Abstract
Plant and soil microbiome interactions are in the great demand around the globe. Bacteria that colonize in the plant roots or in the rhizosphere and promote plant growth directly by nutrient immobilization or worked as defense regulator are referred to as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). During the past couple of decades, PGPR have emerged as a potent alternative to chemical fertilizer in an eco-friendly manner. Therefore, they are abundantly accepted in agriculture, horticulture, silviculture, and environmental cleanup strategies. The rhizosphere ecology is influenced by a myriad of abiotic and biotic factors in natural and agricultural soils, and these factors can, in turn, modulate PGPR effects on plant health. Manipulating this rhizospheric microbiome through rhizo-engineering has materialized as a contemporary methodology to decipher the structural, functional, and ecological behavior of rhizospheric PGPR populations. In this chapter, we have tried to explore the latest developments in the technologies related to PGPR, for its well acceptance for sustainable agriculture and plant health.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Concept and Definition
The soil is a dynamic living matrix, and it is not only an essential resource in agriculture and food security, but it is also toward the maintenance of all the life process. The soil is home to thousands of bacterial species. Root colonizing bacteria (rhizobacteria) that exert beneficial effects on plant development via direct or indirect mechanisms have been defined as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). These root colonizing bacteria (endophytic and epiphytic) have been proven to exert influence on soil security (Ahkami et al. 2017; Wallenstein 2017), seed germination under drought stress (Delshadi et al. 2017), and cleanup strategies (Thijs et al. 2016); antagonize pathogens; decrease plant diseases; enhance plant resistance to diseases, salt stress, coldness, and heavy metal toxicity; and improve crop growth, development, yield, and quality through directly synthesizing hormones, antibiotics, and other secondary metabolites and by regulating plant related gene expressions and others (Gupta and Dikshit 2010; du Jardin 2015; Haymer 2015; Kumary and Raj 2016; Vejan et al. 2016).
6.1.2 Agriculture and PGPR
The role of these PGPR formulations has been well documented this decade to improve crop productivity, plant health, and soil quality as well as in many agricultural crops, vegetable, and fruits (von der Weid et al. 2000; Orhan et al. 2006; Rana et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2012; Sharma et al. 2014) (Table 6.1). The microbes (PGPR) and rhizosphere have interaction, i.e., rhizo-engineering and other techniques are the recent advances in this sector to meet global food and eco-friendly strategies for green earth/global warming (Haymer 2015; Thijs et al. 2016; Ahkami et al. 2017; Ahmadi et al. 2017; Reeves 2017; Timmusk et al. 2017; Wallenstein 2017). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the estimated world population for 2025 will be nearly 8.5 × 109 inhabitants. Such an increase will inevitably require the substantial additional agricultural production of 2.4 × 109 t/year (Timmusk et al. 2017). The changing climate and overpopulation have led to the crisis of nutrient availability and food security for humans especially in developing countries (Çakmakçi et al. 2007; De et al. 2015; Reeves 2017).
6.2 Mode of Action
Plant roots exude a huge diversity of organic nutrients (organic acids, phytosiderophores, sugars, vitamins, amino acids, nucleosides, mucilage) and signals that attract microbial populations, especially those able to metabolize plant-exuded compounds and proliferate in this microbial habitat (Ahemad and Kibret 2014; Hasan et al. 2014). The rhizospheric soil bacteria which surrounds the plant root competes for this nutritional boon and in turn the effect plant’s growth, yield, and defense mechanisms either as free living microbes or in the mutualistic relationship with plant root (Endophytic/epiphytic) (Vejan et al. 2016). These rhizobacteria affect plant development. About 2–5% of rhizobacteria, when reintroduced by plant inoculation in a soil containing competitive microflora, exert a beneficial effect on plant growth and are termed plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR).
The mode of action of PGPR is mainly of two types: the direct mechanism which directly supports the plant growth in a direct mode. This mechanism includes nitrogen fixation, phytohormone production, phosphate solubilization, and increasing iron availability used for plant growth promotion. PGPR can indirectly enhance plant growth by eliminating pathogens or by inducing plant defense responses (Narasimhan et al. 2003; Gupta and Dikshit 2010; Haymer 2015; Thijs et al. 2016; Delshadi et al. 2017; Reeves 2017; Tariq et al. 2017; Timmusk et al. 2017).
6.3 Recent Developments in the Application of PGPR
6.3.1 Role of PGPR as Biostimulant
According to European Commission, agroecology, i.e., studying and designing agricultural systems based on the interaction of their biophysical, technical, and socioeconomic components, is recommended to meet the food security of increasing population and to maintain soil security. The word biostimulant was apparently coined by horticulture specialists for describing substances promoting plant growth without being nutrients, soil improvers, or pesticides (du Jardin 2015). PGPR-based biostimulants are widely accepted in agricultural practice this decade (Brown and Saa 2015). According to Global Biostimulant Strategic Business report 2016–2022, there are more than 80 global companies involved in biostimulant production and manufacturing covering Canada, Japan, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the rest of the world (Novozymes, Monsanto, Lallemand, IIsa sPA etc). According to a report, the biostimulant market is projected to reach USD 2.91 billion by 2021, at a CAGR of 10.4% from 2016 to 2021.
PGPR based biostimulants enhance nutrient uptake and stress tolerance like drought, salinity, etc. and improve crop quality by direct or indirect mechanisms (Brown and Saa 2015; du Jardin 2015). There are many registered formulations of PGPR in the market including the species Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Azobacter, Variovorax, Azosprillum, and Serratia (Nakkeeran et al. 2006; Barea 2015; Bishnoi 2015; FAO 2016; Fixers and Solubilizers 2016; Le Mire et al. 2016), but the utilization of PGPR in the agriculture industry represents only a small fraction of agricultural practice worldwide (Meena et al. 2016).
6.3.2 Cleanup Strategies (Role in Phytoremediation)
The green technology to improve the contaminated soil involves mutual interactions of plant and microorganisms. Phytoremediation is an environmentally sustainable, solar-powered, and cost-effective soil remediation technology which relies on the ability of plants to intercept, take-up, accumulate, sequestrate, stabilize, or translocate contaminants. Phytoremediation is influenced by various abiotic and biotic conditions like pH of soil, soil components, nutrient availability, type of plant selection, and type of contaminants (Thijs et al. 2016). Recently, it has been documented that phytoremediation success rate is highly dependable on plant microbiome (Hou et al. 2015). When PGPR are introduced to a contaminated site, they increase the potential for plants that grow there to sequester heavy metals and to recycle nutrients, maintain soil structure, detoxify chemicals, and control diseases and pests; PGPR also decreases the toxicity of metals by changing their bioavailability in plants. The plants, in turn, provide the microorganisms with root exudates such as free amino acids, proteins, carbohydrates, alcohols, vitamins, and hormones, which are important sources of their nutrition (Tak et al. 2013). Biological application of PGPR for phytoremediation of heavy metals and salt-impacted soil has been reported by researchers (Nakkeeran et al. 2006; Barea 2015; Le Mire et al. 2016). Plant and microbiome interactions are nowadays being studied as the metaorganism approach, to find most promising ways to improve the success rate of phytoremediations. PGPR-based metaorganism approach assembles the role of (a) plant host selection, (b) root exudates, (c) study of single or microbial consortium in situ, and (d) molecular study of PGPR strains (Narasimhan et al. 2003; Arora 2015; Thijs et al. 2016).
6.3.3 As Biocontrol
According to Beattie, bacteria that reduce the incidence or severity of plant diseases are often referred to as biocontrol agents, whereas those that exhibit antagonistic activity toward a pathogen are defined as antagonists (Beneduzi et al. 2012). The major disadvantage of chemical pesticides is its residual persistence in the soil which raises food safety concerns among the consumers. In recent years, PGPR-based biocontrol agent has proven its ecologically sound and effective solution to Integrated Pest management Programs (IPM) with so many beneficial advantages like cost-effectiveness, biodegradability and self-perpetuating, host specific, easy in handling, and safe to use (Beneduzi et al. 2012). The PGPR synthesis hydrolytic enzymes, increases competition for nutrients, regulates the plant hormone ethylene level through ACC-deaminase enzyme, and produces siderophores to counteract the plant pathogens present surrounding the rhizosphere (Kumari et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2009; Haghighi et al. 2011; Anand et al. 2016; Le Mire et al. 2016). There are many examples of effective control of soil-borne diseases by means of PGPR (Haas and Defago 2005). Several species have been reported to show antagonistic activity in major crops like wheat, tomato, soya bean, tobacco, pepper, etc. (Zhang et al. 2004; Haas and Defago 2005; Domenech et al. 2006; Gupta and Dikshit 2010). There are a large number of biocontrol agents available in the international market (Bio-Save®, RhizoVital ® 42 liquid, Galltrol-A, BlightBan C9-1 etc.), but currently, the scenario is not good as only 7% of total biocontrol formulation made per year is reaching in the hand of farmers. According to the international bio-intelligence reports (2017), global biocontrol market is $2.8 Bn today growing to over $11 Bn in 2025. It is estimated that microbial will continue to make up nearly 60% of the market through 2025. North America and Europe itself will cover 2/3 part of the whole biocontrol international market. The drastic climatic changes have affected the plant microbe interactions in the recent decade; this is one of the most challenging aspects in studying PGPR strains for the formulation as biocontrol agents (Reeves 2017). Recently, researchers around the globe are focusing toward implementation of new technologies for the development of effective biocontrol agents. The latest applications of molecular genetic technologies in the area of genetically based control methods now also include cutting-edge systems for genome editing and the use of RNA inhibition for selectively knocking out the expression of individual genes (Haymer 2015). Nanomaterial-based biocontrol has also proven its impact as upcoming biocontrol agents in years.
6.4 Current Scenario of PGPR Research
6.4.1 Challenges
The role of PGPR based bio-formulations has shown great potential toward sustainable agriculture and the most accepted alternative to chemical fertilizers, biopesticide/biocontrol agents, and other chemical-based simulators. During the past couple of decades, PGPR have begun to replace the use of chemicals in agriculture, horticulture, silviculture, and environmental cleanup strategies. They have the positive impact of plant’s physiological conditions through the mechanism of action of these microbes. During the years 1990–2000, most of the researches on PGPR was based on the isolation and inoculation of PGPR into rhizosphere to get better yield in crops (wheat, rice, maize some vegetables, fruits, and herbs), some reports are available about the molecular mechanism of action of these microbes; in the later decade, biotechnological approach to modify isolated PGPR was also reported (Gagné et al. 1993; Murphy et al. 2000; von der Weid et al. 2000). During the decade 2000–2010, researchers were more focused on the application part, i.e., cleanup strategies, as defense inducer and as biofertilizer mainly, during this phase few of commercial product of PGPR came into international market (Zhang et al. 2004; Haden et al. 2007; Gupta and Dikshit 2010). Recently, 2010 onward, a new term “rhizo-engineering” has been introduced to uncover the microbiome interaction that is still not clearly elucidated (Ahmadi et al. 2017). The use of nanoparticle in PGPR research has also shown a promising technology, but cost-effective and quality nano-product is still expected (Delshadi et al. 2017; Reeves 2017). The unique properties of nano-sized particles with respect to their physical, chemical, and biological properties compared to those at a larger scale provide the potential to protect plants, detect plant diseases, monitor plant growth, enhance food quality, increase food production, and reduce waste (Vejan et al. 2016). Majority of researches are confined either to laboratory or green house scale; hence these should be taken up to the field level. However, there are few reports on transition of PGPR-based bioformulations, but has limited success rate (Gagné et al. 1993; Murphy et al. 2000; von der Weid et al. 2000). Another major challenge in the application of this microbial product’s application is the screening of microbes, their formulation, and its marketing. Researches have to trigger the following aspects to accelerate the PGPR commercialization (Fig. 6.1).
6.4.2 Future Work Should Be Focused On
6.4.2.1 At Laboratory and Field Level
-
Understanding of microbiome interactions especially their diversity.
-
Molecular data availability.
-
Study on the effect of environmental stresses on microbiome and the mechanism of action.
-
Application of recent technologies like rhizo-engineering, nanotechnology, and metaproteomics to get the most efficient and eco-friendly formulations.
-
However, the approaches focused for a long time on each organism individually rather than an integrated metaorganism approach in an ecological perspective.
-
The formulation is also an important parameter to be focused in the coming years, like the type of formulation and their acceptance at physiological and ecological level.
-
Field level experiments to be taken up at large scale.
-
The addition of ice-nucleating plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria could be an effective technology for enhancing plant growth at low temperature.
6.4.2.2 For Commercialization
-
Cost-effective products with good shelf life.
-
Eco-friendly.
-
Safety database availability for easy registration process.
-
Farmers need more knowledge about this product: like why it is better than chemical fertilizers because beneficial effects attract farmers’ interest.
-
Changing farmer perception may bring about the change.
-
The farmers and feild person must have been trainted about PGPR bioformulations, its advantages and of-course economical acceptibility.
-
Growth in commercialization is hindered by lack of thorough research so the transition of laboratory work to the farmers of field is a must.
In the near future, it is expected that metatranscriptomics and metaproteomics will develop significantly and will allow further progress in the understanding of the activity and ecological behavior of natural PGPR populations within the rhizosphere.
6.5 Conclusions
The campaign for the application of PGPR has been started from the last few decades, to achieve sustainable agriculture and plant’s health under biotic and abiotic stress. However, before PGPR can contribute the desired benefits, scientists need to learn more and explore ways and means for their better utilization in the farmers’ fields. Future research should focus on managing plant-microbe interactions, for example, innovative improvements in root environments, particularly with respect to their mode of action and adaptability to conditions under extreme environments. Rhizo-engineering and metatranscriptomics use of safest nanoparticle to introduce new formulation and screening of bacterial strains through molecular techniques like proteomics and docking methods will be the focused area of researchers in the coming years. Another major aspect is the transition of this product in the hand of local farmers, which will depend on easy registration regulatory processes.
References
Abbasi, M. K. (2015). Isolation and characterization of rhizobacteria from wheat rhizosphere and their effect on plant growth promotion. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00198.
Agrawal, D. P. K., & Agrawal, S. (2013). Characterization of Bacillus sp. strains isolated from rhizosphere of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum) for their use as potential plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 2, 406–417.
Ahemad, M., & Kibret, M. (2014). Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. Journal of King Saud University – Science, 26, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2013.05.001.
Ahkami, A., Allen White, R., Handakumbura, P. P., & Jansson, C. (2017). Rhizosphere engineering: Enhancing sustainable plant ecosystem productivity in a challenging climate. Rhizosphere, 3, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2017.04.012.
Ahmad, S., Imran, M., Hussain, S., et al. (2017). Bacterial impregnation of mineral fertilizers improves yield and nutrient use efficiency of wheat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8228.
Ahmadi, K., Zarebanadkouki, M., Ahmed, M. A., et al. (2017). Rhizosphere engineering: Innovative improvement of root environment. Rhizosphere, 3, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2017.04.015.
Akhtar, S., & Ali, B. (2011). Evaluation of rhizobacteria as non-rhizobial inoculants for mung beans. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5, 1723–1729.
Almaghrabi, O. A., Massoud, S. I., & Abdelmoneim, T. S. (2013). Influence of inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on tomato plant growth and nematode reproduction under greenhouse conditions. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 20, 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2012.10.004.
Anand, K., Kumari, B., & Mallick, M. (2016). Phosphate solubilizing microbes: An effective and alternative approach as biofertilizers. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 8, 37–40.
Arora, N. K. (2015). Plant microbes symbiosis: Applied facets. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2068-8.
Aung, T. T., Buranabanyat, B., Piromyou, P., & Longtonglang, A. (2013). Enhanced soybean biomass by co-inoculation of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and its effects on microbial community structures. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 7, 3858–3873. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2013.5917.
Barea, J. M. (2015). Future challenges and perspectives for applying microbial biotechnology in sustainable agriculture based on a better understanding of plant-microbiome interactions. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 15, 261–282. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162015005000021.
Beneduzi, A., Ambrosini, A., & Passaglia, L. M. P. (2012). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 35, 1044–1051.
Bharti, N., Pandey, S. S., Barnawal, D., et al. (2016). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Dietzia natronolimnaea modulates the expression of stress responsive genes providing protection of wheat from salinity stress. Scientific Reports, 6, 34768. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34768.
Bishnoi, U. (2015). PGPR interaction: An ecofriendly approach promoting the sustainable agriculture system. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.abr.2015.09.006.
Brown, P., & Saa, S. (2015). Biostimulants in agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6, 671. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00671.
Çakmakçi, R., Dönmez, M. F., Erdo/an, Ü., et al. (2007). The effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on barley seedling growth, nutrient uptake, some soil properties, and bacterial counts. Turkish Journal of Agriculture, 31, 189–199.
De, E., Promotoras, B., Bpcv, V., et al. (2015). Efficiency of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (Pgpr). Terra Latinoam, 33, 321–330.
Delshadi, S., Ebrahimi, M., & Shirmohammadi, E. (2017). Influence of plant-growth-promoting bacteria on germination, Growth and nutrients? uptake of Onobrychis sativa L.under drought stress. Journal of Plant Interactions, 12, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2017.1316527.
Dhanraj, B. N. (2013). Bacterial diversity in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) rhizosphere of saline soil. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 2, 60–64.
Domenech, J., Reddy, M. S., Kloepper, J. W., et al. (2006). Combined application of the biological product LS213 with Bacillus, Pseudomonas or Chryseobacterium for growth promotion and biological control of soil-borne diseases in pepper and tomato. BioControl, 51, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-005-2940-z.
du Jardin, P. (2015). Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae (Amsterdam), 196, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.021.
Egamberdieva, D. (2010). Growth response of wheat cultivars to bacterial inoculation in calcareous soil. Plant Soil and Environment, 2010, 570–573.
Ekinci, M., Turan, M., Yildirim, E., et al. (2014). Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on growth, nutrient, organic acid, amino acid and hormone content of cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis) transplants. ACTA Scientiarum Polonorum Horticulture, 13, 71–85.
Elekhtyar, N. M. (2015). Efficiency of pseudomonas fluorescence as Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) for the enhancement of seedling vigor, nitrogen uptake, yield and its attributes of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The 5th international conference coordinators of AUSDE entitled: “Water, Energy, Climate and food nexus in the Arab countries”– Conferences center; Cairo university. Cairo, Egypt. March, 15–16, 2015, Egypt, 2, 57–67.
Elliott, L. F., & Lynch, J. M. (1985). Plant growth-inhibitory pseudomonads colonizing winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) roots. Plant and Soil, 84, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02197867.
Fahimi, A., Ashouri, A., Ahmadzadeh, M., et al. (2014). Effect of PGPR on population growth parameters of cotton aphid. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 47, 1274–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2013.840099.
FAO. (2016). The state of food and agriculture. Fixers N, solubilizers P (2016) fertecon biofertilizers 2016. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2016/en/.
Gagné, S., Dehbi, L., Le Quéré, D., et al. (1993). Increase of greenhouse tomato fruit yields by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) inoculated into the peat-based growing media. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 25, 269–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(93)90038-D.
Gholami, A., Shahsavani, S., & Nezarat, S. (2009). The effect of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) on germination, seedling growth and yield of maize. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 49, 19–24.
Gontia-Mishra, I., Sapre, S., Sharma, A., & Tiwari, S. (2016). Amelioration of drought tolerance in wheat by the interaction of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Plant Biology, 18, 992–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12505.
Gopalakrishnan, S., Upadhyaya, H. D., Vadlamudi, S., et al. (2012). Plant growth-promoting traits of biocontrol potential bacteria isolated from rice rhizosphere. SpringerPlus, 1(71). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-1-71.
Gupta, S., & Dikshit, A. K. (2010). Biopesticides: An ecofriendly approach for pest control. Journal of Biopesticides, 3, 186–188.
Haas, D., & Defago, G. (2005). Biological control of soil-borne pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 3, 307–319.
Haden, V. R., Duxbury, J. M., DiTommaso, A., & Losey, J. E. (2007). Weed community dynamics in the system of rice intensification (SRI) and the efficacy of mechanical cultivation and competitive rice cultivars for weed control in Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 30, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v30n04.
Haghighi, B. J., Alizadeh, O., & Firoozabadi, A. H. (2011). The role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) in sustainable agriculture. Advances in Environmental Biology, 5, 3079–3083.
Hasan, M., Bano, A., Hassan, S. G., et al. (2014). Enhancement of rice growth and production of growth-promoting phytohormones by inoculation with Rhizobium and other Rhizobacteria. World Applied Sciences Journal, 31, 1734–1743. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.31.10.364.
Hassan, W., Hussain, M., Bashir, S., et al. (2015). ACC-deaminase and/or nitrogen fixing rhizobacteria and growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 15, 232–248. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162015005000019.
Haymer, D. (2015). Genetics and insect pest management in agriculture. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition, and Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201510049.
Hou, J., Liu, W., Wang, B., et al. (2015). PGPR enhanced phytoremediation of petroleum contaminated soil and rhizosphere microbial community response. Chemosphere, 138, 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.07.025.
Hyder, S. I., Farooq, M., Sultan, T., et al. (2015). Optimizing yield and nutrients content in tomato by vermicompost application under greenhouse conditions. Natural Resources, 6, 457–464. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2015.67044.
Joseph, B., Ranjan Patra, R., & Lawrence, R. (2012). Characterization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria associated with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Plant Production, 1, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.22069/ijpp.2012.532.
Kandasamy, S., Loganathan, K., Muthuraj, R., et al. (2009). Understanding the molecular basis of plant growth promotional effect of Pseudomonas fluorescens on rice through protein profiling. Proteome Science, 7, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-7-47.
Karakurt, H., & Aslantas, R. (2010). Effects of some Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) strains on plant growth and leaf nutrient content of apple. Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research, 18, 101–110.
Kasim, W. A., Gaafar, R. M., Abou-Ali, R. M., et al. (2016). Effect of biofilm forming plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on salinity tolerance in barley. Annals of Agricultural Science, 61, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2016.07.003.
Kokalis–Burelle, N., Vavrina, C. S., Rosskopf, E. N., & Shelby, R. A. (2002). Field evaluation of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria amended transplant mixes and soil solarization for tomato and pepper production in Florida. Plant and Soil, 238, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014464716261.
Kumari, B., Mallick, M. A., & Hora, A. (2016). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their potential for development of sustainable agriculture. In P. C. Trivedi (Ed.), Bio-exploitation for sustainable agriculture (1st ed., pp. 1–19). Jaipur: Avinskar Publishing House.
Kumary, K. S. A., & Raj, S. (2016). Effect of sett type and intra-row sett spacing on yield of sugarcane varieties at Metahara Sugar Estate. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.22192/ijarbs.
Le Mire, G., Nguyen, M. L., Fassotte, B., et al. (2016). Review: Implementing plant biostimulants and biocontrol strategies in the agroecological management of cultivated ecosystems review: Implementing plant biostimulants and biocontrol strategies in the agroecological management of cultivated ecosystems. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 20, 299–313.
Lim, J.-H., & Kim, S.-D. (2013). Induction of drought stress resistance by multi-functional PGPR Bacillus licheniformis K11 in pepper. Plant Pathology Journal, 29, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.SI.02.2013.0021.
Mahmood, S., Daur, I., Al-Solaimani, S. G., et al. (2016). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and silicon synergistically enhance salinity tolerance of mung bean. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00876.
Masciarelli, O., Llanes, A., & Luna, V. (2014). A new PGPR co-inoculated with Bradyrhizobium japonicum enhances soybean nodulation. Microbiological Research, 169, 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2013.10.001.
Meena, M. K., Gupta, S., & Datta, S. (2016). Antifungal potential of PGPR, their growth promoting activity on seed germination and seedling growth of winter wheat and genetic variabilities among bacterial isolates. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 5, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2016.501.022.
Mena-Violante, H. G., & Olalde-Portugal, V. (2007). Alteration of tomato fruit quality by root inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Bacillus subtilis BEB-13bs. Scientia Horticulturae (Amsterdam), 113, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2007.01.031.
Moustaine, M., Elkahkahi, R., Benbouazza, A., et al. (2017). Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacterial (PGPR) inoculation on growth in tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) and characterization for direct PGP abilities in Morocco. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB), 2(2). https://doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.2.5.
Murphy, J. F., Zehnder, G. W., Schuster, D. J., et al. (2000). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial mediated protection in tomato against Tomato mottle virus. Plant Disease, 84, 779–784. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.7.779.
Nadeem, S. M., Zahir, Z. A., Naveed, M., & Arshad, M. (2009). Rhizobacteria containing ACC-deaminase confer salt tolerance in maize grown on salt-affected fields. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 55, 1302–1309. https://doi.org/10.1139/W09-092.
Nakkeeran, S., Fernando, W. G. D., & Siddiqui, Z. A. (2006). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria formulations and its scope in commercialization for the management of pests and diseases. PGPR Biocontrol Biofertilization, 257–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4152-7_10.
Narasimhan, K., Basheer, C., Bajic, V. B., & Swarup, S. (2003). Enhancement of plant-microbe interactions using a rhizosphere metabolomics-driven polychlorinated biphenyls 1 [w]. Plant Physiology, 132, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.102.016295.populations.
Naseri, R., Moghadam, A., Darabi, F., Hatami, A., & GRT. (2013). The effect of deficit irrigation and Azotobacter chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilense on grain yield, yield components of maize (SC 704) as a second cropping in western Iran. International Journals on Crops, Farming and Agri-Management, 2, 104–112.
Orhan, E., Esitken, A., Ercisli, S., et al. (2006). Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield, growth and nutrient contents in organically growing raspberry. Scientia Horticulturae (Amsterdam), 111, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2006.09.002.
Paul, D., & Sarma, Y. R. (2006). Plant growth promoting rhizhobacteria (PGPR)-mediated root proliferation in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) as evidenced through GS Root software. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 39, 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235400500301190.
Qiu, L., Li, Q., Zhang, J., et al. (2017). Migration of endophytic diazotroph Azorhizobium caulinodans ORS571 inside wheat (Triticum aestivum L) and its effect on microRNAs. Functional & Integrative Genomics, 17, 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-016-0534-8.
Rana, A., Saharan, B., Joshi, M., et al. (2011). Identification of multi-trait PGPR isolates and evaluating their potential as inoculants for wheat. Annales de Microbiologie, 61, 893–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-011-0211-z.
Reeves, J. (2017). Climate change effects on biological control of invasive plants by insects. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition, and Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201712001.
Sabir, A. (2013). Improvement of grafting efficiency in hard grafting grape Berlandieri hybrid rootstocks by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Scientia Horticulturae (Amsterdam), 164, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.08.035.
Shahzad, S. M., Arif, M. S., Riaz, M., et al. (2013). PGPR with varied ACC-deaminase activity induced different growth and yield response in maize (Zea mays L.) under fertilized conditions. European Journal of Soil Biology, 57, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2013.04.002.
Sharma, A., Shankhdhar, D., Sharma, A., & Shankhdhar, S. C. (2014). Growth promotion of the rice genotypes by PGPRs isolated from rice rhizosphere. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 14, 505–517. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162014005000040.
Solanki, M. K., Kumar, S., Panday, A. K., et al. (2012a). Diversity and antagonistic potential of Bacillus spp. associated to the rhizosphere of tomato for the management of Rhizoctonia solani. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 22, 203–217.
Solanki, M. K., Robert, A. S., Singh, R. K., et al. (2012b). Characterization of mycolytic enzymes of Bacillus strains and their bio-protection role against Rhizoctonia solani in tomato. Current Microbiology, 65, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0160-1.
Solanki, M. K., Singh, R. K., Srivastava, S., et al. (2015). Characterization of antagonistic-potential of two Bacillus strains and their biocontrol activity against Rhizoctonia solani in tomato. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 55, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.201300528.
Solanki, M. K., Wang, Z., Wang, F.-Y., et al. (2017). Intercropping in sugarcane cultivation influenced the soil properties and enhanced the diversity of vital diazotrophic bacteria. Sugar Tech, 19, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-016-0445-y.
Tak, H. I., Ahmad, F., & Babalola, O. O. (2013). Advances in the application of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria in phytoremediation of heavy metals. Reviews of Environmental Contamination an Toxicology, 223, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5577-6.
Tan, K. Z., Radziah, O., Halimi, M. S., et al. (2015). Assessment of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and rhizobia as multi-strain biofertilizer on growth and N2 fixation of rice plant. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 9, 1257–1264.
Tariq, M., Noman, M., Ahmed, T., et al. (2017). Antagonistic features displayed by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 35, 38–43.
Thijs, S., Sillen, W., Rineau, F., et al. (2016). Towards an enhanced understanding of plant-microbiome interactions to improve phytoremediation: Engineering the metaorganism. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00341.
Timmusk, S., Behers, L., Muthoni, J., et al. (2017). Perspectives and challenges of microbial application for crop improvement. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00049.
Vejan, P., Abdullah, R., Khadiran, T., et al. (2016). Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural sustainability-A review. Molecules, 21, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules21050573.
Vinothkumar, P., Vasuki, S., Valli, S., et al. (2012). Pgpr bacillus species isolated from tomato plant – A comparative study on coconut water enrichment. International Journal of Bioassays, 1, 131–137.
von der Weid, I., Paiva, E., Nóbrega, A., et al. (2000). Diversity of Paenibacillus polymyxa strains isolated from the rhizosphere of maize planted in Cerrado soil. Research in Microbiology, 151, 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-2508(00)00160-1.
Wallenstein, M. D. (2017). Managing and manipulating the rhizosphere microbiome for plant health: A systems approach. Rhizosphere, 3, 230–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2017.04.004.
Wang, Z., Solanki, M. K., Pang, F., et al. (2016). Identification and eficiency of a nitrogen-fixing endophytic actinobacterial strain from sugarcane. Sugar Tech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-016-0498-y.
Yandigeri, M. S., Meena, K. K., Singh, D., et al. (2012). Drought-tolerant endophytic actinobacteria promote growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under water stress conditions. Plant Growth Regulation, 68, 411–420.
Yang, J., Kloepper, J. W., & Ryu, C. M. (2009). Rhizosphere bacteria help plants tolerate abiotic stress. Trends in Plant Science, 14, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.10.004.
Yuwariah, Y. (2017). Nitrogenase activity and IAA production of indigenous diazotroph and its effect on rice seedling growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, 39, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.17503/agrivita.v39i1.653.
Zahedi, H., & Abbasi, S. (2015). Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and water stress on phytohormones and polyamines of soybean. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 49, 427–431. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijare.v49i5.5805.
Zhang, S., Reddy, M. S., & Kloepper, J. W. (2004). Tobacco growth enhancement and blue mold disease protection by rhizobacteria: Relationship between plant growth promotion and systemic disease protection by PGPR strain 90–166. Plant and Soil, 262, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PLSO.0000037048.26437.fa.
Zhang, J., Liu, J., Meng, L., et al. (2012). Isolation and characterization of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria from wheat roots by wheat germ agglutinin labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate. Journal of Microbiology, 50, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12275-012-1472-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kumari, B., Mallick, M.A., Solanki, M.K., Solanki, A.C., Hora, A., Guo, W. (2019). Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): Modern Prospects for Sustainable Agriculture. In: Ansari, R., Mahmood, I. (eds) Plant Health Under Biotic Stress. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6040-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6040-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6039-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6040-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)