Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Rhizosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rhisph

A review of agricultural microbial inoculants and their carriers

in bioformulation
Vagmi Singh a, b, Birendra Kumar a, b, *
a
Seed Quality Lab on MAPs, Genetics & Plant Breeding Division, CSIR-Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, India
b
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The administration of plant growth-promoting microbes as inoculants to attain improved crop yield with
Bio-fertilizers enhanced soil fertility is the most efficient technique for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Applying
Bio-inoculants chemical or synthetic fertilizers, to meet the shooting agricultural demands of the unbridled growing population
Ecology-inclusive economy
has burdened the environment with numerous severe repercussions. Bioformulation, a concoction made by
Endophytes
Rhizobacteria
administering single or consortia of microbial agents, committed to provide better health or growth to the crop is
treated as a credible alternative to agrochemicals as they can fulfil the over-increasing food demands of the globe
along with being eco-friendly and substantial. Therefore, the world is pinning its hope on applying microbial
formulations in agriculture to meet the global crisis of ‘5F’: food, feed, fuel, fertilizer, and finance. Nowadays,
numerous studies are going on in this field still, the number of effective microbial formulations available is less
than its demand in the market. To date, various microbes have been explored, possessing the ability as plant
stimulants but, countless of soil microorganisms remain to be identified, and waiting to provide their efficient
participation in the formulation industry. This review article chiefly explores and summarizes the history,
concept, composition, and types of bio formulations with their application technologies, market potentials, as
well as their challenges and limitations. The study also seeks to provide a comparative analysis of the agricultural
inoculants and their carriers to support an ecology-inclusive economy and sustainability to the world.

1. Introduction non-deleterious environmental havoc. Excessive use of these chemically

The current population of the world is now 7.9 billion and constantly
increasing at the rate of 0.84% annually. India alone contributes to 1.39
billion people and according to a report; it is expected to increase to 1.52
billion by 2036 with a 70% increase in total urban area (Agrawal, 2020).
This growing population and shrinking arable land area will impart
more pressure on the agricultural sector to fulfil this growing food de­
mand. Howbeit, conventional agrarian practices applied to meet these
escalating food requirements have bound the farmers to depend on the
usage of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase their crop pro­
ductivity (Santos et al., 2012). As the use of chemically synthesized
fertilizers is increasing continuously, a report published by John William
in March 2019 in World Fertilizer Magazine suggests that the global
fertilizer market is predicted to register a CAGR of 3.8% during the
forecast period 2019–2024. Crop improvement influenced by these ag­
rochemicals, despite promoting crop yield also imposes heavy,
synthesized fertilizers is known to cause various human health and
environmental hazards by causing soil acidification, eutrophication, and
nutrient leaching to water bodies (Kumar et al., 2018a; Youssef and
Eissa, 2014; Rehman et al., 2021a). Consequences of pesticide exposure
in humans, where the biggest group of pesticides belonging to organo­
phosphate was reported to cause various neurological disorders to the
victim (Mulla et al., 2020). Such problems are recorded to occur more
frequently in developing countries like India where around 30% of total
death caused annually is due to pesticide poisoning and farmers are the
first line of sufferers, facing health issues related to agrochemicals
(Karunarathne et al., 2020). Dorigo et al. (2009) have reported that
pesticides impose various environmental hazards by polluting water
bodies and deflecting the soil’s microbial richness. Research done in this
field also depicts that the application of chemical fertilizers majorly
contributes to stability disruption of the environment by contributing to
the emission of various greenhouse gases which ultimately affects the

* Corresponding author. Seed Quality Lab on MAPs, Genetics & Plant Breeding Division, CSIR-Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow,
226015, India. Mob.: +91 80049 44535, +91 94500 95841.
E-mail addresses: singhvagmi@gmail.com (V. Singh), b.kumar@cimap.res.in, birendrak67@rediffmail.com (B. Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2023.100843
Received 26 September 2023; Received in revised form 21 December 2023; Accepted 21 December 2023
Available online 29 December 2023
2452-2198/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V. Singh and B. Kumar
entire ecosystem (Schlesinger, 2009; Saroha et al., 2023; Rehman et al.,
2021b). Aamir et al. (2020) have reported that the excessive use of
synthetic fertilizers has deteriorated 25% of the productive agricultural
land by turning the soil to arid and non-fertile. Concerning these prob­
lems, there is an immediate need to switch towards innovative and
sustainable agriculture-related solutions involving the use of
eco-friendly techniques like bioinoculants, biofertilizers, and bio­
pesticides. Bioinoculants are preparations containing single or consortia
of microorganisms when introduced to the crop, are dedicated to car­
rying out particular functions like, growth promotion or biocontrol
(Maitra et al., 2021). The term bio-fertilizer refers to a wide range of
products, containing living or dormant microorganisms and helps to
improve the growth and yield of administered crops (Shahwar et al.,
2023). However, biopesticides are products enriched with microbial
inoculants capable of overcoming the stress caused due to phytopatho­
gens and can promote the health of the crop (Yadav and Sarkar, 2019).
Compared to synthetic fertilizers, Bhattacharjee et al. (2023), have re­
ported that plant growth-promoting microbial species like Azospirillum,
Bacillus, Rhizobium, and Bradyrhizobium and their metabolites have
positively influenced the health, growth, and yield of several crops
including, Medicago polymorpha, Pisum sp., Glycine max, Vigna sp., Oryza
sativa, Solanum lycopersicum and maize under controlled as well as field
conditions. This has also been reported that the application of bio­
fertilizers can improve the yield of various crops by 25% and reduce the
requirement of inorganic fertilizers from 50% (N) to 25% (P) in agri­
culture (Aloo et al., 2022). In this regard, microbial formulations, first
introduced about 120 years ago as bioformulations, after the registration
of Nitragin in1895 as a Rhizobium-based biofertilizer (Kumar et al., 2022;
Hossain et al., 2023), are the most appreciated and feasible way to step
forward in the direction of organic farming.
1.1. Annals of microbial formulations development
A study performed by French chemist Jean-Baptiste Boussingault, in
1838 was the first report describing the detailed process of Nitrogen
assimilation by plants from their surrounding environment (Mishra and
Arora, 2016). Boussingault (1801–1887) was also the first scientist to
introduce the technique of PGPR inoculation in plants to improve their
growth and yield (Aloo et al., 2022). Another study conducted in 1886
over Pisum sativum by Germany-based researchers Hellriegel and Wil­
farth proves that the bacteria colonizing the root nodules of the pea
plant are capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen (Bottomley, 2019).
Inspired by the studies of Hellriegel and Wilfarth during the period of
1887, Hiltner along with Nobbe intensively studied the symbiotic
interaction between leguminous plants with bacteria present in their
root nodules (Nobbe and Hiltner, 1896). Working at the laboratory of
the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Hiltner had performed
several studies and became the first scientist to devise the term ‘rhizo­
sphere’ during 1904 and described it as a site where plants interact with
the microbial community of soil (Hiltner, 1904). He also described that
rhizospheric microflora attracted due to released root exudates play a
magical role in plant nutrient mobilization as well as pathogen re­
sistivity of the plant. Hiltner had covered the studies on bacteriorhiza
present underneath to rhizodermis of healthy root tissues of the plant
and had also framed an idea that products produced by the plants are
somehow dependent on its rhizospheric microbial community (Hart­
mann et al., 2008). After working on a few projects based on germina­
tion behaviour and growth potential of different crops, Hiltner was
completely convinced that the bacterial community residing in the
rhizospheric region surely depends on the root exudates released by that
particular plant. Along with all these studies during the late 18th cen­
tury Hiltner together with Nobbe got his first patent ‘Nitragin’, a
formulation prepared by using Rhizobium sp. (Nobbe and Hiltner, 1896).
In 1903 the process of ammonification of soil nitrogenous organic sub­
stances was studied in detail by J.G. Lipman and P.E. Brown. Due to all
such research, the role of soil microorganisms in plant growth
2
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
promotion was finally established around the turn of the 19th century
(Nautiyal et al., 2008). A study performed in 1907 by Fritsch, depicts the
presence of cyanobacteria in the soil of rice fields whose role in nitrogen
fixation was further described in another report presented by De in 1939
(Mishra and Arora, 2016). C.N. Acharya, an Indian researcher during the
1940s had described the role of biogas and compost in the growth
promotion of plants and prepared them by utilizing agricultural wastes.
Gerretsen was the first scientist in 1948 to define the potential of rhi­
zospheric bacteria in solubilizing the phosphate from the soil when he
was studying the Mn deficiency and phosphate uptake in oat crops
(Graham, 1988; Curl and Truelove, 1986). Till the year 1961 ‘Phos­
phobacterin’ was the oldest known biofertilizer containing Bacillus
megatherium and the genome of said bacteria was the first fully coded
bacterial genome (Smith et al., 1961). Another variant of Bacillus meg­
atherium var. phosphaticum, was used to prepare ‘Phosphobucterin’, a
microbial preparation to enhance the solubilization of mineral phos­
phorous from soil and make them available to plants (Walpola and Yoon,
2012). During the decade of 1970s ‘Biosuper’ a microbial preparation of
rock phosphate, sulfur, and thiobacillus was put together by an Austra­
lian researcher R. J. Swaby in which sulphuric acid produced by thio­
bacillus helps to increase the phosphorous availability to plants by
dissolving rock phosphates present in the preparation. Few other studies
also focus on phosphate solubilization induced by microbial commu­
nities present in soil (Graham, 1988; Goldstein 1986). Solubilization of
potassium by rhizospheric microflora was also studied and reported by
various scientists (Zahra et al., 1984; Vandevivere et al., 1994; Sheng
and He, 2006). The role of arbuscular mycorrhiza in nutrient uptake
thus, plant growth promotion was validated during the 1960s later on
they were started to get applied as biofertilizers (Koide and Mosse,
2004). As time passed various studies were performed in different as­
pects to evaluate the microbial diversity present in soil and one of them
was the enzymatic estimation of soil depicting its microbial activity was
came into fashion during the late 1960s (Insam, 2001). According to the
database retained from the Institute of Scientific Information, during
those days the most frequently performed soil enzymatic tests were
phosphatase, urease, and dehydrogenase (Hoffmann, 1968; Tabatabai
and Bremner, 1972; Trevors, 1984). Another method called the
fumigation-incubation method was proposed in this row during 1976 by
Jenkinson to study the microbial density present in soil (Insam, 2001).
In this same year, 1976 in the other part of the world a Brazilian
researcher J. Dobereiner was studying the symbiotic association work­
ing between nitrogen-fixing Azospirillum with grasses. The possibility of
rhizobacteria in plant growth promotion was first described by Kloepper
and Schroth (1978) and they termed them as plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR) (Kloepper and Schroth, 1978). Torsvik with his
team in 1980 had attempted to purely isolate the DNA from soil and
found that nearly 4000 different bacterial genomes were present in 1 g
of soil (Torsvik et al., 1990). In continuation to this, Beck was the first
scientist to lay out the concept of soil microbial index in the year 1984
and described that it can be interpreted by the microbial biomass and a
few enzyme activities like reductase and hydrolases but his concept was
not very much entertained during those days (Beck, 1984). Later in
1998, Trasar-Cepeda along with his colleagues reframed the concept
given by Beck and released their findings as soil microbial biomass
carbon, mineralized nitrogen along with various enzymatic activities
like phosphomonoesterase, β-glycosidase, and urease are in close asso­
ciation with total N present in the soil (Trasar-Cepeda et al., 1997).
Other than leguminous crops studies were also carried out to implement
the bacterial cultures over non-leguminous crops for improving their
yield and ‘Alinit’, a preparation of B. ellenbachensis was introduced by
Albert Caron was the first bioformulation to improve the productivity of
cereals in Germany (Caron, 1901). Shigetane Ishiwata, a Japanese
biologist in 1901 was the first to isolate and identify the bacterium
Bacillus thuringniensis and since then it has been used to draw benefits in
agriculture through it. In 1938 this bacterium was used commercially as
a biopesticide named ‘Sporeine’ and was used first time in France
V. Singh and B. Kumar
(Aronson et al., 1986). Shortly afterward the discovery of Bacillus thur­
ingniensis another bacteria Bacillus popilliae was exploited for its poten­
tial as a biopesticide. In 1995 the firstly reported genetically improved
crop was Bt corn which was engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis and
produces Bt delta endotoxin protein that helps to eradicate the Lepi­
doptera larvae of caterpillars (USEPA 1999). Huss-Danell (1997), iso­
lated the nodulating bacteria from about 200 non-leguminous species of
eight different angiosperm families and found that most of them were
rich with Frankia in their root nodules. Biopesticides are also a type of
microbial preparation developed by using naturally occurring microbes
and/or their released chemical constituent to eradicate as well as
vanquish the adverse effect caused due to pathogens (Fenibo et al.,
2021). During the early 17th century plant extracts were found to be the
initial biopesticides used in fields to overcome the effects of plum beetles
by applying nicotine. A researcher named Agostine Bassi during 1835,
reported that Beauveria bassiana, a white muscadine fungus have the
potential to cause contagious disease in silkworm (Bassi 1835). In this
same row, various other researchers also tried to harvest the potential of
pathogens in crops pest control and in 1874, a Russian researcher, E.
Metchnikoff succeeded to control the loss causing due to a grain beetle
Anisoplia austriaca in the fields of cereal crops by applying a fungal
formulation of Metarhizium anisopliae (Leconte, 1873).
2. Concept of microbial formulations
A cost-effective carrier medium containing single or multiple bene­
ficial microorganisms along with their metabolites which are biologi­
cally active in terms of enhancing plant yield and quality are known as
bioformulations (Arora et al., 2011; Naamala and Smith 2020; Arora and
Fatima 2022). In the agricultural jargon, formulations are well known to
bolster the efficiency of microbes and convey their potency to the crop
they are implemented with (Burges and Jones, 1998). According to
Mazid et al. (2011), microbial formulations are substances containing
live microorganisms that bind to the rhizospheric or the interior portion
of the plant and increase the availability of macro and micronutrients.
Hence, positively influencing the growth of the targeted crop. Mendes
et al. (2011), suggest that the formulations made involving microor­
ganisms are comparatively better than synthetically prepared chemical
fertilizers as they directly involve various mechanisms of plant growth
promotion and pathogen tolerance. According to Vessey (2003), it is
defined as a medium containing a single or a group of microorganisms
helping the soil nutrients to get mobilized and make them available to
plants. Simarmata et al. (2016), describe it as a product formed with
natural ingredients like microorganisms that help to enhance the po­
tential of soil hence increasing crop productivity by solubilizing phos­
phorous, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and synthesizing other plant
growth-promoting substances. A formulation is best defined as a cock­
tail of a carrier substance to harbour an active component which is the
efficient microorganism or any spore and a stabilizer to regulate the
growth and efficacy of the biostimulant added as active material (Ijaz
et al., 2019). Inoculants as potential PGPR are known to ameliorate
growth of plants by improving the nutrient availability at the rhizo­
spheric region of the plant and play an effective role in the context of
achieving food security (Aloo et al., 2022). Kumar (2014), explain
formulation as a biological product containing microorganisms assisting
in nutrient solubility of soil and atmospheric nitrogen fixation for
improving the yield of crop plants. The most effective strategy of these
microbial agents is that they induce the growth of crops and reduce the
harm caused by pathogens without imparting any adverse effect on the
microbial community already present in the ecosystem (Mishra and
Arora, 2016; Massa et al., 2022). Microbial formulations consisting of a
single or consortium of microorganisms act via direct or indirect modes
to enhance plant growth by adhering either to the rhizospheric or
interior portion of plant tissues (Lugtenberg and Kamilova, 2009; Shah
et al., 2021; Munir et al., 2022; El-Saadony et al., 2022). Malusá et al.
(2012) have reported that bioactive agents induce the uptake of
3
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
nutrients essential for plant health and growth hence, regulate the yield
of crops. A study done by Tripathi et al. (2015), suggests that the mi­
crobes used to prepare formulations primarily focus on the health,
growth, and yield of the plant, and the fertility of soil also gets enhanced
by their application. Microorganisms introduced as phyto-stimulants act
directly to promote the growth of crops by stimulating the expression of
various phytohormones (Meena et al., 2017). Jeyanthi and Kanimozhi
(2018), described the various mechanisms of plant growth promotion,
improvement of soil structure, nutrient mineralization, depressing the
effect of phytopathogens, and protection against abiotic stresses being
played by the microorganisms used in the recipe of formulation. The
formulation is suggested as a preparation constituting all the necessary
plant growth-promoting organic resources for the overall development
of the plant by their interaction with potential microbial communities
(Mahmud and Chong, 2021; Chaudhary et al., 2022; Elnahal et al.,
2022). Recently, a new-fashioned term used for plant growth-promoting
bacteria is ‘plant probiotics’, suggested as a synonym for PGPRs (rhi­
zobacteria or endophytes) (Ravichandran et al., 2022; Rai et al., 2023).
2.1. Composition and types of microbial formulations
Efficacy, survival, and ease of application act as the foundation in the
developmental process of formulations. Based on used carrier mediums,
it is broadly categorized into two types, solid formulations, and liquid
formulations (Bhattacharjee et al., 2023). These implemented career
materials either liquid or solid are required to transport the beneficial
microorganism into their live or quiescent state from laboratories to
farms, soil, or targeted plants. Converting microorganisms into the form
of formulation makes it easy to harness their beneficial role in
strengthening sustainable agricultural practices (Fig. 1). It also works
advantageously in enhancing the shelf life of microbial cultures as well
as their easy transportation and administration to the targeted crop.
Along with career material to a single or consortia of microbial strains, it
also comprises additives that help to protect the microbial cell by
maintaining a favourable environment for their growth and prolifera­
tion (Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016). Therefore, a microbial formu­
lation is suggested to be an assembly of solid or liquid-based carrier
medium with osmoprotectant sticky additives and a single or con­
sortium of well-known microbial strains (Verma et al., 2022). Its mode
of action used to vary on the nature and particle size of the carrier
medium used, the type of soil or crop over to which it is going to get
applied, its method of application to its target, and the availability of
nutrients it is going to facilitate to their targeted plants (Sahu and
Brahmaprakash, 2016; Nakkeeran et al., 2006). Countries like India,
having semi-arid climatic condition faces various challenges regarding
survivability as well as unpredictability in behaviour of applied bio
agent due to harsh environmental conditions like drought, soil salinity,
and soil erosion (Bashan, 1998). Farmers of these regions flinch to adopt
microbial preparations because if after the application of biofertilizers,
they don’t get the desired results from their crops they cannot afford to
give a second chance to it due to the extra expense and knowledge
involved in it. Howbeit, these challenges of farmers living in arid to
semiarid regions can be treated as a requisite set of circumstances to
develop more suitable formulations, combating harsh environmental
conditions of such climatic zones of the globe. The selection of microbial
agents based on targeted climate and vegetation or crop is the crucial
step in the effective formulation development procedure.
2.1.1. Solid formulations
The addition of biologically active inoculum with a solid carrier
medium to deliver the potential of administered inoculants for crop
improvement, results in solid formulations. Solid carrier medium used to
prepare such formulations includes various diverse materials like peat,
coal, talc, clay, biochar, inorganic soils, farmyard manure, soybean
meal, wheat bran, press mud, agricultural waste materials, sugarcane
bagasse, vermiculite, perlite, chitosan, chitin, alginate and many more
V. Singh and B. Kumar
Fig. 1. Steps involved in the development of bioformulation through isolated plant growth promoting bacterial niche.
(Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016; Mishra and Arora, 2016; Gopa­
lakrishnan et al., 2016; Kumar, 2014; Balla et al., 2022; Bhattacharjee
et al., 2023). A carrier medium is supposed to facilitate a favourable
micro-environment to support the activity of the inoculum and also to
deliver the optimum number of microbial cells in good physiological
conditions (Aamir et al., 2020). Bearing in mind this, the preparation of
formulations requires various techniques like mining, drying, milling,
and neutralization (Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016). Under solid for­
mulations, for crop protection or yield promotion peat, talc, and
vermiculite are broadly used carrier mediums, as they have a high sur­
face area as well as the water-holding capacity to assist proper growth
and survival of the bioactive ingredient used in microbial formulation
preparation (Bhattacharjee et al., 2023; Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016;
Gopalakrishnan et al., 2016; Nakkeeran et al., 2006). Solid formulations
are prepared with organic or inorganic carriers in the form of granules,
powders, wettable powders, wettable granules, water-dispersible gran­
ules, and dust (Mishra and Arora, 2016; Lobo et al., 2019; Chaudhary
et al., 2020; Balla et al., 2022). Earlier findings suggest that peat-based
air-dried powder of S. mexicanum ITTG R7T, R. calliandrae LBP2-1 T, and
R. etli CFN42T with viable cell number 109 CFU/mL was found to be
effective in plant growth promotion of common bean (Ruíz-Valdiviezo
et al.,2015). Prasad and Babu (2017), reported that air-dried talc-based
immobilization of Azospirillum brasilense TNAU, imparted positive re­
sults for tap root growth whereas, the same carrier-based formulation of
P. fluorescens PF1 showed lateral root growth promotion in groundnut.
Freeze-dried and hot air-dried talc-based formulation of Bacillus amy­
loliquefaciens and Bacillus cereus B25 respectively, was recorded to
improve plant growth in maize (Molina-Romero et al., 2017; Martí­
nez-Álvarez et al., 2016). Cheng et al. (2015), prepared a freeze-dried
wettable powder of B. cereus and reported that this formulation is
effective in controlling the diseases caused by the postharvest of vege­
tables and fruits. Talc-based wettable powder of Pseudomonas putida was
reported to improve the growth of plants by suppressing the loss caused
due to fusaria wilt (Bora et al., 2004). Increased plant growth and
nutrient availability provided by the solid-based formulation of plant
growth-promoting strains like Pseudomonas and Bacillus sp., were
recorded in Lithospermum arvense (corn gromwell) and Musa paradisiaca
(banana), respectively (Prabhukarthikeyan et al., 2018; Raj et al., 2021).
A talc-based formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens for the management
of rice blast was prepared by mixing methyl cellulose and talc in a ratio
of 1: 4 and blended with an equal volume of a bacterial suspension at a
4
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
concentration of 1010 cfu/mL (Krishnamurthy and Gnanamanickam,
1998). A peat and spent compost-based formulation of Bacillus subtilis AF
1 was reported to increase plant growth as well as resistivity against
fungal pathogens in groundnut and pigeon peas (Manjula and Podile,
2001). P. fluorescence formulated with talc and chitin was recorded to
increase the fruit yield and quality of mangoes (Vivekananthan et al.,
2004). Improvement in the growth and yield of cucumber is reported to
be achieved by the application of vermiculite-based P. putida and
B. subtilis formulations (Amer and Utkhede, 2000). A study conducted by
Raj et al. (2003), suggests that the application of a chitosan-based
formulation of B. pumilus strain SE34 and B. subtilis strain GBO3 has
participated in plant growth promotion of pearl millet and significantly
reduced the symptoms of downy mildew. Consortia of Paenobacillus
macerans and Bacillus subtilis applied with chitosan as carrier medium is
reported to increase the growth and yield of three different cultivars of
rice, IR24, IR50, and Jyothi (Vasudevan et al., 2002). Talc-based
formulation of florescent pseudomonads has improved the germina­
tion and growth of sugarcane and is also reported to reduce the inci­
dence of red rot in this crop (Viswanathan and Samiyappan, 2002).
Alginate-based bio-preparation of B. subtilis is reported to increase the
growth of plants in beans and lettuce (Saberi-Rise and Moradi-Pour,
2020; Zago et al., 2019). Exela, a chitosan formulation of Bacillus, was
able to induce plant growth promotion and induce resistance in pearl
millet (Sharathchandra et al., 2004). Abbasi et al. (2016), reported that
peat-based formulations of B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, P. polymyxa,
Pseudomonas sp., and P. fluorescens are able to provide resistance to
plants against soil-borne pathogens (Abbasi et al., 2016; Bejarano and
Puopolo, 2020). Germination vigour of green gram seeds was found to
get increased by the application of Azospirillum lipoferum formulated in a
coconut shell-based biochar carrier medium (Saranya et al., 2011).
Pinewood-based biochar formulated with Enterobacter cloacae has
played a role in the improvement of biomass production in cucumbers
(Hale et al., 2014). Increased corm production in gladiolus is recorded
due to the application of talc-based formulation of Bacillus atrophaeus
and Burkholderia cepacian (Shanmugam et al., 2011).
2.1.2. Liquid formulations
The inclusion of plant growth-promoting bioactive components in
the form of aqueous, oil, suspension concentrates, ultralow volume
suspension, oil-miscible flowable concentrate, and oil dispersion prod­
ucts with required cell protectants and additives are known as liquid
V. Singh and B. Kumar
formulations (Chaudhary et al., 2020; Aamir et al., 2020; Bhattacharjee
et al., 2023). Mishra and Arora (2016), suggest that liquid-based bio­
fertilizers are found most effective when consisting of 10–40% of
bioactive agents, 1–3% suspender ingredient, 1–5% dispersant, 3–8%
surfactant, and35–65% liquid or oil as carrier medium (Allouzi et al.,
2022). Liquid carrier medium used to prepare such microbial formula­
tions includes various materials as a source like a paneer whey, potato
and rice broth, inverted emulsions, plant oils, nutrient broths, and many
more to formulate the potential PGPRs (Prakash and Arora, 2020;
Bhattacharjee et al., 2023). These are more favoured over other
carrier-based formulations because they can get produced easily and
provide support to a higher number of microbial cells. Microorganisms
formulated in a liquid medium are reported to tolerate higher temper­
atures up to 45–50 ◦ C without compromising the quality and efficiency
of the formulation (Hossain et al., 2023). The improved shelf life of the
implemented microbe with minimum chances of getting contaminated
through other microflora is also supported by liquid formulations (Sahu
and Brahmaprakash, 2016; Naik et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2023). Ac­
cording to the reports, the shelf life of liquid formulations is estimated to
be about 15–24 months whereas solid formulations, without compro­
mising its efficiency, can be stored for about 8–12 months only (Hossain
et al., 2023). Liquid formulations, being required in lesser quantity are
more compatible with modern agricultural practices by corroborating
easy transportation for their application (Bhattacharjee et al., 2023).
The optimum nutrient condition of the carrier medium is necessary to
support the growth and proliferation of the inoculant. A minimum 20:1
ratio of C/N is suggested as ideal for the proper growth of rhizobacteria,
any fluctuation in this condition can cause difficulty in its survival in the
medium (Prakash and Arora, 2020). A nutrient broth-based liquid
formulation of B. cereus and P. rhodeseae was sprayed over tomato,
cauliflower, chilli, and brinjal to improve the biomass and yield by
enhancing their nutrient uptake (Kalita et al., 2015). According to a
study conducted by Prakash and Arora (2020), the usage of paneer
whey-based formulation of B. safensis has imparted a good effect on the
chemical composition of Stevia rebaudiana, as well as enhanced its
growth and yield through nutrient-linked mechanisms. A study con­
ducted by Lakshmidevi et al. (2020) to control fruit borer in tomato
plants by the application of Beauveria bassiana formulation with an
oil-based carrier medium suggests that the growth and yield of the crop
get increased by the foliar spray of the formulation. Under this same
study seed treatment of tomato with a liquid formulation of Pseudomonas
florescens was reported to improve the growth and yield of the plant
significantly. Root treatment of rice seedlings in talc-based liquid
formulation of fluorescent pseudomonads has improved the yield of
crops by reducing the incidence of leaf folder pest, Cnaphalocrocis
medinalis (Saravanakumar et al., 2007). An endophytic bacterium,
Pseudomonas fluorescens strain EPO 15 formulated in rice bran oil by
invert emulsion technique was observed to reduce the occurrence of
postharvest diseases in vegetables and fruits (Archana et al., 2015).
Batta (2004) has reported that postharvest infection in apple fruit
caused due to Botrytis cinerea gets controlled due to the application of
Trichoderma harzianum preparation formulated in an inverted emulsion
of coconut and soybean oils. A spray of an inverted emulsion of
T. Harzianum decreases the incidence of postharvest fruit rot caused due
to Rhizopus stolonifera, B. cinerea, and P. expansum (Batta, 2007). Seed
dipped into the liquid formulation of Bacillus sp., Streptomyces sp.,
Azotobacter sp., and Frauteria sp. was reported to increase the germi­
nation percentage, growth, and yield parameters of black gram
(Maiyappan et al., 2010). Pseudomonas fluorescens strain AMB-8
formulated in autoclaved coconut water amended with 2% poly­
vinylpyrrolidone has imparted positive results over the growth param­
eters of chili and tomato seedlings (Anith et al., 2017). Microbial
consortia of Lactobacillus plantarum, L. casei, Streptococcus lactis, Rho­
dopseudomonas palustris, Rhodobacter sphaeroides, Saccharomyces cer­
evisiae, Candida utilis, Streptomyces albus, Streptomyces griseus, Aspergillus
oryzae, and Mucor hiemalis formulated in the liquid medium when
5
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
applied in soil before the sowing of Zea mays has positively influenced
the biomass and grain yield of the crop (Kato et al., 1996). Liquid
Glucose Ivo (LGI) liquid medium amended with carbon and nitrogen
sources was used to prepare the formulation of Paraburkholderia tropica
and applied over seeds to increase the productivity of treated wheat
crops (Bernabeu et al., 2018). Liquid formulations provide stabilization
of inoculants from adverse environmental conditions due to prevention
from osmolysis and inactivating soluble seed coat toxins as well as
provide almost negligible chances of contamination and improved field
efficacy (Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016; Vendan and Thangaraju,
2006). Therefore, the implementation of liquid-based formulations in
agriculture is widely favoured to harness the maximum potential of
introduced bacteria in the growth and yield promotion of targeted crops.
2.2. Plant probiotics in formulations
The two major categories of microbial agents are known to be used in
formulation development: plant growth-promoting rhizospheric bacte­
ria and the second one is an endophytic microbial community, proving
to have plant growth-promotion activities. Microorganisms are studied
to inhabit various zones in and around plants like spermosphere, phyl­
losphere and rhizosphere. Out of which rhizosphere is the region
designated to have high carbon content and high energy due to the
intense interaction occurring between the plant and soil microflora
present in this region (Elnahal et al., 2022). Those bacteria residing into
this rhizosphere and exhibit the potential of plant growth promotion are
known as PGPR. PGPR are the inhabitants of soil, occupying the rhizo­
spheric surface of the plant root, and are equipped with various plant
growth-promoting attributes (Ahemad and Kibret, 2014). Endophytes
are treated as a specialized group of plant growth promoters that can
ingress their host plant and sometimes impart more beneficial effects
than rhizobacteria (Reinhold-Hurek and Hurek, 2011). In addition to
dealing with abiotic stresses, endophytes are also reported to overcome
the disease stress imparted by pathogens over to the plants (Hossain
et al., 2023). Most endophytes have two phases of their life cycle, one
which goes inside their host tissues and the other goes in the soil envi­
ronment (Afzal et al., 2019). Microorganisms used to prepare bio­
fertilizers can help us to stabilize the hazardous effects caused due to
agrochemicals over to the agro-ecosystem. The widely used genera that
are very common in the recipe of many bioactive agricultural products
are the species of Rhizobium, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Azotobacter, Tri­
choderma, Mesorhizobium and Bradyrhizobium (Mishra and Arora, 2016;
Ijaz et al., 2019). Díaz-Rodríguez et al. (2021), have reported that
Pseudomonas, Micrococcus, Enterobacter, Pantoea, Ralstonia, Bacillus,
Microbacterium, Acinetobacter, Burkholderia, and Aeromonahy are the
major phyto stimulants and phosphate solubilizers known to be used in
formulation development. A study conducted by Elnahal et al. (2022)
suggests that the bioremediation of xenobiotic pollutants was recorded
to be facilitated by the application of Burkholderia cepacia complex
(Bcc). Rokhzadi and &Toashih (2011), along with Choudhary et al.
(2022), and Fadiji et al. (2022), have suggested that plant
growth-promoting microorganisms used in formulations can tolerate
various biotic and abiotic stresses e.g., Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Azo­
spirillumare able to tolerate higher levels of salts in the soil whereas,
Burkholderia and Rhizobium help the plant to avoid water stress in
continuation to this Azotobacter and Bacillus helps the crop to improve
their nutrient uptake. Elnahal et al. (2022) have reported the
nitrogen-fixing ability as well as the antipathogenic quality of Azospir­
illum spp., Azoarcus spp., Burkholderia spp., Gluconacetobacter diazo­
trophicus, Herbaspirillum spp., Azotobacter, and Paenibacillus polymyxa.
There is also a group of microorganisms known as biocontrol agents,
that assist plants to cope with the diseases caused by phytopathogens.
Bacterial bio control agents are capable of activating host defence
mechanism even without interacting with the pathogen directly,
through induced systemic resistance which in turn protect the host from
occurring the disease (Dash et al., 2018; Elnahal et al., 2022).
V. Singh and B. Kumar Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843

Phytopathogens like Fusarium verticillioides are studied to get controlled
due to the activity of biocontrol agents like Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and
Microbacterium oleovorans (Etcheverry et al., 2009). Development of the
diseases caused due to Penicillium expansum, Botrytis cinerea, and Alter­
naria alternata are found to get controlled by the application of formu­
lations made up of Metschnikowia pulcherrima (Köhl et al., 2019). Plant
growth promotion and yield improvement are suggested by the root or
seed inoculation of various plant growth promoters like Acinetobacter,
Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Beijerinckia,
Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Flavobacterium, Rhizobium and Ser­
ratia (Sturz and Nowak, 2000; Sudhakar et al., 2000). Besides these, the
activities of numerous other anti-pathogenic and plant
growth-promoting microorganisms are being involved in formulating
various biofertilizers to support sustainable agriculture around the
globe. Countless novel microorganisms present in the soil and endowed
with the potential of plant growth promotion are seeking high-impact
research for their activities to get anticipated and to kick in the oper­
ations/techniques of bio-farming.
2.3. Additives and their types
In the delivery system of plant growth-promoting microbes, not only
the carriers but the additives also played a very significant role in the
survivability and efficacy of that inoculant therefore, additives should
also be selected very wisely. A major challenge in microbial formulation
development is the selection of a proper carrier medium to support the
protracted shelf life of used plant growth-promoting microbial strains,
and tampering due to fluctuating, non-favourable environmental con­
ditions during their storage and transport (Novinscak and Filion 2020;
Vassilev et al., 2020). To overcome this challenge of microbial desic­
cation, additives are used to bolster the survival of inoculants up to a
wide range of temperature changes and provide longer shelf life to the
prepared formulation. According to Surendragopal and Baby (2016),
additives are substances that provide longer shelf life by protecting them
from harsh environmental conditions. Better tolerance provided, against
various biotic and abiotic factors through additives, furnish the opti­
mum cell density of inoculum to brace sustainable agriculture. Lignite
behaves as a very good additive when augmented with soybean powder
(Kandasamy and Prasad, 1971), 10% lucern hay meal (Sharma and
Verma, 1979), and different ratios of vermicast (Sekar and Karmegam,
2010) for enhancing the viability as well as the shelf life of Rhizobium
cells involved in formulation development. Chitin, a long-chain polymer
of N-acetylglucosamine can be amended to improve the chitinolytic
microbial population in soil and acts as an antifungal agent (Bell et al.,
1998). Along with enhancing the survivability of Bacillus cereus and
Bacillus circulans in groundnut fields chitin also helps to lower the
emergence of early and late leaf blight diseases (Kishore et al., 2005).
The addition of essential nutrients was also found to be a good way to
improve the efficiency of the inoculant. In this context amendment of
carbon sources to the formulation prepared with Pseudomonas was found
to elevate its biocontrol potency by releasing antifungal enzymes to its
surroundings (Duffy and Défago, 1999). Various types of additives
administered with different microbes having plant growth promoting
traits are studied and applied to achieve crop productivity, biocontrol
activities, bioremediation of contaminants from the environment
(Table 1).
2.3.1. Polymers
Various widely used immobilization techniques to exploit the
goodness of microbes in the agrarian sector is the encapsulation of
strains with biopolymers/synthetic polymers, organic and inorganic
materials through spray drying, fluidized bed, ionic gelation and many

Table 1
List of different carrier mediums with the associated microorganisms and their targeted crops.
Carrier material Applied microorganism Mode of application Target crop References

Sodium alginate (Na-Alg) and Rhizobium sp. G58 Seed dip Vigna unguiculata L. Rivera et al. (2014)
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HMPC)
Pea protein isolate (PPI) with Na-Alg Bacillus subtilis B26 Soil application Brachypodium distachyon Gagné-Bourque et al.
(2015)
Carboxymethylcellulose (MBC) and xanthan Bacillus subtilis Liquid suspension Biocontrol against Meloidogyne Pacheco-Aguirre et al.
(MBX) incognita in tomato (2016)
Sodium Alginate Bacillus spp. Root inoculation Triticum turgidum Rojas-Padilla et al. (2022)
Sodium Alginate-bentonite enriched with Bacillus subtilis Vru1 Root inoculation Biocontrol against Rhizoctonia Saberi-Rise et al. (2020)
Titanium nanoparticle solani on bean
Chitosan and Gellan gum enriched with ZnO Streptomyces fulvissimus Uts22 Micro capsular Biocontrol against Saberi-Riseh and
nanoparticle implementation Gaeumannomyces graminis in Moradi-Pour (2021)
wheat
Nanozeolite Bacillus spp. Seed bacterization Zea mays Chaudhary et al. (2021a)
Nanogypsum Pseudomonas taiwanensis Soil application Zea mays Chaudhary et al. (2021b)
ZnO nanoparticle Azospirillumbrasilense Seed inoculation Wheat Muhammad et al. (2022)
Sodium alginate with humic acid Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas Soil application Lettuce plant Young et al. (2006)
putida
Alginate + humic acid B. subtilis Soil application – Zago et al. (2019)
NaAlg-bentonite Beauveria bassiana strain In the form of lyophilized – Batista et al. (2017)
CPATC032 beads
C-Alg-Perlite medium Pseudomonas putida Soil application Andrographis thaliana Liffourrena and Lucchesi
(2018)
Kaolin clay Streptomyces griseus Soil application Biocontrol against Fusarium Zacky and Ting (2015)
oxysporum
Alginate and skimmed milk Pseudomonas flourescens and Soil application Wheat Saxena (2011)
Burkholderia cepacian
Alginate with skimmed milk Azotobacter chroococcum and Seed inoculation Sorghum Brahmaprakash et al.
Acinetobacter (2020)
Alginate with clay and skimmed milk Rhizobium sp. Soil application Cowpeas Hegde and
Brahmaprakash (1992)
Glycerol Bacillus megaterium Seed treatment Cowpeas Velineni and
Brahmaprakash (2011)
Molybdenum nanoparticles Bacillus sp. strain ZH16 Soil application Wheat Ahmed et al. (2022)
Biogenic gold nanoparticles Pseudomonas monteilii Soil application Vigna unguiculata Upadhyay et al. (2023)
Ag nanoparticle Pseudomonas putida and Seed treatment with Cucumber Nawaz and Bano (2020)
Pseudomonas stutzeri spraying of nanoparticles

6
V. Singh and B. Kumar
more (Vejan et al., 2019). Modification of liquid formulations by
immobilizing them with a polymer-based additive medium to improve
the quality and efficiency of preparation, resulted the formation of
polymer-entrapped formulations. Commonly used polymers are meth­
ylcellulose, sodium alginate, polyethylene glycol, tapioca flour poly­
vinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinyl alcohol, gum Arabica, trehalose,
glycerol, Fe-EDTA, etc. (Singleton et al., 2002). Employed polymers for
this purpose are first get accessed on the basis of their pH, viscosity
grade, particle size, solubility in water, non-toxicity and biotechnolog­
ical applications with microorganisms after that get selected by looking
over their cost and supply. According to Deaker et al. (2004), a polymer
with high molecular weight, good water solubility, nontoxicity, and
complex chemical nature are treated as a good additive. A study con­
ducted by Rivera et al. (2014), suggests that encapsulation of Rhizobium
with sodium alginate and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-HPMC has
positively influenced the root nodulation in cowpea beans. Pea protein
isolates and alginate are employed to prepare a biostimulant by using
Bacillus subtilis B26 (Gagné-Bourque et al., 2015). Spores of B. subtilis
coated with biopolymer carboxymethyl xanthan (MBX) showed a posi­
tive influence on treating the disease caused due to Meloidogyne incognita
in plants (Pacheco-Aguirre et al., 2016). The application of alginate
microbeads containing the strains of Bacillus spp. showed a positive ef­
fect on the growth parameters of wheat plants (Rojas-Padilla et al.,
2022). Polymers provide resistivity to microbes against heat and drying
by possessing high water activity with good rheological properties thus,
are good to be used as additives in the formulation industry (Sahu and
Brahmaprakash, 2016; Mugnier and Jung, 1985). Saberi-Riseh and
Moradi-Pour (2021), has reported that using starch as an additive with
alginate to control the pathogenesis of Rhizoctonia solani and improve
the growth of and yield of bean crop.
2.3.2. Humic acid
The major element of organic matter in the soil, sediments as well as
water is humic acid which assembles heterogeneously to form various
low molecular weight humic substances (Olivares et al., 2017; Young
et al., 2006; Balla et al., 2022). Humic acids containing about 60% of C,
along with N, O, S, and H, played a major role in the growth and pro­
liferation of microorganisms present in soil (Sible et al., 2021; Ampong
et al., 2022). Humic acids with their high water-holding capacities,
chelation and co-transportation of nutrients from medium/soil to plants,
induction of plant’s secondary metabolism, and many more, imple­
mented as additives, are indulged in carrying out wonders from waste
(Ampong et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2021; Nardi et al., 2017). Olivares
et al. (2017), have described that chemotaxis stimulated through humic
acid leads to the colonization of efficient rhizobacteria and endophytes
near the root of plants. Humic acid emendation to plants is also asso­
ciated with the formation of root hairs as well as lateral roots in the crop
(Olivares et al., 2017). Humic acid amended with sodium alginate to
immobilize Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas putida is recorded to
improve the growth of lettuce plants (Young et al., 2006). Zago et al.
(2019) studied the role of Azospirillum brasilense coated with peat, so­
dium alginate, and humic acid, to improve plant growth in wheat crops.
Potassium use efficiency as well as plant growth promotion efficacy of
Faba beans is tested by the implementation of K solubilizing bacteria and
recorded to be the maximum when bio solubilizers are supplemented
with 40 kg of humic acid (Ding et al., 2021).
2.3.3. Clay minerals
Cay is the omnipresent mineral of the biosphere with high carbon
and potassium contents and is used in microbial encapsulation due to
their exceptional physiochemical characteristics. The use of clay min­
erals in the sphere of sustainable agriculture is gaining much attention to
be used in biopesticides and biostimulants due to their high adsorption
efficiencies and negligible harm to the environment (Li et al., 2008; Ni
et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2010). Application of extrusion and external
gelation techniques with sodium alginate added with a type of clay
7
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
mineral, bentonite to provide the low-cost encapsulation to Raoultella
planticola and Pseudomonas putida is studied for its performance as
bacterial fertilizer and plant growth promoters respectively, in farm­
lands (He et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017). Encapsulation of a fungus,
Beauveria bassiana strain CPATC032 with NaAlg-bentonite and its
implementation as a biocontrol agent is studied by Batista et al. (2017).
Another research carried out by Liffourrena and Lucchesi (2018), has
entrenched the plant growth promotion in Andrographis thaliana with
the application of emulsion prepared out of Pseudomonas putida encap­
sulated in NaAlg-Perlite medium. Amiet-Charpentier (1999), studied
that the spray drying method is involved in biofertilizer preparation
with Pseudomonas fluorescence and Pseudomonas putida by amending
silica in methacrylic copolymer. Kaolin, another important clay mineral
was formulated with alginate to control the phytopathogenic infection
of Fusarium oxysporum in sterile and infected soil environments (Zacky
and Ting, 2015). Subduction in pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia is reported
to get achieved by the application of Streptomyces spp. formulation in
alginate with kaolin (Sabaratnam and Traquair, 2002). The proliferation
of higher fungal cell densities of Trichoderma spp. and Gliocladium vir­
ensin soil was reported to be achieved by formulating them in alginate
and kaolin clay (Lewis and Papavizas, 1985). Ionic gelation of Na-Alg
with consortia of five bacteria was applied to remove the chlorpyrifos
(CP) from industrial effluent (Valdivia-Rivera et al., 2021). Sol-gel
encapsulation of silica over Pseudomonas sp. and E. coli was used to
remediate the naphthalene and atrazine, respectively (Valdivia-Rivera
et al., 2021).
2.3.4. Skimmed milk
Immobilization of biological formulations with skimmed milk as an
additive for extracting out the plant growth-promoting ability of
employed inoculum is reported by many researchers. Under semiarid
conditions plant growth and yield of the wheat crop are reported to get
increase with the application of alginate and skimmed milk-coated
bacterial strains of Pseudomonas flourescens and burkholderia cepacian
(Saxena, 2011). Similar effects of plant growth promotion in maize crops
due to the application of Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas corrugata
formulated in NaAlg added with skimmed milk (Trivedi et al., 2005).
Archana D.S. (2011), reported that the application of formulation pre­
pared with Azotobacter chroococcum and Acinetobacter sp. in alginate
with skimmed milk has positively improved the plant growth in Sor­
ghum crop (Brahmaprakash et al., 2020). Amelioration of plant growth
and yield in cowpeas is reported to be achieved by the application of
Rhizobium sp. formulated in alginate with clay and skimmed milk
(Hegde and Brahmaprakash, 1992). Bioremediation of heavy metals and
reactive dyes from wastewater is another task efficiently performed by
encapsulating Lysinibacillus sp. with Cyclodextrin fibers and skimmed
milk (San Keskin et al., 2018; Valdivia-Rivera et al., 2021).
2.3.5. Glycerol
Glycerol when amended in microbial formulations as an additive
protects the cells from tension and acts as a shielding agent for cells by
balancing trans-membrane traffic and osmotic pressure (Li et al., 2016).
The high water activity of glycerol supports the easier application of
prepared microbial formulation for seeds and also prevents cell desic­
cation (Singleton et al., 2002). Pantoae agglomerance formulated in
alginate amended with glycerol is reported to control the infection
caused due to soil-born plant pathogenic fungus (Zohar-Perez et al.,
2002). Selvaraj et al. (2014), suggests that the application of 2% (v/v)
glycerol-based Pseudomonas fluorescens formulation against Fusarium
oxysporum and Helicotylen chusmulticinctus not only decreased the loss
caused due to mentioned pathogens but also improved the yield of the
crop. Another research to control the loss caused due to Fusarium wilt in
tomato plants was performed by implementing Pseudomonas fluorescens
strain Pf1 dissolved in glycerol is reported to cut down the incidence of
targeted disease and ameliorated the yield too (Manikandan et al.,
2010). Enhanced uptake of phosphorous in cowpea crop to improve its
V. Singh and B. Kumar
growth and yield via application of Bacillus megaterium with glycerol (12
mL/L) and other cell protectants (Velineni and Brahmaprakash, 2011).
2.3.6. Plant oils
The incidence of disease caused due to the infection of Fusarium
solani in potatoes is controlled by the concoction made up of Pseudo­
monas fluorescens (VUPF5 and T17-4 strains) with emulsification of so­
dium alginate and soybean oil (Pour et al., 2019). Beauveria bassiana
formulated in NaAlg and peanut oil is reported to control the infection of
Solenopsis invicta (Bextine and Thorvilson, 2002). Emulsification pre­
pared using Sinorhizobium meliloti in canola oil and xanthan gum is re­
ported to induce plant growth and the formation of nodules in Alfalfa
(John et al., 2013). The formulation prepared with Rhodopseudomonas
palustris strain PS3 in 0.5% horticulture oil was reported to improve
plant growth by supporting the uptake of nutrients for Chinese cabbage
(Lee et al., 2016). The patented coating of Pseudomonas veronii with
xanthan gum was effective in remediating mercuric-contaminated soil
by performing the uptake of intracellular volatilization of Hg ions (Karn
et al., 2021).
2.3.7. Nanomaterials
The conversion of materials in their nano forms with sizes ranging
from 1 to 100 nm makes them more valuable by providing them with
increased bioavailability of those materials (Al Hamad et al., 2021;
El-Saadony et al., 2021). The great potential of plant growth-promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR) can be harnessed by the implementation of
nano-technology into the fields of sustainable agriculture (Elemike et al.,
2019). The inoculants prepared with the encapsulation of microorgan­
isms with nanomaterials are capable of providing the dual benefit of
microbe as well as the material used for their encapsulation (Tipu et al.,
2021). This is a new but very efficient strategy employed in agriculture
due to its targeted and timed mode of action to ameliorate the nutrient
uptake by plants (Upadhayay et al., 2023). Nanoparticles are known to
furnish their role directly by increasing the bioavailability of nutrients or
indirectly by preventing the employed PGPR from inconsistent adverse
environmental conditions. Nano-fertilizers are suggested to have a
larger surface area, higher reactivity, and are easy to store due to their
smaller size (Jayara et al., 2023). The microbes encapsulated in nano­
materials are reported to retain the soil moisture along with providing
essential nutrients to the plant (Kumari and Singh, 2020). The encap­
sulation of polymeric nanomaterials with microbes is proposed to be
more efficient in delivering desired results due to their ability to cross
cell walls, membranes, and vascular tissues of plants (Riseh et al., 2022).
Haris and Ahmad (2017), have reported that encapsulation of ZnO to
PGPRs like P.aeruginosa, P. fluorescens, and B. amyloliquefaciens was able
to enhance the siderophore production abilities of the mentioned
PGPRs. A mixture containing 2:1 ratio of potential PGPR suspension
with Na-Alg (1.5%), starch (3%), and bentonite (4%) is used to prepare
microcapsules and finally, coating these microcapsules with crosslinking
calcium chloride solution gives rise to the microcapsule nano fertilizers
for improved agriculture (Akhtar et al., 2022; Adjuik et al., 2022). A
Nanoparticle of CuO is reported to induce the Indole-3- acetamide
pathway in Pseudomonas chlororaphis to promote IAA production in the
bacterium (Dimkpa et al., 2012). Saberi-Riseh and Moradi-Pour (2021)
have reported that the encapsulation of Bacillus subtilis with titanium
nanoparticle-enriched alginate–bentonite coating was capable of
increasing the growth and yield of bean plants by suppressing the in­
cidents of Rhizoctonia solani. Takeshita et al. (2021) have studied the
higher and faster absorption response of polymer nanoparticle-coated
Atrazine in mustard leaves when compared with commercially avail­
able non-coated Atrazine herbicide. Bacterial inoculant encapsulation
with bioactive nanofibers is cited as an efficient technique to preserve
the microbe at the seed surface and gradually manage as well as improve
the germination of the seed (Sahu et al., 2021). Chaudhary et al. (2021b)
have reported that Pseudomonas taiwanensis in collaboration with
nano-gypsum when applied over maize crop is efficient in improving the
8
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
structure and function of the soil in turn influencing the health of the
crop. Application of nano urea is studied to improve the dry matter,
macronutrient along with chlorophyll pigment concentration in pearl
millet crop (Sharma et al., 2022). Saffan et al. (2022) report the use of
nano selenium in tomato plants to increase its yield and quality. The
application of the same nanomaterial with bananas is found to improve
the growth and photosynthetic pigment of the crop (Shalaby et al.,
2022). Application of nano copper with wheat and maize has been
registered to ameliorate DNA damage and yield of the crops, respec­
tively (Hosseinpour et al., 2022; Van Nguyen et al., 2021). Salama et al.
(2022), have reported that the application of nano-gypsum in spinach is
capable of improving the yield of the crop in saline soil conditions.
2.4. Quality deciding standards in microbial preparations
There are many theories explaining the desired qualities of formu­
lations whereas plenty of them chiefly focus on the relative impact of
using different carriers and additives. According to Aamir et al. (2020)
and Chaudhary et al. (2020), a formulation should have an adequate
shelf life, easy in transportation and application and must be able to
protect the employed microorganism from adverse climatic conditions.
A formulation that helps to improve the quality of soil and is
cost-effective as well, with strong pH buffering potentials, high water
holding and water retention capacities, is treated as a good fertilizer (Wu
et al., 2005; Pandya and Saraf, 2010; Sivasakthivelan and Saranraj,
2013; Mishra and Dadhich, 2010; Keyser et al., 1992). Many studies
suggest that the number of microbial cells is directly proportional to the
effectiveness of formulation therefore according to Smith (1992), and
Lupwayi et al. (2000), the additive materials used in the development of
formulation should increase the number of microbial cells (Chaudhary
et al., 2020). Naik et al. (2020), suggested that a good-quality formu­
lation should be able to suppress contamination by tolerating a wide
range of pH changes that occurred during its storage and transportation
and should get easily sterilized as well. The technique used in formu­
lation development should be easy and its application to target crops
must fit into regular agricultural practices. Sharma et al. (2023), advised
that the release of microbial strain involved in formulating embedded
formulation should be at the optimum pace, neither too slow nor too
fast. Another researcher, Bonkowski (2004), recommended that a good
quality inoculant, used to prepare formulation, must be physically un­
varying, lump-free, able to compete for nutrient uptake with the natural
microflora already present in the soil along with fulfilling the BIS cri­
terion of biofertilizers (Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016). The overall
quality of prepared formulation also greatly depends on the grade of
carrier medium and additives used to formulate the biofertilizer.
Therefore, during the preparation of formulation along with the potency
of microbial strains the quality as well as particle size of carrier medium
and stabilizers/additives should also be kept in mind. Bazilah et al.
(2011), suggests that a carrier medium should be selected based on its
easy accessibility, abundance, and innocuousness. A good carrier me­
dium should be eco-friendly and must be liberal to nutrient supplements
which aid in the proliferation of inoculants (Aamir et al., 2020). It
should also be completely soluble with other ingredients of formulation
so that there is no heat of wetting released in the process (Naik et al.,
2020).
2.5. Application technologies
Application strategy of any microbial formulation chiefly pivots over
to the type of carrier medium, and the microbial strain or bioactive
consortia used for its preparation. Implementation time and procedure
of prepared formulation also depend on the targeted crop as well as bio
stimulatory mechanics of interaction frolicked via growth stimulator or
biocontrol agents to the particular crop (Bejarano and Puopolo, 2020).
Another criterion that should be fulfilled by the introduced formulation
is that it must ensure the growth and development of the targeted crop
V. Singh and B. Kumar
even under adverse biotic and abiotic conditions (Nagpal et al., 2021).
There are several methods described below to achieve the improved
growth and yield of selected crops through the application of microbial
formulation.
2.5.1. Seed inoculation
The most economical and effective method for the application of
almost all types of biofertilizers is coating the seeds with the prepared
formulation of potential microbial strain (Nagpal et al., 2021). In the
case of powder, granules, and other types of solid formulations, slurry of
adhesive substance is prepared, in which the mentioned types of for­
mulations are mixed and coated over seeds. These coated/treated seeds
are dried under shade for a few hours and sown within the same day to
harness the maximum benefit of inoculant and also to avoid contami­
nation. The inoculant is mixed with seeds by hand or cheaper and easier
methods like cement mixers, mechanical tumblers, or rotating drums
(Schulz and Thelen, 2008). For introducing liquid biofertilizers, seeds
are dipped in liquid formulation and stored at optimum temperature for
a few hours, depending upon the type of seed and also the bioactive
strain used as an inoculant. The treated seeds are dried in the shade and
sown, to draw the potential of inoculant in achieving better health and
growth of seed (Hazra and Patanjali, 2016). Over to the layer of bio
formulation, seeds are sometimes also coated with CaCO3to overcome
the loss caused due to the acidity of the soil (Bashan et al., 2014).
Valverde et al. (2007), have suggested the co-inoculation of Pseudo­
monas jessenii PS06 and Mesorhizobium ciceri C-2/2 over to the seeds of
chickpea for improved yield and nodulation in the crop. Seed bacteri­
zation of Bradyrhizobium japonicum USDA110 and Pseudomonas putida
NUU8 over soybean seeds have responded to improve the drought
tolerance, nutrient uptake as well as growth and yield by positively
influencing other economic traits of the crop (Jabborova et al., 2021).
Bacillus subtilis and Azospirillum brasilense were used to prime the seeds
of wheat to improve its germination potential as well as other yield at­
tributes (Ilyas et al., 2020). Seeds of mung bean are treated with liquid
preparations of Rhizobium 3 and Rhizobium 9, revealing the enhance­
ment in plant growth and nodulation along with improved economic
traits of the crop (Matkarimov et al., 2019). Seeds of the common bean
when inoculated with Rhizobium tropici CIAT 899 and P. polymyxa
DSM36 has reported to significantly improve plant growth and nodu­
lation in the crop (Figueiredo et al., 2008). Arachis hypogeae L. seeds
inoculated with Rhizobium is reported to significantly improve the
growth and yield of the crop (Zalate and Padmani, 2009). A study
conducted by Tewari and Arora (2014), suggests that the priming of
sunflower seed with Pseudomonas aeruginosa PF23 has improved the
germination percentage by 50%. Sowing the seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris
L. after treating them with Rhizobium tropici strain SEMIA 4080 along
with the supply of nitrogen fertilizer at the time of sowing and 25 days
after seedling emergence has significantly improved the growth and
yield of common bean (BARROS et al., 2018). Application of consortia of
Pseudomonas fluorescens biotype G, Enterobacter cloacae dissolvens, and
Serratia marcescens ss marcescens is reported to significantly improve the
agronomic traits and grain yield of Dukem variety (Dz-01-974) (Tsegaye
et al., 2022). In another experiment conducted by Fürnkranz et al.
(2012), the seeds of pumpkin by coating them with Serratia plymuthica
positively improved their germination percentage by 109%. Improve­
ment in essential oil yield of sweet basil, the biopriming of its seeds with
Pseudomonas monteilii, was recorded to be the best in comparison to the
application with Cronobacter dublinensis and Bacillus spp. (Singh et al.,
2013). Biopriming the seeds of Ocimum sanctum with Bacillus subtilis is
reported to improve the essential oil yield of the crop (Tiwari et al.,
2010). Enhancement in grain yield and nutrient status of wheat crops is
recorded due to the application of Bacillus megaterium for their seed
priming (Chandra et al., 2021). Seed treatment of sugar beet with
Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus coagulans is reported to induce
plant growth and also improved the root length of seedlings (Jorjani
et al., 2011). Shivran et al. (2013), have reported that the fenugreek seed
9
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
coating with the bioregulators Pseudomonas pituda and Microbacterium
taraoxidens, individually, has significantly increased the growth attri­
butes of the crop hence ultimate improvement in seed yield. Seed
inoculation of Rhizobium with farmyard manure over to the seeds of
fenugreek is recorded to improve the growth parameters and yield at­
tributes of the crop (Raiyani et al., 2018). The combined treatment of
Azotobacter chroococcum + Azospirillum brasilense and Bacillus mega­
therium + Bacillus polymyxa over to the seeds of Hibiscus sabdariffa L. is
recorded to improve the growth parameters, fruit number, sepal yield,
anthocyanin content and total soluble solids (Kahil et al., 2017).
2.5.2. Seedling or root dip
Dipping of seedlings is a common practice for the implementation of
formulation in the crops like cereals, fruits, vegetables, sugarcane, cot­
ton, banana, grapes, and tobacco (Nagpal et al., 2021). In this technique,
seedlings of targeted crops get dipped into the aqueous suspension of
bioactive agents for the optimum time to ensure the proper adherence of
introduced bio-agent which varies from 15 to 30 min for vegetables to
8–12 h in paddy (Thomas and Singh, 2019). Jayathilake et al. (2003)
reported an improvement in plant height, number of leaves/plants, bulb
size, and weight, and also the yield of onion crops, due to the root
application of biofertilizer prepared with Azotobacter chroococcum.
Dipping of maize roots in Azotobacter chroococcum was found to improve
the K+/Na+ ratio as well as contents of chlorophyll and phenol under
salinity stress (Rojas-Tapias et al., 2012). The triple inoculation treat­
ment of Azotobacter spp., Sphingobacterium spp., and Burkholderia spp.
over onion bulb has been reported to give the best results for most of the
agro-econic traits of the crop (Tinna et al., 2020). Another study suggests
that the amendment of Azotobacter spp. with VAM and RDF is imple­
mented over to the roots of onion to achieve maximum crop yield
(Kumar et al., 2018b). Dipping of strawberry roots for 30 min into the
formulation of Azospirillum with phosphate solubilizing bacteria is re­
ported to significantly improve the yield of fruit crops in the subtropical
region of India (Kumar et al., 2019). Root application of consortia of
Bacillus M3, Bacillus OSU-142, and Microbacterium FS01 is reported to
enhance the growth, yield, and uptake of nutrients in apple trees (Kar­
lidag et al., 2007). The yield of sugar beet, barley, raspberry, apple, and
apricot is also recorded to be improved by the root application of Bacillus
M3, Bacillus OSU-142 (Zhou et al., 2014; Kaymak, 2011; Esitken et al.,
2002). A study conducted by Karthikeyan et al. (2010), suggests that the
root inoculation of a consortium of Azotobacter, Bacillus, and Pseudo­
monas has positively influenced the growth parameters, yield attributes,
and secondary metabolite concentrations (alkaloid) in Catharanthus
roseus L. along with improving its nutrient uptake.
2.5.3. Foliar/aerial application
Incidents of biotic and abiotic stress are the major area of concern
related to economic and agricultural loss worldwide. Regarding this, the
foliar application of microbial formulations is entertained as a
comparatively easier and more effective tool in enhancing plant inbuilt
mechanics to overcome stress. Crop productivity and suppression of
phytopathogens in crops depend on the type of crop and the microbe
implemented through foliar spray (Pasala et al., 2022). Foliar applica­
tion of biostimulants at the time of flowering and fruit formation of
targeted crops positively responded towards growth promotion and
yield enhancement of the crop along with reducing the incidents of
flower shedding (Sathishkumar et al., 2020). Spraying the consortia of
Pseudomonas BA-8 and Bacillus OSU-142 over to the plants of sweet
cherry is recorded to improve the growth and yield of the fruit crop
(Esitken et al., 2006). Foliar application of Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf4)
and P. aeruginosa (Pag) in pea plants is reported to increase the yield of
crops by reducing the damage caused due to a phytopathogen Erysiphe
pisi (Bahadur et al., 2007). Bacillus subtilis OSU-142 was sprayed at the
full bloom stage of apricot trees, and recorded to improve the average
yield and quality of its fruits by reducing the incidents of shoot hole
disease (Esitken et al., 2002). Ahmadi-Rad et al. (2016), have suggested
V. Singh and B. Kumar
that the combined foliar application of Azotobacter chroococcum strain 5
and Azospirillum lipoferum strain 21 is reported to positively influences
development in canola cultivars. Pseudomonas veronii when preventively
sprayed over bean leaves before the incidence of bacterial blight in
Phaseolus vulgaris is suggested to regulate the crop yield by suppressing
the disease incident (Sangiogo et al., 2018). The double inoculation
treatment of Klebsiella planticola and Enterobacter spp. when applied
through foliar spray over maize and wheat responded positively to the
yield of the crops (Latkovic et al., 2020). A foliar spray of nitrogen-fixing
Azotobacter is recorded to improve the yield and quality of mulberry
leaves, assisting in the proper rearing of silkworms and improving
cocoon production (Sudhakar et al., 2000). Foliar application of
P. fluorescens for the control of Xanthomonas oryzae was found to be the
most suitable to control the disease induced by the targeted phyto­
pathogen (Jeyalakshmi et al., 2010). Vera et al. (2023) have reported
that spraying the dose of 1 × 105 cfu/plant of Methylobacterium sym­
bioticum to maize and strawberry crops was efficient in improving the
plant growth and herb yield by supplying the additional nitrogen to the
crops. Foliar spray of Si nanoparticles over Pseudomonas koreensis and
Bacillus coagulans inoculated seeds of Beta vulgaris have positively
reacted against salinity stress conditions of plant (Alharbi et al., 2022).
2.5.4. Soil application
Mixing biofertilizers with soil is another efficient method to bring out
the plant health and growth promotion potential of applied microor­
ganism. A substantial quantity of biofertilizers or a larger cell number of
introduced inoculants serve more efficiently under this method of mi­
crobial formulation application (Nagpal et al., 2021). Transport and
storage of soil inoculants are more convenient and involve somewhat
less technical knowledge in their application. Soil inoculation of bio­
fertilizers is mostly favoured by crops having small-sized seeds (Nagpal
et al., 2021). Soil inoculated with granular Rhizobium leguminosarum bv.
Viciae for the production of pea, is reported to improve the nitrogen
availability of the field and enhanced nodulation in the crop (Clayton
et al., 2004). Field trial for three consecutive years on pea cultivation
suggests that the soil application of P. fluorescens is effective in
improving the NP contents of soil and is also responsible to improve the
pod yield, haulm yield, and nodule weight of the crop (Dey et al., 2004).
Peat inoculation of consortia of Pseudomonas spp., B. amyloliquefaciens,
and B. subtilis in soil for rice cultivation depicted improved grain and
straw yield as well as increased nitrogen content in grains (Cong et al.,
2009). The soil application of B. subtilis SU47 and Arthrobacter spp. SU18
separately is recorded to increase the dry biomass, proline contents, and
total soluble sugar in wheat crops (Upadhyay et al., 2012). Efthimiadou
et al. (2020) have reported the soil application of single inoculation
B. megatherium and mixed inoculation of A. chroococcum and B. subtilis to
improve the overall yield, solid content of seeds and crude fibre content
in maize crops. Combined inoculation of Azotobacter chroococcum, Glu­
canobacter diazotrophicus, Bacillus megaterium, and Trichoderma harzia­
num in field conditions is suggested to enhance the number of tubers in
Beta vulgaris L. (Kumar et al., 2013). Soil inoculation B. pumilus S1r1 for
maize cultivation under glasshouse conditions revealed improved ni­
trogen fixing capabilities, delayed senescence, and increased grain
production (Kuan et al., 2016).
3. Present status and market trends
During the past few decades, the microbiological contrivance to
improve the health and growth of plants has banked great attention
throughout the globe, with its different names like biostimulants, bio­
fertilizers, microbial inoculants, bioformulations, bioprotectants and
many other (Gašić and Tanović, 2013; Mishra and Arora, 2016).
Nowadays omics-based depiction of soil microbial niches for the
development of personalized microbial preparation along with analysis
of biofilm development ability and use of different mathematical models
for the accurate prediction of the formulation performance is also
10
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
getting into trend (Hossain et al., 2023). However, a report presented by
the UN suggests that there are about 200,000 deaths every year are
estimated to occur due to exposure to pesticides in food products as
published in the Global Organic Food Market Report (2021–2030).
Therefore, the demand for organic agricultural products with
high-quality standards is also increasing to beat the organic food re­
quirements of the world (Newswire, 2021). Increased practices of
organic farming to fulfill the shooting organic food demands are carried
out by administering organic formulations like biofertilizers, bio­
pesticides, and biostimulants only for growing as well as managing the
crop (Mitter et al., 2021). This, in turn, is predicted to increase the
market yards of biofertilizers up to USD 3124.5 million by the end of
2024 by registering a CARG of 14.2% (Joshi and Gauraha, 2022). The
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in agriculture
along with FAO, sets the quality standards of organic products by
providing the certification internationally and enables the farmers to sell
their crop products at prices higher than the conventionally-grown
goods. However, the nation-based agencies are also dedicated to keep­
ing a check on the use of chemical fertilizers for agricultural practices in
their respective countries. The potency of various microbial genera in
achieving sustainable agriculture is commercially utilized by bio­
fertilizer and biopesticide industries around the globe. Soil minerals
availing, especially the nitrogen-fixing bacterial groups like
rhizobium-based biofertilizers are the most common to be implemented
in agriculture in almost every part of the world (Mordor Intelligence,
2023; Sansinenea, 2021). A report by Market Data Forecast on the
rhizobium-based fertilizers market suggests that during the year 2023,
Asian countries along with the nations present in the Pacific rims are the
largest consumers of rhizobium-based biofertilizers in the world fol­
lowed by European nations. Sansinenea (2021), reports that the global
market for rhizobium biofertilizers in 2018 was valued at 256.8 million
US dollars. Another study conducted by Mehnaz (2016), summarizes
that the revenue generated from the microbial formulation market is
dominated by nitrogen-fixing formulations (77%), followed by phos­
phate solubilizers which contribute about 15% of total profit generation
in this field. Kumar et al. (2022), have reported that in the world bio­
fertilizer market, the share of rhizobia contributes about 79% of the total
biofertilizer demands of the world. Many reputed industries from all
around the globe are involved in formulating different strains of
nitrogen-fixing bacteria like Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, as well
as various potential phosphate solubilizing strains of Bacillus, Pseudo­
monads, Burkholderia, and many more in the fields to develop minerals
mobilizing biofertilizers (Mehnaz, 2016; Gupta et al., 2021). According
to research carried out by Sansinenea (2021), Bayer Crop Science AG is a
leading biofertilizer company in the world and acquired Monsanto
BioAg, the biggest biofertilizer industry in Germany in 2018. TeraGanix,
Inc (USA), Agrinos AS (USA), Novozymes LLc (USA), Rizobacter S.A
(Argentina), Mapleton Agri Biotec Pty Ltd (Australia), The Tokachi
Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives (TFAC, Tokachi Nokyoren)
(Japan), T. Stanes & Company Limited (India), Ajay Biotech (India),
Camson Biotechnologies Limited (India), Criyagen Agri & Biotech Pvt.
Ltd. (India), Biomax Naturals (India), Gujarat State Fertilizers and
Chemicals (India), CBF China Bio-Fertilizer AG (China), Kiwa Bio-Tech
Products Group Corporation (China), Lallem and Inc. (Canada) and
Symborg S. L (Spain) are the few most important biofertilizer companies
of the world that are involved to develop a wide range of formulations to
improve the health as well as the growth of the plant (Table 2a) (Mishra
and Arora, 2016; Mehnaz, 2016; Mordor Intelligence, 2019). Various
companies like Indian Farmers and Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd (India),
Nano Green Sciences Inc. (India), Shan Maw Myae Trading Co., Ltd.
(India), AC International Network Co., Ltd. (Germany), SMTET
Eco-technologies Co., Ltd. (Taiwan), Fanavar NanoPazhoohesh Markazi
Company (Iran), WAI International Development Co., Ltd. (Malaysia)
and Urth Agriculture (USA) are involved in the fields of nano fertilizer
development are creating a boom in the market by supplying precisely
targeted and timed actions toward achieving sustainability (Table 2b)
V. Singh and B. Kumar Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843

Table 2a
Details of some bioformulation products with different microbes and their targeted crops.
Name of product Applied Target crop Company and Country of References
microorganism origin

Nitragin CTS 400 Rhizobium meliloti Soybean Novozymes LLc (USA) https://www.novozymes.com/en/products/bioag/soybeans/nitra
gin-cts-400
Signum Bradyrhizobium sp. soybean Rizobacter S.A (Argentina) https://www.rizobacter.us/en/productos/north-america/signum
Twin N Azotobacter, Vegetables, fruits, leguminous Mapleton Agri Biotec Pvt. https://www.mabiotec.com/twinn.php
Azospirillum and cereal crops Ltd. (Australia)
Symbion-N Azotobacter sp., All legume crops, beans, gram, T. Stanes & Company https://tstanes.com/nutrient-management/#read-more
Rhizobium sp., peas, lentil, cowpeas, pigeon Limited (India)
Azospirillum sp. peas, soybea, peanuts, clover,
and lucerne
Ajay Azo SF Azotobacter sp. All non-leguminous Ajay Biotech (India) https://ajaybiotech.com/product-ajay-azo-sf.html
vegetables, fruits and cereal
crops
CALOBIUM, Rhizobium sp., Vegetables, cereals and Camson Biotechnologies Mishra and Arora (2016).
CALMONAS, Pseudomonas sp., leguminous crops Limited (India)
CALSPIRAL Azospirillum sp.
Bio-Zn Zinc solubilizing Cotton, Paddy, Wheat, Criyagen Agri & Biotech https://www.indiamart.com/criyagenagribiotech/bio-fertilizer.
bacteria Sorghum, Maize, Sunflower, Pvt. Ltd. (India) html
Ground nut, Potato, Mustard,
etc.
Biozink Zinc solubilizing All types of crops Biomax Naturals (India) http://www.biomaxnaturals.com/zinc-solubilizer.html
bacteria
Sardar Amin Azotobacter, All types of crops Gujarat State Fertilizers https://www.gsfclimited.com/plant-growth-promoters
liquid and Azospirillum, and and Chemicals (India)
granules phosphate-
solubilizing bacteria
Xin Sheng Li Bacillus mucilaginous All the cereals, vegetables and CBF China Bio-Fertilizer https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/biofertilizers-to-re
and Bacillus subtilis leguminous crops AG (China) place-chemical-fertilizers-cbf-china-biofertilizer-ag-novozymes-a
s-and-labiofam-sa-to-remain-industry-players-594918861.html
LALFIX Spherical Rhizobium Lentils, pea, fava beans Lallemand Inc. (Canada) https://www.lallemandplantcare.com/en/canada/products/prod
pea & lentil leguminosarum uct-details/lalfix-spherical-pea-lentil/?type=biofertilization
Tricosym Bio Trychoderma All agricultural vegetable Symborg S. L (Spain) https://symborg.com/en/biostimulants/trichosym-bio/
harzianum T78 crops
Mamezo Rhizobium sp. Soybean, Azuki and Phaseolus The Tokachi Federation of García-Fraile et al. (2015)
beans Agricultural Cooperatives
(TFAC, Tokachi
Nokyoren) (Japan)

(Ranjan et al., 2022; Upadhayay et al., 2023).
4. Constraints in the technology
The biofertilizer market is segregated on the basis of the type of
implemented bioactive agents, carrier medium used in its preparation,
techniques involved in its application as well as the type of the targeted
crop or the pathogen (Sansinenea, 2021). Turning beneficial microbes
into full-fledged formulation for commercial use involves various stages
from microbial isolation to its screening as plant growth or health pro­
moter, its shelf-life assessment, its companionship with the targeted
crop, and interaction analysis among formulated strains when prepared
in consortium. The hauling of the developed biofertilizers from factories
to the field involves various steps and challenges to control the quality,
survivability, and contamination of the developed bioproduct which
must be keenly surveilled (Ghosh et al., 2001; Yadav and Chandra,
2014). As the demand for organic agricultural products in the market is
progressing quickly, the development of the requisite amount of bio
preparations with potential microorganisms is becoming a major accost
in this field which needs to be solved. Although there is a diverse
community of PGPR studied for their role in plant growth promotion,
very few of them got registered for their commercial applications due to
their varying results in nursery, greenhouse, and field experiments
(Hossain et al., 2023; Bhattacharjee et al., 2023). Another crucial
constraint in the commercialization of biofertilizers is the requirement
of well-equipped infrastructures with specifically skilled manpower
involved proficiently to develop large-scale biofertilizers. The storage
and transportation of these bio preparations to the market with sub­
stantial survivability and cell density of introduced microbe and sterility
of prepared formulation without any undesired microbial growth is
another challenging sitch that should be heeded (Lesueur et al., 2016).
The paucity of awareness about selecting the proper carrier medium for
specific microorganism and choosing appropriate additives or supple­
ments for supporting their growth and survival in the medium is another
hot pursuit of the biofertilizer market (Hossain et al., 2023). Lack of
technical knowledge related to the storage and application strategies of
biostimulants poses additional challenges for farmers to use them effi­
ciently and fears small farmers to take the risk. The quality assessment of
various commercialized biofertilizers demonstrated little or poor per­
formance in achieving their promised intent. There is also a huge gap in
committed regulations for biofertilizers development as well as their
utilization (Lesueur et al., 2016). The ability of biofilm formation by the
PGPR is hypothesized as one of the prominent mechanisms for their
plant growth promotion activities but the formation of biofilm is
completely dependent on soil type and environmental conditions
(Hossain et al., 2023). Thus, varying environmental conditions and
heterogenicity of soil also participate in deciding the effectiveness of
applied formulations. Therefore, the quality and efficacy trial of devel­
oped agrarian bioproducts at different climatic zones, before their
commercialization, becomes a very crucial step in determining their
credibility in sustainable agriculture (Sahu and Brahmaprakash, 2016).
Rhizodeposition shapes the plant-associated microbial community
which regulates the metabolic pathway of plants and initiates the
exudate production from plants via their root system. This release of
exudates depends on the age of the plants and the availability of nutri­
ents to that plant (Korenblum et al., 2022). Therefore, even after
applying any particular formulation, it is very difficult to promise the
availability, existence, and colonization of that specific niche in the
rhizosphere. The rhizocompetence or the competitive interaction be­
tween the introduced microbe and the priorly present microflora of the

11
V. Singh and B. Kumar Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843

Table 2b 5. Conclusions
Details of some nano fertilizers with their composition and country of origin.
Name of Composition Company and References The global biofertilizer market has an estimated value of 2.3 billion
product Country of origin US dollars currently and by the CARG of 12.10% is projected to reach up
Nano Urea 4% total N (w/v) IFFCO (India) https://www.iffco. to 4.10 billion USD during 2028 (Mordor Intelligence, 2023). There are
liquid in/en/nano-ure several types of formulations available in the market for getting
a-liquid-fertilizer commercially used by extension personnel and farmers to achieve
Nano green Extracts of corn, Nano Green https://product.sta improved health and growth of their crops. Under this review, we are
grain, soybeans, Sciences Inc. (India) tnano.com/produc
potatoes, coconut, t/4646/nano
focusing on the opus as well as the effectiveness of different combina­
and palm -green-fertilizer tions and application patterns of developed formulations for attaining
Eco star Organic matter Shan Maw Myae https://sh sustainability in agriculture. The microbes or the metabolites thereof,
(80%), N (8%), K2O Trading Co., Ltd. anmawmyae.com/ involved in the production of these green fertilizers contribute to
(2%), and C: N (5) (India) agriculture/
nutrient recycling, phytohormone modulations, and suppressing various
Nano CaCO3(78%), MgCO3 AC International Avila-Quezada
Calcium (7%), SiO2 (7.5%), K Network Co., Ltd. et al. (2022) biotic as well as abiotic stresses imposed by the environment over to the
(Magic (0.2%), and very (Germany) plants. The identification of a greater number of robust soil microor­
green) small quantities of ganisms and their efficacy evaluation regarding crops, as well as
Na, P, Fe, Al2O3, bio-formulating them to achieve agricultural sustainability will provide
sulfate, Mn, and Zn
Biozar Macronutrients, Fanavar Machado et al.
a potential tool to facilitate the production and release of a wide range of
Nano- micronutrients mixed NanoPazhoohesh (2022) biological preparations supporting overall health and growth of the crop
Fertilizer with organic matters Markazi Company (Bakker et al., 2012; Köberl et al., 2015). Also, the focus of scientists is
(Iran) biased toward the development of new products that should be shifted to
Nano Ultra- Equal quantities SMTET Eco- War et al. (2020)
scale up the economic feasibility and the underlying issues of already
Fertilizer (14%) of T-K2O and technologies Co.,
CA-K2O, T-N (10%), Ltd. (Taiwan) developed formulations. The application of MALDI-TOF MS and 2-DE for
T-P2O5 (9%), AC- the characterization of proteins secreted through plants and their asso­
P2O5 (8%), Organic ciated PGPRs is a new and efficient technique to describe the pattern of
matter (5.5%), and symbiotic relationships played between plants and their rhizobacterial
CA-MgO (3%)
niche. This secretome profiling also brings forth the approach of
PPC Nano M protein (20%), WAI International Elemike et al.
Na2O (0.3%), K2O Development Co., (2019) developing personalized biofertilizers based on the accurate nutritional
(2%), (NH4)2SO4 Ltd. (Malaysia) status of the field (Hossain et al., 2023). Plant probiotics, also known as
(1.5%), diluent (76%) PGPRs cannot deliver their positive results to the plants unless and until
Nano-Ag Total nitrogen (1%), Urth Agriculture Upadhyay et al.
there will be proper colonization (106 or 107 cfu) of these bacteria is
Answer available P (0.1%), (USA) (2023)
and soluble K (5.5%) ensured at their site of action. Therefore, encapsulation of these plant
along with about probiotics with nanoparticles is seen as a new emerging field of science
(93%) of other to develop nanomaterial-encapsulated biofertilizers (Upadhayay et al.,
ingredients. 2023). In the case of these encapsulated plant probiotics with nano­
Master Liquid chitosan, Pannaraj Intertrade Machado et al.
material and their application as biofertilizers, covering the technology
Nano organic acid, salicylic (Thailand) (2022)
Chitosan acids and phenolic and knowledge gap of interaction among employed nanomaterials with
Organic compounds encapsulated microbes as well as the exact time and site of their appli­
Fertilizer cation is suggested to be very important to support the efficient use of
TAG Nano Proteino-lacto- Tropical https://tropicalag
nano-biofertilizers in achieving sustainability in agriculture (Elnahal
fertilizers gluconate chelated Agrosystem India ro.in/shop/jsf/
with micronutrients, (P) Ltd. (India) products/produ
et al., 2022). Production of microcapsules for the nano biofertilizers
vitamins, probiotics, ct-sub-seg preparation is another area gaining limelight in this queue. However,
seaweed extracts, ment:161/ again these technologies require higher technical skills for their imple­
humic acid mentation, and the dearth of knowledge about the actual mode of ac­
tion, efficiency, as well as toxicity of such applications should also be
soil niche again creates some deflection in the efficiency of the applied covered and conveyed from researchers to the industries and farmers.
biostimulants (Hossain et al., 2023). In case of nanomaterials encapsu­ Along with this, various skill development programs for farmers and
lated biofertilizers the paucity of knowledge about the interplay and extension personnel will provide a better understanding of the proper
exchange between the employed nano particle and microbe with actual storage and mode of application of biofertilizers. Additionally, the me­
microflora of the applied crop is the biggest challenge for the industries chanics behind the growth promotion of a particular crop via a specific
as well as farmers (Elnahal et al., 2022). Nano biofertilizers are also microbe should also be studied in detail to achieve a better idea about
elicited to impart some physiological variabilities in cell as well as gene the incumbent microorganism to that crop as well as to increase the
expression of microorganisms inducing extreme change, either reduc­ effectiveness of the applied formulation. The future of sustainable
tion or proliferation in the population of specific microbiota present in agriculture is demanding the involvement of technological advance­
the soil (Pallavi et al., 2016; Simonin et al., 2016; Elnahal et al., 2022). ments like next-generation sequencing, genetic modifications in micro­
There are also very hectic regulatory procedures to apply for patents and bial genesis, in silico, and synthetic biology in formulation development
the registration of microbial inoculants as products, as the guidelines for technologies to deliver long-term solutions in agricultural fecundity
these applications are inconsistent not only from one part of the globe to (Berg et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2022). However, multiple functional­
another but also vary for every organic product (Basu et al., 2021; ities, and higher competitive abilities, provided by these newly arising
Keswani et al., 2019). These regulatory processes are not only compli­ techniques and bioproducts in the fields of agriculture are still incon­
cated but very expensive thus, there is an urgent requirement to draft sistent over altering environmental conditions, asking for better insight
well-coordinated uniform regulatory policies worldwide. Hence, into the field. This review sets the sight that enhanced crop productivity
comprehensive knowledge of biofertilizer production, application, and achieved through the application of biopreparations is an organic
its effect perception is imperative to achieve sustainability in agriculture approach in agriculture that will strengthen the environment by
through the application of microbial preparation technology. reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and in turn will nourish our
economy by increasing yield, quality, and biomass of the crops,

12
V. Singh and B. Kumar
eventually contributing to the prosperity of the society in a sustainable
way.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vagmi Singh: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Birendra Kumar: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervi­
sion, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no competing financial interests or personal
relationships.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment:
The author is extremely obliged to the Director, CSIR-CIMAP,
Lucknow for providing the infrastructure and necessary facilities. I
would also like to extend my gratitude towards AcSIR, Gazaibad for the
Ph.D. program, UGC-SJSGC (UGCES-22-GE-UTT-F-SJSGC-2916), and
CSIR-Aroma Mission Phase III (HCP-007 Phase-III) for funding.
References
Aamir, M., Rai, K.K., Zehra, A., Dubey, M.K., Kumar, S., Shukla, V., Upadhyay, R.S.,
2020. Microbial bioformulation-based plant biostimulants: a plausible approach
toward next generation of sustainable agriculture. In: Microbial Endophytes.
Woodhead Publishing, pp. 195–225. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
339744857.
Abbasi, P.A., Khabbaz, S.E., Zhang, L., 2016. Bioformulations of novel indigenous
rhizobacterial strains for managing soilborne pathogens. Bioformulations 147–161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2779-3_8.
Adjuik, T.A., Nokes, S.E., Montross, M.D., 2022. Evaluating the feasibility of using
lignin–alginate beads with starch additive for entrapping and releasing Rhizobium
spp. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 139 (47), e53181 https://doi.org/10.1002/app.53181.
Afzal, I., Shinwari, Z.K., Sikandar, S., Shahzad, S., 2019. Plant beneficial endophytic
bacteria: Mechanisms, diversity, host range and genetic determinants. Microbiol.
Res. 221, 36–49.
Agrawal, K., 2020. India’s Population Will Be 1.52 Billion by 2036, with 70% of Increase
in Urban Areas. Available online. https://thewire.in/government/india-popula
tion-growth-government-report-2036-projections-urban-migration.
Ahemad, M., Kibret, M., 2014. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria: current perspective. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 26, 1–20. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JKSUS.2013.05.001.
Ahmadi-Rad, S., Gholamhoseini, M., Ghalavand, A., Asgharzadeh, A., Dolatabadian, A.,
2016. Foliar application of nitrogen fixing bacteria increases growth and yield of
canola grown under different nitrogen regimes. Rhizosphere 2, 34–37. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2016.08.006.
Ahmed, T., Noman, M., Rizwan, M., Ali, S., Ijaz, U., Nazir, M.M., et al., 2022. Green
molybdenum nanoparticles-mediated bio-stimulation of Bacillus sp. strain ZH16
improved the wheat growth by managing in planta nutrients supply, ionic
homeostasis and arsenic accumulation. J. Hazard Mater. 423, 127024 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127024.
Akhtar, N., Ilyas, N., Meraj, T.A., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Sayyed, R.Z., Mashwani, Z.U.
R., Poczai, P., 2022. Improvement of plant responses by nanobiofertilizer: a step
towards sustainable agriculture. Nanomaterials 12 (6), 965. https://doi.org/
10.3390/nano12060965.
Al Hamad, B.M., Al Raish, S.M., Ramadan, G.A., Saeed, E.E., Alameri, S.S., Al Senaani, S.
S., et al., 2021. Effectiveness of augmentative biological control of Streptomyces
griseorubens UAE2 depends on 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase
activity against Neoscytalidium dimidiatum. Journal of Fungi 7 (11), 885. https://doi.
org/10.3390/jof7110885.
Alharbi, K., Hafez, E., Omara, A.E.D., Awadalla, A., Nehela, Y., 2022. Plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria and silica nanoparticles stimulate sugar beet resilience to
irrigation with saline water in salt-affected soils. Plants 11 (22), 3117.
Allouzi, M.M.A., Allouzi, S.M.A., Keng, Z.X., Supramaniam, C.V., Singh, A., Chong, S.,
2022. Liquid biofertilizers as a sustainable solution for agriculture. Heliyon, e12609.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12609.
Aloo, B.N., Tripathi, V., Makumba, B.A., Mbega, E.R., 2022. Plant growth-promoting
rhizobacterial biofertilizers for crop production: the past, present, and future. Front.
Plant Sci. 13, 1002448 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1002448.
13
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
Amer, G.A., Utkhede, R.S., 2000. Development of formulations of biological agents for
management of root rot of lettuce and cucumber. Can. J. Microbiol. 469, 809–816.
https://doi.org/10.1139/w00-063.
Amiet-Charpentier, C., 1999. Rhizobacteria microencapsulation: properties of
microparticles obtained by spray-drying. J. Microencapsul. 16 (2), 215–229. https://
doi.org/10.1080/026520499289194.
Ampong, K., Thilakaranthna, M.S., Gorim, L.Y., 2022. Understanding the role of humic
acids on crop performance and soil health. Frontiers in Agronomy 4 (10). https://
doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.848621.
Anith, K.N., Vaishakhi, A.S., Viswanathan, A., Varkey, S., Aswini, S., 2017. Population
dynamics and efficiency of coconut water based liquid formulation of Pseudomonas
fluorescens AMB-8. J. Trop. Agric. 54 (2), 184. http://jtropag.kau.in/index.php/oj
s2/article/view/381.
Archana, D.S., 2011. Development and Evaluation of Alginate Based Microbial
Consortium for Plant Growth Promotion. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore.
Archana, S., Prabakar, K., Raguchander, T., Thangeswari, S., 2015. Development and
standardization of invert emulsion formulation based bacterial endophyte of
Pseudomonas fluorescens EPO 15. Trends in Biosciences 8 (15), 3836–3841. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03235400600793502.
Aronson, A.I., Beckman, W., Dunn, P., 1986. Bacillus thuringiensis and related insect
pathogens. Microbiol. Rev. 50 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.50.1.1-
24.1986.
Arora, N.K., Fatima, T., 2022. Role of plant growth promoting microbes in managing
sustainability of stressed agroecosystems. Environ. Sustain. 5 (1), 1–3. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s42398-022-00222-z.
Arora, N.K., Khare, E., Maheshwari, D.K., 2011. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria:
constraints in bioformulation, commercialization, and future strategies. In: Plant
Growth and Health Promoting Bacteria, pp. 97–116. https://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13612-2_5.
Avila-Quezada, G.D., Ingle, A.P., Golińska, P., Rai, M., 2022. Strategic applications of
nano-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture: benefits and bottlenecks. Nanotechnol.
Rev. 11 (1), 2123–2140. https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2022-0126.
Bahadur, A., Singh, U.P., Sarnia, B.K., Singh, D.P., Singh, K.P., Singh, A., 2007. Foliar
application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria increases antifungal
compounds in pea (Pisum sativum) against Erysiphe pisi. Mycobiology 35 (3),
129–134. https://doi.org/10.4489/MYCO.2007.35.3.129.
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 Soil 360, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1361-x.
Balla, A., Silini, A., Cherif-Silini, H., ChenariBouket, A., Alenezi, F.N., Belbahri, L., 2022.
Recent advances in encapsulation techniques of plant growth-promoting
microorganisms and their prospects in the sustainable agriculture. Appl. Sci. 12 (18),
9020. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189020.
Barros, R.L.N., De Oliveira, L.B., De Magalhaes, W.B., Pimentel, C., 2018. Growth and
yield of common bean as affected by seed inoculation with rhizobium and nitrogen
fertilization. Exp. Agric. 54 (1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2017.12487.
Bashan, Y., 1998. Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture.
Biotechnol. Adv. 16 (4), 729–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0734-9750(98)00003-
2.
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 Soil 378, 1–33.
Bassi, A., 1835. And the Sign of the Plaster or Disease that Dormice Afflicts Bugs Daseta
Part–I. Tip Terica Orcesi Lod, pp. 1–67.
Basu, A., Prasad, P., Das, S.N., Kalam, S., Sayyed, R.Z., Reddy, M.S., El Enshasy, H., 2021.
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) as green microbial inoculants: recent
developments, constraints, and prospects. Sustainability 13 (3), 1140. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su13031140.
Batista, D.P.C., De Oliveira, I.N., Ribeiro, A.R.B., Fonseca, E.J.S., Santos-Magalhães, N.S.,
de Sena-Filho, J.G., et al., 2017. Encapsulation and release of Beauveria bassiana from
alginate–bentonite nanocomposite. RSC Adv. 7 (42), 26468–26477. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C7RA02185B.
Batta, Y.A., 2004. Postharvest biological control of apple graymold by Trichoderma
harzianum Rifai formulated in an invert emulsion. Crop Protect. 23 (1), 19–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(03)00163-7.
Batta, Y.A., 2007. Control of postharvest diseases of fruit with an invert emulsion
formulation of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 43 (1),
143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.07.010.
Bazilah, A.B.I., Sariah, M., Abidin, M.A.Z., Yasmeen, S., 2011. Influence of carrier
materials and storage temperature on survivability of Rhizobial inoculants. Asian J.
Plant Sci. 10, 331–337. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228472171_ Effe
ct_of_Carrier_and_Temperature_on_the_Viability_of_Burkholderia_spUPMB3_andPse
udomonas_spUPMP3_during_Storage.
Beck, T., 1984. Mikrobiologische und biochemische Charakterisierun gland
wirtschaftlichgenutzter Böden. I. Mitteilung: Die Ermittlungeiner
Bodenmikrobiologischen Kennzahl. Z. für Pflanzenernährung Bodenkunde 147 (4),
456–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.19841470403.
Bejarano, A., Puopolo, G., 2020. Bioformulation of Microbial Biocontrol Agents for a
Sustainable Agriculture. In: How Research Can Stimulate the Development of
Commercial Biological Control against Plant Diseases, pp. 275–293. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-53238-3_16.
Bell, A.A., Hubbard, J.C., Liu, L., Davis, R.M., Subbarao, K.V., 1998. Effects of chitin and
chitosan on the incidence and severity of Fusarium yellows of celery. Plant Dis. 82
(3), 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.3.322.
V. Singh and B. Kumar
Berg, G., Grube, M., Schloter, M., Smalla, K., 2014. Unraveling the plant microbiome:
looking back and future perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2014.00148.
Bernabeu, P.R., García, S.S., López, A.C., Vio, S.A., Carrasco, N., Boiardi, J.L., Luna, M.F.,
2018. Assessment of bacterial inoculant formulated with Paraburkholderiatropica to
enhance wheat productivity. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 34, 1–10. https://biblio
tecadigital.exactas.uba.ar/collection/paper/document/paper_09593993_v34_n6_p
_Bernabeu.
Bextine, B.R., Thorvilson, H.G., 2002. Field applications of bait-formulated Beauveria
bassiana alginate pellets for biological control of the red imported fire ant
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Environ. Entomol. 31 (4), 746–752. https://doi.org/
10.1603/0046-225X-31.4.746.
Bhattacharjee, A., Dubey, S., Sharma, S., 2023. “Next-Generation bioformulations” for
plant growth promotion and stress mitigation: a promising approach for sustainable
agriculture. J. Plant Growth Regul. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-023-
10996-z.
Bonkowski, M., 2004. Protozoa and plant growth: the microbial loop in soil revisited.
New Phytol. 162 (3), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01066.x.
Bora, T., Özaktan, H., Göre, E., Aslan, E.M.E.K., 2004. Biological control of Fusarium
oxysporum f. sp. melonis by wettable powder formulations of the two strains of
Pseudomonas putida. J. Phytopathol. 152 (8-9), 471–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1439-0434.2004.00877.x.
Bottomley, W.B., 2019. The root-nodules of Myrica Gale. Ann. Bot. 26 (1), 111–117.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a089378.
Brahmaprakash, G.P., Sahu, P.K., Lavanya, G., Gupta, A., Nair, S.S., Gangaraddi, V.,
2020. Role of additives in improving efficiency of bioformulation for plant growth
and development. Front. Soil Environ. Microbiol. 1, 1–10. https://www.taylorfranci
s.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9780429485794-1/role-additives-improving-efficie
ncy-bioformulation-plant-growth-development-brahmaprakash-pramod-kumar-sah
u-lavanya-amrita-gupta-sneha-nair-vijaykumar-gangaraddi.
Burges, H.D., Jones, K.A., 1998. Formulation of bacteria, viruses and protozoa to control
insects. Formul Microb. Biopestic. 33–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-
4926-6_3.
Caron, A., 1901. U.S. Patent No. 679,600. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Washington, DC.
Chandra, P., Khobra, R., Sundha, P., Sharma, R.K., Jasrotia, P., Chandra, A., et al., 2021.
Plant growth promoting Bacillus-based bio formulations improve wheat rhizosphere
biological activity, nutrient uptake and growth of the plant. Acta Physiol. Plant. 43,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09270-1_26.
Chaudhary, T., Dixit, M., Gera, R., Shukla, A.K., Prakash, A., Gupta, G., Shukla, P., 2020.
Techniques for improving formulations of bioinoculants. 3 Biotech 10, 1–9.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13205-020-02182-9.
Chaudhary, P., Khati, P., Chaudhary, A., Gangola, S., Kumar, R., Sharma, A., 2021a.
Bioinoculation using indigenous Bacillus spp. improves growth and yield of Zea mays
under the influence of nanozeolite. 3 Biotech 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13205-020-02561-2.
Chaudhary, P., Khati, P., Chaudhary, A., Maithani, D., Kumar, G., Sharma, A., 2021b.
Cultivable and metagenomic approach to study the combined impact of nanogypsum
and Pseudomonas taiwanensis on maize plant health and its rhizospheric microbiome.
PLoS One 16 (4), e0250574. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250574.
Chaudhary, P., Singh, S., Chaudhary, A., Sharma, A., Kumar, G., 2022. Overview of
biofertilizers in crop production and stress management for sustainable agriculture.
Front. Plant Sci. 13, 930340 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.930340.
Cheng, H., Linling, L.I., Juan, H.U.A., Honghui, Y.U.A.N., Cheng, S., 2015. A preliminary
preparation of endophytic bacteria CE3 wettable powder for biological control of
postharvest diseases. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 43 (1), 159–164. https://
doi.org/10.15835/nbha4319699.
Choudhary, M., Chandra, P., Dixit, B., Nehra, V., Choudhary, U., Choudhary, S., 2022.
Plant growth-promoting microbes: role and prospective in amelioration of salt stress.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 53 (13), 1692–1711. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00103624.2022.2063316.
Clayton, G.W., Rice, W.A., Lupwayi, N.Z., Johnston, A.M., Lafond, G.P., Grant, C.A.,
Walley, F., 2004. Inoculant formulation and fertilizer nitrogen effects on field pea:
nodulation, N2 fixation and nitrogen partitioning. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84 (1), 79–88.
https://doi.org/10.4141/P02-090.
Cong, P.T., Dung, T.D., Hien, T.M., Hien, N.T., Choudhury, A.T., Kecskes, M.L.,
Kennedy, I.R., 2009. Inoculant plant growth-promoting microorganisms enhance
utilisation of urea-N and grain yield of paddy rice in southern Vietnam. Eur. J. Soil
Biol. 45 (1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.06.006.
Curl, E.A., Truelove, B., 1986. Rhizosphere in relation to plant nutrition and growth. The
Rhizosphere 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70722-3.
Dash, C.K., Bamisile, B.S., Keppanan, R., Qasim, M., Lin, Y., Islam, S.U., et al., 2018.
Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi enhance the growth of Phaseolus vulgaris L.
(Fabaceae) and negatively affect the development and reproduction of Tetranychus
urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae). Microb. Pathog. 125, 385–392. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.micpath.2018.09.044.
Deaker, R., Roughley, R.J., Kennedy, I.R., 2004. Legume seed inoculation technology—a
review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36 (8), 1275–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SOILBIO.2004.04.009.
Dey, R.K.K.P., Pal, K.K., Bhatt, D.M., Chauhan, S.M., 2004. Growth promotion and yield
enhancement of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) by application of plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria. Microbiol. Res. 159 (4), 371–394. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.micres.2004.08.004.
Díaz-Rodríguez, A.M., Salcedo Gastelum, L.A., Félix Pablos, C.M., Parra-Cota, F.I.,
Santoyo, G., Puente, M.L., et al., 2021. The current and future role of microbial
14
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
culture collections in food security worldwide. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 614739
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.614739.
Dimkpa, C.O., Zeng, J., McLean, J.E., Britt, D.W., Zhan, J., Anderson, A.J., 2012.
Production of indole-3-acetic acid via the indole-3-acetamide pathway in the plant-
beneficial bacterium Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6 is inhibited by ZnO nanoparticles
but enhanced by CuO nanoparticles. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78 (5), 1404–1410.
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.07424-11.
Ding, Z., Ali, E.F., Almaroai, Y.A., Eissa, M.A., Abeed, A.H., 2021. Effect of potassium
solubilizing bacteria and humic acid on faba bean (Vicia faba L.) plants grown on
sandy loam soils. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 21, 791–800. https://doi.org/10.3390/
plants10102176.
Dorigo, U., Lefranc, M., Leboulanger, C., Montuelle, B., Humbert, J.F., 2009. Spatial
heterogeneity of periphytic microbial communities in a small pesticide-polluted
river. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 67 (3), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-
6941.2008.00642.x.
Duffy, B.K., Défago, G., 1999. Environmental factors modulating antibiotic and
siderophore biosynthesis by Pseudomonas fluorescens biocontrol strains. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 65 (6), 2429–2438. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.6.2429-
2438.1999.
Efthimiadou, A., Katsenios, N., Chanioti, S., Giannoglou, M., Djordjevic, N., Katsaros, G.,
2020. Effect of foliar and soil application of plant growth promoting bacteria on
growth, physiology, yield and seed quality of maize under Mediterranean conditions.
Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78034-6.
El-Saadony, M.T., Alkhatib, F.M., Alzahrani, S.O., Shafi, M.E., Abdel-Hamid, S.E.,
Taha, T.F., et al., 2021. Impact of mycogenic zinc nanoparticles on performance,
behavior, immune response, and microbial load in Oreochromis niloticus. Saudi J.
Biol. Sci. 28 (8), 4592–4604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.04.043.
El-Saadony, M.T., Saad, A.M., Soliman, S.M., Salem, H.M., Ahmed, A.I., Mahmood, M.,
El-Tahan, A.M., Ebrahim, A.A., El-Mageed, A., Taia, A., Negm, S.H., 2022. Plant
growth-promoting microorganisms as biocontrol agents of plant diseases:
mechanisms, challenges and future perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 923880
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.923880.
Elemike, E.E., Uzoh, I.M., Onwudiwe, D.C., Babalola, O.O., 2019. The role of
nanotechnology in the fortification of plant nutrients and improvement of crop
production. Appl. Sci. 9 (3), 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9030499.
Elnahal, A.S., El-Saadony, M.T., Saad, A.M., Desoky, E.S.M., El-Tahan, A.M., Rady, M.M.,
et al., 2022. The use of microbial inoculants for biological control, plant growth
promotion, and sustainable agriculture: a review. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 162 (4),
759–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-021-02393-7.
Esitken, A., Karlidag, H., Ercisli, S., Sahin, F., 2002. Effects of foliar application of Bacillus
subtilis Osu-142 on the yield, growth and control of shot-hole disease (Coryneum
blight) of apricot. Gartenbauwissenschaft 67 (4), 139–142. https://www.research
gate.net/publication/286793653_Effects_of_foliar_application_of_ Bacillus_subtilis_
OSU-142_on_the_yield_growth_and_control_of_shothole_ disease_ Coryneum_ blight_
of_apricot/citations.
Esitken, A., Pirlak, L., Turan, M., Sahin, F., 2006. Effects of floral and foliar application of
plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield, growth and nutrition of
sweet cherry. Sci. Horticult. 110 (4), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCIENTA.2006.07.023.
Etcheverry, M.G., Scandolara, A., Nesci, A., Vilas Boas Ribeiro, Pereira, P., Battilani, P.,
2009. Biological interactions to select biocontrol agents against toxigenic strains of
Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium verticillioides from maize. Mycopathologia 167,
287–295.
Fadiji, A.E., Santoyo, G., Yadav, A.N., Babalola, O.O., 2022. Efforts towards overcoming
drought stress in crops: revisiting the mechanisms employed by plant growth-
promoting bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 13, 962427 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2022.962427.
Fenibo, E.O., Ijoma, G.N., Matambo, T., 2021. Biopesticides in sustainable agriculture: a
critical sustainable development driver governed by green chemistry principles.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 619058 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.619058.
Figueiredo, M.V., Burity, H.A., Martinez, C.R., Chanway, C.P., 2008. Alleviation of
drought stress in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by co-inoculation with
Paenibacilluspolymyxa and Rhizobium tropici. Appl. Soil Ecol. 40 (1), 182–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APSOIL.2008.04.005.
Fürnkranz, M., Adam, E., Müller, H., Grube, M., Huss, H., Winkler, J., Berg, G., 2012.
Promotion of growth, health and stress tolerance of Styrian oil pumpkins by bacterial
endophytes. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 134, 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-
012-0033-2.
Gagné-Bourque, F., Xu, M., Dumont, M.J., Jabaji, S., 2015. Pea protein alginate
encapsulated Bacillus subtilis B26, a plant biostimulant, provides controlled release
and increased storage survival. J. Fertil. Pestic. 6 (2) https://doi.org/10.4172/2471-
2728.1000157.
García-Fraile, P., Menéndez, E., Rivas, R., 2015. Role of bacterial biofertilizers in
agriculture and forestry. Aims Bioeng. 2 (3), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.3934/
bioeng.2015.3.183.
Gašić, S., Tanović, B., 2013. Biopesticide formulations, possibility of application and
future trends. Pestic. Fitomed. 28 (2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.2298/
PIF1302097G.
Ghosh, T.K., Singh, R.P., Duhan, J.S., Yadav, D.S., 2001. A review on quality control of
biofertilizer in India. Fertil. Market. News 32 (8), 1–9. https://www.researchgate.ne
t/publication/260981334_A_review_on_quality_control_of_biofertilizers_in_India.
Goldstein, A.H., 1986. Bacterial solubilization of mineral phosphates: historical
perspective and future prospects. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 1 (2), 51–57. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0889189300000886.
Gopalakrishnan, S., Sathya, A., Vijayabharathi, R., Srinivas, V., 2016. Formulations of
Plant Growth-Promoting Microbes for Field Applications. Microbial Inoculants in
V. Singh and B. Kumar
Sustainable Agricultural Productivity, vol. 2. Functional Applications, pp. 239–251.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2644-4_15.
Graham, R.D., 1988. Genotypic differences in tolerance to manganese deficiency. In:
Manganese in Soils and Plants: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
‘Manganese in Soils and Plants’ Held at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute, the
University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, South Australia, August 22–26, 1988 as an
Australian Bicentennial Event. Springer Netherlands, pp. 261–276. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-009-2817-6_18. Dordrecht.
Gupta, R., Noureldeen, A., Darwish, H., 2021. Rhizosphere mediated growth
enhancement using phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria and their tri-calcium
phosphate solubilization activity under pot culture assays in Rice (Oryza sativa.).
Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 28 (7), 3692–3700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.05.052.
Hale, L., Luth, M., Kenney, R., Crowley, D., 2014. Evaluation of pinewood biochar as a
carrier of bacterial strain Enterobacter cloacae UW5 for soil inoculation. Appl. Soil
Ecol. 84, 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.08.001.
Haris, Z., Ahmad, I., 2017. Impact of metal oxide nanoparticles on beneficial soil
microorganisms and their secondary metabolites. Int. J. Life Sci. Sci. Res. 3,
1020–1030. https://doi.org/10.21276/ijlssr.2017.3.3.10.
Hartmann, A., Rothballer, M., Schmid, M., 2008. Lorenz Hiltner, a pioneer in rhizosphere
microbial ecology and soil bacteriology research. Plant Soil 312, 7–14. Available
from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367664937_Agroecological_
Management_of_the_Grey_Mould_Fungus_Botrytis_cinerea_by_Plant_Growth-Promo
ting_Bacteria. (Accessed 23 February 2023).
Hazra, D.K., Patanjali, P.K., 2016. Seed coating formulation technologies: an
environmental biology friendly approaches for sustainable agriculture. Biosci.
Methods 7 (5).
He, Y., Wu, Z., Tu, L., Han, Y., Zhang, G., Li, C., 2015. Encapsulation and
characterization of slow-release microbial fertilizer from the composites of bentonite
and alginate. Appl. Clay Sci. 109, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2015.02.001.
Hegde, S.V., Brahmaprakash, G.P., 1992. A dry granular inoculant of Rhizobium for soil
application. Plant Soil 144, 309–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012890.
Hiltner, L., 1904. ÜberneuereErfahrungen und Probleme auf demGebiet der
Bodenbakteriologie und unterbesondererBerücksichtigung der Gründüngung und
Brache. Arbeiten der deutschenlandwirtschaftlichen gesellschaft 98, 59. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11104-006-0057-5.
Hoffmann, G., 1968. Eine photometrischeMethodezurBestimmung der Phosphatase-
Aktivität in Böden. Z. für Pflanzenernährung Bodenkunde 118 (3), 161–172. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jpln.19681180303. https://pib.gov.in/Press Release Page. aspx?
PRID =1808187. https://www.worldfertilizer.com/environment/21032019/the-wo
rldwide-fertilizer-market-to-2024/.
Hossain, M.A., Hossain, M.S., Akter, M., 2023. Challenges faced by plant growth-
promoting bacteria in field-level applications and suggestions to overcome the
barriers. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol., 102029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pmpp.2023.102029.
Hosseinpour, A., Ilhan, E., Özkan, G., Öztürk, H.İ., Haliloglu, K., Cinisli, K.T., 2022. Plant
growth-promoting bacteria (PGPBs) and copper (II) oxide (CuO) nanoparticle
ameliorates DNA damage and DNA Methylation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
exposed to NaCl stress. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 31 (4), 751–764. https://doi.
org/10.3390/plants11172193.
Huss-Danell, K., 1997. Tansley Review No. 93. Actinorhizal symbioses and their N2
fixation. New Phytol. 136 (3), 375–405. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2558943.
Ijaz, M., Ali, Q., Ashraf, S., Kamran, M., Rehman, A., 2019. Development of future
bioformulations for sustainable agriculture. In: Microbiome in Plant Health and
Disease: Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-8495-0_19.
Ilyas, N., Mumtaz, K., Akhtar, N., Yasmin, H., Sayyed, R.Z., Khan, W., et al., 2020.
Exopolysaccharides producing bacteria for the amelioration of drought stress in
wheat. Sustainability 12 (21), 8876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218876.
Insam, H., 2001. Developments in soil microbiology since the mid 1960s. Geoderma 100
(3–4), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00029-5.
Jabborova, D., Kannepalli, A., Davranov, K., Narimanov, A., Enakiev, Y., Syed, A., et al.,
2021. Co-inoculation of rhizobacteria promotes growth, yield, and nutrient contents
in soybean and improves soil enzymes and nutrients under drought conditions. Sci.
Rep. 11 (1), 22081 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01337-9.
Jayara, A.S., Kumar, R., Pandey, P., 2023. Nanofertilizers in wheat crop nutrition: a
review. J. Cereal Res. 15 (1), 24–30. 10.25174/2582-2675/2023/128120.
Jayathilake, P.K.S., Reddy, I.P., Srihari, D., Reddy, K.R., Neeraja, G., 2003. Integrated
nutrient management in onion (Allium cepa L.). Trop. Agric. Res. 15, 1–9. https://dl.
nsf.gov.lk/handle/1/25321.
Jeyalakshmi, C., Madhiazhagan, K., Rettinassababady, C., 2010. Effect of different
methods of application of Pseudomonas fluorescens against bacterial leaf blight
under direct sown rice. J. Biopestic. 3 (2), 487. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirec
t/abstract/20103277910.
Jeyanthi, V., Kanimozhi, S., 2018. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)-
Prospective and mechanisms: a review. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 12 (2) https://doi.
org/10.22207/JPAM.12.2.34.
John, R.P., Tyagi, R.D., Brar, S.K., Prévost, D., Surampalli, R.Y., 2013. Effect of emulsion
formulation of Sinorhizobiummeliloti and pre-inoculated seeds on alfalfa nodulation
and growth: a pouch study. J. Plant Nutr. 36 (2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01904167.2012.739243.
Jorjani, M., Heydari, A., Zamanizadeh, H.R., Rezaee, S., Naraghi, L., 2011. Development
of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus coagulans based bioformulations using
organic and inorganic carriers and evaluation of their influence on growth
parameters of sugar beet. J. Biopestic. 4 (2), 180. http://www.jbiopest.com/users
/LW8/efiles/Vol_4_2_260C.pdf.
15
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
Joshi, S.K., Gauraha, A.K., 2022. Global biofertilizer market: emerging trends and
opportunities. Trends Appl. Microbiol. Sustain. Econ. 689–697. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-323-91595-3.00024-0.
Kahil, A.A., Hassan, F.A.S., Ali, E.F., 2017. Influence of bio-fertilizers on growth, yield
and anthocyanin content of Hibiscus sabdariffa L. plant under Taif region conditions.
Ann. Res. Rev. Biol. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.9734/ARRB/2017/36099.
Kalita, M., Bharadwaz, M., Dey, T., Gogoi, K., Dowarah, P., Unni, B.G., Ozah, D.,
Saikia, I., 2015. Developing novel bacterial based bioformulation having PGPR
properties for enhanced production of agricultural crops. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 53 (1),
56–60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25675713/.
Kandasamy, R., Prasad, N.N., 1971. Lignite as a carrier of rhizobia. Curr. Sci. 40, 496,
496.
Karlidag, H., Esitken, A., Turan, M., Sahin, F., 2007. Effects of root inoculation of plant
growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield, growth and nutrient element
contents of leaves of apple. Sci. Hortic. 114 (1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2007.04.013.
Karn, R., Ojha, N., Abbas, S., Bhugra, S., 2021. A review on heavy metal contamination at
mining sites and remedial techniques. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, vol. 796. IOP Publishing, 012013. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/796/1/012013. No. 1.
Karthikeyan, B., Joe, M.M., Jaleel, C.A., Deiveekasundaram, M., 2010. Effect of root
inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on plant growth,
alkaloid content and nutrient control of Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don. Nat. Croat.:
PeriodicumMuseiHistoriae Naturalis Croatici 19 (1), 205–212. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-37241-4_3.
Karunarathne, A., Gunnell, D., Konradsen, F., Eddleston, M., 2020. How many premature
deaths from pesticide suicide have occurred since the agricultural Green Revolution?
Clin. Toxicol. 58 (4), 227–232.
Kato, S., Xu, H.L., Fujita, M., Yamada, K., Umemura, H., 1996. Effect of Organic
Fertilizations and EM Applications on Growth Pattern, Nutrient Uptake and Grain
Yield of Sweet Corn. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming
and Effective Microorganisms for Agricultural and Environmental Sustainability.
APNAN, Bangkok, TH, pp. 62–72, 1999. https://www.semanticscholar.org/pa
per/Effect-of-Organic-Fertilizations-and-EM-on-Growth-Kato Xu/d6511df44a2
00b7b997facfacaf1a92699549a41.
Kaymak, H.C., 2011. Potential of PGPR in agricultural innovations. Plant growth and
health promoting bacteria, pp. 45–79.
Keswani, C., Dilnashin, H., Birla, H., Singh, S.P., 2019. Regulatory barriers to
Agricultural Research commercialization: a case study of biopesticides in India.
Rhizosphere 11, 100155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2019.100155.
Keyser, H.H., Somasegaran, P., Bohlool, B.B., 1992. Rhizobial Ecology and Technology.
Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental
Management, pp. 205–226. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Rhizobial-ec
ology-and-technology-KeyserSomasegaran/2fc3ed89a140e9d42dc2978c9b7112962
67b26b6.
Kishore, G.K., Pande, S., Podile, A.R., 2005. Biological control of late leaf spot of peanut
(Arachis hypogaea) with chitinolytic bacteria. Phytopathology 95 (10), 1157–1165.
https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-95-1157.
Kloepper, J.W., Schroth, M.N., 1978. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on radishes.
In: Proc. of the 4th Internet. Conf. on Plant Pathogenic Bacter, Station de
PathologieVegetale et Phytobacteriologie, vol. 2. INRA, Angers, France,
pp. 879–882, 1978. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284682983_Plant_
growth-promoting_rhizobacteria_on_radishes_IV_international_conference_on_plant_
pathogenic_bacteria.
Köberl, M., White III, R.A., Erschen, S., El-Arabi, T.F., Jansson, J.K., Berg, G., 2015. Draft
genome sequence of Streptomyces sp. strain Wb2n-11, a desert isolate with broad-
spectrum antagonism against soilborne phytopathogens. Genome Announc. 3 (4),
10–1128. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00861-15.
Köhl, J., Kolnaar, R., Ravensberg, W.J., 2019. Mode of action of microbial biological
control agents against plant diseases: relevance beyond efficacy. Front. Plant Sci.
845.
Koide, R.T., Mosse, B., 2004. A history of research on arbuscular mycorrhiza. Mycorrhiza
14, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-004-0307-4.
Korenblum, E., Massalha, H., Aharoni, A., 2022. Plant–microbe interactions in the
rhizosphere via a circular metabolic economy. Plant Cell 34 (9), 3168–3182. https://
doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac163.
Krishnamurthy, K., Gnanamanickam, S.S., 1998. Biological control of rice blast by
Pseudomonas fluorescens strain Pf7–14: evaluation of a marker gene and
formulations. Biol. Control 13 (3), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1006/
BCON.1998.0654.
Kuan, K.B., Othman, R., Abdul Rahim, K., Shamsuddin, Z.H., 2016. Plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria inoculation to enhance vegetative growth, nitrogen fixation
and nitrogen remobilisation of maize under greenhouse conditions. PLoS One 11 (3),
e0152478. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152478.
Kumar, V., 2014. Characterization, bio-formulation development and shelf-life studies of
locally isolated bio-fertilizer strains. Octa J. Environ. Res. 2 (1). https://www.resea
rchgate.net/publication/276937519_Characterization_Bio-Formulation_Developme
nt_and_Shelf-Life_Studies_of_Locally_Isolated_Bio-Fertilizer_Strains.
Kumar, J.A., Sreeramulu, K.R., Kushala, G., 2013. Effect of microbial inoculants on the
yield of beet-root (Beta vulgaris). Asian J. Bio. Sci. 8 (1), 6–10. https://www.semant
icscholar.org/paper/Effect-of-microbial-inoculants-on-the-yield-of-Kumar-Sreeramu
lu/e0493ebe6fa34e43d984381c3b6fa42d6435b6a7.
Kumar, M., Chaudhary, V., Naresh, R.K., Maurya, O.P., Pal, S.L., 2018b. Does integrated
sources of nutrients enhance growth, yield, quality and soil fertility of vegetable
crops. Int. J Curr. Microb. App. Sc 7 (6), 125–155.
V. Singh and B. Kumar
Kumar, S., Kundu, M., Rakshit, R., 2019. Effect of bio-fertilizer on growth, yield and
quality of strawberry (Fragaria× ananassa Duch.) cv. Camarosa. Bull. Environ.,
Pharmacol. Life Sci. 8 (2), S99–S107, 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publi
cation/339983235_Effect_of_bio-fertilizer_on_growth_yield_and_quality_of_strawb
erry_Fragaria_ananassaDuch_cv_Camarosa.
Kumar, M.S., Reddy, G.C., Phogat, M., Korav, S., 2018a. Role of bio-fertilizers towards
sustainable agricultural development: a review. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 7 (6),
1915–1921. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Role-of-b
io-fertilizers-towards-sustainable-A-Kumar Reddy/be6a550b7892b581cf448
67a12466138cbe35685.
Kumar, S., Sindhu, S.S., Kumar, R., 2022. Biofertilizers: an ecofriendly technology for
nutrient recycling and environmental sustainability. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 3,
100094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100094.
Kumari, R., Singh, D.P., 2020. Nano-biofertilizer: an emerging eco-friendly approach for
sustainable agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India B Biol. Sci. 90, 733–741. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40011-019-01133-6.
Lakshmidevi, P., Gopalakrishnan, C., Antony, R.S., 2020. Bio-formulation based on plant
oil of the future Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) for fruit borer control in tomatoes.
J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 8, 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819654-
0.00008-9.
Latkovic, D., Maksimovic, J., Dinic, Z., Pivic, R., Stanojkovic, A., Stanojkovic-Sebic, A.,
2020. Case study upon foliar application of biofertilizers affecting microbial biomass
and enzyme activity in soil and yield related properties of maize and wheat grains.
Biology 9 (12), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9120452.
Leconte, J.L., 1873. Hints for the promotion of economic entomology in the United
States. Am. Nat. 7 (12), 710–722. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2448012.
Lee, S.K., Lur, H.S., Lo, K.J., Cheng, K.C., Chuang, C.C., Tang, S.J., et al., 2016.
Evaluation of the effects of different liquid inoculant formulations on the survival
and plant-growth-promoting efficiency of Rhodopseudomonas palustris strain PS3.
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 100 (18), 7977–7987. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00253-016-7582-9.
Lesueur, D., Deaker, R., Herrmann, L., Bräu, L., Jansa, J., 2016. The production and
potential of biofertilizers to improve crop yields. Bioformulations 71–92. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-81-322-2779-3_4.
Lewis, J.A., Papavizas, G.C., 1985. Characteristics of alginate pellets formulated with
Trichoderma and Gliocladium and their effect on the proliferation of the fungi in
soil. Plant Pathol. 34 (4), 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-3059.1985.
TB01409.X.
Li, J., Li, Y., Dong, H., 2008. Controlled release of herbicide acetochlor from clay/
carboxylmethylcellulose gel formulations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (4), 1336–1342.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf072530l.
Li, G., Ma, J., Tan, M., Mao, J., An, N., Sha, G., Zhang, D., Zhao, C., Han, M., 2016.
Transcriptome analysis reveals the effects of sugar metabolism and auxin and
cytokinin signaling pathways on root growth and development of grafted apple. BMC
Genom. 17 (1), 150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-020-02747-z. PMID:
26923909.
Li, X., Wu, Z., He, Y., Ye, B.C., Wang, J., 2017. Preparation and characterization of
monodisperse microcapsules with alginate and bentonite via external gelation
technique encapsulating Pseudomonas putida Rs-198. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed.
28 (14), 1556–1571. https://doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2017.1335075.
Liffourrena, A.S., Lucchesi, G.I., 2018. Alginate-perlite encapsulated Pseudomonas
putida A (ATCC 12633) cells: preparation, characterization and potential use as
plant inoculants. J. Biotechnol. 278, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbiotec.2018.04.019.
Lobo, C.B., Tomás, M.S.J., Viruel, E., Ferrero, M.A., Lucca, M.E., 2019. Development of
low-cost formulations of plant growth-promoting bacteria to be used as inoculants in
beneficial agricultural technologies. Microbiol. Res. 219, 12–25.
Lugtenberg, B., Kamilova, F., 2009. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annu. Rev.
Microbiol. 63, 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
micro.62.081307.162918.
Lupwayi, N.Z., Olsen, P.E., Sande, E.S., Keyser, H.H., Collins, M.M., Singleton, P.W.,
Rice, W.A., 2000. Inoculant quality and its evaluation. Field Crops Res. 65 (2–3),
259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(99)00091-X.
Machado, T.O., Grabow, J., Sayer, C., de Araújo, P.H., Ehrenhard, M.L., Wurm, F.R.,
2022. Biopolymer-based nanocarriers for sustained release of agrochemicals: a
review on materials and social science perspectives for a sustainable future of agri-
and horticulture. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 303, 102645 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cis.2022.102645.
Mahmud, M.S., Chong, K.P., 2021. Formulation of biofertilizers from oil palm empty fruit
bunches and plant growth-promoting microbes: a comprehensive and novel
approach towards plant health. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 33 (8), 101647 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101647.
Maitra, S., Brestic, M., Bhadra, P., Shankar, T., Praharaj, S., Palai, J.B., Shah, M.M.R.,
Barek, V., Ondrisik, P., Skalický, M., Hossain, A., 2021. Bioinoculants—natural
biological resources for sustainable plant production. Microorganisms 10 (1), 51.
https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010051.
Maiyappan, S., Amalraj, E.L.D., Santhosh, A., Peter, A.J., 2010. Isolation, evaluation and
formulation of selected microbial consortia for sustainable agriculture. J. Biofert.
Biopestic. 2 (109), 2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6202.1000109.
Malusá, E., Sas-Paszt, L., Ciesielska, J., 2012. Technologies for beneficial microorganisms
Inocula used as biofertilizers. Sci. World J. 2012, 491206 https://doi.org/10.1100/
2012/491206.
Manikandan, R., Saravanakumar, D., Rajendran, L., Raguchander, T., Samiyappan, R.,
2010. Standardization of liquid formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 for its
efficacy against Fusarium wilt of tomato. Biol. Control 54 (2), 83–89. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.04.004.
16
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
Manjula, K., Podile, A.R., 2001. Chitin-supplemented formulations improve biocontrol
and plant growth promoting efficiency of Bacillus subtilis AF 1. Can. J. Microbiol. 47
(7), 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1139/w01-057.
Market Data Forecast, 2023. Rhizobium-based bio fertilizer market research report -
segmentation by form (liquid, carrier-based). In: Mode of Application (Soil
Treatment, Seed Treatment), Crop Type (Cereals and Grains, Pulses and Oilseeds,
Fruits and Vegetables, Others), and Region - Industry Analysis, Share, Growth and
Forecast (2022 to 2027). https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/rhi
zobium-based-biofertilizers-market.
Martínez-Álvarez, J.C., Castro-Martínez, C., Sánchez-Peña, P., Gutiérrez-Dorado, R.,
Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E., 2016. Development of a powder formulation based on
Bacillus cereussensulato strain B25 spores for biological control of Fusarium
verticillioides in maize plants. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 32, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11274-015-2000-5.
Massa, F., Defez, R., Bianco, C., 2022. Exploitation of plant growth promoting bacteria
for sustainable agriculture: hierarchical approach to link laboratory and field
experiments. Microorganisms 10 (5), 865. https://doi.org/10.3390/
microorganisms10050865.
Matkarimov, F., Jabborova, D., Baboev, S., 2019. Enhancement of plant growth,
nodulation and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiate L.) by Microbial Preparations. Int.
J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 8 (8), 2382–2388. https://doi.org/10.20546/
ijcmas.2019.808.277.
Mazid, M., Khan, T.A., Mohammad, F., 2011. Potential of NO and H2O2 as signaling
molecules in tolerance to abiotic stress in plants. J. Ind. Res. Technol. 1 (1), 56–68.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Potential-of-NO-and-H2O2-as-signaling-
molecules-in-Mazid-Khan/e81620292264dccad385451a4fa58d499342ab7f.
Meena, V.S., Meena, S.K., Verma, J.P., Kumar, A., Aeron, A., Mishra, P.K., et al., 2017.
Plant beneficial rhizospheric microorganism (PBRM) strategies to improve nutrients
use efficiency: a review. Ecol. Eng. 107, 8–32. https://link.springer.com/book/10
.1007/978-81-322-2776-2.
Mehnaz, S., 2016. An overview of globally available bioformulations. Bioformulations
267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2779-3_15.
Mendes, R., Kruijt, M., De Bruijn, I., Dekkers, E., Van Der Voort, M., Schneider, J.H.,
et al., 2011. Deciphering the rhizosphere microbiome for disease-suppressive
bacteria. Science 332 (6033), 1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1203980.
Mishra, J., Arora, N.K., 2016. Bioformulations for plant growth promotion and
combating phytopathogens: a sustainable approach. Bioformulations 3–33. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2779-3_1.
Mishra, B.K., Dadhich, S.K., 2010. Methodology of nitrogen biofertilizer production.
J. Adv. Dev. Res. 1 (1), 3–6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285666492
_Methodology_of_nitrogen_biofertilizer_production.
Mitter, E.K., Tosi, M., Obregón, D., Dunfield, K.E., Germida, J.J., 2021. Rethinking crop
nutrition in times of modern microbiology: innovative biofertilizer technologies.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 606815 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.606815.
Molina-Romero, D., Baez, A., Quintero-Hernández, V., Castañeda-Lucio, M., Fuentes-
Ramírez, L.E., Bustillos-Cristales, M.D.R., et al., 2017. Compatible bacterial mixture,
tolerant to desiccation, improves maize plant growth. PLoS One 12 (11), e0187913.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187913.
Mordor Intelligence, L.L.P., 2019. Global biofertilizer market (2019–2024). Available
online. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-biofertilizers
-market-industry.
Mordor Intelligence, 2023. Biofertilizers market size & share analysis - growth trends &
forecasts (2023 - 2028. Available online. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/in
dustry-reports/global-biofertilizers-market-industry.
Mugnier, J., Jung, G., 1985. Survival of bacteria and fungi in relation to water activity
and the solvent properties of water in biopolymer gels. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50
(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.50.1.108-114.1985.
Muhammad, F., Raza, M.A.S., Iqbal, R., Zulfiqar, F., Aslam, M.U., Yong, J.W.H., et al.,
2022. Ameliorating drought effects in wheat using an exclusive or co-applied
rhizobacteria and ZnO nanoparticles. Biology 11 (11), 1564. https://doi.org/
10.3390/biology11111564.
Mulla, S.I., Ameen, F., Talwar, M.P., Eqani, S.A.M.A.S., Bharagava, R.N., Saxena, G.,
et al., 2020. Organophosphate Pesticides: Impact on Environment, Toxicity, and
Their Degradation. Bioremediation of Industrial Waste for Environmental Safety,
vol. I. Industrial Waste and Its Management, pp. 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-13-1891-7_13.
Munir, N., Hanif, M., Abideen, Z., Sohail, M., El-Keblawy, A., Radicetti, E., Mancinelli, R.,
Haider, G., 2022. Mechanisms and strategies of plant microbiome interactions to
mitigate abiotic stresses. Agronomy 12 (9), 2069. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy12092069.
Naamala, J., Smith, D.L., 2020. Relevance of plant growth promoting microorganisms
and their derived compounds, in the face of climate change. Agronomy 10 (8), 1179.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081179.
Nagpal, S., Sharma, P., Kumawat, K.C., 2021. Microbial bioformulations: revisiting role
in sustainable agriculture. In: Biofertilizers. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 329–346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821667-5.00016-6.
Naik, K., Mishra, S., Srichandan, H., Singh, P.K., Choudhary, A., 2020. Microbial
formulation and growth of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and vegetable crops. Sustain.
Environ. Res. 30, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-020-00051-x.
Nakkeeran, S., Fernando, W.D., Siddiqui, Z.A., 2006. Plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria formulations and its scope in commercialization for the management
of pests and diseases. PGPR: Biocontrol Biofertil. 257–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/
1-4020-4152-7_10.
V. Singh and B. Kumar
Nardi, S., Ertani, A., Francioso, O., 2017. Soil–root cross-talking: the role of humic
substances. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 180 (1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jpln.201600348.
Nautiyal, S., Bisht, V., Rao, K.S., Maikhuri, R.K., 2008. The role of cultural values in
agrobiodiversity conservation: a case study from Uttarakhand, Himalaya. J. Hum.
Ecol. 23 (1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2008.11906047.
Nawaz, S., Bano, A., 2020. Effects of PGPR (Pseudomonas sp.) and Ag-nanoparticles on
enzymatic activity and physiology of cucumber. Recent Pat. Food, Nutr. Agric. 11,
124–136. https://doi.org/10.2174/2212798410666190716162340.
Newswire, Globe, 2021. Global organic food market report (2021 to 2030) - featuring
general Mills, Cargill and Danone among others. Available online. https://www.glo
benewswire.com/news-release/2021/11/23/2339637/28124/en/Global
-Organic-Food-Market-Report-2021-to-2030-Featuring-General-Mills-Cargill
-and-Danone-Among-Others.html.
Ni, B., Liu, M., Lu, S., Xie, L., Wang, Y., 2010. Multifunctional slow-release organic−
inorganic compound fertilizer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58 (23), 12373–12378. https://
doi.org/10.1021/jf1029306.
Nobbe, F., Hiltner, L., 1896. Inoculation of the Soil for Cultivating Leguminous Plants. US
patent, 570. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/, p. 813. htt
ps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/49/98/c3/5cb3d700750937/US570813.
pdf.
Novinscak, A., Filion, M., 2020. Long term comparison of talc-and peat-based phyto-
beneficial Pseudomonas fluorescens and Pseudomonas synxantha bioformulations for
promoting plant growth. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 602911 https://doi.org/
10.3389/fsufs.2020.602911.
Olivares, F.L., Busato, J.G., de Paula, A.M., da Silva Lima, L., Aguiar, N.O., Canellas, L.P.,
2017. Plant growth promoting bacteria and humic substances: crop promotion and
mechanisms of action. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 4 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40538-017-0112-x.
Pacheco-Aguirre, J., Ruiz-Sanchez, E., Reyes-Ramírez, A., Cristóbal-Alejo, J., Tun-
Suárez, J., Borges-Gómez, L., 2016. Polymer-based encapsulation of Bacillus subtilis
and its effect on Meloidogyne incognita in tomato. Phyton Int. J. Exp. Bot. 85, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2016.85.001.
Pallavi, Mehta, C.M., Srivastava, R., Arora, S., Sharma, A.K., 2016. Impact assessment of
silver nanoparticles on plant growth and soil bacterial diversity. 3 Biotech 6, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0567-7.
Pandya, U., Saraf, M., 2010. Application of fungi as a biocontrol agent and their
biofertilizer potential in agriculture. J. Adv. Dev. Res. 1 (1), 90–99. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/292574989_Application_of_fungi_as_a_biocontrol_ag
ent_and_their_biofertilizer_potential_in_agriculture.
Pasala, R., Kulasekaran, R., Pandey, B.B., Manikanta, C.H.L.N., Gopika, K., Daniel, P.J.,
et al., 2022. Recent advances in micronutrient foliar spray for enhancing crop
productivity and managing abiotic stress tolerance. In: Plant Nutrition and Food
Security in the Era of Climate Change, pp. 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
0-12-822916-3.00008-1.
Pour, M.M., Saberi-Riseh, R., Mohammadinejad, R., Hosseini, A., 2019. Investigating the
formulation of alginate-gelatin encapsulated Pseudomonas fluorescens (VUPF5 and
T17-4 strains) for controlling Fusarium solani on potato. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 133,
603–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.071.
Prabhukarthikeyan, S.R., Keerthana, U., Raguchander, T., 2018. Antibiotic-producing
Pseudomonas fluorescens mediates rhizome rot disease resistance and promotes plant
growth in turmeric plants. Microbiol. Res. 210, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
micres.2018.03.009.
Prakash, J., Arora, N.K., 2020. Development of Bacillus safensis-based liquid
bioformulation to augment growth, stevioside content, and nutrient uptake in Stevia
rebaudiana. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11274-019-2783-x.
Prasad, A.A., Babu, S., 2017. Compatibility of Azospirillumbrasilense and Pseudomonas
fluorescens in growth promotion of groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.). An Acad. Bras
Ciências 89, 1027–1040. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160617.
Rai, S., Solanki, M.K., Solanki, A.C., Samal, S., 2023. Microbial endophytes as probiotics
for the plant health: an overview. Microbial endophytes and plant growth 269–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90620-3.00011-8.
Raiyani, V.N., Kathiriya, R.K., Thummer, V.M., Rupareliya, V.V., 2018. Effect of FYM and
biofertilizers on growth, yield attributes and yield of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-
graecum L.). Int. J. Commun. Syst. 6 (4), 746–748. https://www.researchgate.net
/publication/335159361_Effect_of_FYM_and_biofertilizers_on_growth_yield_attribute
s_and_yield_of_fenugreek_Trigonella_foenum-graecum_L.
Raj, S.N., Chaluvaraju, G., Amruthesh, K.N., Shetty, H.S., Reddy, M.S., Kloepper, J.W.,
2003. Induction of growth promotion and resistance against downy mildew on pearl
millet (Pennisetum glaucum) by rhizobacteria. Plant Dis. 87 (4), 380–384. https://doi.
org/10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.4.380.
Raj, R.S.D.P., Preethy, H.A., Rex, K.G.R., 2021. Development of banana peel powder as
organic carrier based bioformulation and determination of its plant growth
promoting efficacy in rice Cr100g. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 15 (3), 1279-1290. https
://www.researchgate.net/publication/353173961_Development_of_Banana_Peel_Po
wder_as_Organic_Carrier_based_Bioformulation_and_Determination_of_its_Plant_Gro
wth_Promoting_Efficacy_in_Rice_Cr100g.
Ranjan, A., Rajput, V.D., Kumari, A., Mandzhieva, S.S., Sushkova, S., Prazdnova, E.V.,
et al., 2022. Nanobionics in crop production: an emerging approach to modulate
plant functionalities. Plants 11 (5), 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11050692.
Ravichandran, M., Samiappan, S.C., Rangaraj, S., Murugan, K., Al-Dhabi, N.A.,
Karuppiah, P., 2022. Nanoemulsion formulations with plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR) for sustainable agriculture. In: Bio-based Nanoemulsions for
Agri-Food Applications. Elsevier, pp. 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
323-89846-1.00017-6.
17
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
Rehman, A., Ma, H., Ahmad, M., Irfan, M., Traore, O., Chandio, A.A., 2021a. Towards
environmental Sustainability: devolving the influence of carbon dioxide emission to
population growth, climate change, Forestry, livestock and crops production in
Pakistan. Ecol. Indicat. 125, 107460 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2021.107460.
Rehman, A., Ma, H., Ozturk, I., Ulucak, R., 2021b. Sustainable development and
pollution: the effects of CO2 emission on population growth, food production,
economic development, and energy consumption in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Control Ser. 29 (12), 17319–17330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16998-2.
Reinhold-Hurek, B., Hurek, T., 2011. Living inside plants: bacterial endophytes. Curr.
Opin. Plant Biol. 14 (4), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2011.04.004.
Riseh, R.S., Hassanisaadi, M., Vatankhah, M., Soroush, F., Varma, R.S., 2022. Nano/
microencapsulation of plant biocontrol agents by chitosan, alginate, and other
important biopolymers as a novel strategy for alleviating plant biotic stresses. Int. J.
Biol. Macromol. 222 (Pt A), 1589–1604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijbiomac.2022.09.278.
Rivera, D., Obando, M., Barbosa, H., Tapias, D.R., Buitrago, R.B., 2014. Evaluacion de
polimeros para la formulacionliquida de rizobios e influenciaen la interaccion
Rhizobium-caupi. Revista Univ. Sci. 265–276. https://www.researchgate.net/publi
cation/265127108_Evaluation_of_polymers_for_the_liquid_rhizobial_formulation_a
nd_their_influence_in_the_Rhizobium-Cowpea_interaction.
Rojas-Padilla, J., De-Bashan, L.E., Parra-Cota, F.I., Rocha-Estrada, J., de Los Santos-
Villalobos, S., 2022. Microencapsulation of Bacillus strains for improving wheat
(Triticum turgidum Subsp. durum) growth and development. Plants 11 (21), 2920.
https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11212920.
Rojas-Tapias, D., Moreno-Galván, A., Pardo-Díaz, S., Obando, M., Rivera, D., Bonilla, R.,
2012. Effect of inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on
amelioration of saline stress in maize (Zea mays). Appl. Soil Ecol. 61, 264–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APSOIL.2012.01.006.
Rokhzadi, A., Toashih, V., 2011. Nutrient uptake and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.) inoculated with plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 5 (1),
44–48. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Nutrient-Uptake-and-Yield-of-Chi
ckpea-(Cicer-L.)-Rokhzadi-Toashih/2a096c67b57763ef02508ec65b5465998e0758
06.
Ruíz-Valdiviezo, V.M., Canseco, L.M.C.V., Suárez, L.A.C., Gutiérrez-Miceli, F.A.,
Dendooven, L., Rincón-Rosales, R., 2015. Symbiotic potential and survival of native
rhizobia kept on different carriers. Braz. J. Microbiol. 46, 735–742. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.APSOIL.2010.06.002.
Sabaratnam, S., Traquair, J.A., 2002. Formulation of a Streptomyces biocontrol agent for
the suppression of Rhizoctonia damping-off in tomato transplants. Biol. Control 23
(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1006/BCON.2001.1014.
Saberi-Rise, R., Moradi-Pour, M., 2020. The effect of Bacillus subtilis Vru1 encapsulated in
alginate–bentonite coating enriched with titanium nanoparticles against Rhizoctonia
solani on bean. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 152, 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijbiomac.2019.10.197.
Saberi-Riseh, R., Moradi-Pour, M., 2021. A novel encapsulation of Streptomyces
fulvissimus Uts22 by spray drying and its biocontrol efficiency against
Gaeumannomyces graminis, the causal agent of take-all disease in wheat. Pest Manag.
Sci. 77 (10), 4357–4364. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6469.
Saffan, M.M., Koriem, M.A., El-Henawy, A., El-Mahdy, S., El-Ramady, H., Elbehiry, F.,
Omara, A.E.D., Bayoumi, Y., Badgar, K., Prokisch, J., 2022. Sustainable production
of tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) under low-quality irrigation water as
affected by bio-nanofertilizers of selenium and copper. Sustainability 14 (6), 3236.
Sahu, P.K., Brahmaprakash, G.P., 2016. Formulations of Biofertilizers–Approaches and
Advances. Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity, vol. 2.
Functional Applications, pp. 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2644-4_
12.
Sahu, S., Sharma, A., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, D., Sen, F., Nagraik, R., Kumar, A.P., 2021.
Role of nanofibers in encapsulation of the whole cell. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2021, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4250122.
Salama, A.M., Abd El-Halim, A.E.H.A., Ibrahim, M.M., Aiad, M.A., El-Shal, R.M., 2022.
Amendment with nanoparticulate gypsum enhances spinach growth in saline-sodic
soil. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 22 (3), 3377–3385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-
022-00893-x.
San Keskin, N.O., Celebioglu, A., Sarioglu, O.F., Uyar, T., Tekinay, T., 2018.
Encapsulation of living bacteria in electrospun cyclodextrin ultrathin fibers for
bioremediation of heavy metals and reactive dye from wastewater. Colloids Surf. B
Biointerfaces 161, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2017.10.047.
Sangiogo, M., Rodriguez, D.P., Moccellin, R., Bermudez, J.M.M., Corrêa, B.O., Moura, A.
B., 2018. Foliar spraying with bacterial biocontrol agents for the control of common
bacterial blight of bean. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 53, 1101–1108. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S0100-204X2018001000003.
Sansinenea, E., 2021. Application of biofertilizers: current worldwide status. In:
Biofertilizers. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-821667-5.00004-X.
Santos, V.B., Araújo, A.S., Leite, L.F., Nunes, L.A., Melo, W.J., 2012. Soil microbial
biomass and organic matter fractions during transition from conventional to organic
farming systems. Geoderma 170, 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2011.11.007.
Saranya, K., Krishnan, P.S., Kumutha, K., French, J., 2011. Potential for biochar as an
alternate carrier to lignite for the preparation of biofertilizers in India. Int. J. Agric.
Environ. Biotechnol. 4 (2), 167–172. https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/236257034_Potential_for_Biochar_as_an_Alternate_Carrier_to_Lignite_for_the_Pre
paration_of_Biofertilizers_in_India.
Saravanakumar, D., Muthumeena, K., Lavanya, N., Suresh, S., Rajendran, L.,
Raguchander, T., Samiyappan, R., 2007. Pseudomonas-induced defence molecules in
V. Singh and B. Kumar
rice plants against leaffolder (Cnaphalocrocismedinalis) pest. Pest Manag. Sci.:
Former. Pestic. Sci. 63 (7), 714–721. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1381.
Saroha, A., Kotiyal, A., Thakur, A., 2023. Climate-Resilient Fertilizer Management for
Crop Production. In: Climate-Resilient Agriculture, Vol 2: Agro-Biotechnological
Advancement for Crop Production. Springer International Publishing, Cham,
pp. 61–79.
Sathishkumar, A., Sakthivel, N., Subramanian, E., Rajesh, P., 2020. Productivity of field
crops as influenced by foliar spray of nutrients: a review. Agric. Rev. 41 (2),
146–152. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.r-1991.
Saxena, J., 2011. Efficacy of rhizobacterial strains encapsulated in nontoxic
biodegradable gel matrices to promote growth and yield of wheat plants. Appl. Soil
Ecol. 48 (3), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.04.007.
Schlesinger, W.H., 2009. On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 106 (1), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810193105.
Schulz, T.J., Thelen, K.D., 2008. Soybean seed inoculant and fungicidal seed treatment
effects on soybean. Crop Sci. 48 (5), 1975–1983.
Sekar, K.R., Karmegam, N., 2010. Earthworm casts as an alternate carrier material for
biofertilizers: assessment of endurance and viability of Azotobacter chroococcum,
Bacillus megaterium and Rhizobium leguminosarum. Sci. Hortic. 124 (2), 286–289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2010.01.002.
Selvaraj, S., Ganeshamoorthi, P., Anand, T., Raguchander, T., Seenivasan, N.,
Samiyappan, R., 2014. Evaluation of a liquid formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens
against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense and Helicotylenchusmulticinctus in banana
plantation. BioControl 59, 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-014-9569-8.
Shah, A., Nazari, M., Antar, M., Msimbira, L.A., Naamala, J., Lyu, D., Rabileh, M.,
Zajonc, J., Smith, D.L., 2021. PGPR in agriculture: a sustainable approach to
increasing climate change resilience. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 667546 https://
doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.667546.
Shahwar, D., Mushtaq, Z., Mushtaq, H., Alqarawi, A.A., Park, Y., Alshahrani, T.S.,
Faizan, S., 2023. Role of microbial inoculants as bio fertilizers for improving crop
productivity: a review. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16134.
Shalaby, T.A., El-Bialy, S.M., El-Mahrouk, M.E., Omara, A.E.D., El-Beltagi, H.S., El-
Ramady, H., 2022. Acclimatization of in vitro banana seedlings using root-applied
bio-nanofertilizer of copper and selenium. Agronomy 12 (2), 539. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agronomy12020539.
Shanmugam, V., Kanoujia, N., Singh, M., Singh, S., Prasad, R., 2011. Biocontrol of
vascular wilt and corm rot of gladiolus caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. gladioli
using plant growth promoting rhizobacterial mixture. Crop Protect. 30 (7), 807–813.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CROPRO.2011.02.033.
Sharathchandra, R.G., Raj, S.N., Shetty, N.P., Amruthesh, K.N., Shetty, H.S., 2004.
A Chitosan formulation Elexa™ induces downy mildew disease resistance and
growth promotion in pearl millet. Crop Protect. 23 (10), 881–888. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cropro.2003.12.008.
Sharma, C.R., Verma, J., 1979. Performance of lignite based carriers on the survival of
rhizobia [India]. Sci. Cult. 45 (12),, 493–494. https://eurekamag.com/research/000
/947/000947440.php.
Sharma, S.K., Sharma, P.K., Mandeewal, R.L., Sharma, V., Chaudhary, R., Pandey, R.,
Gupta, S., 2022. Effect of foliar application of nano-urea under different nitrogen
levels on growth and nutrient content of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Int. J.
Phys. Soc. Sci. 34 (20), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/
v34i2031138.
Sharma, P., Bano, A., Singh, S.P., Tong, Y.W., 2023. Microbial inoculants: recent progress
in formulations and methods of application. Microbial Inoculants 1–28. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99043-1.00017-7.
Sheng, X.F., He, L.Y., 2006. Solubilization of potassium-bearing minerals by a wild-type
strain of Bacillus edaphicus and its mutants and increased potassium uptake by wheat.
Can. J. Microbiol. 52 (1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1139/w05-117.
Shivran, A.C., Shekhawat, K.S., Sastry, E.V.D., Rajput, S.S., 2013. Effect of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) coated bioformulations on fenugreek. International
Journal of Seed Spices 3 (1), 16–19.
Sible, C.N., Seebauer, J.R., Below, F.E., 2021. Plant biostimulants: a categorical review,
their implications for row crop production, and relation to soil health indicators.
Agronomy 11 (7), 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071297.
Simarmata, T., Turmuktini, T., Fitriatin, B.N., Setiawati, M.R., 2016. Application of
bioameliorant and biofertilizers to increase the soil health and rice productivity.
HAYATI Journal of Biosciences 23 (4), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hjb.2017.01.001.
Simonin, M., Richaume, A., Guyonnet, J.P., Dubost, A., Martins, J.M., Pommier, T., 2016.
Titanium dioxide nanoparticles strongly impact soil microbial function by affecting
archaeal nitrifiers. Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 33643 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33643.
Singh, R., Soni, S.K., Patel, R.P., Kalra, A., 2013. Technology for improving essential oil
yield of Ocimumbasilicum L.(sweet basil) by application of bioinoculant colonized
seeds under organic field conditions. Ind. Crop. Prod. 45, 335–342. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/235009164_Technology_for_improving_essential_oi
l_yield_of_Ocimum_basilicum_L_sweet_basilby_application_of_bioinoculant_colonize
d_seeds_under_organic_field_conditions.
Singleton, P., Keyser, H., Sande, E., 2002. Development and evaluation of liquid
inoculants. In: Inoculants Nitrogen Fixation of Legumes in Vietnam, vol. 109,
pp. 52–66. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Development-and-evaluation-o
f-liquid-inoculants.-Singleton-Keyser/d791e4a72ad05b40db8b4adb052269ebf24d4
9ac.
Sivasakthivelan, P., Saranraj, P., 2013. Azospirillum and its formulations: a review. Int. J.
Microbiol. Res. 4 (3), 275–287. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Azospirill
um-and-its-Formulations%3A-A-Review-Sivasakthivelan-Saranraj/b7994996057b7
f93caba5bb95d96ddce55f04d39.
18
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
Smith, R.S., 1992. Legume inoculant formulation and application. Can. J. Microbiol. 38
(6), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1139/m92-080.
Smith, J.H., Allison, F.E., Soulides, D.A., 1961. Evaluation of phosphobacterin as a soil
inoculant. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 25 (2), 109–111.
Sturz, A.V., Nowak, J., 2000. Endophytic communities of rhizobacteria and the strategies
required to create yield enhancing associations with crops. Appl. Soil Ecol. 15 (2),
183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00094-9.
Sudhakar, P., Chattopadhyay, G.N., Gangwar, S.K., Ghosh, J.K., 2000. Effect of foliar
application of Azotobacter, Azospirillum and Beijerinckia on leaf yield and quality of
mulberry (Morus alba). J. Agric. Sci. 134 (2), 227–234.
Surendra Gopal, K., Baby, A., 2016. Enhanced shelf life of Azospirillum and PSB through
addition of chemical additives in liquid formulations. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 5
(4), 2023–2029.
Tabatabai, M., Bremner, J., 1972. Assay of urease activity in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 4
(4), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(72)90064-8.
Takeshita, V., de Sousa, B.T., Preisler, A.C., Carvalho, L.B., Santo Pereira, A.D.E.,
Tornisielo, V.L., et al., 2021. Foliar absorption and field herbicidal studies of
atrazine-loaded polymeric nanoparticles. J. Hazard Mater. 418, 126350 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126350.
Tewari, S., Arora, N.K., 2014. Multifunctional exopolysaccharides from Pseudomonas
aeruginosa PF23 involved in plant growth stimulation, biocontrol and stress
amelioration in sunflower under saline conditions. Curr. Microbiol. 69, 484–494.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-014-0612-x.
Thomas, L., Singh, I., 2019. Microbial Biofertilizers: Types and Applications. In:
Biofertilizers for sustainable agriculture and environment, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-18933-4_1.
Tinna, D., Garg, N., Sharma, S., Pandove, G., Chawla, N., 2020. Utilization of plant
growth promoting rhizobacteria as root dipping of seedlings for improving bulb yield
and curtailing mineral fertilizer use in onion under field conditions. Sci. Hortic. 270,
109432 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109432.
Tipu, M.M.H., Baroi, A., Rana, J., Islam, S., Jahan, R., Miah, M.S., Asaduzzaman, M.,
2021. Potential applications of nanotechnology in agriculture: a smart tool for
sustainable agriculture. In: Agricultural Development in Asia-Potential Use of Nano-
Materials and Nano-Technology. IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/chapt
ers/79171.
Tiwari, R., Kalra, A., Darokar, M.P., Chandra, M., Aggarwal, N., Singh, A.K., Khanuja, S.
P.S., 2010. Endophytic bacteria from Ocimum sanctum and their yield enhancing
capabilities. Curr. Microbiol. 60, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-009-
9520-x.
Torsvik, V., Goksøyr, J., Daae, F.L., 1990. High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 56 (3), 782–787. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.3.782-
787.1990.
Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leiros, C., Gil-Sotres, F., Seoane, S., 1997. Towards a biochemical
quality index for soils: an expression relating several biological and biochemical
properties. Biol. Fertil. Soils 26, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050350.
Trevors, J.T., 1984. Dehydrogenase activity in soil: a comparison between the INT and
TTC assay. Soil Biol. Biochem. 16, 673–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717
(84)90090-7.
Tripathi, S., Das, A., Chandra, A., Varma, A., 2015. Development of carrier-based
formulation of root endophyte Piriformospora indica and its evaluation on Phaseolus
vulgaris L. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 31, 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11274-014-1785-y.
Trivedi, P., Pandey, A., Palni, L.M.S., 2005. Carrier-based preparations of plant growth-
promoting bacterial inoculants suitable for use in cooler regions. World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 21, 941–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-004-6820-y.
Tsegaye, Z., Alemu, T., Desta, F.A., Assefa, F., 2022. Plant growth-promoting
rhizobacterial inoculation to improve growth, yield, and grain nutrient uptake of teff
varieties. Front. Microbiol. 13, 896770 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2022.896770.
Upadhayay, V.K., Chitara, M.K., Mishra, D., Jha, M.N., Jaiswal, A., Kumari, G., et al.,
2023. Synergistic impact of nanomaterials and plant probiotics in agriculture: a tale
of two-way strategy for long-term sustainability. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1133968
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1133968.
Upadhyay, S.K., Singh, J.S., Saxena, A.K., Singh, D.P., 2012. Impact of PGPR inoculation
on growth and antioxidant status of wheat under saline conditions. Plant Biol. 14 (4),
605–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2011.00533.x.
USEPA, 1999. Meeting Summary: EPA–USDA Bt Crop Insect Resistance Management
Workshop. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/summary826.htm.
Valdivia-Rivera, S., Ayora-Talavera, T., Lizardi-Jiménez, M.A., García-Cruz, U., Cuevas-
Bernardino, J.C., Pacheco, N., 2021. Encapsulation of microorganisms for
bioremediation: techniques and carriers. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 20 (3),
815–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-021-09577-x.
Valverde, A., Burgos, A., Fiscella, T., Rivas, R., Velazquez, E., Rodríguez-Barrueco, C.,
et al., 2007. Differential effects of coinoculations with Pseudomonas jessenii PS06 (a
phosphate-solubilizing bacterium) and Mesorhizobiumciceri C-2/2 strains on the
growth and seed yield of chickpea under greenhouse and field conditions. In: First
International Meeting on Microbial Phosphate Solubilization. Springer Netherlands,
pp. 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11104-006-9057-8.
Van Nguyen, D., Nguyen, H.M., Le, N.T., Nguyen, K.H., Nguyen, H.T., Le, H.M., et al.,
2021. Copper nanoparticle application enhances plant growth and grain yield in
maize under drought stress conditions. J. Plant Growth Regul. 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00344-021-10301-w.
Vandevivere, P., Welch, S.A., Ullman, W.J., Kirchman, D.L., 1994. Enhanced dissolution
of silicate minerals by bacteria at near-neutral pH. Microb. Ecol. 27, 241–251.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182408.
V. Singh and B. Kumar
Vassilev, N., Vassileva, M., Martos, V., Garcia del Moral, L.F., Kowalska, J.,
Tylkowski, B., Malusá, E., 2020. Formulation of microbial inoculants by
encapsulation in natural polysaccharides: focus on beneficial properties of carrier
additives and derivatives. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 270. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2020.00270.
Vasudevan, P., Reddy, M.S., Kavitha, S., Velusamy, P., Paulraj, R.S., Purushothaman, S.
M., et al., 2002. Role of biological preparations in enhancement of rice seedling
growth and grain yield. Curr. Sci. 83 (9), 1140–1143. https://oa.mg/work/2306192
648.
Vejan, P., Khadiran, T., Abdullah, R., Ismail, S., Dadrasnia, A., 2019. Encapsulation of
plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria—prospects and potential in agricultural
sector: a review. J. Plant Nutr. 42 (19), 2600–2623. https://doi.org/10.3390/
molecules21050573.
Velineni, S., Brahmaprakash, G.P., 2011. Survival and phosphate solubilizing ability of
Bacillus megaterium in liquid inoculants under high temperature and desiccation
stress. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 13 (5), 795–802. https://www.semanticscholar.org/
paper/Survival-and-Phosphate-Solubilizing-Ability-of-in-Velineni-Brahmaprakash/5
df32b3a03242e322c34095ff387355c76b717bc.
Vendan, R.T., Thangaraju, M., 2006. Development and standardization of liquid
formulation for Azospirilium bioinoculant. Indian J. Microbiol. 46 (4), 379. https://
doi.org/10.1556/AMICR.54.2007.2.7.
Vera, R.T., García, A.J.B., Álvarez, F.J.C., Ruiz, J.M., Martín, F.F., 2023. Application and
effectiveness of Methylobacterium symbioticum as a biological inoculant in maize and
strawberry crops. Folia Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-023-01078-4.
Verma, P., Shakya, M., Swamy, N.K., Sandhu, S.S., 2022. Microbial consortium: an
innovative steps in environmental protection. In: Microbial Resource Technologies
for Sustainable Development. Elsevier, pp. 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
323-90590-9.00023-7.
Vessey, J.K., 2003. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil 255,
571–586. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026037216893.
Viswanathan, R., Samiyappan, R., 2002. Induced systemic resistance by fluorescent
pseudomonads against red rot disease of sugarcane caused by Colletotrichum
falcatum. Crop Protect. 21 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)
00050-3.
Vivekananthan, R., Ravi, M., Ramanathan, A., Samiyappan, R., 2004. Lytic enzymes
induced by Pseudomonas fluorescens and other biocontrol organisms mediate defence
against the anthracnose pathogen in mango. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 20,
235–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:WIBI.0000023826.30426.F5.
Walpola, B.C., Yoon, M.H., 2012. Prospectus of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms
and phosphorus availability in agricultural soils: a review. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 6
(37), 6600–6605. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311
861488_Isolation_Biochemical_Characterization_and_Production_of_Biofertili
zer_from_Bacillus_megaterium. (Accessed 27 February 2023).
War, J.M., Fazili, M.A., Mushtaq, W., Wani, A.H., Bhat, M.Y., 2020. Role of
nanotechnology in crop improvement. In: Nanobiotechnology in Agriculture: An
Approach Towards Sustainability, pp. 63–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
39978-8_4.
19
Rhizosphere 29 (2024) 100843
Wu, S.C., Cao, Z.H., Li, Z.G., Cheung, K.C., Wong, M.H., 2005. Effects of biofertilizer
containing N-fixer, P and K solubilizers and AM fungi on maize growth: a greenhouse
trial. Geoderma 125 (1–2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2004.07.003.
Yadav, A.K., Chandra, K., 2014. Mass production and quality control of microbial
inoculants. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 80 (2), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.16943/
PTINSA/2014/V80I2/5.
Yadav, K.K., Sarkar, S., 2019. Biofertilizers, impact on soil fertility and crop productivity
under sustainable agriculture. Environ. Ecol. 37 (1), 89–93. https://www.researchg
ate.net/publication/329238918_Biofertilizers_Impact_on_Soil_Fertility_and_Crop_Pro
ductivity_under_Sustainable_Agriculture.
Yang, Z., Peng, H., Wang, W., Liu, T., 2010. Crystallization behavior of poly
(ε-caprolactone)/layered double hydroxide nanocomposites. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 116
(5), 2658–2667. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.31787.
Yang, F., Tang, C., Antonietti, M., 2021. Natural and artificial humic substances to
manage minerals, ions, water, and soil microorganisms. Chem. Soc. Rev. 50 (10),
6221–6239. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CS01363C.
Young, C.C., Rekha, P.D., Lai, W.A., Arun, A.B., 2006. Encapsulation of plant growth-
promoting bacteria in alginate beads enriched with humic acid. Biotechnol. Bioeng.
95 (1), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.20957.
Youssef, M.M.A., Eissa, M.F.M., 2014. Biofertilizers and their role in management of
plant parasitic nematodes. A review. J. Biotechnol. Pharmaceut. Res. 5 (1), 1–6.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Biofertilizers-and-their-role-in-manageme
nt-of-.-A-A.-Eissa/8235d92b71cb553d9893475c2f76806c5ef181c7.
Zacky, F.A., Ting, A.S.Y., 2015. Biocontrol of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense tropical
race 4 by formulated cells and cell-free extracts of Streptomyces griseus in sterile soil
environment. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 25 (6), 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09583157.2015.1007921.
Zago, S.L., Santos, M.F.D., Konrad, D., Fiorini, A., Rosado, F.R., Missio, R.F.,
Vendruscolo, E.C.G., 2019. Shelf life of Azospirillum brasilense in alginate beads
enriched with trehalose and humic acid. J. Agric. Sci. 11 (6), 269. https://doi.org/
10.5539/jas.v11n6p269.
Zahra, M.K., Monib, M., AbdEl-Al, S.I., Heggo, A., 1984. Significance of soil inoculation
with silicate bacteria. Zentralbl. Mikrobiol. 139 (5), 349–357. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0232-4393(84)80013-X.
Zalate, P.Y., Padmani, D.R., 2009. Effect of organic manure and biofertilizers on growth
and yield attributing characters of kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogeae L.). Int. J.
Agric. Sci. 5 (2), 343–345. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/201030
39065.
Zhou, D.M., Wang, K.P., Liu, H.X., Gu, C., Guo, J.H., 2014. Field evaluation of different
application methods of the mixture of Bacillus cereus strain AR156 and Bacillus
subtilis strain SM21 on pepper growth and disease resistance. Biocontr. Sci. Technol.
24 (12), 1451–1468.
Zohar-Perez, C., Ritte, E., Chernin, L., Chet, I., Nussinovitch, A., 2002. Preservation of
chitinolytic Pantoae agglomerans in a viable form by cellular dried alginate-based
carriers. Biotechnol. Prog. 18 (6), 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp025532t.