Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Quarterly (March, June, September & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Agricultural Reviews, volume 44 issue 4 (december 2023) : 485-492

Promoting Rhizosphere Microorganisms and Biopesticides: A Review

R. Kannan1,*, V. Dhivya1, V. Sakkamuthu1
1Kalasalingam School of Agriculture and Horticulture, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishanankoil-626 126, Tamil Nadu, India.
Cite article:- Kannan R., Dhivya V., Sakkamuthu V. (2023). Promoting Rhizosphere Microorganisms and Biopesticides: A Review . Agricultural Reviews. 44(4): 485-492. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2262.
Microbes are associated inside and outside tissue parts of producers like plants, lichen, algae and phototrophic bacteria. Biofertilizer bacteria, fungi, algae and protozoa provide the suitable environment condition, nutrition constituents and inhibit harmful microorganism from rhizosphere zone. Biofertilizer and biocontrol microbes play key roles for improved soil texture, secreting, hormones, antibiotics and various stress signal compounds, enhancement plant parts elongation and prevent pathogen microbial population. Plant growth promotion rhizosphere microorganisms can improve crop tolerance for the non- living stresses such as drought, heat and salinity and living stress such as soil borne pathogens, over load of the microbial population liable to turn out to be more incessant as various atmosphere design keep on creating. Plant disease major issue for loss of productivity and unsafe for living organism due to chemical pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides and chemical fertilizer. Due to its high potential as an alternative/complement to these pesticides, biological disease control is now generally recognized and constitutes a low cost-efficient eco-friendly biofertilizer, biocontrol, biopesticide and bioinsecticide.
Bacteria, fungi and algal biofertilizers are biotic arrangements of adequate densities of microbial strains, having a helpful application of plant growth (Farfour et al., 2015). The biotic formulations are used for soil application, seed soaking and seedling dip of “Microbial consortia,” or in other words biopreparates of different bacteria and fungi, are valuable bacteria or fungi consortia combine formulation that plant essential and stress-free, getting more famous. Particularly when consortia with natural substances they can fill as natural compost. The use of biofertilizers has represented that half of the suggested NPK chemical fertilizer can be diminished through introduction with bacterial and fungal consortia without unfavourable impact on living organism development, substance, or crop productivity (Thilagar et al., 2016). The mode of action by which these arrangements improve plant development are various, including the creation of plant development controlling substances, phytohormones, concealment of plant microbes through antibiosis, bacteriocin  activity, iron chelation, nitrogen absession, mineralization of natural phosphorus, creation of phytoalexin/flavonoid-like mixes and upgrade of mineral take-up (Perez-Montano et al., 2014). Different bacterial and fungal consortia used in natural compost include three major groups: 1. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF); 2. Beneficial rhizobacteria identified as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and 3. Symbiotic-nitrogen-fixing rhizobia. PGPR include strains from genera of Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Burkholderia, EnterobacterRhizobiumErwinia and Flavobacterium.  Enhance productivity through uptake of N, elongation of root growth and spreading the number of root hairs, dominant to a root system with a more surface area after PGPR amendments (Singh et al., 2011).

Microbes niche of rhizosphere zone
The rhizosphere is one such all-around of biotic and abiotic containing quantity of soil surrounding plant roots with the most elevated bacterial populace that are affected by root exudates as characterized (Hiltner et al., 1904). The microorganisms colonizing plant roots by and large incorporates microscopic organisms. Upgrade of plant growth and advancement by utilization of these bacteria, fungi higher numbers healthy obvious (Saharan et al., 2011, Gray et al., 2005, Bhattacharyya et al., 2012, Hayat et al., 2010, Zahir et al., 1996). The root surrounding is the zone encompassing in which complex interaction ecosystem exists among the plant, the soil bacteria, fungi and the soil itself. The particular physical, compound and natural properties of the root-related soil are responsible for changes in microbial variety, increment in number and development of microorganisms in the rhizosphere smaller than usual climate (Kennedy et al., 1998, Brimecombe et al., 2001). This zone is wealthy in supplements when contrasted with the bulk soil due to the collection of an assortment of plant exudates, such as amino acids and sugars, giving a rich source of energy and supplements for microbes (Gray et al., 2005).

In this manner, plant-microorganism collaborations might be natural to plants, variation to their current circumstance and cooperates with plant roots and can even regulate the plant’s reaction to both living and non-living stresses (Haas et al., 2005). These associations might be valuable, destructive or potentially unbiased and can altogether impact plant development and advancement (Adesemoye et al., 2009, Lau et al., 2011, Ahmad et al., 2012). The beneficial rhizobacteria incorporate the common rhizobia, certain actinomycetes and mycorrhizal organisms and free-living minute, that expand the availability of supplements or plant development substances to plants just as smother parasitic and non-parasitic microorganisms (Persello-Cartieaux et al., 2003). The root colonizing bacteria are the most pursued gathering of beneficial bacteria for their multi-faceted characteristics which include plant growth promotion, pathogen control and bioremediation.

Rhizobacteria through the improvement of plant development, segregation of some secondary metabolites, for example, phytohormone, enzymes, siderophores and antibiotics (Ahmad et al., 2008, Noordman et al., 2006), are needed for the development of explicit enzymes required for plant growth and biochemical change. Plant photosynthetic particulars (about 5 to 30%) are segregated by roots in the type of various sugars which thusly is used by microbial populaces (Glick, 2014). Ensuing metabolic concentration of these microscopic organisms in the rhizosphere arouse mineral supplement transport and take-up by plant roots (Glick, 1995).
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)
PGPR in agriculture is a striking technology hypothesized to overcome this constrain. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are a gathering of free-living microorganisms that colonize the rhizosphere and add to the expanded development and yield of harvest plants (Kloepper et al., 1978). Understanding the impact of ecological variables is broadly perceived as a key to improving the level and dependability of PGPR, build up an adequate populace on the host roots and different mixes delivered by root zone microbes (which straight forwardly or in a roundabout way impact the rhizosphere climate) seem, by all accounts, to be more basic for progress and attractive way to reduce the usage of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and supplements and a significant increase in plant height, root length and dry matter production of shoot and root of plants (Podile et al., 2014).

Scientists have dramatically increased our knowledge of the mechanisms employed by PGPR in the past 15-20 years; additional understanding of the fundamental mechanisms employed by these bacteria will likely hasten the acceptance of these organisms as suitable and effective adjuncts to agricultural practice (Glick, 2014). In this way, to pure culture characteristics of PGPR expecting to comprehend crucial mechanics for improving such a plant development under unfavourable factor condition should be the essential plan of the examination and curiously in these connections, plants are influenced by PGPRs, yet in addition have significant factor to control quality gene modification and conduct in the microscopic organisms that they experience, for their own advantages (Veselaj et al., 2018).

PGPR are those microorganisms that forcefully colonize the rhizosphere and adapt the root zone to make symbiotic relations with both living organisms (Babalola et al., 2010). They are known to improve plant well-being by expanding the accessibility of micronutrients and by synthesis of the hormone, nutrient substances. Improve the development and nourishment of plants, for example of root development, plant intensity and reactions to outside stress. Uncovered to energize systematic resistance (ISR) to different microorganisms in different yields (Zhang et al., 2002). Responsible for expanded take-up of nitrogen, solubilization of phosphorus, segregation of siderophores that chelate iron to make it available to the foundations of the plant (Glick, 2007) (Fig 1).

Fig 1: PGPR mechanism in rhizosphere area.

Rhizobacteria through the improvement of plant development, combined with some auxiliary metabolites, for example, phytohormone, catalysts, siderophores and anti-toxins (Ahmad et al., 2008, Noordman et al., 2006), which are needed for the arrangement of explicit chemicals needed for plant development and biochemical change (Odoh et al., 2017). Two kinds of soil microscopic organisms have been appeared to have the ability to go about as PGPB; rhizospheric microorganisms, which are commonly found around the underlying foundations of plants and endophytic microbes, which are found inside the tissues of the plant itself (despite the way that endophytic microbes may likewise be discovered free-living in the dirt). Adroitly, PGPB may influence plant development either straightforwardly or in a roundabout way. Direct advancement of plant development happens when possibly (I) PGPB encourages the obtaining of assets from the climate including nitrogen, phosphorus and iron; or (ii) tweaks plant development by giving or controlling different plant hormones, including auxin, cytokinin, or ethylene (Santoyo et al., 2016). (Nautiyal et al., 2000) have detailed the capacity of various bacterial species to solubilize insoluble inorganic phosphate mixes, for example, dicalcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, rock phosphate and hydroxyapatite. Phytohormones, for example, auxins and cytokine creation by PGPR’s have been accounted for by numerous scientists (Guo et al., 2015).

The advantageous affiliation produced by organisms with plant roots (mycorrhizae) expands the root surface region and in this manner empowers the plant to retain water and supplements all the more effectively from enormous soil volume. Two kinds of mycorrhizae for example ecto and endo-mycorrhizae have been accounted for in various plant species. The mycorrhizal affiliation builds the supplement and water accessibility, yet additionally shields the plant from an assortment of abiotic stresses (Evelin et al., 2009, Miransari et al., 2010). Mycorrhizae and PGPR assume a significant job in improving plant development through different components (Nadeem et al., 2013). (Graham et al., 1998) revealed that Azospirillum, Cyanobacteria, Azoarcus, Azotobacter, Acetobacter diazotrophic use etc. are the instances of advantageous nitrogen-fixing structures.
PGPR has been recognized as a biocontrol specialist with the capacity to stifle a wide scope of organisms possible of introducing illness condition to plant. For PGPR to be a proficient biocontrol specialist against pathogenic microscopic organisms, growths and infections, it must utilize one of the accompanying components; creation of antibiotics, rivalry for supplements and specialty, signal obstruction, actuated fundamental opposition, hydrogen cyanide and lytic chemicals creation (Podile et al., 2006, Lugtenberg et al., 2009). Generally, these methods of activities are grouped as either immediate or circuitous types of opposition, with fungi, microbes and nematodes being the most pathogenic creatures of interest in their request for seriousness. Thus, this process for plant disease control includes utilization of gainful rhizobacteria or their metabolites in limiting/killing the negative effect of microorganisms while advancing healthy living in plants (Patten et al., 2002). PGPR, as biocontrol specialists, can act through different mechanisms, regardless of their job in direct development promotion, such as by known creation of auxin phytohormone (Patten et al., 2002), reduction of plant ethylene levels (Glick et al., 2007), or nitrogen-fixing related with roots (Dobereiner et al., 1992).

Biocontrol specialists in the coordinated administration frameworks in which diminished paces of agro synthetic compounds and social practices are utilized. A particularly incorporated framework could be used for relocated vegetables to create more vivacious transfers that would be open-minded to nematodes and other illnesses for in any event half a month after transplanting to the field. Chosen strains of beneficial PGPR trigger a plant intervened induced systemic obstruction (ISR) reaction that is successful against a wide range of plant microbes (Podile et al., 2013). (Kremer et al., 2006) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (SN13) is a biocontrol specialist for Rhizoctonia solani by expanding resistance through upgraded plant assurance reaction and extreme worldwide financial misfortunes to rural yields are capable consistently because of plant sicknesses brought about by more than 60 pathogens resulting in a deficiency of around Rs. 20,000 crores in harvest yield of 30%. Expanding public comprehension of these issues has animated revenue in the examination into the utilization of biocontrol techniques as a significant and imperative piece of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Integrated Plant Disease Management (IPDM) for crop infectious prevention (Sayyed et al., 2010). Prodigiosin shade delivering rhizospheric Serratia sp. segregated in the examination can be considered to have exceptionally encouraging antifungal components (Jimtha et al., 2017). One of the most basic contemplations when creating infection control systems is the standard assessment of microbe variety (Jayaprakashvel et al., 2012). A blend of carbendazim and mancozeb at 2.0 g/l can be utilized to control foliar infections in rural yields such as Alternaria leaf spot/scourge (Mathivanan et al., 2007). Beneficial rhizobacteria may discharge anti-infection agents and different mixes toresist plant microbes. Anti-microbial improvement is one of the most important pathways for biocontrol (Compant et al., 2005). Distinctive typesof biocontrol specialists are accessible available (Backer et al., 2018). Pathogens frequently create protection from anti-toxins and other biocontrol mechanisms to keep them from being completely controlled in the longterm. Biologicals is an elective technique for battling plant microorganisms at the point when microbes are defied, a comprehensive methodology with multiple control techniques is most likely better than excessive dependence on a solitary solution (Harman et al., 2000). Pathogen opposing microscopic organisms will likewise build up their mode of action to check the microorganisms over the long haul. PGPR also produces anti-toxins that smother microorganisms, for example, lipopeptides, polyketides and antifungal metabolites (Prashar et al., 2013).

Adversarial rhizobacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas putida and Bacillus subtillis alone and in a blend, in nursery conditions for their natural control viability against Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotium rolfsii. Also, that mix of B. subtillis with strains of Pseudomonads bring about more prominent plant assurance than alone (Abeysinghe et al., 2009). Pathogenesis-related proteins in plants, for example, phenylalanine smelling salts lyase, peroxidase, polyphenoloxidase (catechol oxidase), beta 1,3 glucanase and phenolics given their quick activity (Kavitha et al., 2005). Organic control is the best decision for use in overseeing Sunflower Necrosis Virus Disease (SNVD), because there is no other fruitful strategy (Srinivasan et al., 2009).

PGPR has been recognized as a biocontrol specialist with the ability to stifle a wide scope of organisms possible of introducing illness condition in plant. For rhizobacterial to be a proficient biocontrol specialist against pathogenic microscopic organisms, parasites and infections, it should use one of the accompanying components; creation of antibiotics, competition for supplements and specialty, signal interference, induced foundational obstruction, hydrogen cyanide and lytic enzymes creation (Podile and Kishor 2006, Lugtenberg et al., 2009).
Fungicides speak for approximately 15% of pesticide sales. Nevertheless, the commitments of biopesticides are significant because they offer various methods of activity from substance pesticides and can, in this way, be applied in revolution with pesticides to diminish the conceivable improvement of microbe resistance and pathogen protection from fungicides has advanced revenue being developed of biocontrol specialists. Biocontrol can likewise be utilized in circumstances where as of now no control is accessible, where regular pesticides can’t be utilized because of re-emergence or build-up concerns, or where the item should be guaranteed natural and be utilized in blend with decreased paces of pesticides (Fravel et al., 2005).

(Moshi et al., 2017) Generally they refer to biologically derived materials used for pest management and are regarded as eco-friendly. The definition by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States (EPA) is the most inclusive since it covers natural substances derived from genetically modified material and non-toxic modes of pest control. Therefore it recognizes three types of biopesticides, namely (i) microbial pesticides - bacteria, fungi, viruses and protozoa (ii) Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) -incorporation of genes for specific pesticidal properties into the plant’s genetic material and (iii) biochemical pesticides - naturallyoccurring substances to control pests by non-toxic means.

In any case, the EPA definition bars a significant class of biopesticides for example herbal pesticides. This classification incorporates separates from plants with insecticidal properties which have been broadly utilized in unrefined structures and less significantly in concentrated structures as yield bug protectants. The use of manufactured pesticides and fungicides has been the sole successful answer for bug bugs, contagious invasions of yields and harvest produce for quite a while. Be that as it may, the utilization of manufactured pesticides and fungicides face various difficulties including hereditary opposition of creepy-crawly species, bug resurgence, lingering harmfulness, photograph poisonousness, vertebrate poisonousness just as wide spread natural perils.

Organic pesticides, otherwise called ‘biopesticides’ are gotten from regular materials including creatures, plants, microorganisms and a few minerals (Glare et al., 2012). Most biopesticides are viewed as decreased danger pesticides, in light of their toxicological profile and have few registration requirements contrasted and substance pesticides (Leahy et al., 2014). Biopesticides are mass-created, organically based specialists utilized for the control of plant bugs. They can be divided into three sub-classifications (Copping et al., 2000) (1) living creatures (essentially savage creepy crawlies, parasitoids, nematodes or miniature life forms); (2) normally happening substances, such as plant concentrates or bug pheromones and (3), as perceived in certain nations, for example, the United States, hereditarily adjusted plants that express presented qualities that give security against vermin or illnesses (so-called plant joined items). Biopesticides are being utilized on expanding scales (Chandler et al., 2008). Biopesticides, by the broadest definition, are living beings or natural items got from these creatures that smother bug populaces (Kiewnick et al., 2007, Thakore et al., 2006). The life forms can be plants, nematodes, or microorganisms including microscopic organisms, fungi and infections. The kinds of items considered as biopesticides by administrative offices can be much shifted. Microbial biopesticides usually have deadly or inhibitory impacts coming about because of physical or biochemical interference of the irritation’s development and development (parasitism, threat, or allelopathy). Biochemical mixes with non-poisonous methods of activity and mixes that invigorate the plant’s common guard instruments (semi-synthetic compounds, pheromones) are additionally among the enlisted products (Bailey et al., 2010).

Biopesticides offer a promising option in contrast to the utilization of customary engineered pesticides because of the decreased danger of obstruction creating in vermin populaces, lower advancement costs, higher objective explicitness, lower natural steadiness and for the most part improved similarity with organic controls (Chandler et al., 2011, Seiber et al., 2014, Copping et al., 2000, Hubbard et al., 2014). Plant fundamental oils are integrated through auxiliary metabolic pathways and have for quite some time been perceived to have insecticidal as well as repellent properties (Regnault-Roger et al., 2012, Nawaz et al., 2016). (Fig 2).

Fig 2: Biopesticide and bioinsecticide interaction in rhizosphere area.

Even though plant fundamental biopesticides offer a promising option in contrast to the utilization of conventional manufactured pesticides because of the decreased danger of opposition developing in bug populaces, lower advancement costs, higher target specificity, lower ecological perseverance and by and largely improved compatibility with organic controls (Chandler et al., 2011, Seiber et al., 2014, Copping et al., 2000, Hubbard et al., 2014). Plant essential oils are incorporated through auxiliary metabolic pathways and have for quite some time been perceived to have insecticidal and/or repellent properties (Regnault-Roger et al., 2012, Isman et al., 2016). Although plant essential oils are normally mind-boggling blends, they are regularly dominated by a few synthetic mixes that can be generally characterized into two substance gatherings, terpenes or phenyl propanoids (Edris et al., 2007, Regnault-Roger et al., 2012, Bakkali et al., 2008). There are numerous instances of biopesticides dependent on terpenes, including orange or citrus oils, basic oil got from Chenopodium ambrosioides assortment nr. ambrosioides (Chenopodiaceae) and neem extracts (Smith et al., 2018). Biopesticides additionally incorporate living organisms that wreck rural bugs. The EPA separates biopesticides into three significant classes based on the sort of dynamic fixing used, namely, biochemical, plant-consolidated protectants and microbial pesticides (USEPA, 2008).

In ongoing many years, biopesticides get extra ordinary concern the management of bothers and is an option against customary manufactured pesticides at present used in post and preharvest control of infections and harvest bugs (Yadav et al., 2017, Yadav et al., 2017). In the climate, biopesticides are target-explicit and are nontoxic to people (Lengai et al., 2018). Biopesticides are explicit in their activity and work by target bugs as it were. These days, in the agro-market, a key job has been played by biopesticides (Nawaz et al., 2016) and is generally utilized in natural cultivating (Seiber et al., 2014). The field of innovative work of the biopesticides has raised the supportability and brought down the contamination brought about by engineered pesticides because of the disparity of the dynamic and coordinated fixings, unadulterated biopesticides are hard to deliver (Satapathy et al., 2018). Biopesticides have a vital impact on harvest security, viable with other synthetic pesticides and are likewise utilized in coordinated yield the board (ICM) rehearses all through the world (Yadav et al., 2017). Commonly used biopesticides are the living organisms, which have pathogenic potential against pests, these consist of bioinsecticides (Bacillus thuringiensis), bioherbicides (Phytophthora) and biofungicides (Trichoderma). Application of biopesticide is based on their inherently less environmental load, less harmful, quick decomposition and effective in very small concentrations which reduces pollution and have a marvelous role.
All the types of pesticides, such as bug sprays, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, or bactericides: chemical bug sprays might be natural or inorganic particles. Inorganic bug sprays don’t contain carbon, where as organic insect poisons have carbon as a basic component. Inorganic bug showers are water-dissolvable blends that are generally white pearls and models that incorporate borax, calcium polysulfide, mercury chloride, potassium thiocyanate and sodium thiocyanate. Customarily, mercury, boron, thallium, arsenic, antimony, selenium and fluoride are constituents of inorganic bug showers. The current usage of inorganic bug sprays is as constituent of definitions for wood impregnation and protection. Regardless, the use of these mixes is negative since a segment of these, (for instance, lead arsenate, mercury, etc.) proceed in the atmosphere and assemble in living creatures, causing distinctive deadly sicknesses and are similarly hurtful to non-target species. Examples of bug showers that were accessible by the 1970s mix with TDE, methoxychlor, Dilan, chlordane, kepone, mirex, Perthane, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor and toxaphene. Comprehensively, manufactured natural bug sprays are arranged into the accompanying classifications: organo-chlorines, organophosphates, organo sulfurs and carbamates (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).
Authors would like to thank Kalasalingam School of Agriculture and Horticulture (KSAH), Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education (KARE) for the support to carry out the research work.
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

  1. Abeysinghe, S. (2009). Efficacy of combine use of biocontrol agents on control of Sclerotium rolfsii and Rhizoctonia solani of Capsicum annuum. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 42: 221-227.

  2. Adesemoye, A.O. and Kloepper, J.W. (2009). Plant-microbes interactions in enhanced fertilizer-use efficiency. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 85: 1-12.

  3. Ahmad, F., Ahmad, I. and Khan, M.S. (2008). Screening of free- living rhizospheric bacteria for their multiple plant growth promoting activities. Microbiological Research. 163: 173-81.

  4. Ahmad, P. and Prasad, M.N.V. (2012). Environmental adaptations and stress tolerance of plants in the era of climate change. Springer Science, New York.

  5. Babalola, O.O. (2010). Beneficial bacteria of agricultural importance. Biotechnology Letters. 32: 1559-1570.

  6. Backer, R., Stefan Rokem, J., Ilangumaran, G., Lamont, J., Praslickova, D., Ricci, E., Subramanian, S. and Smith, D.L. (2018). Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Context, Mechanisms  of Action and Roadmap to Commercialization of Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science. 9: 1-17.

  7. Bailey, K.L., Boyetchko, S.M. and Längle, T. (2010). Social and economic drivers shaping the future of biological control: a Canadian perspective on the factors affecting the development and use of microbial biopesticides. Biological  Control. 52: 221–229.

  8. Bakkali, F., Averbeck, S., Averbeck, D. and Idaomar, M. (2008). Biological effects of essential oils - A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 46: 446-475.

  9. Bhattacharyya, P. and Jha, D. (2012). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Emergence in agriculture. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 28: 1327-1350.

  10. Brimecombe, M.J., De Lelj, F.A. and Lynch, J.M. (2001). The Effect of Root Exudates on Rhizosphere Microbial Populations In: The Rhizosphere. The Rhizosphere Biochemistry and Organic Substances at the Soil-Plant Interface. [Pinton, R., Varanini, Z. and Nannipieri, P. (Eds)]. Marcel Dekker. New York. pp: 95-140.

  11. Chandler, D., Bailey, A.S., Tatchell, G.M., Davidson, G., Greaves, J. and Grant, W.P.  (2011). The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 366: 1987-1998. 

  12. Chandler, D., Davidson, G., Grant, W.P., Greaves, J. and Tatchell, G.M. (2008). Microbial biopesticides for integrated crop management: an assessment of environmental and regulatory sustainability. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 19: 275-283.

  13. Chattopadhyay, A., Bhatnagar, N.B. and Bhatnagar, R. (2004). Bacterial insecticidal toxins. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 30: 33-54.

  14. Compant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Cle´ment, C. and Barka, E.A. (2005). ‘Use of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria for Biocontrol of Plant Diseases: Principles, Mechanisms of Action and Future Prospects’. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 71: 4951-4959.

  15. Copping, L.G. and Menn, J.J. (2000). Biopesticides: a review of their action, applications and efficacy. Pest Management Science. 56: 651-676.

  16. Dobereiner, J. (1992). Recent changes in concepts of plant bacteria interactions: Endophytic N2 fixing bacteria. Ciência e Cultura. 44: 310-313.

  17. Edris, A.E. (2007). Pharmaceutical and therapeutic potentials of essential oils and their individual volatile constituents: A review. Phytotherapy Research. 21: 308–323.

  18. Evelin, H., Kapoor, R. and Giri, B. (2009). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in alleviation of salt stress: A review. Annals of Botany. 104: 1263-1280.

  19. Farfour, S.A., Al-Saman, M.A. and Hamouda, R.A. (2015). Potential activity of some biofertilizer agents on antioxidant and phytochemical constituents of Faba bean plant. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 4 (1): 26-32.

  20. Fravel, D.R. (2005). Commercialization and implementation of biocontrol. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 43: 337- 359. 

  21. Glare, T., Caradus, J., Gelernter, W., Jackson, T., Keyhani, N., Köhl, J., Marrone, P., Morin, L. and Stewart, A.  (2012). Have biopesticide scomeofage? Trends in Biotechnology. 30: 250–258.

  22. Glick, B.R. (1995). The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 41: 109–117.

  23. Glick, B.R. (2007). Promotion of plant growth by soil bacteria that regulate plant ethylene levels. Proceedings 33rd PGRSA Annual Meeting. 1521.

  24. Glick, B.R. (2014). Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiological Research. 169: 30-39. 

  25. Graham, P.L., Steiner, J.L. and Wiese, A.F. (1998). Light absorption and competition in mixed sorghum-pigweed communities. Agronomy Journal. 80: 415-418.

  26. Gray, E.J. and Smith, D.L. (2005). Intracellular and extracellular PGPR: commonalities and distinctions in the plant-bacterium signaling processes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 37: 395-412.

  27. Guo, J.H., Jiang, C.H., Xie, P., Huang, Z.Y. and Fa, Z.H. (2015). The plant health and safety guards plant growth promoting rhizo bacteria (PGPR). Transcriptomics. 3: 1-3.

  28. Haas, D. and De´fago, G. (2005). Biological Control of Soil-Borne Pathogens by Fluorescent Pseudomonas. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 3: 307-319.

  29. Harman, G.E. (2000). Myths and dogmas of biocontrol Changes in perceptions derived from research on Trichoderma harzianum T-22. Plant Disease. 84: 377–393.

  30. Hayat, R. and Ali, S. (2010). Nitrogen fixation of legumes and yield of wheat under legumes-wheat rotation in Pothwar. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 42: 2317-2326.

  31. Hayat, R., Ali, S., Amara, U., Khalid, R. and Ahmed, I. (2010). Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: A review. Annals of Microbiology. 60: 579–598.

  32. Hiltner, L. (1904). About recent experiences and problems the field of soil bacteriology with special Consideration of green manure and fallow. Arbeiten der Deutschen Land wirtschaftlichen Gesellschaft. 98: 59–78.

  33. Hubbard, M. Hynes, R.K., Erlandson, M. and Bailey, K.L. (2014). The biochemistry behind biopesticide efficacy. Sustainable Chemical Processes. 2(18): 1-8.

  34. Isman, M.B. (2016). Pesticides based on plant essential oils: phytochemical and practical considerations. Med Aromat Crops Prod Phytochem Util. Chap. 2: 13–26.

  35. Jayaprakashvel, M. and Mathivanan, N. (2012). Morphological and pathological variations of rice sheath blight inciting south Indian Rhizoctonia solani isolates. Archives of Phytopathology  and Plant Protection. 45: 455–467.

  36. Jimtha, C.J., Jishma, P., Sreelekha, S., Chithra, S. and Radhakrishnan, E.K. (2017). Antifungal properties of prodigiosin producing rhizospheric Serratia sp. Rhizosphere. 3: 105–108.

  37. Kavitha, K., Mathiyazhagan, S., Senthilvel, V., Nakkeeran, S. and Chandrasekar, G. (2005). Development of bioformulations of antagonistic bacteria for the management of damping off of Chilli (Capsicum annuum L). Archives of Phytopathology  and Plant Protection. 38: 19–30.

  38. Kennedy, A.C., The Rhizosphere and Spermosphere. In: Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology. [(Eds.) Sylvia, D.M., Fuhrmann, J.J., Hartel, P.G. and Zuberer, D.A.] Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. pp. 389–40.

  39. Kiewnick, S. (2007). Practicalities of Developing and Registering Microbial Biological Control Agents. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources No. 13: 1-11.

  40. Kloepper, J.W. and Schroth, M.N. (1978). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria radishes. In Proc Int Conf Plant Pathog Bact 4th Angers, France. 879–882.

  41. Kremer, R.J., Caesar, A.J. and Souissi, T. (2006). Soil borne microorganisms of Euphorbia are potential biological control agents of the invasive weed leafy spurge. Applied Soil Ecology. 32: 27–37.

  42. Lau, J.A. and Lennon, J.T. (2011). Evolutionary ecology of plant– microbe interactions: Soil microbial structure alters selection on plant traits. New Phytologist. 192: 215–224.

  43. Leahy, J., Mendelsohn, M., Kough, J., Jones, R. and Berckes, N. (2014). Biopesticide oversight and registration at the US Environmental Protection Agency. In: Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities. [Aaron, D.G., Joel, R.C., Stephen, O.D. and James, N.S. (eds)]. ACS Symposium series; American Chemical Society, Washington. pp. 3–18.

  44. Lengai, G.M.W. and Muthomi, J.W. (2018). Biopesticides and their role in sustainable agricultural production. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines. 6: 7–41. 

  45. Lugtenberg, B.J. and Kamilova, F. (2009). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology. 63: 541-556.

  46. Mathivanan, N. and Prabavathy, V.R. (2007). Effect of carbendazim and mancozeb combinationon Alternaria leaf blight and seed yield in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 40: 90–96.

  47. Miransari, M. (2010). Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis to plant growth under different types of soil stress. Plant Biology. 12: 563–569.

  48. Moshi, A.P. and Matoju, I. (2017). The status of research on and application of biopesticides in Tanzania. Review. Crop Protection. 92: 16-28.

  49. Nadeem, S.M., Ahmad, M., Zahir, Z.A., Javaid, A. and Ashraf, M. (2013). The role of mycorrhizae and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in improving crop productivity under stressful environments. Biotechnology Advances. 32: 429-448.

  50. Nautiyal, C.S., Bhadauria, S., Kumar, P., Lal, H., Mondal, R. and Verma, D. (2000). Stress-induced phosphate solubilization in bacteria isolated from alkaline soils. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 182: 291-296.

  51. Nawaz, M., Mabubu, J.I. and Hua, H. (2016). Current status and advancement of biopesticides:microbial and botanical pesticides. Journal of Entomology and Zoology. 4: 241-246.

  52. Noordman, W.H., Reissbrodt, R., Bongers, R.S., Rademaker, J.L.W., Bockelmann, W. and Smit, G. (2006). Growth stimulation of Brevibacterium sp. by siderophores. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 101: 637–646.

  53. Odoh, C.K. (2017). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A bioprotectant bioinoculant for sustainable agrobiology: A review. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences. 4: 123-142.

  54. Patten, C.L. and Glick, B.R. (2002). Role of Pseudomonas putida indoleacetic acid in development of the host plant root system. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 68: 3795-3801.

  55. Perez-Montano, F., Alías-Villegas, C., Bellogín, R.A. del Cerro, P., Espuny, M.R., Jiménez-Guerrero, I., López-Baena, F.J.,  Ollero, F.J. and Cubo, T. (2014). Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: From microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiological Research. 169: 325-336.

  56. Persello-Cartieaux, F., Nussaume, L. and Robaglia, C. (2003). Tales from the underground: Molecular plant-rhizobacteria interactions. Plant, Cell and Environment. 26: 189–199.

  57. Podile, A.R. and Kishore, G.K. (2006). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. In: Plant-Associated Bacteria. [(Eds). Gnanamanickam, S.S.] Springer, Netherlands. pp. 195-230.

  58. Podile, A.R., Dutta, S.R. and Rani, T.S. (2013). Root exudate- induced alterations in Bacillus cereus cell wall contribute to root colonization and plant growth promotion. Plos One. 8: 1-12. 

  59. Podile, A.R., Vukanti, R.V., Sravani, A., Kalam, S., Dutta, S., Durgeshwar, P. and Rao, V.P. (2014). Root colonization and quorum sensing are the driving forces of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for growth promotion. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy. 80: 407-413.

  60. Prashar, P., Kapoor, N. and Sachdeva, S. (2013). Biocontrol of Plant Pathogens using Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria. [Lichtfouse, E. (Eds)]. Dordrecht: Springer. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews. 12: 319-360. 

  61. Regnault-Roger, C., Vincent, C. and Arnason, J.T. (2012). Essential oils in insect control: lowrisk products in a high-stakes world. Annual Review of Entomology. 57: 405-424.

  62. Saharan, B.S. and Nehra, V. (2011). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: A critical review. International Journal of Life Science and Medical Research. 1-30.

  63. Santoyo, G., Moreno-Hagelsieb, G., del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda, M. and Glick, B.R. (2016). Plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes. Microbiological Research. 183: 92-99.

  64. Satapathy, S.N. (2018). Regulatory norms and quality control of bio-pesticides in India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 7: 3118-3122. 

  65. Sayyed, R.Z. and Chincholkar, S.B. (2010). Growth and siderophores production in Alcaligenes faecalis is regulated by metal ions. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 50: 179-182.

  66. Seiber, J.N., Coats, J., Duke, S.O. and Fross, A.D. (2014). Biopesticides: state of the art and future opportunities. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 62: 11613-11619.

  67. Singh, J.S., Pandey, V.C. and Singh, D.P. (2011). Efficient soil microorganisms: A new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 140: 339-353.

  68. Smith, G.H., Roberts, J.M. and Pope, T.W. (2018). Terpene based biopesticides as potential alternatives to synthetic insecticides for control of aphid pests on protected ornamentals. Crop Protection. 110: 125-130.

  69. Srinivasan, R., Tamo, M., Lee, S.T., Lin, M.Y., Huang, C.C. and Hsu, Y.C. (2009). Towards Developing a Biological Control Program for Legume Pod Borer, Maruca vitrata. In: Grain Legumes: Genetic Improvement, Management and Trade (eds). Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development, Kanpur, India. PP. 183-196.

  70. Thakore, Y. (2006). The biopesticide market for global agricultural use. Industrial Biotechnology. 2: 194–208.

  71. Thilagar, G., Bagyaraj, D.J. and Rao, M.S. (2016). Selected microbial consortia developed for chilly reduces application of chemical fertilizers by 50% under field conditions. Scientia Horticulturae. 198: 27-35.

  72. USEPA (2008). What are biopesticides? [Online] available at are biopesticides.html.

  73. Veselaj, E., Sallaku, G. and Balliu, A. (2018). Combined application of arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi and plant growth promoting bacteria improves growth and nutrient uptake efficiency of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus. 17: 73-86. 

  74. Yadav, A.N. (2017). Agriculturally important microbiomes: Biodiversity and multifarious PGP attributes for amelioration of diverse abiotic stresses in crops for sustainable agriculture. Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research. 1: 861–864.

  75. Yadav, A.N., Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Kumar, V., Sugitha, T.C.K., Singh, B., Chauhan, V.S., Dhaliwal, H.S. and Saxena, A. (2017). Beneficial microbiomes: biodiversity and potential biotechnological applications for sustainable agriculture and human health. Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology. 5: 45–57.

  76. Yadav, A.N., Verma, P., Kour, D., Rana, K.L., Kumar, V., Singh, B., Dhaliwa, S., Chauahan, V.S., Sugitha, T.C.K. and Saxena, A.K. (2017). Plant microbiomes and its beneficial multifunctional plant growth promoting attributes. International Journal Environmental Science Nat Resources. 3: 1–8.

  77. Zahir, Z.A. and Arshad, M. (1996). Effectiveness of Azotobacter inoculation for improving potato yield under fertilized conditions. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 33: 1–8.

  78. Zhang, S., Moyne, A.L., Reddy, M.S. and Kloepper, J.W. (2002). The role of salicylic acid in induced systemic resistance elicited by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria against blue mold of tobacco. Biological Control. 25: 288–296.

Editorial Board

View all (0)