Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Unleashing the Power of Beneficial Microorganisms for Advancing Crop Improvement: An In-depth Review

Altmetrics

Downloads

216

Views

132

Comments

0

Submitted:

30 September 2023

Posted:

02 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This review article explores the significance of beneficial microorganisms in crop improvement, highlighting their roles in promoting plant growth, enhancing nutrient uptake, and protecting against pathogens. The symbiotic interactions between plants and microorganisms have been extensively studied, revealing the vast potential of these beneficial partnerships in sustainable agriculture. The article discusses various types of beneficial microorganisms, including mycorrhizal fungi, rhizobia, and plant growth-promoting bacteria, elucidating their mechanisms of action and their impact on plant health and productivity. Furthermore, it examines the application of microbial inoculants and biofertilizers in crop production systems, emphasizing their potential to enhance crop yield, nutrient use efficiency, and stress tolerance. The review also explores emerging technologies, such as metagenomics and synthetic biology, in harnessing the full potential of beneficial microorganisms for crop improvement. Overall, we highlight the importance of beneficial microorganisms in sustainable agriculture and provide insights into their promising applications in crop enhancement.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Agricultural Science and Agronomy

1. Introduction

Crop improvement is a vital aspect of agriculture that aims to enhance the quality and productivity of crops to meet the increasing global demand for food, feed, and fiber. With the world's population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, there is a pressing need to develop sustainable agricultural practices that can ensure food security and reduce the environmental impact of farming (Ludmila et al., 2019). Crop improvement involves various strategies, including traditional breeding techniques, genetic engineering, and the utilization of microorganisms in plant-microbe interactions (Nitika et al., 2023).
Crop improvement plays a crucial role in agriculture by addressing the challenges faced by farmers, such as pests, diseases, climate change, and limited resources. By developing improved crop varieties, farmers can achieve higher yields, increased resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, improved nutritional value, and enhanced qualities such as taste and appearance (Deepranjan et al., 2021). These advancements not only benefit farmers but also contribute to the overall well-being of society by ensuring a stable and sufficient food supply. Crop improvement efforts have historically focused on conventional breeding techniques, which involve crossing desirable traits from different plant varieties to create offspring with improved characteristics (Temesgen et al., 2021). However, this process is time-consuming and often limited by the availability of genetic diversity within a particular crop species. Genetic engineering techniques, such as transgenic approaches, offer a more precise and efficient means of introducing desired traits into crops (Jauhar, 2006). These techniques involve the insertion of specific genes from other organisms to confer traits such as pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, and improved nutrient utilization. Genetic engineering has enabled the development of genetically modified (GM) crops that exhibit enhanced productivity and resilience (Kumar et al., 2020).
Microorganisms play a crucial role in plant-microbe interactions and have the potential to significantly impact crop improvement efforts. These interactions can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, depending on the specific microorganism and the context of the relationship. Beneficial microorganisms, commonly referred to as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), can enhance plant growth and development through various mechanisms (Vejan et al., 2016). One of the key mechanisms employed by PGPR is the production of plant growth-promoting substances (Gupta et al., 2015), such as phytohormones (e.g., auxins, cytokinins) and siderophores (iron-chelating compounds). These substances can stimulate root growth, nutrient uptake, and overall plant vigor. Additionally, PGPR can facilitate nutrient acquisition by solubilizing minerals, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and enhancing phosphorus availability through phosphate-solubilizing activities (Maqshoof et al., 2019). Furthermore, some PGPR can induce systemic resistance in plants, priming them to defend against pathogens and pests.
Another important group of microorganisms involved in plant-microbe interactions are mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi form mutualistic associations with plant roots, where they provide plants with increased nutrient uptake, particularly phosphorus. In return, the plant supplies the fungi with carbon compounds. Mycorrhizal fungi can enhance plant tolerance to various stresses, including drought, salinity, and heavy metal toxicity (Miransari, 2017; Ortas et al., 2021). In addition to promoting plant growth and stress tolerance, microorganisms can also protect crops against pathogens. Several biocontrol agents, such as Trichoderma and Bacillus species, have been identified for their ability to suppress plant diseases through mechanisms such as competition for nutrients, production of antimicrobial compounds, and induction of systemic resistance (Nusaibah & Musa, 2019).
In a nut’s shell, crop improvement is essential for sustainable agriculture and food security. Microorganisms play a significant role in plant-microbe interactions, offering opportunities for enhancing crop productivity and resilience. Harnessing the potential of beneficial microorganisms and understanding the intricacies of plant-microbe interactions can lead to the development of innovative and sustainable strategies for crop improvement.

2. Beneficial Microorganisms for Crop Improvement

2.1. Mycorrhizal Fungi and Their Impact on Nutrient Uptake

Mycorrhizal fungi form mutualistic associations with plant roots, creating structures known as mycorrhizae (Prasad et al., 2017). These associations play a crucial role in enhancing nutrient uptake and improving plant growth. Mycorrhizal fungi have a particularly significant impact on phosphorus (P) uptake, as they can access and deliver this essential nutrient to plants more efficiently than roots alone (Sally & Iver, 2011). The hyphae of mycorrhizal fungi extend beyond the root zone, exploring the soil and accessing phosphorus sources that are otherwise inaccessible to plants. This exploration allows mycorrhizal fungi to extract mineral-bound phosphorus and transport it to the plant through the mycorrhizal network. In return, the plant provides the fungi with carbohydrates produced through photosynthesis (Andrino et al., 2021). Furthermore, mycorrhizal fungi can also improve the uptake of other nutrients, such as nitrogen (N), potassium (K), and micronutrients. They achieve this by increasing the surface area of the root system through their hyphal networks, enhancing nutrient absorption. Additionally, mycorrhizal fungi can release enzymes that break down organic matter in the soil, releasing nutrients that can be taken up by the plant (Andrino et al., 2019).

2.2. Rhizobia and Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes

Leguminous plants, such as soybeans, peas, and alfalfa, have the unique ability to form symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria known as rhizobia (Kishan et al., 2020). This association allows legumes to convert atmospheric nitrogen gas (N2) into a form that is usable by plants, namely ammonium (NH4+). This process, known as nitrogen fixation, provides legumes with a significant source of nitrogen, reducing the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Rhizobia colonize the roots of leguminous plants, forming specialized structures called nodules (Liam et al., 2020). Within these nodules, rhizobia convert atmospheric nitrogen into ammonium through the enzyme nitrogenase. The legume provides the bacteria with carbohydrates and a suitable environment for their growth and activity. The nitrogen fixed by rhizobia benefits not only the legume plant but also neighboring plants in the ecosystem. When legume residues decompose, they release nitrogen into the soil, enriching it and supporting the growth of other crops or plants in the vicinity (Rochette & Janzen (2005). This phenomenon is known as the "green manure" effect and is often utilized in crop rotation systems to improve soil fertility.

2.3. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria and Their Mechanisms of Action

Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) encompass a diverse group of beneficial microorganisms that can enhance plant growth and development through various mechanisms. These bacteria colonize the rhizosphere, the region surrounding plant roots, and establish beneficial interactions with the plant (Vipin et al., 2018). One of the primary mechanisms of action employed by PGPB is the production of plant growth-promoting substances. These include phytohormones like auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins, which regulate plant growth processes. PGPB can also produce siderophores, which are iron-chelating compounds that facilitate iron uptake by plants. Furthermore, some PGPB can solubilize phosphorus and other essential nutrients, making them more available for plant uptake (Vipin et al., 2018).
In addition to nutrient acquisition, PGPB can protect plants from pathogens through several mechanisms. They can produce antimicrobial compounds, such as antibiotics and lytic enzymes, which inhibit the growth of harmful microorganisms (Manswama et al., 2022). PGPB can also induce systemic resistance in plants, priming them to mount a stronger defense response against pathogens and pests (Miguel et al., 2022). Moreover, PGPB can promote plant growth by improving nutrient uptake efficiency, enhancing root development, and increasing tolerance to abiotic stresses like drought and salinity. They can also influence the rhizosphere microbiome by modulating the composition and activity of microbial communities, which can have cascading effects on plant health and productivity (Francesco et al., 2022).
Overall, beneficial microorganisms, including mycorrhizal fungi, rhizobia, and plant growth-promoting bacteria, play pivotal roles in crop improvement. Mycorrhizal fungi enhance nutrient uptake, particularly phosphorus, while rhizobia enable nitrogen fixation in legumes, reducing the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Plant growth-promoting bacteria promote plant growth and protect against pathogens through various mechanisms. Harnessing the potential of these beneficial microorganisms can contribute to sustainable agriculture practices by enhancing crop productivity, nutrient utilization, and environmental sustainability.

3. Enhancing Plant Health and Productivity

3.1. Biocontrol Agents for Plant Disease Management

Plant diseases can cause significant losses in crop production, and their management often relies on chemical pesticides (Dewa, 2012). However, the use of synthetic pesticides raises concerns about environmental pollution and the development of pesticide resistance in pathogens (Maurizio & Pimentel, 2000). Biocontrol agents offer a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative for managing plant diseases (Moh et al., 2020). Biocontrol agents are beneficial microorganisms or natural products derived from microorganisms that can suppress plant pathogens. One example of a biocontrol agent is the fungus Trichoderma, which has been widely studied for its antagonistic activity against various plant pathogens. Trichoderma species can compete with pathogens for nutrients and space, produce antifungal compounds, and induce systemic resistance in plants, making them less susceptible to infections (Harsukh et al., 2013; Marta et al., 2022). Another biocontrol agent is the bacterium Bacillus subtilis, which produces antimicrobial compounds that inhibit the growth of plant pathogens. Bacillus subtilis can also stimulate plant defense responses and induce systemic resistance, providing long-term protection against diseases (Falardeau et al., 2013).
The use of biocontrol agents in plant disease management offers several advantages. They have a low environmental impact, as they are biodegradable and have minimal or no toxic effects on non-target organisms. Biocontrol agents can be integrated into sustainable crop management practices, reducing the reliance on synthetic pesticides and promoting ecological balance in agroecosystems (Hartmann & Six, 2023).

3.2. Induced Systemic Resistance and Plant Defense Mechanisms

Induced systemic resistance (ISR) is a plant defense mechanism that can be activated by certain beneficial microorganisms or their products. ISR enables plants to enhance their resistance against a wide range of pathogens and pests, even those that are not directly targeted by the beneficial microorganism (Tania et al., 2020; Yiyang et al., 2022). During ISR, the presence of beneficial microorganisms triggers a signaling pathway in plants, leading to the activation of defense genes and the production of defense compounds. These defense compounds include antimicrobial proteins, enzymes that degrade pathogen cell walls, and secondary metabolites with antimicrobial properties (Sherien et al., 2020). Beneficial microorganisms, such as plant growth-promoting bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi, can induce systemic resistance in plants. The activation of ISR can occur through direct interactions between the microorganism and the plant, or indirectly through the modulation of plant hormone signaling pathways (Naeem, 2022).
The activation of ISR not only enhances plant resistance to pathogens but also improves plant growth and development. It can lead to increased root and shoot biomass, improved nutrient uptake, and enhanced tolerance to abiotic stresses. ISR offers a sustainable approach to plant protection by harnessing the natural defense mechanisms of plants and reducing the reliance on chemical pesticides (Joy et al., 2014; Mukesh et al., 2020).

3.3. Improving Stress Tolerance in Crops

Crop productivity is often limited by various abiotic stresses, including drought, salinity, heat, and cold. These stresses can adversely affect plant growth, development, and yield. Beneficial microorganisms offer promising strategies for improving stress tolerance in crops (Hassan & Dinesh, 2018; Levini & Donald, 2020). Certain plant growth-promoting bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi can enhance plant tolerance to abiotic stresses. They do so by improving nutrient uptake and water use efficiency, modulating plant hormone levels, and producing stress-protective compounds like osmoprotectants and antioxidants (Enebe & Olubukola, 2018). For instance, some plant growth-promoting bacteria can synthesize enzymes that help plants tolerate drought stress by producing substances that regulate stomatal closure and reduce water loss. Other bacteria can produce compounds that scavenge reactive oxygen species, reducing oxidative damage caused by stress (Alka et al., 2021).
Mycorrhizal fungi can improve plant tolerance to drought and salinity by increasing water and nutrient uptake. The fungal hyphae extend into the soil, exploring a larger volume and accessing water and nutrients that may be located at a distance from the plant roots. This enhanced nutrient and water acquisition can alleviate the detrimental effects of abiotic stresses on crop plants (Andrés et al., 2009; Ortas et al., 2021). By improving stress tolerance in crops, beneficial microorganisms can contribute to sustainable agriculture in regions prone to abiotic stresses. They can help farmers mitigate the negative impacts of climate change and reduce yield losses caused by drought, salinity, and other environmental stressors (Jay et al., 2011; Sheridan et al., 2023).
Therefore, enhancing plant health and productivity through the use of beneficial microorganisms offers sustainable solutions for crop improvement. Biocontrol agents provide effective alternatives to synthetic pesticides for managing plant diseases. Induced systemic resistance activates plant defense mechanisms, improving resistance against pathogens. Beneficial microorganisms also enhance stress tolerance in crops, enabling them to withstand abiotic stresses. By harnessing the potential of beneficial microorganisms, farmers can cultivate healthier, more productive crops while minimizing the environmental impact of conventional agricultural practices.

4. Application of Microbial Inoculants and Biofertilizers

4.1. Types of Microbial Inoculants and Their Formulation

Microbial inoculants are preparations that contain beneficial microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, or archaea, which are applied to seeds, seedlings, or soil to enhance plant growth and productivity. These inoculants can be categorized into different types based on the microorganisms they contain and their intended functions (Malusá et al., 2012; Zvinavashe et al., 2021).

4.1.1. Rhizobial Inoculants

Rhizobial inoculants consist of nitrogen-fixing bacteria that form symbiotic associations with leguminous plants. They are formulated with specific strains of rhizobia that are compatible with the target legume species. Rhizobial inoculants are commonly used to improve nitrogen fixation in legumes, providing a sustainable source of nitrogen for plant growth (Franche et al., 2009; Vânia et al., 2019; Dicenzo et al., 2020).

4.1.2. Mycorrhizal Inoculants

Mycorrhizal inoculants contain beneficial fungal species that form mycorrhizal associations with plant roots. They are formulated with spores or mycelium of mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizal inoculants enhance nutrient uptake, particularly phosphorus, and improve plant growth and stress tolerance. They are often applied to crops that have a mutualistic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi, such as many fruit trees, vegetables, and field crops (Zaki & Ryota, 2011; Sulaimon et al., 2020).

4.1.3. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) Inoculants

PGPB inoculants consist of bacteria that promote plant growth and development through various mechanisms (Rocheli et al., 2015; Yue et al., 2022). They can be formulated with specific strains of bacteria that exhibit traits such as nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, production of phytohormones, or antagonistic activity against plant pathogens. PGPB inoculants are versatile and can be applied to a wide range of crops to enhance nutrient uptake, improve stress tolerance, and protect against diseases (Hafsa et al., 2021).

4.2. Effects of Microbial Inoculants on Crop Yield and Nutrient Use Efficiency

The application of microbial inoculants has been shown to have positive effects on crop yield and nutrient use efficiency. The beneficial microorganisms present in these inoculants can directly or indirectly influence plant growth and nutrient uptake, leading to improved productivity (Lukas et al., 2018).
Microbial inoculants that promote nitrogen fixation, such as rhizobial inoculants, can significantly enhance nitrogen availability to leguminous crops. This increased nitrogen supply leads to improved plant growth and higher crop yields. Additionally, the use of rhizobial inoculants reduces the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, thereby reducing environmental pollution and production costs (José et al., 2013; Lebin & Ishwar, 2019).
Mycorrhizal inoculants have demonstrated positive effects on crop productivity, particularly in phosphorus-deficient soils. The mycorrhizal fungi form symbiotic associations with plant roots, enhancing the uptake of phosphorus and other nutrients. This improved nutrient acquisition translates into increased crop yields and improved nutrient use efficiency.Nurudeen et al., 2021). PGPB inoculants contribute to crop productivity through various mechanisms. They can improve nutrient availability by solubilizing phosphorus and other essential nutrients in the soil. PGPB also produce phytohormones that promote root growth and enhance nutrient uptake (Nilde et al., 2017). Moreover, these inoculants can protect crops from diseases by suppressing pathogenic microorganisms and inducing plant defense mechanisms, leading to healthier plants and higher yields (Mukesh et al., 2020).

4.3. Environmental Considerations and Sustainability of Biofertilizers

The use of microbial inoculants and biofertilizers offers several environmental benefits and contributes to agricultural sustainability. These bio-based products have minimal negative impact on the environment compared to synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Poonam et al., 2021). Microbial inoculants reduce the reliance on synthetic fertilizers, which can lead to the contamination of water bodies and soil degradation (Huimin et al., 2021). By improving nutrient use efficiency and promoting nitrogen fixation, microbial inoculants help minimize nutrient runoff and leaching, reducing the pollution of water sources and minimizing eutrophication (Adesemoye et al., 2008; Adesemoye & Kloepper, 2009). Moreover, the use of microbial inoculants can contribute to the conservation of beneficial soil microorganisms and the preservation of soil health. These inoculants promote the development of a diverse and robust soil microbiome, which enhances nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and overall soil fertility (Alori et al., 2017). The sustainable nature of biofertilizers extends to their production as well. The manufacturing of microbial inoculants and biofertilizers involves the cultivation of beneficial microorganisms and the formulation of products that are compatible with specific crops. The production processes can be designed to minimize energy consumption, waste generation, and the use of harmful chemicals, ensuring eco-friendly production practices (Vassilev et al., 2015; Ahmed et al., 2022).
However, it is essential to consider certain factors for the effective and sustainable use of microbial inoculants. These include selecting appropriate microorganisms for specific crops and environmental conditions, optimizing application methods and timings, and ensuring the quality and viability of inoculant formulations. Additionally, farmer education and awareness programs are crucial for promoting the adoption of biofertilizers and maximizing their benefits (Herrmann & Lesueur, 2013).
Microbial inoculants and biofertilizers thus offer sustainable solutions for enhancing crop productivity and reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Different types of microbial inoculants, such as rhizobial inoculants, mycorrhizal inoculants, and plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) inoculants, provide specific benefits to plants, including improved nutrient uptake, stress tolerance, and disease resistance. These inoculants have been shown to enhance crop yield and nutrient use efficiency, reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and minimizing environmental pollution. Furthermore, the use of microbial inoculants promotes soil health and biodiversity, contributing to the sustainability of agroecosystems. However, careful selection of appropriate microorganisms, optimized application methods, and farmer education are essential for maximizing the effectiveness and sustainability of biofertilizers. By incorporating microbial inoculants and biofertilizers into agricultural practices, farmers can achieve higher yields, reduce environmental harm, and promote long-term agricultural sustainability.

5. Emerging Technologies and Future Perspectives

5.1. Metagenomics and Exploring Microbial Diversity

Metagenomics is a powerful tool that allows scientists to study the genetic material extracted directly from environmental samples, such as soil, water, or plant tissues. This approach enables the exploration of microbial diversity and the identification of novel microorganisms with potential agricultural applications (Gavin et al., 2018; Susannah & Edward, 2005).
By analyzing the genetic information present in metagenomic data, researchers can gain insights into the functional capabilities of microbial communities. Metagenomics has revealed a vast reservoir of untapped microbial diversity in various ecosystems, including soil and the rhizosphere, which is the region of soil surrounding plant roots (Anamika et al., 2019). The exploration of microbial diversity through metagenomics has the potential to uncover new beneficial microorganisms that can promote plant growth, enhance nutrient uptake, and provide protection against pathogens and environmental stresses. This knowledge can be harnessed to develop novel microbial inoculants and biofertilizers with improved performance and specificity (Anamika et al., 2019).

5.2. Synthetic Biology Approaches for Engineering Beneficial Microorganisms

Synthetic biology offers exciting possibilities for engineering and modifying microorganisms to enhance their beneficial traits (Surya, 2020). This field combines biology, engineering, and computer science to design and construct synthetic biological systems with desired functionalities (Andrianantoandro et al., 2006). In the context of beneficial microorganisms, synthetic biology approaches can be used to engineer microbial strains with enhanced capabilities for nutrient cycling, stress tolerance, and plant-microbe interactions. For example, researchers can introduce specific genes or gene clusters into microorganisms to enhance their nitrogen-fixing ability, improve nutrient solubilization, or increase the production of beneficial metabolites (Priyanka et al., 2020; Sanjana et al., 2021). Synthetic biology also enables the design of microbial consortia, where multiple microorganisms are engineered to work together synergistically. These consortia can perform complex tasks, such as nutrient cycling, disease suppression, or plant growth promotion, more efficiently than individual strains (Katie et al., 2008; Hao et al., 2014).
However, the application of synthetic biology to beneficial microorganisms comes with challenges. Ensuring the safety and stability of genetically modified microorganisms, understanding the potential ecological impacts of engineered strains, and addressing regulatory and public acceptance issues are important considerations for the responsible implementation of synthetic biology approaches in agriculture (Mandel & Gary, 2014; Tiedje et al., 1989).

5.3. Future Applications and Challenges in Harnessing Beneficial Microorganisms

The future holds promising applications for harnessing beneficial microorganisms in agriculture. As our understanding of plant-microbe interactions and microbial ecology improves, we can expect more targeted and precise utilization of beneficial microorganisms for specific crops and environments (Adeleke et al., 2021; Bakker et al., 2012). Some future applications may include the development of tailored microbial inoculants that are optimized for specific crop varieties, soil types, and climate conditions. These inoculants could be designed to enhance nutrient uptake, improve stress tolerance, and promote sustainable crop production (Yoav et al., 2014; Maged et Al., 2020). Furthermore, the integration of beneficial microorganisms with other emerging technologies, such as precision agriculture and digital farming, could revolutionize agricultural practices. By combining data-driven approaches, sensor technologies, and real-time monitoring, farmers can optimize the application of microbial inoculants and biofertilizers, ensuring their effectiveness and maximizing their benefits (Mohamed & Aboul, 2020; Heyu et al., 2021). However, several challenges need to be addressed to fully harness the potential of beneficial microorganisms (Catriona & Brajesh, 2014; Sudarshan et al., 2023).
One challenge is the scalability and cost-effectiveness of production processes for microbial inoculants. Large-scale production and formulation methods need to be developed to meet the demand of farmers worldwide (Ahmed et al., 2022; Mateusz et al., 2020). Another challenge is the variability and unpredictability of microbial performance in different agricultural systems. Factors such as soil conditions, climate, crop genetics, and management practices can influence the effectiveness of microbial inoculants. Understanding these complex interactions and developing strategies to enhance the stability and reliability of microbial performance is crucial (Zhiguang et al., 2019; Malusà et al., 2016). Additionally, there is a need for standardized testing protocols and quality control measures to ensure the consistency and efficacy of microbial inoculants in different contexts. Regulatory frameworks and guidelines must be developed to ensure the safety and responsible use of genetically modified microorganisms and synthetic biology approaches (Sammauria et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2022).
In sum, emerging technologies such as metagenomics (Anna et al., 2017) and synthetic biology offer exciting opportunities for exploring microbial diversity and engineering beneficial microorganisms (Nathan et al., 2016; Jo et Al., 1998). These technologies pave the way for the development of tailored microbial inoculants and biofertilizers (Shams, , 2022) as well as the integration of beneficial microorganisms with other innovative agricultural practices (Clive, 2020). However, addressing challenges related to scalability, variability, and regulatory considerations is crucial for realizing the full potential of beneficial microorganisms in agriculture (Bam & Dhanalakshmi, 2022). With continued research and collaboration between scientists, farmers, and policymakers, we can unlock the transformative power of beneficial microorganisms and shape the future of sustainable agriculture.

6. Conclusion

Beneficial microorganisms play a vital role in crop improvement and sustainable agriculture. Throughout this discussion, we have explored the application of microbial inoculants and biofertilizers, their effects on crop yield and nutrient use efficiency, and the environmental considerations associated with their use. It is evident that beneficial microorganisms offer significant benefits for enhancing plant growth, nutrient uptake, stress tolerance, and disease resistance. Microbial inoculants, such as rhizobial inoculants, mycorrhizal inoculants, and plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) inoculants, provide specific functions that contribute to crop productivity. Rhizobial inoculants enable nitrogen fixation in leguminous crops, reducing the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and minimizing environmental pollution. Mycorrhizal inoculants enhance nutrient uptake, particularly phosphorus, leading to improved crop yields. PGPB inoculants improve nutrient availability, promote root growth, and protect against pathogens, resulting in healthier plants and higher yields. The application of beneficial microorganisms not only improves crop production but also offers environmental benefits. By reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and promoting nutrient use efficiency, microbial solutions minimize nutrient runoff and leaching, reducing water pollution and eutrophication. Additionally, the use of microbial inoculants contributes to the conservation of soil health and biodiversity, promoting sustainable agroecosystems.
Microbial solutions have the potential to revolutionize agriculture and contribute to sustainable food production. The utilization of beneficial microorganisms offers an environmentally friendly alternative to synthetic chemical inputs, reducing the ecological footprint of agricultural practices. By harnessing the power of microbes, farmers can achieve higher yields and improve resource efficiency while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Furthermore, microbial solutions align with the principles of sustainable agriculture by promoting soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience. These solutions enhance the natural processes occurring in the soil, such as nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition, fostering long-term soil fertility and productivity. The integration of microbial solutions with other innovative technologies, such as precision agriculture and digital farming, opens up new possibilities for optimizing their effectiveness. By leveraging data-driven approaches and real-time monitoring, farmers can fine-tune the application of microbial inoculants and biofertilizers, ensuring their targeted and efficient use. However, to fully realize the potential of microbial solutions in sustainable agriculture, several challenges must be addressed. These include scaling up production processes, ensuring consistency and efficacy, understanding complex plant-microbe interactions, and establishing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified microorganisms and synthetic biology approaches.
In conclusion, beneficial microorganisms hold great promise for crop improvement and sustainable agriculture. Their application through microbial inoculants and biofertilizers provides numerous benefits, including enhanced crop yield, improved nutrient use efficiency, and reduced environmental impact. As we continue to explore emerging technologies, such as metagenomics and synthetic biology, and overcome challenges related to scalability and regulatory considerations, microbial solutions will play an increasingly significant role in shaping the future of agriculture. By embracing these microbial solutions, we can build a more sustainable and resilient food system that meets the challenges of a growing global population while preserving the health of our planet.

References

  1. Adeleke Bartholomew Saanu & Olubukola Oluranti Babalola (2021). The endosphere microbial communities, a great promise in agriculture. International Microbiology, 24, 1-17.
  2. Adesemoye, A. O., & Kloepper, J. W. (2009). Plant-microbes interactions in enhanced fertilizer-use efficiency. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 85, 1-12. [CrossRef]
  3. Adesemoye, A. O., Torbert, H. A., & Kloepper, J. W. (2008). Enhanced plant nutrient use efficiency with PGPR and AMF in an integrated nutrient management system. Canadian journal of microbiology, 54(10), 876-886. [CrossRef]
  4. Adewale, M. B., & Babalola, O. O. (2021). The endosphere microbial communities, a great promise in agriculture. International Microbiology, 24, 1-17.
  5. Adeyemi, N. O., Atayese, M. O., Sakariyawo, O. S., Azeez, J. O., Olubode, A. A., Ridwan, M., Adebiyi, A., Oni, O., & Ibrahim, I. (2021). Influence of different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi isolates in enhancing growth, phosphorus uptake and grain yield of soybean in a phosphorus deficient soil under field conditions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 52(10), 1171-1183. [CrossRef]
  6. Agarwal, P., Giri, B. S., & Rani, R. (2020). Unravelling the role of rhizospheric plant-microbe synergy in phytoremediation: A genomic perspective. Current Genomics, 21(5), 334-342. [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmad, M., Adil, Z., Hussain, A., Mumtaz, M. Z., Nafees, M., Ahmad, I., & Jamil, M. (2019). Potential of phosphate solubilizing Bacillus strains for improving growth and nutrient uptake in mungbean and maize crops. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 56(2).
  8. Ahmed, S. M. E., El-Saadony, M. T., Saad, A. M., Desoky, E. M., El-Tahan, A. M., Rady, M. M., AbuQamar, S. F., & El-Tarabily, K. A. (2022). The use of microbial inoculants for biological control, plant growth promotion, and sustainable agriculture: A review. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 162(4), 759-792. [CrossRef]
  9. Alberto, A., Boy, J., Mikutta, R., Sauheitl, L., & Guggenberger, G. (2019). Carbon investment required for the mobilization of inorganic and organic phosphorus bound to goethite by an arbuscular mycorrhiza (Solanum lycopersicum x Rhizophagus irregularis). Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7, 26. [CrossRef]
  10. Alberto, A., Guggenberger, G., Kernchen, S., Mikutta, R., Sauheitl, L., & Boy, J. (2021). Production of organic acids by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and their contribution in the mobilization of phosphorus bound to iron oxides. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 661842. [CrossRef]
  11. Ali, N. S., & Musa, H. A. (2019). Review report on the mechanism of Trichoderma spp. as biological control agent of the Basal Stem Rot (BSR) disease of Elaeis guineensis. In M. S. Mohammad, U. Sharif, & T. R. Buhari (Eds.), Trichoderma—The Most Widely Used Fungicide (1st ed., pp. 79-90).
  12. Alori, E. T., Dare, M. O., & Babalola, O. O. (2017). Microbial inoculants for soil quality and plant health. Sustainable agriculture reviews, 281-307.
  13. Andrianantoandro, E., Basu, S., Karig, D. K., & Weiss, R. (2006). Synthetic biology: New engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular systems biology, 2(1), 2006.0028. [CrossRef]
  14. Anna Lewin, Rahmi Lale, & Alexander Wentzel (2017). Expression Platforms for Functional Metagenomics: Emerging Technology Options Beyond Escherichia coli. In : Functional metagenomics: Tools and applications (pp. 13-44).
  15. Bakker, M. G., Manter, D. K., Sheflin, A. M., Weir, T. L., & Vivanco, J. M. (2012). Harnessing the rhizosphere microbiome through plant breeding and agricultural management. Plant and Soil, 360, 1-13. [CrossRef]
  16. Bam, B. S., & Dhanalakshmi (2022). Recent advancements and challenges of Internet of Things in smart agriculture: A survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 126, 169-184.
  17. Bashan, Y., de-Bashan, L. E., Prabhu, S. R., & Hernandez, J. P. (2014). Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: Formulations and practical perspectives (1998–2013). Plant and Soil, 378, 1-33. [CrossRef]
  18. Begna, T. (2021). Conventional Breeding Methods Widely used to Improve Self-Pollinated Crops. International Journal of Research, 7(1), 1-16.
  19. Boro, M., Sannyasi, S., Chettri, D., & Verma, A. K. (2022). Microorganisms in biological control strategies to manage microbial plant pathogens: A review. Archives of Microbiology, 204(11), 666. [CrossRef]
  20. Brenner, K., You, L., & Arnold, F. H. (2008). Engineering microbial consortia: A new frontier in synthetic biology. Trends in biotechnology, 26(9), 483-489. [CrossRef]
  21. Catriona Macdonald & Brajesh Singh (2014). Harnessing plant-microbe interactions for enhancing farm productivity. Bioengineered, 5(1), 5-9. [CrossRef]
  22. Clive A. Edwards (2020). The importance of integration in sustainable agricultural systems. In : Sustainable agricultural systems (pp. 249-264).
  23. Dewa Ngurah Suprapta (2012). Potential of microbial antagonists as biocontrol agents against plant fungal pathogens. Journal of ISSAAS (International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences), 18(2), 1-8.
  24. Di Benedetto, N. A., Corbo, M. R., Campaniello, D., Cataldi, M. P., Bevilacqua, A., Sinigaglia, M., & Flagella, Z. (2017). The role of plant growth promoting bacteria in improving nitrogen use efficiency for sustainable crop production: A focus on wheat. AIMS microbiology, 3(3), 413. [CrossRef]
  25. Dicenzo, G. C., Tesi, M., Pfau, T., Mengoni, A., & Fondi, M. (2020). Genome-scale metabolic reconstruction of the symbiosis between a leguminous plant and a nitrogen-fixing bacterium. Nature Communications, 11(1), 2574. [CrossRef]
  26. Dubey, A., Malla, M. A., Khan, F., Chowdhary, K., Yadav, S., Kumar, A., Sharma, S., Khare, P. K., & Khan, M. L. (2019). Soil microbiome: A key player for conservation of soil health under changing climate. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28, 2405-2429. [CrossRef]
  27. Elnahal, A. S. M., El-Saadony, M. T., Saad, A. M., Desoky, E. M., El-Tahan, A. M., Rady, M. M., AbuQamar, S. F., & El-Tarabily, K. A. (2022). The use of microbial inoculants for biological control, plant growth promotion, and sustainable agriculture: A review. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 162(4), 759-792. [CrossRef]
  28. Falardeau, J., Wise, C., Novitsky, L., & Avis, T. J. (2013). Ecological and Mechanistic Insights Into the Direct and Indirect Antimicrobial Properties of Bacillus subtilis Lipopeptides on Plant Pathogens. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39, 869-878. [CrossRef]
  29. Francesco, V., Novello, G., Bona, E., Gorrasi, S., & Gamalero, E. (2022). Impact of plant-beneficial bacterial inocula on the resident bacteriome: Current knowledge and future perspectives. Microorganisms, 10(12), 2462. [CrossRef]
  30. Franche, C., Lindström, K., & Elmerich, C. (2009). Nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with leguminous and non-leguminous plants. Plant and Soil, 321, 35-59.
  31. Gajera, H., Domadiya, R., Patel, S., Kapopara, M., & Golakiya, B. (2013). Molecular mechanism of Trichoderma as bio-control agents against phytopathogen system–a review. Current Research in Microbiology and Biotechnology, 1(4), 133-142.
  32. Gonzalez Guzman, M., Cellini, F., Fotopoulos, V., Balestrini, R., & Arbona, V. (2022). New approaches to improve crop tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Physiologia Plantarum, 174(1), e13547. [CrossRef]
  33. Gupta, G., Singh Parihar, S., Kumar Ahirwar, N., Kumar Snehi, S., & Singh, V. (2015). Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): current and future prospects for development of sustainable agriculture. J Microb Biochem Technol, 7(2), 096-102.
  34. Handelsman, J., Rondon, M. R., Brady, S. F., Clardy, J., & Goodman, R. M. (1998). Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: A new frontier for natural products. Chemistry & Biology, 5(10), R245-R249. [CrossRef]
  35. Harsukh Gajera, Rinkal Domadiya, Sunil Patel, Mansukh Kapopara, & Balubhai Golakiya. (2013). Molecular mechanism of Trichoderma as bio-control agents against phytopathogen system–a review. Current Research in Microbiology and Biotechnology, 1(4), 133-142.
  36. Hartmann, M., & Six, J. (2023). Soil structure and microbiome functions in agroecosystems. Nature Reviews, Earth & Environment, 4(1), 4-18. [CrossRef]
  37. Hassan, E., & Maheshwari, D. K. (2018). Use of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) with multiple plant growth promoting traits in stress agriculture: Action mechanisms and future prospects. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 156, 225-246.
  38. Herrmann, L., & Lesueur, D. (2013). Challenges of formulation and quality of biofertilizers for successful inoculation. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 97(20), 8859-8873. [CrossRef]
  39. Heyu Yin, Yunteng Cao, Benedetto Marelli, Xiangqun Zeng, Andrew J. Mason, & Changyong Cao. (2021). Soil sensors and plant wearables for smart and precision agriculture. Advanced Materials, 33(20), 2007764.
  40. Jauhar, P. P. (2006). Modern biotechnology as an integral supplement to conventional plant breeding: The prospects and challenges. Crop science, 46(5), 1841-1859. [CrossRef]
  41. Jo Handelsman, Michelle R. Rondon, Sean F. Brady, Jon Clardy, & Robert M. Goodman (1998). Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: A new frontier for natural products. Chemistry & Biology, 5(10), R245-R249. [CrossRef]
  42. Johns, N. I., Blazejewski, T., Gomes, A. L. C., & Wang, H. H. (2016). Principles for designing synthetic microbial communities. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 31, 146-153. [CrossRef]
  43. Kaul, S., Choudhary, M., Gupta, S., & Dhar, M. K. (2021). Engineering host microbiome for crop improvement and sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 635917. [CrossRef]
  44. Khan, M. T., & Hassanein, A. E. (2020). Integrating blockchain and the internet of things in precision agriculture: Analysis, opportunities, and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 178, 105476.
  45. Khan, S. T. (2022). Consortia-based microbial inoculants for sustaining agricultural activities. Applied Soil Ecology, 176, 104503. [CrossRef]
  46. Krishan, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A. K., Singh, A., Jha, A. K., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251, 1-27. [CrossRef]
  47. Lear, G., Dickie, I., Banks, J., Boyer, S., Buckley, H. L., Buckley, T. R., Cruickshank, R., Dopheide, A., Handley, K. M., Hermans, S., Kamke, J., Lee, C. K., MacDiarmid, R., Morales, S. E., Orlovich, D. A., Smissen, R., Wood, J., & Holdaway, R. (2018). Methods for the extraction, storage, amplification and sequencing of DNA from environmental samples. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 42(1), 10-50A. [CrossRef]
  48. Levini A Msimbira, & Donald L Smith. (2020). The roles of plant growth promoting microbes in enhancing plant tolerance to acidity and alkalinity stresses. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 106. [CrossRef]
  49. Lewin, A., Lale, R., & Wentzel, A. (2017). Expression Platforms for Functional Metagenomics: Emerging Technology Options Beyond Escherichia coli. In : Functional metagenomics: Tools and applications (pp. 13-44).
  50. Mącik, M., Gryta, A., & Frąc, M. (2020). Biofertilizers in agriculture: An overview on concepts, strategies and effects on soil microorganisms. Advances in agronomy, 162, 31-87. [CrossRef]
  51. Maged M Saad, Abdul Aziz Eida, & Heribert Hirt (2020). Tailoring plant-associated microbial inoculants in agriculture: A roadmap for successful application. Journal of Experimental Botany, 71(13), 3878-3901. [CrossRef]
  52. Mahmud, K., Makaju, S., Ibrahim, R., & Missaoui, A. (2020). Current progress in nitrogen fixing plants and microbiome research. Plants, 9(1), 97.
  53. Malusà, E., F Pinzari, & L Canfora (2016). Efficacy of biofertilizers: Challenges to improve crop production. In : Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity: Vol. 2: Functional Applications (pp. 17-40).
  54. Mandel, G. N., & Marchant, G. E. (2014). The living regulatory challenges of synthetic biology. Iowa L. Rev., 100, 155.
  55. Marta Modrzewska, Marcin Bryła, Joanna Kanabus, Adam Pierzgalski (2022). Trichoderma as a biostimulator and biocontrol agent against Fusarium in the production of cereal crops: Opportunities and possibilities. Plant Pathology, 71(7), 1471-1485. [CrossRef]
  56. Mateusz Mącik, Agata Gryta, & Magdalena Frąc (2020). Biofertilizers in agriculture: An overview on concepts, strategies and effects on soil microorganisms. Advances in Agronomy, 162, 31-87. [CrossRef]
  57. Maurizio G Paoletti, Pimentel D. (2000). Environmental risks of pesticides versus genetic engineering for agricultural pest control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 279-303. [CrossRef]
  58. Meena, M., Swapnil, P., Divyanshu, K., Kumar, S., Harish,, Tripathi, Y. N., Zehra, A., Marwal, A., & Upadhyay, R. S. (2020). PGPR-mediated induction of systemic resistance and physiochemical alterations in plants against the pathogens: Current perspectives. Journal of Basic Microbiology, 60(10), 828-861. [CrossRef]
  59. Miransari, M. (2017). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and heavy metal tolerance in plants. In : Arbuscular mycorrhizas and stress tolerance of plants (pp. 147-161).
  60. Modrzewska, M., Bryła, M., Kanabus, J., & Pierzgalski, A. (2022). Trichoderma as a biostimulator and biocontrol agent against Fusarium in the production of cereal crops: Opportunities and possibilities. Plant Pathology, 71(7), 1471-1485. [CrossRef]
  61. Moh Tariq, Khan, A., Asif, M., Khan, F., Ansari, T., Shariq, M., & Siddiqui, M. A. (2020). Biological control: a sustainable and practical approach for plant disease management. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science, 70(6), 507-524. [CrossRef]
  62. Mohammed Torky, & Aboul Ella Hassanein (2020). Integrating blockchain and the internet of things in precision agriculture: Analysis, opportunities, and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 178, 105476. [CrossRef]
  63. Ortas, I., Rafique, M., & Çekiç, F. Ö. (2021). Do Mycorrhizal Fungi enable plants to cope with abiotic stresses by overcoming the detrimental effects of salinity and improving drought tolerance? In Symbiotic Soil Microorganisms: Biology and Applications (pp. 391-428).
  64. Pankievicz, V., Irving, T. B., Maia, L. G. S., & Ané, J. M. (2019). Are we there yet? The long walk towards the development of efficient symbiotic associations between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and non-leguminous crops. BMC Biology, 17(1), 1-17. [CrossRef]
  65. Paoletti, M. G., & Pimentel, D. (2000). Environmental risks of pesticides versus genetic engineering for agricultural pest control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 279-303. [CrossRef]
  66. Qiu, Z., Egidi, E., Liu, H., Kaur, S., & Singh, B. K. (2019). New frontiers in agriculture productivity: Optimised microbial inoculants and in situ microbiome engineering. Biotechnology Advances, 37(6), 107371. [CrossRef]
  67. Ram, P., Bhola, D., Akdi, K., Cruz, C., Sairam, K. V. S. S., Tuteja, N., & Varma, A. (2017). Introduction to mycorrhiza: Historical development. Mycorrhiza-Function, Diversity, State of the Art, 1-7.
  68. Rochette, P., & Janzen, H. H. (2005). Towards a revised coefficient for estimating N2O emissions from legumes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 73, 171-179. [CrossRef]
  69. Sammauria, R., Kumawat, S., Kumawat, P., Singh, J., & Jatwa, T. K. (2020). Microbial inoculants: Potential tool for sustainability of agricultural production systems. Archives of Microbiology, 202(4), 677-693. [CrossRef]
  70. Sarkar, D., Dubey, P. K., Chaurasiya, R., Sankar, A., Shikha, Chatterjee, N., Ganguly, S., Meena, V. S., Meena, S. K., Parewa, H. P., & Rakshit, A. (2021). Organic interventions conferring stress tolerance and crop quality in agroecosystems during the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Land Degradation & Development, 32(17), 4797-4816. [CrossRef]
  71. Shams Tabrez Khan (2022). Consortia-based microbial inoculants for sustaining agricultural activities. Applied Soil Ecology, 176, 104503. [CrossRef]
  72. Sharma, P., Gaur, V. K., Sirohi, R., Varjani, S., Kim, S. H., & Wong, J. W. C. (2021). Sustainable processing of food waste for production of bio-based products for circular bioeconomy. Bioresource Technology, 325, 124684. [CrossRef]
  73. Siddiqui, Z. A., & Kataoka, R. (2011). Mycorrhizal inoculants: Progress in inoculant production technology. Microbes and Microbial Technology: Agricultural and Environmental Applications, 489-506.
  74. Singh, V. K., Singh, A. K., Singh, P. P., & Kumar, A. (2018). Interaction of plant growth promoting bacteria with tomato under abiotic stress: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 267, 129-140. [CrossRef]
  75. Skaf, L., Buonocore, E., Dumontet, S., Capone, R., & Franzese, P. P. (2019). Food security and sustainable agriculture in Lebanon: An environmental accounting framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1025-1032. [CrossRef]
  76. Smith, S. E., & Jakobsen, I. (2011). Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant phosphorus nutrition: Interactions between pathways of phosphorus uptake in arbuscular mycorrhizal roots have important implications. Plant Physiology, 156(3), 1050-1057. [CrossRef]
  77. Song, H., Ding, M. Z., Jia, X. Q., Ma, Q., & Yuan, Y. J. (2014). Synthetic microbial consortia: From systematic analysis to construction and applications. Chemical Society Reviews, 43(20), 6954-6981. [CrossRef]
  78. Sudarshan Sahu, Anupreet Kaur, Gursharan Singh, & Shailendra Kumar Arya (2023). Harnessing the potential of microalgae-bacteria interaction for eco-friendly wastewater treatment: A review on new strategies involving machine learning and artificial intelligence. Journal of Environmental Management, 346, 119004. [CrossRef]
  79. Sudheer, S., Bai, R. G., Usmani, Z., & Sharma, M. (2020). Insights on engineered microbes in sustainable agriculture: Biotechnological developments and future prospects. Current Genomics, 21(5), 321-333. [CrossRef]
  80. Sulaimon Basiru, Hopkins Pachalo Mwanza, & Mohamed Hijri (2020). Analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculant benchmarks. Microorganisms, 9(1), 81. [CrossRef]
  81. Suprapta, D. N. (2012). Potential of microbial antagonists as biocontrol agents against plant fungal pathogens. Journal of ISSAAS (International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences), 18(2), 1-8.
  82. Syed Ali, N., & Musa, H. A. (2019). Review report on the mechanism of Trichoderma spp. as biological control agent of the Basal Stem Rot (BSR) disease of Elaeis guineensis. In : M. S. Mohammad, U. Sharif, & T. R. Buhari (Eds.), Trichoderma—The Most Widely Used Fungicide (1st ed., pp. 79-90).
  83. Thakur, N., Nigam, M., Mann, N. A., Gupta, S., Hussain, C. M., Shukla, S. K., Shah, A. A., Casini, R., Elansary, H. O., & Khan, S. A. (2023). Host-mediated gene engineering and microbiome-based technology optimization for sustainable agriculture and environment. Functional & Integrative Genomics, 23(1), 57. [CrossRef]
  84. Tiedje, J. M., Colwell, R. K., Grossman, Y. L., Hodson, R. E., Lenski, R. E., Mack, R. N., & Regal, P. J. (1989). The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: Ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology, 70(2), 298-315. [CrossRef]
  85. Timmermann, T., González, B., & Ruz, G. A. (2020). Reconstruction of a gene regulatory network of the induced systemic resistance defense response in Arabidopsis using boolean networks. BMC Bioinformatics, 21, 1-16. [CrossRef]
  86. Torky, M., & Hassanein, A. E. (2020). Integrating blockchain and the internet of things in precision agriculture: Analysis, opportunities, and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 178, 105476. [CrossRef]
  87. Tringe, S. G., & Rubin, E. M. (2005). Metagenomics: DNA sequencing of environmental samples. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(11), 805-814. [CrossRef]
  88. Vânia Pankievicz, Thomas B Irving, Lucas GS Maia, Jean-Michel Ané (2019). Are we there yet? The long walk towards the development of efficient symbiotic associations between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and non-leguminous crops. BMC Biology, 17(1), 1-17. [CrossRef]
  89. Vassilev, N., Vassileva, M., Lopez, A., Martos, V., Reyes, A., Maksimovic, I., Eichler-Löbermann, B., & Malusa, E. (2015). Unexploited potential of some biotechnological techniques for biofertilizer production and formulation. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 99, 4983-4996. [CrossRef]
  90. Vejan, P., Abdullah, R., Khadiran, T., Ismail, S., & Boyce, A. N. (2016). Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural sustainability—a review. Molecules, 21(5), 573. [CrossRef]
  91. Walker, L., Lagunas, B., & Gifford, M. L. (2020). Determinants of host range specificity in legume-rhizobia symbiosis. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 3028. [CrossRef]
  92. Xie, H., Wu, K., Iqbal, A., Ali, I., He, L., Ullah, S., Wei, S., Zhao, Q., Wu, X., Huang, Q., & Jiang, L. (2021). Synthetic nitrogen coupled with seaweed extract and microbial inoculants improves rice (Oryza sativa L.) production under a dual cropping system. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 16(2). [CrossRef]
  93. Yiyang Yu, Ying Gui, Zijie Li, Chunhao Jiang, Jianhua Guo, Dongdong Niu (2022). Induced systemic resistance for improving plant immunity by beneficial microbes. Plants, 11(3), 386. [CrossRef]
  94. Yoav Bashan, Luz E de-Bashan, SR Prabhu, & Juan-Pablo Hernandez (2014). Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: Formulations and practical perspectives (1998–2013). Plant and soil, 378, 1-33.
  95. Yu, Y., Gui, Y., Li, Z., Jiang, C., Guo, J., & Niu, D. (2022). Induced systemic resistance for improving plant immunity by beneficial microbes. Plants, 11(3), 386. [CrossRef]
  96. Zaki A Siddiqui, Ryota Kataoka (2011). Mycorrhizal inoculants: progress in inoculant production technology. Microbes and Microbial Technology: Agricultural and Environmental Applications, 489-506.
  97. Zehra, A., Raytekar, N. A., Meena, M., & Swapnil, P. (2021). Efficiency of microbial bio-agents as elicitors in plant defense mechanism under biotic stress: A review. Current Research in Microbial Sciences, 2, 100054. [CrossRef]
  98. Zhiguang Qiu, Eleonora Egidi, Hongwei Liu, Simranjit Kaur, & Brajesh K Singh (2019). New frontiers in agriculture productivity: Optimised microbial inoculants and in situ microbiome engineering. Biotechnology advances, 37(6), 107371. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated