-producing Serratia nematodiphila PEJ1011 ameliorates low temperature stress in Capsicum annuum L. Eur J Soil Biol. 2015;68:85–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Asaf S, Khan MA, Khan AL, et al. Bacterial endophytes from arid land plants regulate endogenous hormone content and promote growth in crop plants: an example of Sphingomonas sp. and Serratia marcescens. J Plant Interact. 2017;12:31–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Suarez C, Cardinale M, Ratering S, et al. Plant growth-promoting effects of Hartmannibacter diazotrophicus on summer barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) under salt stress. Appl Soil Ecol. 2015;95:23–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bent E, Tuzun S, Chanway CP, et al. Alterations in plant growth and in root hormone levels of lodgepole pines inoculated with rhizobacteria. Can J Microbiol. 2001;47:793–800. doi: 10.1139/w01-080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bakaeva MD, Chetverikov SP, Korshunova TY, et al. The new bacterial strain Paenibacillus sp. IB-1: A producer of exopolysaccharide and biologically active substances with phytohormonal and antifungal activities. App Biochem Microbiol. 2017;53:201–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Galland M, Gamet L, Varoquaux F, et al. The ethylene pathway contributes to root hair elongation induced by the beneficial bacteria Phyllobacterium brassicacearum STM196. Plant Sci. 2012;190:74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Shaharoona B, Naveed M, Arshad M, et al. Fertilizer-dependent efficiency of Pseudomonas for improving growth, yield, and nutrient use efficiency of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008;79:147–155. doi: 10.1007/s00253-008-1419-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ahmad M, Zahir ZA, Khalid M, et al. Efficacy of Rhizobium and Pseudomonas strains to improve physiology, ionic balance and quality of mung bean under salt-affected conditions on farmer's fields. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2013;63:170–176. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.11.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Flores-Felix JD, Menendez E, Rivera LP, et al. Use of Rhizobium leguminosarum as a potential biofertilizer for Lactuca sativa and Daucus carota crops. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2013;176:876–882. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Brígido C, Nascimento FX, Duan J, et al. Expression of an exogenous 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase gene in Mesorhizobium spp. reduces the negative effects of salt stress in chickpea. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2013;349:46–53. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Flores-Félix JD, Marcos-García M, Silva LR, et al. Rhizobium as plant probiotic for strawberry production under microcosm conditions. Symbiosis. 2015;67:25–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Menéndez E, Escribano-Viana R, Flores-Félix JD, et al. Biological Nitrogen Fixation and Beneficial Plant-Microbe Interaction. Springer International Publishing; 2016. Rhizobial biofertilizers for ornamental plants; pp. 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Brígido C, Glick BR, Oliveira S. Survey of plant growth-promoting mechanisms in native Portuguese Chickpea Mesorhizobium isolates. Microb Ecol. 2016;73:900–915. doi: 10.1007/s00248-016-0891-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kong Z, Glick BR, Duan J, et al. Effects of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase-overproducing Sinorhizobium meliloti on plant growth and copper tolerance of Medicago lupulina. Plant Soil. 2015;391:383–398. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Khan AL, Waqas M, Kang SM, et al. Bacterial endophyte Sphingomonas sp. LK11 produces gibberellins and IAA and promotes tomato plant growth. J Microbiol. 2014;52:689–695. doi: 10.1007/s12275-014-4002-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Verma VC, Singh SK, Prakash S. Bio-control and plant growth promotion potential of siderophore producing endophytic Streptomyces from Azadirachta indica A. Juss. J Basic Microb. 2011;51:550–556. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201000155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Boudjeko T, Tchinda RAM, Zitouni M, et al. Streptomyces cameroonensis sp. nov., a Geldanamycin producer that promotes Theobroma cacao growth. Microbes Environ. 2017;32:24–31. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME16095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Estrada GA, Baldani VLD, de Oliveira DM, et al. Selection of phosphate-solubilizing diazotrophic Herbaspirillum and Burkholderia strains and their effect on rice crop yield and nutrient uptake. Plant Soil. 2013;369:115–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Jog R, Pandya M, Nareshkumar G, et al. Mechanism of phosphate solubilization and antifungal activity of Streptomyces spp. isolated from wheat roots and rhizosphere and their application in improving plant growth. Microbiology. 2014;160:778–788. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.074146-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sheng XF. Growth promotion and increased potassium uptake of cotton and rape by a potassium releasing strain of Bacillus edaphicus. Soil Biol Biochem. 2005;37:1918–1922. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Han HS, Lee KD. Phosphate and potassium solubilizing bacteria effect on mineral uptake, soil availability and growth of eggplant. Res J Agric Biol Sci. 2005;1:176–180. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Han HS, Supanjani S, Lee KD. Effect of co-inoculation with phosphate and potassium solubilizing bacteria on mineral uptake and growth of pepper and cucumber. Plant Soil Environ. 2006;52:130–136. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Sugumaran P, Janarthanam B. Solubilization of potassium containing minerals by bacteria and their effect on plant growth. World J Agric Sci. 2007;3:350–355. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Singh G, Biswas DR, Marwaha TS. Mobilization of potassium from waste mica by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and its assimilation by maize (Zea mays) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): a hydroponics study under phytotron growth chamber. J Plant Nutr. 2010;33:1236–1251. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Velázquez E, Silva LR, Ramírez-Bahena MH, et al. Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer India; 2016. Diversity of potassium-solubilizing microorganisms and their interactions with plants; pp. 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Zhang C, Kong F. Isolation and identification of potassium-solubilizing bacteria from tobacco rhizospheric soil and their effect on tobacco plants. Appl Soil Ecol. 2014;82:18–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Subhashini DV. Growth promotion and increased potassium uptake of tobacco by potassium-mobilizing bacterium Frateuria aurantia grown at different potassium levels in vertisols. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2015;46:210–220. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Bagyalakshmi B, Ponmurugan P, Marimuthu S. Influence of potassium solubilizing bacteria on crop productivity and quality of tea (Camellia sinensis) Afr J Agric Res. 2012;7:4250–4259. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Beneduzi A, Ambrosini A, Passaglia LM. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents. Genet Mol Biol. 2012;35:1044–1051. doi: 10.1590/s1415-47572012000600020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Radzki W, Gutierrez Manero FJ, Algar E, et al. Bacterial siderophores efficiently provide iron to iron-starved tomato plants in hydroponics culture. Anton Van Leeuw. 2013;104:321–330. doi: 10.1007/s10482-013-9954-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ghavami N, Alikhani HA, Pourbabaei AA, et al. Effects of two new siderophore producing rhizobacteria on growth and iron content of maize and canola plants. J Plant Nutr. 2016;40:736–746. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Egamberdiyeva D. The effect of plant growth promoting bacteria on growth and nutrient uptake of maize in two different soils. Appl Soil Ecol. 2007;36:184–189. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.El-Akhal MR, Rincon A, Coba de la Pena T, et al. Effects of salt stress and rhizobial inoculation on growth and nitrogen fixation of three peanut cultivars. Plant Biol (Stuttg) 2013;15:415–421. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2012.00634.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Lee SW, Lee SH, Balaraju K, et al. Growth promotion and induced disease suppression of four vegetable crops by a selected plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) strain Bacillus subtilis 21-1 under two different soil conditions. Acta Physiol Plant. 2014;36:1353–1362. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Sivasakthi S, Usharani G, Saranraj P. Biocontrol potentiality of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPR)-Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis: A review. Afr J Agric Res. 2014;9:1265–1277. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Li H, Ding X, Wang C, et al. Control of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus disease by Enterobacter asburiae BQ9 as a result of priming plant resistance in tomatoes. Turk J Biol. 2016;40:150–159. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Singh RP, Jha PN. The multifarious PGPR Serratia marcescens CDP-13 augments induced systemic resistance and enhanced salinity tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) PloS One. 2016;11:e0155026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Calvo J, Calvente V, de Orellano ME, et al. Biological control of postharvest spoilage caused by Penicillium expansum and Botrytis cinerea in apple by using the bacterium Rahnella aquatilis. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;113:251–257. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Allard S, Enurah A, Strain E, et al. In situ evaluation of Paenibacillus alvei in reducing carriage of Salmonella enterica serovar Newport on whole tomato plants. App Environ Microbiol. 2014;80:3842–3849. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00835-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Xu S, Kim BS. Evaluation of Paenibacillus polymyxa strain SC09-21 for biocontrol of Phytophthora blight and growth stimulation in pepper plants. Trop Plant Pathol. 2016;41:162–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Yao L, Wu Z, Zheng Y, et al. Growth promotion and protection against salt stress by Pseudomonas putida Rs-198 on cotton. Eur J Soil Biol. 2010;46:49–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Kumar H, Bajpai VK, Dubey RC, et al. Wilt disease management and enhancement of growth and yield of Cajanus cajan (L) var. Manak by bacterial combinations amended with chemical fertilizer. Crop Protect. 2010;29:591–598. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Pastor N, Masciarelli O, Fischer S, et al. Potential of Pseudomonas putida PCI2 for the protection of tomato plants against fungal pathogens. Curr Microbiol. 2016;73:346–353. doi: 10.1007/s00284-016-1068-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Raymond J, Siefert JL, Staples CR, et al. The natural history of nitrogen fixation. Mol Biol Evol. 2004;21:541–554. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msh047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Grady EN, MacDonald J, Liu L, et al. Current knowledge and perspectives of Paenibacillus: a review. Microb Cell Fact. 2016;15:203. doi: 10.1186/s12934-016-0603-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Borriss R. Principles of Plant-Microbe Interactions. Springer International Publishing; 2015. Bacillus, a plant-beneficial bacterium; pp. 379–391. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Hurek T, Reinhold-Hurek B. Azoarcus sp. strain BH72 as a model for nitrogen-fixing grass endophytes. J Biotechnol. 2003;106:169–178. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Kao CM, Chen SC, Chen YS, et al. Detection of Burkholderia pseudomallei in rice fields with PCR-based technique. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 2003;48:521–552. doi: 10.1007/BF02931334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Tan Z, Hurek T, Vinuesa P, et al. Specific detection of Bradyrhizobium and Rhizobium strains colonizing rice (Oryza sativa) roots by 16S-23S ribosomal DNA intergenic spacer-targeted PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:3655–3664. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.8.3655-3664.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Yanni YG, Rizk RY, El-Fattah FKA, et al. The beneficial plant growth-promoting association of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii with rice roots. Aust J Plant Physiol. 2001;28:845–870. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Yanni YG, Dazzo FB, Squartini A, et al. Assessment of the natural endophytic association between Rhizobium and wheat and its ability to increase wheat production in the Nile delta. Plant Soil. 2016;407:367–383. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Moulin L, Munive A, Dreyfus B, et al. Nodulation of legumes by members of the beta-subclass of Proteobacteria. Nature. 2001;411:948–950. doi: 10.1038/35082070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Oldroyd GE, Downie JA. Coordinating nodule morphogenesis with rhizobial infection in legumes. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:519–546. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Santi C, Bogusz D, Franche C. Biological nitrogen fixation in non-legume plants. Ann Bot. 2013;111:743–767. doi: 10.1093/aob/mct048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Spaepen S. Plant Hormones Produced by Microbes. In: Lugtenberg B, editor. Principles of Plant-Microbe Interactions. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 247–256. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Costacurta A, Vanderleyden J. Synthesis of phytohormones by plant-associated bacteria. Crit Rev Microbiol. 1995;21:1–18. doi: 10.3109/10408419509113531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Trewavas A. How do plant growth substances work? Plant Cell Environ. 1981;4:203–228. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Spaepen S, Vanderleyden J, Remans R. Indole-3-acetic acid in microbial and microorganism-plant signaling. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2007;31:425–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2007.00072.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Hayat R, Ali S, Amara U, et al. Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: a review. Ann Microbiol. 2010;60:579–598. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Arkhipova TN, Prinsen E, Veselov SU, et al. Cytokinin producing bacteria enhance plant growth in drying soil. Plant Soil. 2007;292:305–315. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Bottini R, Cassán F, Piccoli P. Gibberellin production by bacteria and its involvement in plant growth promotion and yield increase. App Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;65:497–503. doi: 10.1007/s00253-004-1696-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Nagahama K, Ogawa T, Fujii T, et al. Classification of ethylene-producing bacteria in terms of biosynthetic pathways to ethylene. J Ferment Bioeng. 1992;73:1–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Glick BR, Penrose DM, Li J. A model for the lowering of plant ethylene concentrations by plant growth-promoting bacteria. J Theor Biol. 1998;190:63–68. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1997.0532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Joo GJ, Kim YM, Kim JT, et al. Gibberellins-producing rhizobacteria increase endogenous gibberellins content and promote growth of red peppers. J Microbiol. 2005;43:510–515. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Ghosh PK, Sen SK, Maiti TK. Production and metabolism of IAA by Enterobacter spp. (Gammaproteobacteria) isolated from root nodules of a legume Abrus precatorius L. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2015;4:296–303. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Ma W, Penrose DM, Glick BR. Strategies used by rhizobia to lower plant ethylene levels and increase nodulation. Can J Microbiol. 2002;48:947–954. doi: 10.1139/w02-100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Saleem M, Arshad M, Hussain S, et al. Perspective of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) containing ACC deaminase in stress agriculture. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007;34:635–648. doi: 10.1007/s10295-007-0240-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Glick BR, Cheng Z, Czarny J, et al. Promotion of plant growth by ACC deaminase-producing soil bacteria. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2007;119:329–339. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Glick BR. Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol Res. 2014;169:30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Gamalero E, Glick BR. Bacterial modulation of plant ethylene levels. Plant Physiol. 2015;169:13–22. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.00284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Nascimento FX, Brígido C, Glick BR, et al. The role of rhizobial ACC deaminase in the nodulation process of leguminous plants. Int J Agron. 2016;2016 [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Honma M, Shimomura T. Metabolism of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid. Agric Biol Chem. 1978;42:1825–1831. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Magnucka EG, Pietr SJ. Various effects of fluorescent bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas containing ACC deaminase on wheat seedling growth. Microbiol Res. 2015;181:112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Zerrouk IZ, Benchabane M, Khelifi L, et al. A Pseudomonas strain isolated from date-palm rhizospheres improves root growth and promotes root formation in maize exposed to salt and aluminum stress. J Plant Physiol. 2016;191:111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2015.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Zahir ZA, Ghani U, Naveed M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of Pseudomonas and Serratia sp. containing ACC-deaminase for improving growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under salt-stressed conditions. Arch Microbiol. 2009;191:415–424. doi: 10.1007/s00203-009-0466-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Schachtman DP, Reid RJ, Ayling SM. Phosphorus uptake by plants: from soil to cell. Plant Physiol. 1998;116:447–453. doi: 10.1104/pp.116.2.447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Sharma SB, Sayyed RZ, Trivedi MH, et al. Phosphate solubilizing microbes: sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. Springerplus. 2013;2:587. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Zaidi A, Khan M, Ahemad M, et al. Plant growth promotion by phosphate solubilizing bacteria. Acta Microbiol Immunol Hungarica. 2009;56:263–284. doi: 10.1556/AMicr.56.2009.3.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Dastager SG, Deepa CK, Pandey A. Isolation and characterization of novel plant growth promoting Micrococcus sp NII-0909 and its interaction with cowpea. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2010;48:987–992. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Pindi PK, Satyanarayana SDV. Liquid microbial consortium—a potential tool for sustainable soil health. J Biofertil Biopest. 2012;3:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Peix A, Rivas-Boyero AA, Mateos PF, et al. Growth promotion of chickpea and barley by a phosphate solubilizing strain of Mesorhizobium mediterraneum under growth chamber conditions. Soil Biol Biochem. 2001;33:103–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Liu FP, Liu HQ, Zhou HL, et al. Isolation and characterization of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria from betel nut (Areca catechu) and their effects on plant growth and phosphorus mobilization in tropical soils. Biol Fert Soils. 2014;50:927–937. [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Panda P, Chakraborty S, Ray DP, et al. Screening of phosphorus solubilizing bacteria from tea rhizosphere soil based on growth performances under different stress conditions. Int J Biores Sci. 2016;3:39–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Jaiswal DK, Verma JP, Prakash S, et al. Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer India; 2016. Potassium as an important plant nutrient in sustainable agriculture: a state of the art; pp. 21–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Sheng XF, He LY. Solubilization of potassium-bearing minerals by a wild-type strain of Bacillus edaphicus and its mutants and increased potassium uptake by wheat. Can J Microbiol. 2006;52:66–72. doi: 10.1139/w05-117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Sangeeth KP, Bhai RS, Srinivasan V. Paenibacillus glucanolyticus, a promising potassium solubilizing bacterium isolated from black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) rhizosphere. J Spices Arom Crops. 2012;21 [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Basak BB, Biswas DR. Influence of potassium solubilizing microorganism (Bacillus mucilaginosus) and waste mica on potassium uptake dynamics by sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare Pers.) grown under two Alfisols. Plant Soil. 2009;317:235–255. [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Neilands JB. Siderophores: structure and function of microbial iron transport compounds. J Biol Chem. 1995;270:26723–26726. doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.45.26723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Ahmed E, Holmstrom SJ. Siderophores in environmental research: roles and applications. Microb Biotechnol. 2014;7:196–208. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Saha M, Sarkar S, Sarkar B, et al. Microbial siderophores and their potential applications: a review. Environ Sci Poll Res. 2016;23:3984–3999. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4294-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Wang W, Vinocur B, Altman A. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta. 2003;218:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00425-003-1105-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Zubair M, Shakir M, Ali Q, et al. Rhizobacteria and phytoremediation of heavy metals. Environ Technol Rev. 2016;5:112–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Liddycoat SM, Greenberg BM, Wolyn DJ. The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on asparagus seedlings and germinating seeds subjected to water stress under greenhouse conditions. Can J Microbiol. 2009;55:388–394. doi: 10.1139/w08-144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Paul D, Nair S. Stress adaptations in a Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacterium (PGPR) with increasing salinity in the coastal agricultural soils. J Basic Microbiol. 2008;48:378–384. doi: 10.1002/jobm.200700365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Yaish MW, Antony I, Glick BR. Isolation and characterization of endophytic plant growth-promoting bacteria from date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera L.) and their potential role in salinity tolerance. Anton Van Leeuw. 2015;107:1519–1532. doi: 10.1007/s10482-015-0445-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Burd GI, Dixon DG, Glick BR. Plant growth-promoting bacteria that decrease heavy metal toxicity in plants. Can J Microbiol. 2000;46:237–245. doi: 10.1139/w99-143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Pérez-Montaño F, Alías-Villegas C, Bellogín RA, et al. Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: from microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiol Res. 2014;169:325–336. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Abou-Shanab RA, Angle JS, Delorme TA, et al. Rhizobacterial effects on nickel extraction from soil and uptake by Alyssum murale. New Phytol. 2003;158:219–224. [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Ma Y, Rajkumar M, Freitas H. Isolation and characterization of Ni mobilizing PGPB from serpentine soils and their potential in promoting plant growth and Ni accumulation by Brassica spp. Chemosphere. 2009;75:719–725. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Dimkpa C, Svatoš A, Merten D, et al. Hydroxamate siderophores produced by Streptomyces acidiscabies E13 bind nickel and promote growth in cowpea (Vignaunguiculata L.) under nickel stress. Can J Microbiol. 2008;54:163–172. doi: 10.1139/w07-130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Carrillo-Castaneda G, Juarez MJ, Peralta-Videa J, et al. Plant growth-promoting bacteria promote copper and iron translocation from root to shoot in alfalfa seedlings. J Plant Nutr. 2002;26:1801–1814. [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Thomashow LS. Biological control of plant root pathogens. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1996;7:343–347. doi: 10.1016/s0958-1669(96)80042-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Ulloa-Ogaz AL, Muñoz-Castellanos LN, Nevárez-Moorillón GV. Biocontrol of phytopathogens: Antibiotic production as mechanism of control. In: Méndez-Vilas A, editor. The Battle Against Microbial Pathogens: Basic Science, Technological Advances and Educational Programs. 2015. pp. 305–309. [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Fernando WD, Nakkeeran S, Zhang Y. PGPR: Biocontrol and Biofertilization. Springer Netherlands; 2005. Biosynthesis of antibiotics by PGPR and its relation in biocontrol of plant diseases; pp. 67–109. [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Mazzola M, Fujimoto DK, Thomashow LS, et al. Variation in sensitivity of Gaeumannomyces graminis to antibiotics produced by fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. and effect on biological control of take-all of wheat. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61:2554–2559. doi: 10.1128/aem.61.7.2554-2559.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Durán P, Acuña JJ, Jorquera MA, et al. Endophytic bacteria from selenium-supplemented wheat plants could be useful for plant-growth promotion, biofortification and Gaeumannomyces graminis biocontrol in wheat production. Biol Fert Soils. 2014;50:983–990. [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Maksimov IV, Abizgil'dina RR, Pusenkova LI. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as alternative to chemical crop protectors from pathogens (review) Appl Biochem Microbiol. 2011;47:333–345. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Silo-Suh LA, Lethbridge BJ, Raffel SJ, et al. Biological activities of two fungistatic antibiotics produced by Bacillus cereus UW85. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60:2023–2030. doi: 10.1128/aem.60.6.2023-2030.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Araújo FF, Henning AA, Hungria M. Phytohormones and antibiotics produced by Bacillus subtilis and their effects on seed pathogenic fungi and on soybean root development. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005;21:1639–1645. [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Arora NK, Khare E, Oh JH, et al. Diverse mechanisms adopted by Pseudomonas fluorescens PGC2 during the inhibition of Rhizoctonia solani and Phytophthora capsici. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008;24:581–585. [Google Scholar]
  • 160.El-Tarabily KA, Sykes ML, Kurtböke ID, et al. Synergistic effects of a cellulase-producing Micromonospora carbonacea and an antibiotic-producing Streptomyces violascens on the suppression of Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of Banksia grandis. Can J Bot. 1996;74:618–624. [Google Scholar]
  • 161.El-Tarabily KA. Rhizosphere-competent isolates of streptomycete and non-streptomycete actinomycetes capable of producing cell-wall-degrading enzymes to control Pythium aphanidermatum damping-off disease of cucumber. Can J Bot. 2006;84:211–222. [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Martínez-Hidalgo P, Galindo-Villardón P, Trujillo ME, et al. Micromonospora from nitrogen fixing nodules of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). A new promising Plant Probiotic Bacteria. Sci Rep. 2014;4:6389. doi: 10.1038/srep06389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Martínez-Hidalgo P, García JM, Pozo MJ. Induced systemic resistance against Botrytis cinerea by Micromonospora strains isolated from root nodules. Front Microbiol. 2015;6 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Hirsch AM, Valdés M. Micromonospora: An important microbe for biomedicine and potentially for biocontrol and biofuels. Soil Biol Biochem. 2010;42:536–542. [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Schnepf E, Crickmore N, Van RJ, et al. Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62:775–806. doi: 10.1128/mmbr.62.3.775-806.1998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Chattopadhyay A, Bhatnagar NB, Bhatnagar R. Bacterial insecticidal toxins. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2004;30:33–54. doi: 10.1080/10408410490270712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Muqarab R, Bano A. Plant defence induced by PGPR against Spodoptera litura in tomato. Plant Biol. 2016;19:406–412. doi: 10.1111/plb.12535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Sharma IP, Sharma AK. Effective control of root-knot nematode disease with Pseudomonad rhizobacteria filtrate. Rhizosphere. 2017;3:123–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Schippers B, Bakker AW, Bakker PAHM. Interactions of deleterious and beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms and the effect of cropping practices. Ann Rev Phytopathol. 1987;25:339–358. [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Pal KK, Tilak KVBR, Saxcna AK, et al. Suppression of maize root diseases caused by Macrophomina phaseolina, Fusarium moniliforme and Fusarium graminearum by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Microbiol Res. 2001;156:209–223. doi: 10.1078/0944-5013-00103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Yu X, Ai C, Xin L, et al. The siderophore-producing bacterium, Bacillus subtilis CAS15, has a biocontrol effect on Fusarium wilt and promotes the growth of pepper. Eur J Soil Biol. 2011;47:138–145. [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Gamalero E, Marzachì C, Galetto L, et al. An 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase-expressing endophyte increases plant resistance to flavescence dorée phytoplasma infection. Plant Biosyst. 2016;151:331–340. [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Borriss R. Bacteria in agrobiology: Plant growth responses. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. Use of plant-associated Bacillus strains as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents in agricultura; pp. 41–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Senthilkumar M, Swarnalakshmi K, Govindasamy V, et al. Biocontrol potential of soybean bacterial endophytes against charcoal rot fungus, Rhizoctonia bataticola. Curr Microbiol. 2009;58:288. doi: 10.1007/s00284-008-9329-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Herrera SD, Grossi C, Zawoznik M, et al. Wheat seeds harbour bacterial endophytes with potential as plant growth promoters and biocontrol agents of Fusarium graminearum. Microbiol Res. 2016;186:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2016.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Andreolli M, Lampis S, Zapparoli G, et al. Diversity of bacterial endophytes in 3 and 15 year-old grapevines of Vitis vinifera cv. Corvina and their potential for plant growth promotion and phytopathogen control. Microbiol Res. 2016;183:42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Pretty J, Sutherland WJ, Ashby J, et al. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. Int J Agric Sust. 2010;8:219–236. [Google Scholar]

Articles from AIMS Microbiology are provided here courtesy of AIMS Press

RESOURCES