Cited by 2,064Plant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisAgriculture, Plant Science, Crop Management

Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: a review

Open access
Hayat, Rifat, Ali, Safdar, Amara, Ummay, Khalid, Rabia, Ahmed, Iftikhar·2010·Annals of Microbiology

Abstract

Soil bacteria are very important in biogeochemical cycles and have been used for crop production for decades. Plant–bacterial interactions in the rhizosphere are the determinants of plant health and soil fertility. Free-living soil bacteria beneficial to plant growth, usually referred to as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), are capable of promoting plant growth by colonizing the plant root. PGPR are also termed plant health promoting rhizobacteria (PHPR) or nodule promoting rhizobacteria (NPR). These are associated with the rhizosphere, which is an important soil ecological environment for plant–microbe interactions. Symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria include the cyanobacteria of the genera Rhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Azorhizobium, Allorhizobium, Sinorhizobium and Mesorhizobium. Free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria or associative nitrogen fixers, for example bacteria belonging to the species Azospirillum, Enterobacter, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas, have been shown to attach to the root and efficiently colonize root surfaces. PGPR have the potential to contribute to sustainable plant growth promotion. Generally, PGPR function in three different ways: synthesizing particular compounds for the plants, facilitating the uptake of certain nutrients from the soil, and lessening or preventing the plants from diseases. Plant growth promotion and development can be facilitated both directly and indirectly. Indirect plant growth promotion includes the prevention of the deleterious effects of phytopathogenic organisms. This can be achieved by the production of siderophores, i.e. small metal-binding molecules. Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens and the synthesis of antibiotics have also been reported in several bacterial species. Another mechanism by which PGPR can inhibit phytopathogens is the production of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and/or fungal cell wall degrading enzymes, e.g., chitinase and ß-1,3-glucanase. Direct plant growth promotion includes symbiotic and non-symbiotic PGPR which function through production of plant hormones such as auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, ethylene and abscisic acid. Production of indole-3-ethanol or indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), the compounds belonging to auxins, have been reported for several bacterial genera. Some PGPR function as a sink for 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC), the immediate precursor of ethylene in higher plants, by hydrolyzing it into α-ketobutyrate and ammonia, and in this way promote root growth by lowering indigenous ethylene levels in the micro-rhizo environment. PGPR also help in solubilization of mineral phosphates and other nutrients, enhance resistance to stress, stabilize soil aggregates, and improve soil structure and organic matter content. PGPR retain more soil organic N, and other nutrients in the plant–soil system, thus reducing the need for fertilizer N and P and enhancing release of the nutrients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13213-010-0117-1

Cites

295 of 295 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Brierley JA (1985) Use of microorganisms for mining metals. In: Halvorson HO, Pramer D, Rogul M (eds) Engineered organisims in the environment: scientifc issues. ASM Press, Washington, pp 141-146
  2. El Mohandes MAO (1999) The use of associative diazotrophs with different rates of nitrogen fertilization and compost to enhance growth and N 2 -fixation of wheat. Bulletin of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cairo 50:729-753
  3. Gilreath JP, Noling JW, Mirusso J, Nance J, Eger J, Gilreath P (2001) Telone and herbicides: do's, don'ts, and maybe's-a primer for tomorrow's farmer. FACTS Proceedings of the IFAS, University of Florida, pp 37-40
  4. Hayat R (2005) Sustainable legume cereal cropping system through management of biological nitrogen fixation in Pothwar. PhD Dissertation. PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
  5. Hayat R, Ali S, Siddique MT, Chatha TH (2008a) Biological nitrogen fixation of summer legumes and their residual effects on subsequent rainfed wheat yield. Pak J Bot 40(2):711-722
  6. Hayat R, Ali S, Ijaz SS, Chatha TH, Siddique MT (2008b) Estimation of N 2 -fixation of mung bean and mash bean through xylem uriede technique under rainfed conditions. Pak J Bot 40(2):723-734
  7. Hilali A, Przrost D, Broughton WJ, Antoun A (2000) Potential use of Rhizobium leguminosarum by trifoli as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria with wheat. In: Abstract of the I7th North American conference on symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Laval University, Quebec, Canada, pp 23-28
  8. Lee S, Pierson B, Kennedy C (2002) Genetics and biochemistry of nitrogen fixation and other factors beneficial to host plant growth in diazotrophic endophytes. In: Vanderleyden J (ed) Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on nitrogen fixation with nonlegumes. Katholique Universiteit, Leuven, pp 41-42
  9. Lupwayi NZ, Rice WA, Clayton GW (2000) Endophytic Rhizobia in barley and canola in rotation with field peas. In: Book of abstracts, 17th North American conference on symbiotic nitrogen fixation, 23-28 July 2000, 80. University of Laval, Quebec, Canada, p 51
  10. Lynch JM (1983) Soil biotechnology. Blackwell, Oxford
  11. Martinez-Romero E, Gutierrez-Zamora ML, Estrada P, Caballero- Mellado J, Hernandez-Lucas I (2000) Natural endophytic associa- tion between Rhizobium Etli and maize. In: Book of abstracts, 17th North American conference on symbiotic nitrogen fixation, 23-28 July 2000. University of Laval, Quebec, Canada, p 51
  12. Pandey A, Kumar S (1989) Potential of Azotobacters and Azospirilla as biofertilizers for upland agriculture: a review. J Sci Ind Res 48:134-144
  13. Patil PL, Patil SP (1984) Uptake of nitrogen by cotton inoculated with Azotobacter. J Maharashtra Agric Uni 9(17):1-172
  14. Reinhold-Hurek B, Egener T, Hurek T, Martin D, Sarkar A, Zhang L, Miche L (2002) Regulation of nitrogen fixation and assimilation of Azoarcus sp. BH72 new approaches to study biodiversity of grass endophytes. In: Vanderleyden J (ed) Proceedings of the nineth international symposium on nitrogen fixation with non- legumes. Katholique Universideit Leuven, Belgium, p 48
  15. Shankariah C, Hunsigi G (2001) Field responses of sugarcane to associative N 2 fixers and P solubilishers. In: Hogarth DM (ed) Proceedings of the 24th international society of sugarcane Technologists Congress, 17-21 September 2001. The Australian Society of Sugercane Technologists, Brisbane, pp 40-45
  16. Thakuria D, Taleekdar NC, Goswami C, Hazarika S, Boro RC, Khan MR (2004) Characterization and screening of bacteria from rhizosphere of rice grown in acidic soils of Assam. Curr Sci 86 (7):978-985
  17. Wachowska U, Majchrzak B, Borawska M, Karpinska Z (2004) Biological control of winter wheat pathogens by bacteria. Acta fytotech zootech, Vol. 7, 2004, Special Number, Proceedings of the XVI. Slovak and Czech Plant Protection Conference organized at Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, Slovakia
  18. Zafar-ul-Hye M, Zahir ZA, Shahzad SM, Irshad U, Arshad M (2007) Isolation and screening of Rhizobia for improving growth and nodulation of lentil (Lens culinaris Medic) seedlings under axenic conditions. Soil Environ 26(1):81-91

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hayat, R., Ali, S., Amara, U., Khalid, R., & Ahmed, I.
Affiliations
Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University (PK)
Corresponding author
Hayat, Rifat
Venue
Annals of Microbiology
Published
2010-08-28
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
579-598
ISSN
  • 0003-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1590-4261
  • 1869-2044
OpenAlex
W2064383236
Cited by
2,064
References
295
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 222 · 2023: 195 · 2022: 227 · 2021: 222 · 2020: 151 · 2019: 179 · 2018: 130 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 102 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 89 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 41
FWCI
43.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annals of Microbiology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Legume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agriculture, Plant Science, Crop Management
Keywords
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, plant-bacteria interactions, rhizosphere, nitrogen fixation, siderophores, biological control of plant pathogens, hydrogen cyanide, chitinase, plant hormones, indole-3-acetic acid, ACC deaminase, root colonization, soil fertility, sustainable agriculture, plant disease suppression

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