0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
80 Ansichten15 Seiten
Microbial agents offer an attractive and feasible option to develop the biological tools to replace / supplement the chemicals. Rhizosphere may be defined as the narrow zone of soil that surrounds and get influenced by the roots of the plants.
Microbial agents offer an attractive and feasible option to develop the biological tools to replace / supplement the chemicals. Rhizosphere may be defined as the narrow zone of soil that surrounds and get influenced by the roots of the plants.
Microbial agents offer an attractive and feasible option to develop the biological tools to replace / supplement the chemicals. Rhizosphere may be defined as the narrow zone of soil that surrounds and get influenced by the roots of the plants.
Sarita Sachdeva Published online: 14 July 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract Sustainable agricultural practices are the answer to multifaceted problems that have resulted due to prolonged and indiscriminate use of chemical based agronomic tools to improve crop productions for the last many decades. The hunt for suitable ecofriendly options to replace the chemical fertilizers and pesti- cides has thus been aggravated. Owingto their versatile and unmatchable capacities microbial agents offer an attractive and feasible option to develop the biological tools to replace/supplement the chemicals. Exploring the microorganisms that reside in close proximity to the plant is thus a justied move in the direction to achieve this target. One of the most lucrative options is to look into the rhizosphere. Rhizosphere may be dened as the narrow zone of soil that surrounds and get inuenced by the roots of the plants. It is rich in nutrients compared to the bulk soil and hence exhibit intense biological and chemical activities. A wide range of macro and microorganisms including bacte- ria, fungi, virus, protozoa, algae, nematodes and microarthropods co-exist in rhizosphere and show a variety of interactions between themselves as well as with the plant. Plant friendly bacteria residing in rhizosphere which exert benecial affect on it are called as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Here we review the structure and bacterial diversity of the rhizosphere. The major points dis- cussed here are: (1) structure and composition of the rhizosphere (2) range of bacteria found in rhizosphere and their interactions with the plant with a particular emphasis on PGPR (3) mechanisms of plant growth promotion by the PGPR (4) rhizosphere competence. Keywords Sustainable agriculture Rhizosphere Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Plantmicrobe interactions 1 Introduction Though microbial diversity constitutes most extraor- dinary and ubiquitous life on earth still they are not uniformly distributed in various habitats across the planet. Majority of the microbial populations are concentrated in nutrient rich niches like the rhizo- sphere that have a constant supply of easily utilizable nutrients. Rhizosphere has an enormous pool of soil microorganisms and is considered as the hot spot for microbial colonization and activity. It is the largest ecosystem on earth with huge energy ux (Barriuso P. Prashar N. Kapoor School of Sciences, IGNOU, New Delhi, India e-mail: neerakapoor@ignou.ac.in P. Prashar (&) S. Sachdeva Department of Biotechnology, FET, MRIU, Sector 43, Aravalli Hills, Faridabad, India e-mail: pprashar@gmail.com; pprashar.fet@mriu.edu.in S. Sachdeva e-mail: sarita.fet@mriu.edu.in 1 3 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 DOI 10.1007/s11157-013-9317-z et al. 2008). Generally regarded as a thin zone (12 mm thick), it holds a large volume of soil in it, which varies greatly with the plant, soil, root structure and most importantly the method used to determine it because it does not have a well dened boundary (Hinsinger et al. 2005). Due to their close proximity and/or continuous association with the plant, the diverse forms of microorganisms found in the rhizo- sphere inuence the host plant in a variety of ways. These may be broadly classied as benecial effects leading to improvement of plant health and growth or harmful effects, i.e. the pathogenic activities. Thus, it is very important to understand the composition, ecology, dynamics and activities of rhizospheric microbial communities, before we can exploit the rhizosphere microora as a tool for developing sustainable agricultural practices. 2 Rhizosphere The term rhizosphere has been derived from the Greek word rhiza, meaning root, and sphere, meaning eld of inuence. It was rst dened by German scientist Hiltner (1904) as the zone of soil immediately adjacent to legume roots that supports high levels of bacterial activity. However, over the period of time, it has been redened many times to include the volume of soil inuenced by the root and parts of root tissues as well as the soil surrounding the root in which physical, chemical and biological properties have been changed by root growth and activity (Pinton et al. 2001). Rhizosphere has been broadly subdivided into the following three zones (Clark 1949; Lynch 1987; Pinton et al. 2001) (Fig. 1): 1. Endorhizosphere: that consists of the root tissue including the endodermis and cortical layers. 2. Rhizoplane: is the root surface where soil particles and microbes adhere. It consists of epidermis, cortex and mucilaginous polysaccharide layer. 3. Ectorhizosphere: that consists of soil immediately adjacent to the root. Apart from these three basic zones, certain other layers may be dened in some cases e.g. in plants with mycorrhizal association, there is a zone termed as the mycorrhizosphere (Linderman 1988) while in some other plants another, strongly adhering dense layer termed as rhizosheath, is found. It consists of root hairs, mucoid material, microbes and soil particles (Curl and Truelove 1986). The root itself is a part of the rhizosphere as endophytic microorganisms colo- nize the inner root tissues as well (Bowen and Rovira 1999). The volume of the soil which is not a part of the rhizosphere, i.e. which is not inuenced by the root is known as bulk soil (Gobat et al. 2004). The dead root is transformed into soil by rhizospheric activity but it is different from the bulk soil. Thus, rhizosphere may be considered as a unique region distinct from the bulk soil. 2.1 Rhizosphere effect In the due course of its growth and development, plant passes through the early stages of seed germination and seedling growth. During this process a variety of organic compounds are released from the roots by exudation, secretion and deposition (Curl and True- love 1986) making the rhizosphere rich in nutrients as compared to the bulk soil. This acts as a driving force for the set up of active and enhanced microbial populations in root zone, much higher as compared to the bulk soil (Grayston et al. 1996). This phenomenon of establishment of rich microora in the rhizosphere under the inuence of root-secreted nutrients is referred as the rhizosphere effect or plant effect (Morgan and Whipps 2001; Antoun and Prevost Fig. 1 A simplistic diagram of rhizosphere 64 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 2005). It is calculated in terms of rhizosphere ratio, i.e. R: S by dividing the total number of microorganisms in the rhizosphere (R) by the corresponding number in the bulk soil (S) (Aneja 2003). Rhizosphere effect is reected by the noticeable difference in the structure of microbial populations of uncultivated and culti- vated soils (Antoun and Prevost 2005) and the variations in bacterial and fungal community struc- tures with rhizosphere related factors such as the crop variety (Berg et al. 2006), plant growth developmental stages (Gomes et al. 2003) and soil characteristics (Nie et al. 2009). Though greater rhizosphere effect has been reported for bacteria that show R: S values ranging between 10 and 100 or even more (Katznelson et al. 1948) than with fungi (Buyer et al. 2002) however recent studies utilizing cultivation-independent anal- ysis of soil microora have revealed signicant rhizosphere effect for soil fungi as well (Gomes et al. 2003; Berg et al. 2005). For certain classes of soil bacteria like ammonifying and denitrifying bacteria (Rouatt et al. 1960) an even more pronounced rhizosphere effect has been observed whereas it is almost negligible for algae (Aneja 2003). Though some reports have been obtained on stimulating effects of root exudates of plants like tea and pea on algal populations under controlled conditions (Had- eld 1960; Cullimore and Woodbine 1963) such effects have not been found very signicant in natural soil habitats and higher algal populations are generally recorded in the bulk soils. Soil protozoa form an important part of the plantbacteriaprotozoa interac- tions which are critical in nutrient recycling and selective set-up of benecial bacterial populations in the rhizosphere (Kreuzer et al. 2006). Due to the effect of root derived carbon and large bacterial populations in the rhizosphere, protozoan population may increase as much as 35-fold (Zwart et al. 1994) in this zone. Hence, it may be concluded that owing to the nutrient richness of rhizosphere and excellent substrate utili- zation capacities of bacteria, larger bacterial popula- tions can be encountered in rhizosphere as compared to other forms of soil microbes. 2.2 Rhizodeposition The term rhizodeposition was rst dened by Whipps and Lynch (1985) as the material lost from plant roots, including water-soluble exudates, secretions of insoluble materials, lysates, dead ne roots and gases like CO 2 and ethylene. In simple terms it is dened as the organic compounds released by living plant roots into their surrounding environment (Whipps 1990; Nguyen 2003) and may also include the inorganic ions (Uren 2001). It is equivalent to almost 1560 % of the total photosynthetic production of the plant and leads to the accumulation of substantial carbon and energy reserves in the rhizosphere for the microora (Curl and Truelove 1986; Lynch and Whipps 1990). The plant- derived carbon allocated belowground via roots, consists of three main components (Cheng and Gershenson 2007): 1. Roots mass: that may be living or dead. 2. Rhizodeposit: materials of plant origin localized in the rhizosphere or the surrounding soil which are utilized and transformed by rhizosphere biota and mixed with soil organic materials. 3. Carbon dioxide: released as a result of respiration of roots and root symbionts or microbial respiration. Rhizodeposition is a signicant process in terms of studying the carbon uxes in the rhizosphere. Rhizo- deposit is subdivided into various parts, i.e. root cap cells and root tissues (sloughed root hairs and epider- mal cells) (Rovira 1956), mucilage and root exudates (Nguyen 2003) (Fig. 2). Root exudates are the most important part of the rhizodeposit and are classied into two types depending on their molecular weight. First class comprises of the low molecular weight components like water soluble compounds including simple carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, plant hormones, vitamins, phenolics, sugar phosphate esters, ions and many other carbon-containing sec- ondary metabolites (Uren 2001; Farrar et al. 2003; Bais et al. 2006; Cheng and Gershenson 2007). High molecular weight exudates form the second class and these are generally enzymes, proteins and mucilage (polysaccharides). High molecular weight exudates are more signicant in terms of total mass of the root exudates but have comparatively lesser variety than the rst class (Bais et al. 2006). Exudates may also be classied as active and passive exudates on the basis of their role and mode of secretion from the roots (Rougier and Chaboud 1989; Bais et al. 2006). Passive exudates have unknown functions and are diffused from the roots as basal exudation (output of waste materials) depending on Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 65 1 3 the gradient (Bais et al. 2006). They constitute about 35 % of the total carbon xed during photosynthesis (Pinton et al. 2001). The active exudates are secreted through open membrane pores of the plants and have a specic function such as lubrication and defense (Jones et al. 2004; Bais et al. 2006). Another classication of the exudates can be made on the basis of their biological activity and accordingly they may be the signaling molecules, phytoalexins, phytohormones, enzymes or allelochemicals (Nanni- pieri et al. 2007). Chemical composition of the rhizodeposit is an important determinant of the functions and ecological consequences of rhizodeposition (Cheng and Ger- shenson 2007). The composition, rate and extent of exudations depend on genetic factors and vary widely among plant species and environmental conditions (Kochian et al. 2005). Persistence of root exudates in the rhizosphere is governed by their chemical prop- erties, their stability and the soil volume through which they diffuse. They may loose their properties and hence get inactivated as a result of processes like adsorption, biodegradation, volatilization, chemical degradation, etc. (Nannipieri et al. 2007). Exudation provides various kinds of physical and chemical benets to the plant like reduction of friction between root tips and soil, reduction in root desicca- tion process and improving the structural stability of soil (Rougier and Chaboud 1989). Rhizodeposition is expressed in terms of C release by the roots (CdfR) by measuring the production of labeled CO 2 in the rhizosphere of 14C-labelled plants (Nguyen 2003). However, apart from carbon compounds, various kinds of nitrogen containing substances are also released by the plant roots like nitrates (Wacquant et al. 1989), ammonium ions (Brophy and Heichel 1989) and amino acids (Rovira 1956; Phillips et al. 2004, 2006). Rhizodeposition is affected qualitatively as well as quantitatively by a number of biotic and abiotic factors associated with plant and soil (Rovira 1956; Lynch and Whipps 1990; Nguyen 2003; Jones et al. 2004) as summarized in the Table 1. Exudation and plant health are mutually related. The quality and quantity of exudates affects the microbial diversity including the benecial and dele- terious microorganisms as well as the related ecolog- ical processes in the rhizosphere (Bolton et al. 1993; Jaeger et al. 1999; Paterson et al. 2007) which in turn inuence the plant processes like the rooting patterns, nutrient availability and pathogen persistence in the rhizosphere (Bolton et al. 1993; Bowen and Rovira 1999; Barea 2000). At the same time microbial activities in the rhizosphere modify the root exudation process and pattern. Thus, it may be said that rhizodeposition strongly inuence the structural and functional aspects of microbial communities in the rhizosphere. 3 Rhizosphere bacterial diversity Though majority of the soil microorganisms (approx- imately 99 %) are not culturable, recent advances in biochemical and molecular genetics techniques for isolation of unculturable bacterial strains has enabled the scientists to generate vital information pertaining to the rhizosphere bacterial communities. Most com- monly used tools for studying the diversity of uncul- trable microbes include phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA), nucleic acid extraction and hybrid- ization, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods, rRNA sequencing, G ? C percentages and DNA re-association between bacteria in the commu- nity, restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), amplied ribosomal DNA restriction analysis Fig. 2 Rhizodeposit. It consists of material of plant origin that is released by the roots and is localized in the rhizosphere. It contributes signicantly towards the total plant-derived carbon in soil as well as developing rich microbial diversity in the rhizosphere 66 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 (ARDRA), cloning and sequencing techniques and microarrays (Smalla et al. 2001; Butler et al. 2003; Teixeira et al. 2010). However, the volume of literature on the diversity studies of fungal communi- ties found in rhizosphere is much less than that for bacterial diversity because similar molecular tools for isolation and characterization of fungi have been developed much later. As described above, rhizosphere has very high concentrations of easily degradable carbon sources due to rhizodeposition. This triggers an inated rate of microbial activity in this soil zone that may be up to 50 times higher than in the bulk soil. Thus, complex food webs develop in the rhizosphere linking both macro and microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, nematodes, protozoa, algae and microarthropods (Jeffery et al. 2010). Rhizophere thus harbors an extremely complex microbial community qualitatively as well as quanti- tatively and it includes saprophytes, epiphytes, endo- phytes, pathogens as well as many advantageous microorganisms (Avis et al. 2008). Rhizospheric microbial load ranges from 10 10 to 10 12 per gram of soil while it is generally less than 10 8 in the bulk soil (Foster 1988). Bacteria are the most abundant microbes in the rhizosphere and hence they are bound to inuence the plant in a signicant manner. Up to 15 % of the total root surface may be covered by a variety of bacterial strains (van Loon 2007). The most common genera of bacteria that have been reported in the rhizosphere are Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Rhizobia, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azotobacter, Mycobac- terium, Flavobacter, Cellulomonas and Micrococcus. Predominant bacterial strains in the rhizosphere includes gram-negative, rod shaped, non-sporulating bacteria belonging to the groups proteobacteria and actinobacteria (Atlas and Bartha 1993; Teixeira et al. 2010) of which Pseudomonas are the most abundant. This may be attributed to the efciency of gram- negative bacteria to utilize the root exudates and hence they are stimulated by rhizodeposition while the gram- positive bacteria are rather inhibited (Steer and Harris 2000). The aerobic bacteria are relatively lesser because of the reduced oxygen levels in the rhizo- sphere owing to root respiration (Garbeva et al. 2004). Gram-positive, rods or cocci and aerobic spore forming strains like Bacillus and Clostridium are comparatively lesser but various strains of Bacillus constitutes the chief gram-positive inhabitants of rhizosphere (up to 95 % of total gram-positive soil bacilli) followed by Arthrobacter and Frankia (Bar- riuso et al. 2008). However, some recent studies have reported gram-positive bacterial strains, Bacillus in particular, to be more numerous than the gram- negative bacteria in crops like strawberry, oilseed rape, potato (Smalla et al. 2001), wheat (Joshi and Table 1 Biotic and abiotic factors affecting rhizodeposition Soil Plant Biotic Abiotic Biotic Abiotic Microbial community structure Soil type Plant species Temperature Microbial community type Soil texture Photosynthesis Moisture Microbial community activity pH Development stage Humidity Phytohormone production Impedance Root age Elevated CO 2 Toxin production Salinity Root architecture Light intensity Quorum sensing Water availability Nutrition deciency Pesticides Biocontrol agents Organic matter Nodulation Irrigation Pathogen Redox potential Membrane permeability Ozone Release of root signal molecules Metal ion content Release of microbial signals Wind speed Mycorrhiza Compaction Cytosolic concentration Fire Rooting depth Allelochemical release Available space Density Latitude, Altitude Drainage and aeration Erosion The range and amount of organic and inorganic compounds released by plant roots into the surrounding soil depends on all the listed soil and plant associated factors Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 67 1 3 Bhatt 2010; Rawat et al. 2011) and rice (Joshi et al. 2011), etc. This may be attributed to the ability of Bacillus to form endospores and produce antimicro- bial substances that inhibit other competitors. Distri- bution of microora among the different layers of rhizosphere has been described in terms of root colonization which includes microbial growth in the rhizoplane and/or root tissues and rhizosphere coloni- zation which includes microbial growth in the adjoin- ing layers of soil which are under the inuence of the root (Kloepper et al. 1991; Kloepper 1994). Thus, it may be summarized that rhizosphere is one of the richest ecological zones of soil in terms bacterial diversity. 3.1 Factors affecting rhizosphere bacterial diversity The bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere is inuenced by a variety of biotic and abiotic factors. Plant itself is the most crucial factor in determining the predominant bacterial strains in the rhizosphere due to the signicant role of the root exudates in set-up of bacterial populations. Plant-related features such as the cultivars, age of plant and root characteristics have been found to govern the bacterial diversity and the predominant species in the rhizosphere (Smalla et al. 2001; MacDonald et al. 2004). Age and developmen- tal stage of the plant plays a critical role in deciding the rhizosphere community structure of bacteria. The rhizosphere of a young plant is chiey inhabited by r-strategy organisms, i.e. bacterial species which have fast growth rates and utilize simple substrates pro- vided by rhizodeposition (Brimecombe et al. 2001). However, as the aging process continue the dominance shifts to bacterial communities with relatively slow growth rates and the capacity to degrade more complex substrates (k-strategists). Since soil is the medium for growth and survival of plant as well as the microbes it is bound to affect the bacterial populations through direct effects on the microbial growth and/or indirectly by inuencing the host plant. Various physical and chemical character- istics of soil inuence parameters such as nutrient availability, suitable niches for the bacteria, morpho- logical and physiological aspects of the bacteria and many other critical features. Thus, soil pH, salinity, texture, organic matter content, concentration of nutrient elements, seasonal effects as well as the management practices like irrigation, tillage, crop- ping, fertilizer and pesticide application, residue incorporation, etc. have been reported as the major factors affecting the bacterial composition of the rhizosphere (Grayston et al. 1998; MacDonald et al. 2004; Fang et al. 2005; Ibekwe et al. 2010). Predominant bacterial strains in the rhizosphere are those which are the most efcient root colonizers as satisfactory establishment of the bacteria at suitable sites inside the rhizosphere is a prerequisite for maintenance of predominant populations. Further, the metabolic versatility or the functional diversity of established bacterial populations in the rhizosphere is governed by the variety of genetic factors carried by them and the interactions with other prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms including the plant itself (Bar- riuso et al. 2008). Such interactions in the rhizosphere are different from those in bulk soil and those that are not affected by living roots (Garland 1996). Hence, it may be said that bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere is derived by many interrelated biotic and abiotic factors. 3.2 Plantmicrobe interactions in the rhizosphere Rhizosphere is the major soil ecological environment wherein different kinds of plantmicrobe interactions can be observed. As a result of microbial colonization in and around the growing plant roots various kinds of relationships such as associative, symbiotic, neutral- istic or parasitic, may develop, depending upon factors like nutrient status of the soil, overall soil environ- ment, plant defense mechanism and certainly the proliferating microorganism itself (Parmar and Duf- resne 2011). Plantmicrobe communication is medi- ated by the root exudates through chemotactic response of the microorganism towards exudates like sugars, organic acids and amino acids leading to root colonization (Bais et al. 2004). Plant roots are also known to produce some kind of electric signals which direct the movement of microorganismparticularly for the zoospores of oomycetes (Gow et al. 1999). Interactions between plants, pathogenic microorgan- isms and antagonistic rhizobacteria and fungi are another key feature observed here (Trevors and van Elas 1997). Rhizosphere microora provides an important link between the plant and soil acting as an intermediate between the two. It tend to affect the plant in a variety of ways ranging from the affect on 68 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 plant growth and nutrition, its susceptibility to disease and development of phytopathogens (Glick 1995) to resistance to heavy metals (Shetty et al. 1994; Weishuang et al. 2009) and the degradation of xenobiotics (Greenberg et al. 2008). Rhizobacteria are a subset of total rhizosphere bacteria which have the capacity, upon re-introduc- tion to seeds or vegetative plant parts (such as potato seed pieces), to colonize the developing root system in the presence of competing soil microora (Kloepper et al. 1999). Those which affect the plant in negative manner are termed as deleterious rhizobacteria while those inuencing it in a positive way are called as plant growth promoting rhizobac- teria (PGPR). The most important pathogen groups in the soil that adversely affect plant growth and health are fungi and nematodes while bacterial and viral pathogens are lesser known to cause root infections as they cannot infect the intact root tissue and require an opening to penetrate into the plant (Lynch 1990). Moreover, non- spore forming bacteria are unable to survive in the soil for longer periods. Deleterious rhizosphere bacteria may produce various kinds of phytotoxins and also present competition for nutrients and inhibition of mycorrhizal fungi (Morgan et al. 2005). Plant friendly or the benecial microorganisms include nitrogen-xing bacteria, endo and ectomycor- rhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and fungi. In the subsequent sections plant growth- promoting rhizobacteria are discussed in detail. 4 Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) About 25 % of the rhizosphere bacteria are PGPR (Antoun and Prevost 2005). The term PGPR was coined by Joe Kloepper in late 1970s and was dened by Kloepper and Schroth (1978) as the soil bacteria that colonize the roots of plants by following inocu- lation on to seed and that enhance plant growth. On the basis of their location in rhizosphere PGPR can be classied as extracellular PGPR (ePGPR) found in the rhizosphere, on the rhizoplane or in the spaces between the cells of the root cortex and intracellular PGPR (iPGPR) which exist inside the root cells, generally in specialized nodular structures (Gray and Smith 2005). The number of bacterial species identi- ed as PGPRhas increased substantially in the last few decades as a result of the numerous studies on a vast range of plants in hunt of sustainable agriculture tools as well as the advancements in molecular genetics techniques leading to up gradation of bacterial taxon- omy. The range of bacteria being reported to enhance the plant growth and control plant pathogens includes various species of Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Azospiril- lum, Azotobacter, Streptomyces, Klebsiella, Entero- bacter, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Flavobacterium, Burkholderia, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Rho- dococcus and Serratia, etc. (Berg 2000; Berg et al. 2002; Sobral et al. 2004; Sessitsch et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2006; Fischer et al. 2006; Fernandez et al. 2007; Naik et al. 2008; Ahmad et al. 2008; Soltani et al. 2010). However, the predominant bacterial species in the PGPRcommunity which have emerged as the most widely studied and potent candidates for improvement of plant growth and health are Pseudomonas and Bacillus. The range of their favorable activities include phosphate solubilization (Chen et al. 2006; Velineni and Brahmaprakash 2011), production and release of phytohormones like indole acetic acid and gibberellins (Jeon et al. 2003; Bottini et al. 2004; Jangu and Sindhu 2011) and biocontrol of soil borne phytopathogens (Couillerot et al. 2009; Cawoy et al. 2011). In the last fewdecades a large body of literature reporting the activities of these two bacterial species, pertaining to plant growth promotion and biocontrol of phytopathogens has been generated that reects the potential of these PGPR strains to be developed as alternative/supplementary agrochemicals. 4.1 Mechanisms of plant growth promotion by PGPR PGPR promote plant growth and health by a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms in a wide range of plants. Direct plant growth promotion is based on either stipulation of the plants with favorable bacterial compounds or improving the nutrient uptake by the plant from the soil (Glick 1995). It is accomplished through processes like atmospheric nitrogen xation, siderophore production and release, phosphate solu- bilization, synthesis and release of phytohormones, etc. The indirect promotion of plant growth is primarily based on the reduction or prevention of the deleterious affects of phytopathogens, usually the fungi and the nematodes, thereby controlling the diseases. Pathogen suppression may be achieved Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 69 1 3 through a variety of mechanisms like production and release of cyanide, antibiotics or extracellular lytic enzymes including chitinases; proteases; b-1, 3 glu- canases; cellulases and laminarinases, competition for nutrients and niches in the rhizosphere, parasitism and predation. In addition to this, PGPR enhance the tolerance capacity of the plant to a variety of environmental stresses through production of phytohormones and ACC deaminase. Depending upon the likely mecha- nisms underlying their favorable effects and contri- butions towards plant growth promotion, PGPR generally fall into at least one of the following categories (Viveros et al. 2010): I. Bioprotectants: It includes PGPR strains that suppress the pathogens and hence control plant diseases. An important mechanism adopted for the same involves enhancing plant resistance to fungal (Cameron et al. 1994), bacterial (Wei et al. 1996; Hu et al. 2009) and viral diseases (Maurhofer et al. 1998; Murphy and Zehnder 2000), insects (Zehn- der et al. 1997) and nematodes (Cadena et al. 2008). Production and release of metabolites which reduce the population or activities of pathogens or deleterious rhizosphere microora is another chiey found mode of action in many PGPR strains (Kloepper 1994). For example, the production of siderophores which bind ferric ions making them unavailable or scarcely available to the native pathogenic microora (Haas and Def- ago 2005), lytic enzymes, diffusible antibiotics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxins and biosurfactants (Berg 2009), etc. Competition of PGPR strains with the pathogens for the limited nutrients and suitable sites in the rhizosphere is also a common approach to check the growth of undesirable organisms in the rhizosphere (Elad and Chet 1987). II. Biofertilizers: These are the PGPR strains which improve the nutrient uptake of the plant thus resulting in enhanced seed germination and seedling emergence thereby improving the crop yield (Glick 1995; Berg 2009). Various mecha- nisms involved for the same are N 2 xation (Tilak et al. 2005), improving the phosphorous avail- ability to plants by solubilization of inorganic phosphate and mineralization of organic phos- phate (Rodriguez and Fraga 1999) and release of organic acids, which help to make the available forms of nutrients like zinc and others. III. Biostimulants: PGPR involved in phytohormone production, i.e. production of secondary metab- olites such as auxins, indole acetic acid (IAA), cytokinins, riboavin and vitamins (Frankenber- ger and Arshad 1995; Costacurta and Vander- leyden 1995) are termed as biostimulants. Another benecial trait that has been recognized for PGPR is their capability to counteract the phytotox- icity of chemical pesticides. For example, P. aerugin- osa PS1 reduced the toxic effects of herbicides like quizalafop-p-ethyl and clodinafop in legumes (Ahe- mad and Khan 2010a) and produced plant growth promoting substances even in the presence of the insecticides pronil and pyriproxyfen in green gram (Ahemad and Khan 2011). Similarly, another strain E. asburiae PS2 showed plant growth promoting activ- ities like phosphate solubilization, production and release of siderophores, indole acetic acid, exopoly- saccharides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in the presence of herbicides such as quizalafop-p-ethyl, clodinafop, metribuzin and glyphosate (Ahemad and Khan 2010b), a strain of Rhizobium, i.e. MRL3 exhibited plant growth promotion in the soil treated with insecticides pronil and pyriproxyfen in lentil plants (Ahemad and Khan 2010c). Thus, it can be said that PGPR strains may be used to improve plant growth even in stressed soils that have been treated for long times with various kinds of chemical agents. This suggests that plant friendly rhizosphere micro- ora may be grouped as either plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) which directly enhance the plant growth or as biological control agents (BCA) that effect the plant health by suppressing plant pathogens thus indirectly affecting its growth (Avis et al. 2008). Various direct and indirect, plant growth promoting properties of the PGPR are summarized in Table 2. Hence, it may be concluded that plant nutrition and health is favorably inuenced by PGPR through an extensive range of direct and indirect mechanisms. 5 Rhizosphere competence In order to exhibit their plant growth-promotion and protection capabilities, the foremost requirement for 70 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 the PGPR is to colonize the suitable sites in the rhizosphere. The effectiveness of PGPR mediated processes is strongly inuenced by factors such as the competence and persistence of the particular strain in the rhizosphere, its root colonizing capacity, synthesis and release of various metabolites, plant species and plant genotypes within a species and the competing microora in the rhizosphere (Nowak 1998). If the conditions in the root zone are not favorable for PGPR establishment the synthesis of biologically active substances, inuencing plant health and growth may either stop or get signicantly reduced thus resulting in Table 2 Plant growth promoting mechanisms of PGPR Plant growth promoting trait Benecial effect for plant PGPR involved References Biological nitrogen xation: symbiotic, associative or free living nitrogen xers Enhancement in the nitrogen content of soil and hence improvement in plant growth and yield Enterobacter, Erwinia, Flavobacterium, Frankia, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Alcaligenes, Azotobacter, Acetobacter, Bacillus, Burkholderia Gillis et al. (1989), Biswas et al. (2000), Gholami et al. (2009), Akhtar and Siddiqui (2009) Phytohormone production Favorable inuence on physiological plant processes leading to plant growth promotion Rhizobium, Pseudomonas, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Alcaligenes Bradyrhizobium, Xanthomonas Frankenberger and Arshad (1995), Costacurta and Vanderleyden (1995), Ahmad et al. (2008) Siderophore production Enhancement in solubilization of ferric ions and hence improvement in iron availability for plants. Also contribute towards phytopathogen inhibition Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Serratia, Rhodococcus, Acinetobacter Chaiharn et al. (2009), Koo and Cho (2009), Rokhbakhsh-Zamin et al. (2011), Sahu and Sindhu (2011) Phosphate solubilization Conversion of insoluble forms of phosphorus to plant accessible form, making it available to the plants. Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Serratia, Kushneria, Rhodococcus, Arthrobacter Igual et al. (2001), Chen et al. (2006), Zhu et al. (2011) Antagonistic behavior: antibiotic production (like phenazines, 2,4- diacetylphloroglucinol, pyoluteorin, pyrrolnitrin, lipopeptides, etc.) Inhibition of soil borne phytopathogens thus leading to suppression of the diseases. Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Serratia, Streptomyces Thomashow and Weller (1988), Hwang et al. (1994), Maurhofer et al. (1994), Kamensky et al. (2003), Kim et al. (2004), Jayaprakashvel et al. (2010) Antagonistic behavior: extracellular lytic enzymes like chitinases, b-1, 3 glucanases, proteases, cellulases and laminarinase Cell lysis of soil borne fungal pathogens of plants. Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Serratia Fridlender et al. (1993), Huang et al. (2005), Nandakumar et al. (2007) ACC deaminase Hydrolysis of ACC, reduction in ethylene production and plant growth promotion. Pseudomonas, Bacillus Belimov et al. (2001) Salicylic acid and other elicitors Induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants against pathogens Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Serratia de Meyer and Hofte (1997), Bargabus-Larson and Jacobsen (2007) Production of organic acids Solubilization of mineral nutrients for plant uptake. Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Rhizobium Belimov et al. (1995), Noel et al. (1996) Metal resistance Effective metal sequestering Pseudomonas Rajkumar and Freitas (2008) A variety of direct and indirect mechanisms are involved in benecial impacts of different strains of PGPR that range from enhanced nutrient availability for the plant to suppression of pathogens PGPR Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, ACC 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 71 1 3 the failure of the introduced PGPR strain to promote plant growth (Chanway and Holl 1992). Owing to their similar requirements for water, nutrients and space a stiff competition is generally observed between the introduced PGPR strain and the native inhabitants in the rhizosphere. An introduced bacteriumwill be dened as an effective root colonizer if it is able to propagate and survive in the rhizosphere for several weeks and thus outcompetes the indigenous microora (Weller 1988). If the introduced strain is equipped with certain discriminating feature(s) over the indigenous microora that confers it the capacity to compete for restricted space and nutrients, the strain succeeds in colonizing the rhizosphere. Characteris- tics that offer selective advantage to the introduced strain in the rhizosphere include the agellar motility (de Weger et al. 1987), ability to utilize root exudates and adherence to root surfaces mediated by aggluti- nation (Slusarenko et al. 1983) or with the help of surface structures like pili (Vesper 1987); mbriae (Vesper and Bauer 1986); exopolysaccharides like cellulose brils (Smit et al. 1986) and O-antigens chains of liposachharides (de Weger et al. 1989), etc. Possession of these feature(s) thus improves the probability of successful colonization by manifolds. Ability of the introduced strain to generate phenotyp- ically diverse population with the help of site-specic recombinases (Granero et al. 2005) and to produce antibiotics (Mazzola et al. 1992) also inuence the ecological competence. Thus, it may be said that it is only after the successful establishment of the PGPR inoculants in the rhizosphere that they may exercise their effect on the plant. 6 Conclusion Rhizosphere is a unique ecological zone of soil that is heavily loaded with nutrients obtained from plant roots via rhizodeposition. It has a rich pool of potential bacterial sources equipped with versatile capabilities to favorably inuence the host plant. Bacteria are the most abundant organisms that reside in rhizosphere and a special class of bacteria called as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria inuence the plant growth by a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms in a wide range of crops. They must be therefore; exploited to develop eco-friendly and safe replacement for chem- ical based fertilizers and pesticides. However, the success in developing PGPR mediated tools is greatly dependent on the development of efcient and sensi- tive molecular genetics techniques like microarrays and effective culturing methodologies to provide a better insight of the structural and functional diversity of the rhizosphere. Though PGPR have environmental advantages and are favorably supported by legislative guidelines as well, their commercial success is highly dependent on economic factors. Design of economi- cally feasible large scale production methodologies is thus another critical requirement. So, deep rooted research in this area is highly needed. Further Pseu- domonas and Bacillus have been the most vastly studied PGPR genera, so far, due to the combined effects of their functional properties and their pre- dominance in the rhizosphere. However, a diverse range of microbial groups must be explored in order to enhance the working options available so that the use of chemical based agronomic products can be checked to a signicant level. References Ahemad M, Khan MS (2010a) Phosphate-solubilizing and plant-growth-promoting Pseudomonas aeruginosa PS1 improves green gram performance in quizalafop-p-ethyl and clodinafop amended soil. Arch Environ Contam Tox- icol 58:361372 Ahemad M, Khan MS (2010b) Inuence of selective herbicides on plant growth promoting traits of phosphate solubilizing Enterobacter asburiae strain PS2. Res J Microbiol 5:849857 Ahemad M, Khan MS (2010c) Insecticide-tolerant and plant- growth-promoting Rhizobiumimproves the growth of lentil (Lens esculentus) in insecticide-stressed soils. Pest Manag Sci 67:423429 Ahemad M, Khan MS (2011) Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PS1 enhances growth parameters of green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] in insecticide-stressed soils. J Pest Sci 84:123131 Ahmad F, Ahmad I, Khan MS (2008) Screening of free-living rhizospheric bacteria for their multiple plant growth pro- moting activities. Microbiol Res 168:173181 Akhtar MS, Siddiqui ZA (2009) Use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for the biocontrol of root-rot disease complex of chickpea. Australas Plant Pathol 38:4450 Aneja KR (2003) Experiments in microbiology, plant pathology and biotechnology. Age International (P) Limited Pub- lishers, New Delhi Antoun H, Prevost D (2005) Ecology of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. In: Siddiqui ZA (ed) PGPR: biocontrol and biofertilization. Springer, Netherlands, pp 138 Atlas RM, Bartha R (1993) Microbial ecology: fundamentals and applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City 72 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 Avis TJ, Gravel V, Antoun H, Tweddell RJ (2008) Multifaceted benecial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant health and productivity. Soil Biol Biochem 40:17331740 Bais HP, Park SW, Weir TL, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2004) How plants communicate using the underground infor- mation superhighway. Trends Plant Sci 9:2632 Bais HP, Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM (2006) The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:233266 Barea JM (2000) Rhizosphere and mycorrhiza of eld crops. In: Balazs E, Galante E, Lynch JM, Schepers JS, Toutant JP, Werner D, Werry PJ (eds) Biological resource manage- ment: connecting science and policy. Springer, New York, pp 110125 Bargabus-Larson RL, Jacobsen BJ (2007) Biocontrol elicited systemic resistance in sugar beet is salicylic acid inde- pendent and NPR1 dependent. J Sugar Beet Res 44:1733 Barriuso J, Solano BR, Lucas JA, Lobo AP, Villaraco AG, Manero FJG (2008) Ecology, genetic diversity and screening strategies of plant growth promoting rhizobac- teria (PGPR). In: Ahmad I, Pichtel J, Hayat S (eds) Plant bacteria interactions: strategies and techniques to promote plant growth. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA, Weinheim, pp 117 Belimov AA, Kojemiakov AP, Chuvarliyeva CV (1995) Inter- action between barley and mixed cultures of nitrogen xing and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Plant Soil 173:2937 Belimov AA, Safronova VI, Sergeyeva TA, Egorova TN, Mat- veyeva VA, Tsyganov VE, Borisov AY, Tikhonovich IA, Kluge C, Preisfeld A, Dietz K, Stepanok VV (2001) Charac- terization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated from polluted soils and containing 1-aminocyclopropane-1- carboxylate deaminase. Can J Microbiol 47:642652 Berg G (2000) Diversity of antifungal and plant-associated Serratia plymuthica strains. J Appl Microbiol 88:952960 Berg G (2009) Plantmicrobe interactions promoting plant growth and health: perspectives for controlled use of microorganisms in agriculture. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 84:1118 Berg G, Roskot N, Steidle A, Eberl L, Zock A, Smalla K (2002) Plant-dependent genotypic and phenotypic diversity of antagonistic rhizobacteria isolated from different Verticil- lium host plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:33283338 Berg G, Zachow C, Lottmann J, Gotz M, Costa R, Smalla K (2005) Impact of plant species and site on rhizosphere- associated fungi antagonistic to Verticillium dahliae Kleb. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:42034213 Berg G, Opelt K, Zachow C, Lottmann J, Gotz M, Costa R, Smalla K (2006) The rhizosphere effect on bacteria antagonistic towards the pathogenic fungus Verticillium differs depending on plant species and site. FEMS Micro- biol Ecol 56:250261 Biswas JC, Ladha JK, Dazzo FB (2000) Rhizobia inoculation improves nutrient uptake and growth of lowland rice. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:16441650 Bolton HJ, Fredrickson JK, Elliott LF (1993) Microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. In: Metting FBJ (ed) Soil microbial ecology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 2763 Bottini R, Cassan F, Piccoli P (2004) Gibberellin production by bacteria and its involvement in plant growth promotion and yield increase. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 65:497503 Bowen G, Rovira A(1999) The rhizosphere and its management to improve plant growth. Adv Agron 66:1102 Brimecombe MJ, de Leij FA, Lynch JM (2001) The effect of root exudates on rhizosphere microbial populations. In: Pinto R, Varanini Z, Nannipierei P (eds) The rhizosphere. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 95141 Brophy LS, Heichel GH (1989) Nitrogen release from roots of alfalfa and soybean grown in sand culture. Plant Soil 116:7784 Butler JL, Williams MA, Bottomley PJ, Myrold DD (2003) Microbial community dynamics associated with rhizo- sphere carbon ow. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 67936800 Buyer JS, Roberts DP, Russek-Cohen E (2002) Soil and plant effects on microbial community structure. Can J Microbiol 48:955964 Cadena MB, Burelle NK, Lawrence KS, van Santen E, Kloepper JW (2008) Suppressiveness of root-knot nematodes med- iated by rhizobacteria. Biol Control 47:5559 Cameron RK, Dixon R, Lamb C (1994) Biologically induced systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 5:715725 Cawoy H, Bettiol W, Fickers P, Ongena M (2011) Bacillus based biological control of plant diseases. In: Stoytcheva M (ed) Pesticides in the modern worldpesticides use and management. InTech, Rijeka, pp 273302 Chaiharn M, Chunhaleuchanon S, Lumyong S (2009) Screening siderophore producing bacteria as potential biological control agent for fungal rice pathogens in Thailand. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 25:19191928 Chanway CP, Holl FB (1992) Inuence of soil biota on Douglas r (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedling growth: the role of rhizosphere bacteria. Can J Bot 70:10251031 Chen YP, Rekha PD, Arun AB, Shen FT, Lai WA, Young CC (2006) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing abilities. Appl Soil Ecol 34:3341 Cheng W, Gershenson A (2007) Carbon uxes in the rhizo- sphere. In: Cardon ZG, Whitbeck JL (eds) The rhizo- spherean ecological perspective. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 3156 Clark FE (1949) Soil microorganisms and plant roots. Adv Agron 1:241288 Costacurta A, Vanderleyden J (1995) Synthesis of phytohor- mones by plant-associated bacteria. Critical Rev Microbiol 21:118 Couillerot O, Prigent-Combaret C, Caballero-Mellado J, Mo- enne-Loccoz Y (2009) Pseudomonas uorescens and clo- sely-related uorescent pseudomonads as biocontrol agents of soil-borne phytopathogens. Lett Appl Microbiol 48:505512 Cullimore DR, Woodbine M (1963) Rhizosphere effect of the pea root on soil algae. Nature 198:304305 Curl EA, Truelove B (1986) The rhizosphere. Springer, Berlin de Meyer G, Hofte M (1997) Salicylic acid produced by the rhizobacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa 7NSK2 induces resistance to leaf infection by Botrytis cinerea on bean. Phytopathology 87:588593 de Weger LA, van der Vlugt CIM, Wijfjes AHM, Bakker PAHM, Schippers B, Lugtenberg BJJ (1987) Flagella of a plant-growth-stimulating Pseudomonas uorescens strain Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 73 1 3 are required for colonization of potato roots. J Bacteriol 169:27692773 de Weger LA, Bakker PAHM, Schippers B, van Loosdrecht MCM, Lugtenberg BJJ (1989) Pseudomonas spp. with mutational changes in the O-antigenic side chain of their lipopolysaccharide are affected in their ability to colonize potato roots. In: Lugtenberg BJJ (ed) Signal molecules in plants and plantmicrobe interactions. Springer, Berlin, pp 197202 Elad Y, Chet I (1987) Possible role of competition for nutrients in biocontrol of Pythium damping off by bacteria. Phyto- pathology 77:90195 Fang M, Kremer RJ, Motavalli PP, Davis G (2005) Bacterial diversity of rhizospheres of non-transgenic and transgenic corn. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:41324136 Farrar J, Hawes M, Jones D et al (2003) How roots control the ux of carbon to the rhizosphere. Ecology 84:827837 Fernandez LA, Zalba P, Gomez MA, Sagardoy MA (2007) Phosphate-solubilization activity of bacterial strains in soil and their effect on soybean growth under green house conditions. Biol Fertil Soils 43:803805 Fischer SE, Fischer SI, Magris S, Mori GB (2006) Isolation and characterization of bacteria from the rhizosphere of wheat. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 23:895903 Foster RC (1988) Microenvironments of soil microorganisms. Biol Fertil Soils 6:189203 Frankenberger WTJ, Arshad M (1995) Phytohormones in soil: microbial production and function. Dekker, New York Fridlender M, Inbar J, Chet I (1993) Biological control of soil- borne plant pathogens by a b-1, 3 glucanase-producing Pseudomonas cepacia. Soil Biol Biochem 25:12111221 Garbeva P, van Veen JA, van Elsas JD (2004) Microbial diversity in soil: selection of microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness. Annu Rev Phytopathol 42:243270 Garland JL (1996) Patterns of potential C source utilization by rhizosphere communities. Soil Biol Biochem 36:489498 Gholami A, Shahsavani S, Nezarat S (2009) The effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on germination, seedling growth and yield of maize. Int J Biol Life Sci 1:3540 Gillis M, Kersters K, Hoste B, Janssens D, Kroppenstedt RM, Stephan MP, Teixeira KRS, Dobereiner J, de Ley J (1989) Acetobacter diazotrophicus sp. nov., a nitrogen xing acetic acid bacterium associated with sugarcane. Int J Syst Bacteriol 39:361364 Glick BR (1995) The enhancement of plant growth promotion by free living bacterial. Can J Microbiol 41:109117 Gobat JM, Aragno M, Matthey W (2004) The living soil: fun- damentals of soil science and soil biology. Science Pub- lishers, USA Gomes NCM, Fagbola O, Costa R, Rumjanek NG, Buchner A, Mendona-Hagler L, Smalla K (2003) Dynamics of fungal communities in bulk and maize rhizosphere soil in the tropics. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:37583766 Gow NAR, Campbell TA, Morris BM, Osborne MC, Reid B, Shepherd SJ, van West P (1999) Signals and interaction between phytopathogenic zoospores and plant roots. In: England R, Hobbs G, Bainton N, Roberts DMCL (eds) Microbial signaling and communication. University Press, Cambridge, pp 285305 Granero FM, Capdevila S, Contreras MS, Martyn M, Rivilla R (2005) Two site-specic recombinases are implicated in phenotypic variation and competitive rhizosphere coloni- zation in Pseudomonas uorescens. Microbiol 151: 975983 Gray EJ, Smith DL (2005) Intracellular and extracellular PGPR: commonalities and distinctions in the plantbacterium signaling processes. Soil Biol Biochem 37:395412 Grayston SJ, Vaughan D, Jones D (1996) Rhizosphere carbon ow in trees, in comparison with annual plants: the importance of root exudation and its impact on microbial activity and nutrient availability. Appl Soil Ecol 5:2956 Grayston SJ, Wang SQ, Campbell CD, Edwards AC (1998) Selective inuence of plant species on microbial diversity in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol Biochem 30:369378 Greenberg BM, Huang XD, Gerwing P, Yu XM, Chang P, Wu SS, Gerhardt K, Nykamp J, Lu X, Glick B (2008) Phyto- remediation of salt impacted soils: greenhouse and the eld trials of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) to improve plant growth and salt phytoaccumulation. In: Proceeding of the 33rd AMOP technical seminar on envi- ronmental contamination and response. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp 627637 Hadeld W (1960) Rhizosphere effect on soil algae. Nature 185:179180 Haas D, Defago G (2005) Biological control of soil-borne pathogens by uorescent pseudomonads. Nat Rev Micro- biol 3:307319 Hiltner L (1904) About new experiences and problems in the eld of Bodenbakteriologie. Works Ger Agric Soc 98: 5978 Hinsinger P, Gobran GR, Gregory PJ, Wenzel WW (2005) Rhizosphere geometry and heterogeneity arising fromroot- mediated physical and chemical processes. New Phytol 168:293303 Hu X, Li W, Chen Q, Yang Y (2009) Early signal transduction linking the synthesis of jasmonic acid in plant. Plant Signal Behav 4:696697 Huang CJ, Wang TK, Chung SC, Chen CY (2005) Identication of an antifungal chitinase froma potential biocontrol agent, Bacillus cereus 28-9. J Biochem Mol Biol 38:8288 Hwang BK, Ahn SJ, Moon SS (1994) Production, purication and antifungal activity of the antibiotic nucleoside, tub- ercidin, produced by Streptomyces violaceoniger. Can J Bot 72:480485 Ibekwe AM, Poss JA, Grattan SR, Grieve CM, Suarez D (2010) Bacterial diversity in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rhizo- sphere in response to salinity, soil pH, and boron. Soil Biol Biochem 42:567575 Igual JM, Valverde A, Cervantes E, Velazquez E (2001) Phos- phate-solubilizing bacteria as inoculants for agriculture: use of updated molecular techniques in their study. Agronomie 21:561568 Jaeger JH, Lindow SE, Miller S, Clark E, Firestone MK (1999) Mapping of sugar and amino acid availability in soil around roots with bacterial sensors of sucrose and tryptophan. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:26852690 Jangu OP, Sindhu SS (2011) Differential response of inocula- tion with indole acetic acid producing Pseudomonas sp. in green gram (Vigna radiata L.) and black gram (Vigna mungo L.). Microbiol J 1:159173 74 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 Jayaprakashvel M, Muthezhilan R, Srinivasan R, Hussain JA, Gobalakrishnan S, Bhagat J, Kaarthikeyan C, Muth- ulakshmi R (2010) Hydrogen cyanide mediated biocontrol potential of Pseudomonas sp. AMET1055 isolated from the rhizosphere of coastal sand dune vegetation. Adv Biotech 9:3942 Jeffery S, Gardi C, Jones A, Montanarella L, Marmo L, Miko L, Ritz K, Peres G, Roombke J, van der Putten WH (eds) (2010) The soil environment. In: European atlas of soil biodiversity, European Commission, Publications ofce of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 1748 Jeon JS, Lee SS, Kim HY, Ahn TS, Song HG (2003) Plant growth promotion in soil by some inoculated microor- ganisms. J Microbiol 41:271276 Jones DL, Hodge A, Kuzyakov Y (2004) Plant and mycorrhizal regulation of rhizodeposition. New Phytol 163:459480 Joshi P, Bhatt AB (2010) Diversity and function of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria associated with wheat rhizosphere in north Himalayan region. Int J Environ Sci 1:11351144 Joshi P, Tyagi V, Bhatt AB (2011) Characterization of rhizo- bacteria diversity isolated from Oryza sativa cultivated at different altitude in north Himalaya. Adv Appl Sci Res 2:208216 Kamensky M, Ovadis M, Chet I, Chernin L (2003) Soil-borne strain IC14 of Serratia plymuthica with multiple mecha- nisms of antifungal activity provides biocontrol of Botrytis cinerea and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum diseases. Soil Biol Biochem 35:323331 Katznelson H, Lochhead AG, Timonin MI (1948) Soil micro- organisms and the rhizosphere. Botan Rev 14:543587 Kim PI, Bai H, Bai D, Chae H, Chung S, Kim Y, Park R, Chi YT (2004) Purication and characterization of a lipopeptide produced by Bacillus thuringiensis CMB26. J Appl Microbiol 97:942949 Kloepper JW (1994) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (other systems). In: Okon Y (ed) Azospirillum/plant asso- ciations. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 111118 Kloepper JW, Schroth MN (1978) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on radishes. In: Gilbert C (ed) Proceedings 4th international conference on plant pathogenic bacteria, Tours, France, pp 879882 Kloepper JW, Zablotowick RM, Tipping EM, Lifshitz R (1991) Plant growth promotion mediated by bacterial rhizosphere colonizers. In: Keister DL, Cregan PB (eds) The rhizo- sphere and plant growth. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 315326 Kloepper JW, Ubana RR, Zehnder GW, Murphy JF, Sikora E, Fernandez C (1999) Plant root-bacterial interactions in biological control of soilborne diseases and potential extension to systemic and foliar diseases. Aust Plant Pathol 28:2126 Kochian L, Pineros M, Hoekenga O (2005) The physiology, genetics and molecular biology of plant aluminum resis- tance and toxicity. Plant Soil 274:175195 Koo SY, Cho KS (2009) Isolation and characterization of a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium, Serratia sp. SY5. J Microbiol Biotechnol 19:14311438 Kreuzer K, Adamczyk J, Iijima M, Wagner M, Scheu S, Bon- kowski M (2006) Grazing of a common species of soil protozoa (Acanthamoeba castellanii) affects rhizosphere bacterial community composition and root architecture of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Soil Biol Biochem 38:16651672 Linderman RG (1988) Mycorrhizal interactions with the rhi- zosphere microora: the mycorrhizosphere effect. Phyto- pathology 78:366371 Lynch JM (1987) The rhizosphere. Wiley Interscience, Chichester Lynch JM (1990) Some consequences of microbial rhizosphere competence for plant and soil. In: Lynch JM (ed) The rhizosphere. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 110 Lynch JM, Whipps JM (1990) Substrate ow in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 129:110 MacDonald LM, Paterson E, Dawson LA, McDonald AJS (2004) Short-term effects of defoliation on the soil microbial community associated with two contrasting Lo- lium perenne cultivars. Soil Biol Biochem 36:489498 Maurhofer M, Keel C, Haas D, Defago G (1994) Pyoluteorin production by Pseudomonas uorescens strain CHA0 is involved in the suppression of Pythium damping-off of cress but not of cucumber. Eur J Plant Pathol 100:221232 Maurhofer M, Reimann C, Sacherer SP, Heebs S, Haas D, Defago G (1998) Salicylic acid biosynthetic genes expressed in Pseudomonas uorescens strain P3 improve the induction of systemic resistance in tobacco against necrosis virus. Phytopathology 88:678684 Mazzola M, Cook RJ, Thomashow LS, Weller DM, Pierson LS (1992) Contribution of phenazine antibiotic biosynthesis to the ecological competence of uorescent Pseudomonads in soil habitats. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:26162624 Morgan JAW, Whipps JM(2001) Methodological approaches to the study of rhizosphere carbon ow and microbial popu- lation dynamics. In: Pinton A, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (eds) The rhizosphere: biochemistry and organic sub- stances at the soil-plant interface. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 373409 Morgan JAW, Bending GD, White PJ (2005) Biological costs and benets to plantmicrobe interactions in the rhizo- sphere. J Exp Bot 56:17291739 Murphy JF, Zehnder GW (2000) Plant growth-promoting rhi- zobacterial mediated protection in tomato against tomato mottle virus. Plant Dis 84:779784 Naik PR, Raman G, Narayanan KB, Sakthivel N (2008) Assessment of genetic and functional diversity of phos- phate solubilizing uorescent pseudomonads isolated from rhizospheric soil. BMC Microbiol 8:230243 Nandakumar R, Babu S, Raguchander T, Samiyappan R (2007) Chitinolytic activity of native Pseudomonas uorescens strains. J Agri Sci Technol 9:6168 Nannipieri P, Ascher J, Ceccherini MT, Landi L, Pietramellara G, Renella G, Valori F (2007) Microbial diversity and microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Ciencia del Suelo (Argentina) 25:8997 Nguyen C (2003) Rhizodeposition of organic C by plants: mechanisms and controls. Agronomie 23:375396 Nie M, Zhang XD, Wang JQ et al (2009) Rhizosphere effects on soil bacterial abundance and diversity in the Yellow river deltaic ecosystem as inuenced by petroleum contamina- tion and soil salinization. Soil Biol Biochem41:25352542 Noel TC, Sheng C, Yost CK, Pharis RP, Hynes MF (1996) Rhizobium leguminosarum as a plant growth promoting Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 75 1 3 rhizobacterium: direct growth promotion of canola and lettuce. Can J Microbiol 42:279293 Nowak J (1998) Benets of in vitro biotization of plant tissue cultures with microbial inoculants. In vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 34:122130 Parmar N, Dufresne J (2011) Benecial interactions of plant growth promoting rhizosphere microorganisms. In: Singh A et al (eds) Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and bio- control, soil biology, vol 28. Springer, Berlin, pp 2742 Paterson E, Gebbing T, Abel C, Sim A, Telfer G (2007) Rhi- zodeposition shapes rhizosphere microbial community structure in organic soil. New Phytol 173:600610 Phillips DA, Fox TC, King MD, Bhuvaneswar TV, Teuber LR (2004) Microbial products trigger amino acids exudation from plant roots. Plant Physiol 136:28872894 Phillips DA, Fox TC, Six J (2006) Root exudation (net efux of amino acids) may increase rhizodeposition under elevated CO 2 . Global Change Biol 12:561567 Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (2001) The rhizosphere as a site of biochemical interactions among soil components, plants and microorganisms. In: Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (eds) The rhizosphere: biochemistry and organic substances at the soil-plant interface. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 117 Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2008) Inuence of metal resistant-plant growth-promoting bacteria on the growth of Ricinus com- munis in soil contaminated with heavy metals. Chemo- sphere 71:834842 Rawat S, Izhari A, Khan A (2011) Bacterial diversity in wheat rhizosphere and their characterization. Adv Appl Sci Res 2:351356 Rodriguez H, Fraga R (1999) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol Adv 17:319339 Rokhbakhsh-Zamin F, Sachdev D, Kazemi-Pour N, Engineer A, Pardesi KR, Zinjarde S, Dhakephalkar PK, Chopade BA (2011) Characterization of plant-growth-promoting traits of Acinetobacter species isolated from rhizosphere of Pennisetum glaucum. J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:556566 Rouatt JW, Katznelson H, Payne TMB (1960) Statistical eval- uation of the rhizosphere effect. Soil Sci Soc Amer Proc 24:271273 Rougier M, Chaboud A (1989) Biological functions of muci- lages secreted by roots. Symp Soc Exp Biol 43:449454 Rovira AD (1956) Plant root excretions in relation to the rhi- zosphere effect I. Plant Soil 7:178194 Sahu GK, Sindhu SS (2011) Disease control and plant growth promotion of green gram by siderophore producing Pseu- domonas sp. Res J Microbiol 6:735749 Sessitsch A, Coenye T, Sturz AV, Vandamme P, Barka EA, Salles JF, van Elsas D, Faure JD, Reiter B, Glick BR, Pruski GW, Nowak J (2005) Burkholderia phytormans sp. nov., a novel plant-associated bacterium with plant-bene- cial properties. Int J Sys Evol Microbiol 55:11871192 Shetty KG, Hetrick BAD, Figge DAH, Schwab AP (1994) Effects of mycorrhizae and other soil microbes on reveg- etation of heavy metal contaminated mine spoil. Environ Poll 86:181188 Slusarenko AJ, Epperlein M, Wood RKS (1983) Agglutination of plant pathogenic and certain other bacteria by pectic polysaccharides from various plant species. Phytopathol- ogy 106:337343 Smalla K, Wieland G, Buchner A, Zock A, Parzy J, Kaiser S, Roskot N, Heuer H, Berg G(2001) Bulk and rhizosphere soil bacterial communities studied by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis: plant-dependent enrichment and seasonal shifts revealed. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:47424751 Smit G, Kijne JW, Lugtenberg BJJ (1986) Correlation between extracellular brils and attachment of Rhizobium legu- minosarum to pea root hair tips. J Bacteriol 168:821827 Sobral JK, Araujo WL, Mendes R, Geraldi IO, Kleiner AAP, Azevedo JL (2004) Isolation and characterization of soy- bean-associated bacteria and their potential for plant growth promotion. Environ Microbiol 6:12441251 Soltani AA, Khavazi K, Rahmani HA, Omidvari M, Dahaji PA, Mirhoseyni H (2010) Plant growth promoting character- istics in some Flavobacterium spp. isolated from soils of Iran. J Agri Sci 2:106115 Steer J, Harris JA (2000) Shifts in the microbial community in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils during the growth of Agrostis stolonifera. Soil Biol Biochem 32:869878 Teixeira LCRS, Peixoto RS, Cury JC, Sul WJ, Pellizari VH, Tiedje J, Rosado AS (2010) Bacterial diversity in rhizo- sphere soil from Antarctic vascular plants of Admiralty Bay, maritime Antarctica. ISME J 4:9891001 Thomashow LS, Weller DM (1988) Role of a phenazine anti- biotic from Pseudomonas uorescens in biological control of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. J Bacteriol 170:34993508 Tilak KVBR, Ranganayaki N, Pal KK, De R, Saxena AK, Nautiyal CS, Mittal S, Tripathi AK, Johri BN (2005) Diversity of plant growth and soil health supporting bac- teria. Curr Sci 89:136150 Trevors JT, van Elas JD (1997) Microbial interaction in soil. In: van Elas JD, Trevars JT, Wellington EMH (eds) Modern soil microbiology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 215243 Uren NC (2001) Types, amounts and possible functions of compounds released into the rhizosphere by soil-grown plants. In: Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (eds) The rhizosphere biochemistry and organic substances at the soil-plant interface. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 1940 van Loon LC (2007) Plant responses to plant growth promoting bacteria. Eur J Plant Pathol 119:243254 Velineni S, Brahmaprakash GP (2011) Survival and phosphate solubilizing ability of Bacillus megaterium in liquid inoc- ulants under high temperature and desiccation stress. J Agr Sci Tech 13:795802 Vesper SJ (1987) Production of pili (mbriae) by Pseudomonas uorescens and correlation with attachment to corn roots. Appl Environ Microbiol 53:13971405 Vesper SJ, Bauer WD (1986) Role of pili (mbriae) in attach- ment of Bradyrhizobium japonicum to soybean roots. Appl Environ Microbiol 52:134141 Viveros OM, Jorquera MA, Crowley DE, Gajardo G, Mora ML (2010) Mechanisms and practical considerations involved in plant growth promotion by rhizobacteria. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 10:293319 Wacquant JP, Ouknider M, Jacquard P (1989) Evidence for a periodic excretion of nitrogen by roots of grass-legume associations. Plant Soil 116:5768 76 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 1 3 Wei G, Kloepper JW, Tuzun S (1996) Induced systemic resis- tance to cucumber diseases and increased plant growth by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria under eld condi- tions. Phytopathology 86:221224 Weishuang Z, Yingheng FEI, Yi H (2009) Soluble protein and acid phosphatase exuded by ectomycorrhizal fungi and seedlings in response to excessive Cu and Cd. J Environ Sci 21:16671672 Weller DM (1988) Biological control of soilborne plant patho- gens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopa- thol 26:379407 Whipps JM (1990) Carbon economy. In: Lynch JM (ed) The rhizosphere. Wiley and Son, Chichester, UK, pp 5987 Whipps JM, Lynch JM (1985) Energy losses by the plant in rhi- zodeposition. Ann Proceedings Phytochem J Eur 26:5971 Zehnder G, Kloepper JW, Yao C, Wei G (1997) Induction of systemic resistance in cucumber against cucumber beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. J Econ Entomol 90:391396 Zhu F, Qu L, Hong X, Sun X (2011) Isolation and character- ization of a phosphate-solubilizing halophilic bacterium Kushneria sp. YCWA18 from Daqiao Saltern on the coast of yellow sea of China. J Evid Based Complement Altern 2011:16 Zwart KB, Kuikman PJ, van Veen JA (1994) Rhizosphere protozoa: their signicance in nutrient dynamics. In: Dar- byshire JF (ed) Soil protozoa. CAB International, Wal- lingford, pp 93122 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol (2014) 13:6377 77 1 3