Next Article in Journal
Grain Yield of Maize Crops under Nitrogen Fertigation Using Wastewater from Swine and Fish Farming
Next Article in Special Issue
Microbiocenosis of the Permafrost Soils of Transbaikalia under Agriculture Use
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptomic Insights into the Development of Olecranon Honey Peach Fruits Using Two Different Planting Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Inoculation with Different Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on the Eco-Physiological and Stomatal Characteristics of Walnut Seedlings under Drought Stress
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Developing Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: A Crucial Approach for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture

1
National Engineering Research Center for Efficient Utilization of Soil and Fertilizer Resources, College of Resources and Environment, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
2
The UWA Institute of Agriculture, School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(7), 1835; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071835
Submission received: 28 June 2023 / Revised: 8 July 2023 / Accepted: 10 July 2023 / Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Rhizosphere Microorganisms)

1. Introduction

The rhizosphere is the zone surrounding plant roots where microbial activity attains its maximum potential, playing pivotal roles in maintaining plant health. Hence, the rhizosphere microbiome has been recognized as the second most important genome in plants. Among plant genomes, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) has various beneficial functions, and thus has been extensively studied and used to increase plant productivity [1,2]. PGPRs can promote plant growth via multiple pathways, including the activation of nutrients and decreased reliance on chemical fertilizer [3]; the suppression of soil-borne disease via the production of antibiotics [4]; the priming of plant defenses by inducing systemic resistance (ISR) [5]; and maintaining the balance of soil microbiota [6]. PGPRs serve as the most major source of biofertilizer strains, enhancing soil quality and promoting sustainable agriculture with reduced reliance on fertilizers or pesticides. Based on previously published articles and prospective manuscripts, this Editorial provides a rational basis for achieving sustainable agriculture through the use of PGPRs.

2. Overview of the Special Issue

This Special Issue collates research articles that present new developments and methodologies related to PGPRs. These include the promotion of germination and shoot development [7], the enhancement of root colonization ability and nodule formation [8], and the responses of rhizosphere microbials under salt and drought stress [9,10,11].

2.1. Growth Promotion

The application of PGPRs enhanced seed germination rates and the vigorous growth of cucumber seedlings. Pérez-García et al. [7] found that Bacillus cereus (KBEndo4P6), Acinetobacter radioresistens (KBEndo3P1), Pseudomonas paralactis (KBEndo6P7), and Sinorhizobium meliloti (KBEkto9P6) significantly improved the germination index, vigor, radicle length and phytochemical compounds in plants, demonstrating promising applications.

2.2. Abiotic Stresses

Abiotic stresses are major constraints on crop yield, food quality, and food security. Bacillus cereus L90 can improve the photosynthetic characteristic of walnut (Juglans regia) by increasing the production of IAA, gibberellins, and zeatin [10]. Similarly, Bacillus subtilis GE1 and Pseudomonas brassicacearum X123 can enhance the drought adaptability of walnut seedlings [11].

2.3. Soil Microbial Community

Salt stress can change the microbial community structure of rhizosphere. Xia et al. [9] found that the core rhizosphere phyla of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) may be the key to salt stress adaptability, including Proteobacteria, Acidobacteriota, and Ascomycota.

2.4. Chemotaxis

Chemotaxis and motility are the two factors that determine the ability to colonize roots. Ensifer alkalisoli YIC4027T established a nitrogen-fixing symbiosis on the roots of Sesbania cannabina. Guo et al. [8] found that motile rhizobia utilize a novel strategy in two pathways, che1 and che2, to enhance the efficiency of nodule formation in S. cannabina.

3. Role of PGPRs in Biocontrol

PGPRs can provide benefits to plants, and many studies have demonstrated the potential roles of PGPRs as biological control agents, replacing synthetic fungicides [12]. The investigation of the biocontrol potential of PGPRs in the rhizosphere, which includes the associated mechanisms of biocontrol and the ability to increase crop productivity under biotic stress conditions, is also an important research topic of this Special Issue.

3.1. Production of Bioactive Substance

PGPRs can produce a variety of bioactive substances that have the potential to inhibit the growth or activity of other microorganisms. One of the most important of these bioactive substances is metabolites. PGPRs produce antimicrobial substances via both ribosomal and non-ribosomal synthesis pathways [13]. Bacteriocins are a common type of antibiotic synthesized by ribosomal pathways, while lipopeptides (LPs) and polyketides (PKs) are produced via non-ribosomal synthesis pathways [14,15]. PGPRs such as Bacillus sp. strains allocate a relatively substantial proportion of their genomes to synthesizing diverse antibiotics. Bacillus velezensis FZB42 dedicates over 10% of its genome to biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) that encode antibiotics for antagonizing plant pathogen [16,17], as well as Bacillus velezensis SQR9 [18,19].
Aside from antibiosis, PGPRs are capable of secreting extracellular hydrolytic enzymes [20], the presence of the chitinase of Rhizobacteria impedes the germination and germ tube elongation of the pathogenic fungus [21]. Bacillus subtilis secretes chitinase, protease and cellulase, which can lyse Rhizoctonia solani, among other enzymes [22]. Other enzymes, such as glucanase, xylanase and pectinase, were also found to be responsible for inhibiting mycelial growth [23,24,25].

3.2. Competition for Nutrients and Space

The efficient colonization of the root system by PGPRs is a crucial step in biocontrol processes. Plants release organic nutrients onto the root surface and into the rhizosphere, which creates diverse niches that attract a wide range of microorganisms [20,26]. Additionally, these nutrients function as chemical signals for motile bacteria to migrate towards the root surface [27,28]. PGPRs establish a strong and beneficial inter-relationship with plants via chemoreceptors, which enable them to sense chemo-attractants and form biofilms on roots for the long-term colonization of the rhizosphere [29,30].
In addition to physical sites, competition for nutrients at root surfaces represents an indirect but important strategy of PGPRs against pathogens that depend on limited external resources [31]. Iron nutrient competition is a crucial area of research focus. In aerobic soil, iron exists in insoluble forms that are almost or completely inaccessible for most microorganisms. However, PGPRs have evolved to acquire ferric iron through the production of siderophores, which enables the solubilization of iron and its increase its availability mineral or organic complexes [32,33]. Therefore, the production of siderophores by PGPRs provides them with a competitive advantage in colonizing roots and excluding plant pathogens from rhizosphere ecological niches.

3.3. Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR)

ISR refers to the plant’s ability to resist a wide variety of attackers, including phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi [34]. This non-specific protection can be activated by PGPRs through elicitors. Most PGPRs employ a salicylic acid-independent pathway to activate ISR, involving jasmonate and ethylene [35,36]. PGPRs induce ISR responses by modulating physical and biochemical properties in plants, leading to a reduction in plant diseases [37,38]. ISR has been extensively studied in many PGPRs strains, particularly those from the genera, Bacillus and Pseudomonas, as well as other symbiotic groups of rhizobacteria [23,39,40,41]. However, the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of these bacteria, including their selection and interaction with plant immune systems, remain poorly understood. Further research is required to distinguish these mechanisms from those employed by pathogenic bacteria.

4. Conclusions and Prospects

Currently, the widespread use of agrochemicals in major field crops poses serious threats to the environment. However, PGPRs have multifarious beneficial activities for plant growth and could potentially be substitute for or supplement toxic chemicals due to their promising applications in organic farming, which can lead to sustainable agricultural practices [6,42,43].
The most studied PGPRs are members of the genera, Azospirillum, Bacillus, Pseudomonas, etc. However, most significantly, different species of PGPRs produce diverse bioactive substances and elicitors. The great advantage of suppressing multiple pathogens through a mixture is thus increased. Moreover, certain combinations of PGPR strains fail to have synergistic or comparable effects on both disease control and plant growth when compared to their individual counterparts [44]. Significant recent advances in the integrated fields of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics at the level of PGPR–PGPR and PGPR–host interactions open up opportunities for further research on synthetic microbiomes [45].
Recent developments in biotechnological and bioinformatics have made it much easier to obtain the whole-genome sequences of PGPRs, which can be utilized to investigate the molecular and biochemical mechanisms involved in plant–microbe interactions [46]. Various bioinformatics tools, such as genome mining and deep learning, are currently being used to rapidly identify promotion mechanisms [47]. Additionally, synthetic biology is playing a significant role in stable gene expression to aid the growth promotion and disease management of plants [42].
Many PGPRs possess the capability to enhance plant growth, and some of them have already been commercialized. However, screening for multi-trait potential strains requires further research. There is a significant potential to enhance the productivity of field crops via the strategic application of newly discovered PGPRs. Therefore, based on PGPR mixtures, biotechnological, and bioinformatics approaches, future research directions should focus on enhancing the biofertilization, biocontrol, bioremediation, and alleviation of both biotic and abiotic stresses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.X. and D.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.X. and D.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.C. and C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFD1201700), Key R&D program of Shandong Province (2021CXGC010804) and Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (ZR2021QC175).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kloepper, J.W. Relationship of in Vitro Antibiosis of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria to Plant Growth and the Displacement of Root Microflora. Phytopathology 1981, 71, 1020–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lugtenberg, B.; Kamilova, F. Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 63, 541–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Oleńska, E.; Małek, W.; Wójcik, M.; Swiecicka, I.; Thijs, S.; Vangronsveld, J. Beneficial Features of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Improving Plant Growth and Health in Challenging Conditions: A Methodical Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jiao, X.; Takishita, Y.; Zhou, G.; Smith, D.L. Plant Associated Rhizobacteria for Biocontrol and Plant Growth Enhancement. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 634796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mashabela, M.D.; Piater, L.A.; Dubery, I.A.; Tugizimana, F.; Mhlongo, M.I. Rhizosphere Tripartite Interactions and PGPR-Mediated Metabolic Reprogramming towards ISR and Plant Priming: A Metabolomics Review. Biology 2022, 11, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vejan, P.; Abdullah, R.; Khadiran, T.; Ismail, S.; Nasrulhaq Boyce, A. Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in Agricultural Sustainability-A Review. Molecules 2016, 21, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Pérez-García, L.-A.; Sáenz-Mata, J.; Fortis-Hernández, M.; Navarro-Muñoz, C.E.; Palacio-Rodríguez, R.; Preciado-Rangel, P. Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve Germination and Bioactive Compounds in Cucumber Seedlings. Agronomy 2023, 13, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guo, T.; Zhou, Y.; Xie, Z.; Meng, F. The Two Chemotaxis Gene Clusters of Ensifer Alkalisoli YIC4027T, a Symbiont of Sesbania Cannabina, Play Different Roles in Chemotaxis and Competitive Nodulation. Agronomy 2023, 13, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xia, F.; Hao, H.; Qi, Y.; Bai, H.; Li, H.; Shi, Z.; Shi, L. Effect of Salt Stress on Microbiome Structure and Diversity in Chamomile (Matricaria Chamomilla L.) Rhizosphere Soil. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, F.; Ma, H.; Liu, B.; Du, Z.; Ma, B.; Jing, D. Effects of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on the Physioecological Characteristics and Growth of Walnut Seedlings under Drought Stress. Agronomy 2023, 13, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jing, D.; Liu, B.; Ma, H.; Liu, F.; Liu, X.; Ren, L. Effects of Inoculation with Different Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on the Eco-Physiological and Stomatal Characteristics of Walnut Seedlings under Drought Stress. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, H.; Liu, R.; You, M.P.; Barbetti, M.J.; Chen, Y. Pathogen Biocontrol Using Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPR): Role of Bacterial Diversity. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hamdache, A.; Lamarti, A.; Aleu, J.; Collado, I.G. Non-Peptide Metabolites from the Genus Bacillus. J. Nat. Prod. 2011, 74, 893–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Miao, S.; Liang, J.; Xu, Y.; Yu, G.; Shao, M. Bacillaene, Sharp Objects Consist in the Arsenal of Antibiotics Produced by Bacillus. J. Cell. Physiol. 2023. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dunlap, C.A.; Bowman, M.J.; Rooney, A.P. Iturinic Lipopeptide Diversity in the Bacillus Subtilis Species Group—Important Antifungals for Plant Disease Biocontrol Applications. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Chen, X.H.; Koumoutsi, A.; Scholz, R.; Eisenreich, A.; Schneider, K.; Heinemeyer, I.; Morgenstern, B.; Voss, B.; Hess, W.R.; Reva, O.; et al. Comparative Analysis of the Complete Genome Sequence of the Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterium Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chowdhury, S.P.; Hartmann, A.; Gao, X.; Borriss, R. Biocontrol Mechanism by Root-Associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42—A Review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Zhang, N.; Yang, D.; Wang, D.; Miao, Y.; Shao, J.; Zhou, X.; Xu, Z.; Li, Q.; Feng, H.; Li, S.; et al. Whole Transcriptomic Analysis of the Plant-Beneficial Rhizobacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9 during Enhanced Biofilm Formation Regulated by Maize Root Exudates. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wang, D.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, G.; Xia, L.; Dong, X.; Li, Q.; Liles, M.R.; Shao, J.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, R. A Genomic Island in a Plant Beneficial Rhizobacterium Encodes Novel Antimicrobial Fatty Acids and a Self-Protection Shield to Enhance Its Competition. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 21, 3455–3471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Santoyo, G.; Urtis-Flores, C.A.; Loeza-Lara, P.D.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.C.; Glick, B.R. Rhizosphere Colonization Determinants by Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). Biology 2021, 10, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mohamed, I.; Eid, K.E.; Abbas, M.H.H.; Salem, A.A.; Ahmed, N.; Ali, M.; Shah, G.M.; Fang, C. Use of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) and Mycorrhizae to Improve the Growth and Nutrient Utilization of Common Bean in a Soil Infected with White Rot Fungi. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 171, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ali, S.; Hameed, S.; Shahid, M.; Iqbal, M.; Lazarovits, G.; Imran, A. Functional Characterization of Potential PGPR Exhibiting Broad-Spectrum Antifungal Activity. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 232, 126389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Grady, E.N.; MacDonald, J.; Liu, L.; Richman, A.; Yuan, Z.-C. Current Knowledge and Perspectives of Paenibacillus: A Review. Microb. Cell. Fact. 2016, 15, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Tian, L.; Hu, S.; Wang, X.; Guo, Y.; Huang, L.; Wang, L.; Li, W. Antagonism of Rhizosphere Streptomyces Yangpuensis CM253 against the Pathogenic Fungi Causing Corm Rot in Saffron (Crocus sativus L.). Pathogens 2022, 11, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Samaras, A.; Kamou, N.; Tzelepis, G.; Karamanoli, K.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U.; Karaoglanidis, G.S. Root Transcriptional and Metabolic Dynamics Induced by the Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacterium (PGPR) Bacillus subtilis Mbi600 on Cucumber Plants. Plants 2022, 11, 1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zboralski, A.; Filion, M. Genetic Factors Involved in Rhizosphere Colonization by Phytobeneficial Pseudomonas spp. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 3539–3554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Upadhyay, S.K.; Srivastava, A.K.; Rajput, V.D.; Chauhan, P.K.; Bhojiya, A.A.; Jain, D.; Chaubey, G.; Dwivedi, P.; Sharma, B.; Minkina, T. Root Exudates: Mechanistic Insight of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Crop Production. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 916488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Feng, H.; Fu, R.; Hou, X.; Lv, Y.; Zhang, N.; Liu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Miao, Y.; Krell, T.; Shen, Q.; et al. Chemotaxis of Beneficial Rhizobacteria to Root Exudates: The First Step towards Root-Microbe Rhizosphere Interactions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Matilla, M.A.; Krell, T. Chemoreceptor-Based Signal Sensing. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2017, 45, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Feng, H.; Lv, Y.; Krell, T.; Fu, R.; Liu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Du, W.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, N.; Zhang, R. Signal Binding at Both Modules of Its DCache Domain Enables the McpA Chemoreceptor of Bacillus Velezensis to Sense Different Ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2201747119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Philippot, L.; Raaijmakers, J.M.; Lemanceau, P.; van der Putten, W.H. Going Back to the Roots: The Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 789–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Liu, Y.; Shu, X.; Chen, L.; Zhang, H.; Feng, H.; Sun, X.; Xiong, Q.; Li, G.; Xun, W.; Xu, Z.; et al. Plant Commensal Type VII Secretion System Causes Iron Leakage from Roots to Promote Colonization. Nat. Microbiol. 2023. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kramer, J.; Özkaya, Ö.; Kümmerli, R. Bacterial Siderophores in Community and Host Interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2020, 18, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tzipilevich, E.; Russ, D.; Dangl, J.L.; Benfey, P.N. Plant Immune System Activation Is Necessary for Efficient Root Colonization by Auxin-Secreting Beneficial Bacteria. Cell Host Microbe 2021, 29, 1507–1520.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, X.; Chai, X.; Lyu, H.-N.; Fu, C.; Tang, H.; Shi, Q.; Wang, J.; Xu, C. Chemical Proteomics Reveals an ISR-like Response Elicited by Salicylic Acid in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 2023, 237, 1486–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kazan, K.; Manners, J.M. MYC2: The Master in Action. Mol. Plant 2013, 6, 686–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zhu, L.; Huang, J.; Lu, X.; Zhou, C. Development of Plant Systemic Resistance by Beneficial Rhizobacteria: Recognition, Initiation, Elicitation and Regulation. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 952397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vlot, A.C.; Sales, J.H.; Lenk, M.; Bauer, K.; Brambilla, A.; Sommer, A.; Chen, Y.; Wenig, M.; Nayem, S. Systemic Propagation of Immunity in Plants. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 1234–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khan, A.R.; Mustafa, A.; Hyder, S.; Valipour, M.; Rizvi, Z.F.; Gondal, A.S.; Yousuf, Z.; Iqbal, R.; Daraz, U. Bacillus spp. as Bioagents: Uses and Application for Sustainable Agriculture. Biology 2022, 11, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Vleesschauwer, D.; Chernin, L.; Höfte, M.M. Differential Effectiveness of Serratia Plymuthica IC1270-Induced Systemic Resistance against Hemibiotrophic and Necrotrophic Leaf Pathogens in Rice. BMC Plant Biol. 2009, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Fatima, S.; Anjum, T. Identification of a Potential ISR Determinant from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PM12 against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Haskett, T.L.; Tkacz, A.; Poole, P.S. Engineering Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Agriculture. ISME J. 2021, 15, 949–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. de Andrade, L.A.; Santos, C.H.B.; Frezarin, E.T.; Sales, L.R.; Rigobelo, E.C. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Agricultural Production. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Felici, C.; Vettori, L.; Giraldi, E.; Forino, L.M.C.; Toffanin, A.; Tagliasacchi, A.M.; Nuti, M. Single and Co-Inoculation of Bacillus subtilis and Azospirillum brasilense on Lycopersicon esculentum: Effects on Plant Growth and Rhizosphere Microbial Community. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 40, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arif, I.; Batool, M.; Schenk, P.M. Plant Microbiome Engineering: Expected Benefits for Improved Crop Growth and Resilience. Trends Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 1385–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, P.; Wei, H.; Ke, T.; Fu, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Chen, C.; Chen, L. Characterization and Genome Analysis of Acinetobacter oleivorans S4 as an Efficient Hydrocarbon-Degrading and Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacterium. Chemosphere 2023, 331, 138732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Blin, K.; Shaw, S.; Augustijn, H.E.; Reitz, Z.L.; Biermann, F.; Alanjary, M.; Fetter, A.; Terlouw, B.R.; Metcalf, W.W.; Helfrich, E.J.N.; et al. AntiSMASH 7.0: New and Improved Predictions for Detection, Regulation, Chemical Structures and Visualisation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023, 51, W46–W50. [Google Scholar] [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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, D.; Wang, C.; Chen, Y.; Xie, Z. Developing Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: A Crucial Approach for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071835

AMA Style

Wang D, Wang C, Chen Y, Xie Z. Developing Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: A Crucial Approach for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture. Agronomy. 2023; 13(7):1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071835

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Dandan, Chao Wang, Yinglong Chen, and Zhihong Xie. 2023. "Developing Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: A Crucial Approach for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture" Agronomy 13, no. 7: 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071835

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop