Cited by 336Plant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityAgriculture, Plant Science, Crop ManagementLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis

Everything you must know about Azospirillum and its impact on agriculture and beyond

Open access
Cassán, Fabricio, Coniglio, Anahí, López, Gastón, Molina, Romina, Nievas, Sofìa, de Carlan, Coline Le Noir, Donadio, Florencia, Torres, Daniela +6 more·2020·Biology and Fertility of Soils

Abstract

Azospirillum is one of the most studied plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB); it represents a common model for plant-bacterial interactions. While Azospirillum brasilense is the species that is most widely known, at least 22 species, including 17 firmly validated species, have been identified, isolated from agricultural soils as well as habitats as diverse as contaminated soils, fermented products, sulfide springs, and microbial fuel cells. Over the last 40 years, studies on Azospirillum-plant interactions have introduced a wide array of mechanisms to demonstrate the beneficial impacts of this bacterium on plant growth. Multiple phytohormones, plant regulators, nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, a variety of small-sized molecules and enzymes, enhanced membrane activity, proliferation of the root system, enhanced water and mineral uptake, mitigation of environmental stressors, and competition against pathogens have been studied, leading to the concept of the Multiple Mechanisms Hypothesis. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that no single mechanism is involved in the promotion of plant growth; it posits that each case of inoculation entails a combination of a few or many mechanisms. Looking specifically at the vast amount of information about the stimulatory effect of phytohormones on root development and biological nitrogen fixation, the Efficient Nutrients Acquisition Hypothesis model is proposed. Due to the existence of extensive agriculture that covers…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00374-020-01463-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cassán, F., Coniglio, A., López, G., Molina, R., Nievas, S., de Carlan, C. L. N., Donadio, F., Torres, D., Rosas, S., Pedrosa, F. O., de Souza, E., Zorita, M. D., de-Bashan, L., & Mora, V.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto (AR)
  • Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR)
Corresponding author
Cassán, Fabricio
Venue
Biology and Fertility of Soils
Published
2020-05
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
461-479
ISSN
  • 0178-2762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0789
OpenAlex
W3022607755
Cited by
336
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 11
FWCI
22.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biology and Fertility of Soils (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agriculture, Plant Science, Crop Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Legume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Keywords
Azospirillum, Azospirillum brasilense, plant growth-promoting bacteria, plant-bacteria interactions, plant hormones, nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, root development, plant stress tolerance, pathogen competition, soybean

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review