Current perspectives and applications in plant probiotics
Robert Walker A B , Carl Otto-Pille A , Sneha Gupta A , Martino Schillaci A and Ute Roessner A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic., Australia
B Email: walker.r@unimelb.edu.au
Microbiology Australia 41(2) 95-99 https://doi.org/10.1071/MA20024
Published: 5 May 2020
Abstract
As agriculture and food security face unprecedented challenges, emerging agricultural innovations and existing practices require ongoing examination in the context of sustainability. In this review, we focus on the use of probiotic microorganisms for improved plant production. As plants are enormously diverse, emphasis is placed on the fundamental sites of plant-microbe interactions regarding benefits and challenges encountered when altering the microbiome of these locations. The soil, the external plant epidermis, and internal plant tissue are considered in discussion regarding the type of plant probiotic application. Plant probiotics range from broader soil beneficial microorganisms (such as Trichoderma spp.) through to specialised epiphytes and endophytes (such as root nodule bacteria). As each site of interaction affects plant growth differently, potential outcomes from the introduction of these exogenous microorganisms are discussed with regard to plant productivity. Finally, recommendations regarding regulation and future use of plant probiotics are points of consideration throughout this review.
References
[1] Liu, H. et al. (2019) An ecological loop: host microbiomes across multitrophic interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 1118–1130.| An ecological loop: host microbiomes across multitrophic interactions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31422890PubMed |
[2] Brinker, P. et al. (2019) Host, symbionts, and the microbiome: the missing tripartite interaction. Trends Microbiol. 27, 480–488.
| Host, symbionts, and the microbiome: the missing tripartite interaction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30857919PubMed |
[3] Fuller, R. (1992) History and development of probiotics. Probiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.
[4] Kumar, R. et al. (2020) Recent advancements in the development of modern probiotics for restoring human gut microbiome dysbiosis. Indian J. Microbiol. 60, 12–25.
| Recent advancements in the development of modern probiotics for restoring human gut microbiome dysbiosis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32089570PubMed |
[5] Sochocka, M. et al. (2019) The gut microbiome alterations and inflammation-driven pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease—a critical review. Mol. Neurobiol. 56, 1841–1851.
| The gut microbiome alterations and inflammation-driven pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease—a critical review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29936690PubMed |
[6] Sahai, P. and Kumar, V. (2019) Microbiome: effect on plant system, current application and future aspect. In: Kumar, M. et al. (eds). In vitro Plant Breeding Towards Novel Agronomic Traits: Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Singapore: Springer Singapore. pp. 119–134.
[7] Singh, G. and Mukerj, K. (2006) Root exudates as determinant of rhizospheric microbial biodiversity. In: Mukerji, K. et al. (eds). Microbial Activity in the Rhizoshere. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
[8] Naik, K. et al. (2019) Plant growth promoting microbes: potential link to sustainable agriculture and environment. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 21, 101326.
| Plant growth promoting microbes: potential link to sustainable agriculture and environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Itelima, J.U. et al. (2018) A review: biofertilizer – a key player in enhancing soil fertility and crop productivity. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2, 22–28.
[10] Zhang, F. et al. (2018) Trichoderma biofertilizer links to altered soil chemistry, altered microbial communities, and improved grassland biomass. Front. Microbiol. 9, 948.
| Trichoderma biofertilizer links to altered soil chemistry, altered microbial communities, and improved grassland biomass.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Hart, M et al. (2017) Unknown risks to soil biodiversity from commercial fungal inoculants. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0115.
[12] Suresh, A. and Abraham, J. (2019) Harnessing the microbial interactions in rhizosphere and microbiome for sustainable agriculture. In: Singh, D. et al. (eds). Microbial Interventions in Agriculture and Environment. Singapore: Springer.
[13] Schillaci, M. et al. (2019) The role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in the growth of cereals under abiotic stresses. In: Ohyama, T. (ed.). Root Biology – Growth, Physiology, and Functions.
[14] Breitkreuz, C. et al. (2020) Shifts between and among populations of wheat rhizosphere Pseudomonas, Streptomyces and Phyllobacterium suggest consistent phosphate mobilization at different wheat growth stages under abiotic stress. Front. Microbiol. 10, 3109.
| Shifts between and among populations of wheat rhizosphere Pseudomonas, Streptomyces and Phyllobacterium suggest consistent phosphate mobilization at different wheat growth stages under abiotic stress.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32038552PubMed |
[15] Soumare, A. et al. (2020) From isolation of phosphate solubilizing microbes to their formulation and use as biofertilizers: status and needs. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7, 425.
| From isolation of phosphate solubilizing microbes to their formulation and use as biofertilizers: status and needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31998701PubMed |
[16] Mukhtar, S. et al. (2020) Phylogenetic analysis of halophyte-associated rhizobacteria and effect of halotolerant and halophilic phosphate-solubilizing biofertilizers on maize growth under salinity stress conditions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 128, 556–573.
| Phylogenetic analysis of halophyte-associated rhizobacteria and effect of halotolerant and halophilic phosphate-solubilizing biofertilizers on maize growth under salinity stress conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31652362PubMed |
[17] Khan, N. and Bano, A. (2018) Role of PGPR in the phytoremediation of heavy metals and crop growth under municipal wastewater irrigation. In: Ansari, A. et al. (eds). Phytoremediation. Cham: Springer.
[18] Singh, S. et al. (2019) Chapter twelve: tolerance of heavy metal toxicity using PGPR strains of Pseudomonas species. In: Singh, A. et al. (eds). PGPR Amelioration in Sustainable Agriculture: Woodhead Publishing. pp. 239–252.
[19] Wang, M. et al. (2019) Manipulation of the rhizosphere bacterial community by biofertilizers is associated with mitigation of cadmium phytotoxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 649, 413–421.
| Manipulation of the rhizosphere bacterial community by biofertilizers is associated with mitigation of cadmium phytotoxicity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30176454PubMed |
[20] Nandasena, K.G. et al. (2007) In situ lateral transfer of symbiosis islands results in rapid evolution of diverse competitive strains of mesorhizobia suboptimal in symbiotic nitrogen fixation on the pasture legume Biserrula pelecinus L. Environ. Microbiol. 9, 2496–2511.
| In situ lateral transfer of symbiosis islands results in rapid evolution of diverse competitive strains of mesorhizobia suboptimal in symbiotic nitrogen fixation on the pasture legume Biserrula pelecinus L.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17803775PubMed |
[21] Bamba, M. et al. (2019) Exploring genetic diversity and signatures of horizontal gene transfer in nodule bacteria associated with Lotus japonicus in natural environments. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 32, 1110–1120.
| Exploring genetic diversity and signatures of horizontal gene transfer in nodule bacteria associated with Lotus japonicus in natural environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30880586PubMed |
