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

Application of Pseudomonas Strains for Biocontrol of Commercial Crops Susceptible to Plant Pathogens: A Review

Ullas Prasanna Sadarahalli1, Guruprasad Nadabhaga Manjunatha2, Thammaiah Chekkera Kuttappa1,*
1Department of PG Studies and research in Biotechnology, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta­577 451, Karnataka, India.
2Western Ghats team, Wildlife Conservation Society, Kodigehalli-560 097, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Indiscriminate use of chemicals as fertilizers and pesticides gives rise to substantial harm to the environment and ecosystem along with animals and humans. More importantly, to replace such hazardous agrochemicals, many biological solutions are available in nature which is present in the form of microorganisms having the capacity to promote plant growth substantially. Pseudomonas play a major role in plants like inducing systemic resistance, colonizing plant roots or tissue interior, helping in modulating plant hormone levels, biological control of pathogens and more over regulating the growth-related genes in plants. The fluorescent pseudomonads belong to plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and many strains of pseudomonas are well known to enhance plant growth promotion and decrease the severity of many diseases. Biocontrol strains of pseudomonas in plant bioassays synthesize one or more several antibiotic compounds. In vitro, these antibiotics have been proven as inhibitory compounds and have exhibited active responses for plant health management in field conditions. The current study mainly relies on the effective use of Pseudomonas spp. as a potential biocontrol agent for the biological control of many diseases in agriculture and horticultural crops. 

Biocontrol agents

Biocontrol is the suppression of determined endeavors of one organism by one or more other organisms, often represented as natural antagonists. Biocontrol involves living organisms or natural substances to counteract or diminish the damage caused by destructive organisms (pests, weeds and microbial pathogens). They are predominantly used for the diminution of pest residents and generate yields that are free of any pest (Molinari et al., 2019). More broadly, the term biocontrol has been applied to the use of natural products extracted from various sources of microbes. These formulations are the simple mixtures of natural ingredients with activities or complex mixtures with multiple effects on the host as well as the target pathogen (Martins et al., 2018). In the present scenario, biological control has a significant role in reducing the effects of pests and diseases along with environmental effects. Biocontrol agents give protection to the crop through the crop period. They multiply easily in the soil and leave no residual problem (De Silva et al., 2019). In the present review, we are confidently focusing on the growth promotion effects and antagonistic activities of Pseudomonas on different commercial crops instead of chemical pesticides.
The genus Pseudomonas is the most numerous among the cataloged genera of gram-negative bacteria (Gomila et al., 2015). They are aerobic, non-spore-forming, which are straight or slightly curved about 0.5-1.0 µm by 1.5-5.0 µm and are motile employing one or more flagella, ubiquitous in agricultural soils and are well adapted to grow in the rhizosphere. It appears that they retain a very strict aerobic respiratory metabolism with oxygen (Meyer et al., 2011). At the outset, Pseudomonas is behaviourally versatile with free-living as well as parasitic forms capable of colonizing a wide variety of host organisms and ecological niches within hosts. Pseudomonas retain many traits that make them well suited as biocontrol and growth-promoting agents (Rajkumar et al., 2017). Furthermore, the typical Pseudomonas in nature can exist in biofilms formats, attached to some surface or substrate, or in a planktonic form, as a unicellular organism and are actively swimming using its flagellum (Gamalero et al., 2004). Classification of Pseudomonas has been mentioned below in Table 1.

Table 1: Classification of Pseudomonas according to integrated taxonomic information system (ITIS) (Palleroni 2015).

Diversity in Pseudomonas
The genus Pseudomonas encompasses the most diverse and economically significant group of bacteria, currently containing more than 200 recognized species. Members of the genus are found in large numbers in all of the crucial natural environments and form intimate associations with plants. Members of the Pseudomonas genus are highly adaptable as evidenced by the successful colonization of many peculiar environments and their immense deal of metabolic versatility and genetic plasticity (Spiers et al., 2000). Substantially, they also comprise a metabolically versatile group of organisms that are known to engross numerous ecological niches including the rhizosphere and endosphere of many plants (Alfano et al., 2000). On the contrary, the formation of spores occurs in some species, but these strains do not produce spores where there is the occurrence of retractile granules of reserve materials, which often look like spores. Henceforth many isolates are of interest as possible biocontrol agents (Gomils et al., 2015).
Classic strains and novel concepts
Berkeley strains
On contemporary PGPR research can be traced, now nearly 4 decades old, began with the manifestation by the researchers. At the University of California, Berkeley certain isolates of Pseudomonas that were applied to the seeds or seed pieces could colonize roots and helped to promote the growth of the potato, sugar beet and radish (Joseph et al., 2012).
Dutch strains
A second lineage of contemporary Pseudomonas biocontrol activity can be traced by bacterization studies with fluorescent pseudomonads. These findings were followed by alike reports by Dutch researchers that pseudomonads promoted the growth of potatoes (Weller et al., 2012).
Antibiotic producers
The third lineage of contemporary Pseudomonas biocontrol activity can be traced by bacterization studies with fluorescent pseudomonads that produce antibiotics such as phenazine–1-carboxylic acid (PCA) and other derivatives such as 2,4- diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG), pyrrolnitrin (Prn) (Mann et al., 1986).
ISR pseudomonads
The fourth lineage of contemporary Pseudomonas biocontrol activity can be traced by some pseudomonads colonizing the roots protected plants from various pathogens by including systemic resistance (Vilchez et al., 2000).
Need for biocontrol agents
Across the world, plant diseases are the major cause of yield loss. In certain, the use of chemical pesticides has led to numerous disadvantages which include toxic accretion of toxic residues in the environment. Hereby adaption of pathogens to such chemicals, in turn, lessen its efficiency and thus leads to a disagreeable effect on non-target organisms persuading in the same niche. Moreover, nowadays, consumers are more anxious about pesticide-free foods. This results in the emergence of eco-friendly strategies for plant disease management (McSpadden et al., 2005).
Pseudomonas as biocontrol agents
Global interest in Pseudomonas as biocontrol agents were evoked by research carried out at the University of California, Berkeley, during the late 1970s (De La-Fuente et al., 2006). However, species of Pseudomonas are efficient in employing a wide range of organic and inorganic compounds which in turn influences their capacity to live in varied environmental conditions (McSpadden et al., 2005). Among various Pseudomonas, fluorescent Pseudomonas has particularly secured attention as a biocontrol agent of choice. Pseudomonas formulated as products used as biological control agents has been mentioned in Table 2. Despite this, Pseudomonas exerts its biocontrol activity through direct antagonism of phytopathogens and induction of disease resistance in the host plant (Cartieaux et al., 2003).

Table 2: Pseudomonas mediated induced systemic resistance in plants against pathogens.

PGPR of Pseudomonas
Most of the bacteria genera are represented as PGPR and many members of the genera Pseudomonas implement beneficial effects on plants (Vacheron et al., 2015). Whereas, many reports have assessed Pseudomonas as PGPR and/or biological control agents that can affect plant fitness and are also relevant in biotechnological applications based on integrated plant-bacteria systems. (Montesinos et al., 2002). Effect of Pseudomonas on plant growth promotion have been mentioned in Table 4. On the other hand, different PGPR species have the mechanism of instantly enhancing plant development. Mechanism of PGPR have been mentioned in Fig 1. Strains of Pseudomonas were able to trigger plant growth by different traits like nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, production of organic acids and IAA (Indole Acetic Acid) (Ahemad and Kibret 2014). Several researchers have selected strains of Pseudomonas that generate gibberellin like substances in culture and reported that they are substantial to plant growth responses. These gibberellin like substances and other growth-promoting compounds were chiefly produced by Pseudomonas (Kay et al., 2005). Pseudomonas mediated induced systemic resistance in plants against pathogens have been mentioned in Table 3. Hence Pseudomonas group possesses several species of rhizobacteria that have been used as strains for rhizobacteria colonization experiments. On the contrary, colonization potential is associated to hold up the nutritional balance from roots to microbes, as well as, the genes associated with rhizosphere colonization (Compant et al., 2005) and certain genes are involved in rhizosphere colonization. Initially, a method called promoter trapping technology (IVET) accelerates the isolation of Pseudomonas fluorescens genes which exhibited high levels of expression in the rhizosphere (Siddiqui et al., 2006). Furthermore, this method identified 20 genes that were brought about during rhizosphere colonization and the models of expression were analyzed.  As a result, fourteen genes showed significant homology to sequences in Genbank that are intricated in nutrient acquisition, stress response, or secretion (Gamalero et al., 2004).

Fig 1: Mechanism of PGPR.

Table 3: Pseudomonas formulated as products used as biological control agents.

Table 4: Effect of Pseudomonas on plant growth promotion.

The current study mainly emphasizes the use of Pseudomonas as biocontrol control agents in various crops and primarily focuses on Pseudomonas-mediated induced systemic resistance in plant species against microbial pathogens. Microbial biological control agents are a mode of action that is used whenever microorganisms interact, communicate and regulate their co-existence between microbial cells and between microorganisms and plants. Biocontrol agents from Pseudomonas fluorescens and also closely associated species have become eminent models for the analysis of plant protection mechanisms and secondary mechanisms. This has further resulted in a good understanding of their direct reaction to the pathogens. Likely, these biocontrol agents are also able to intrude with the functioning of the rest of the rhizosphere microbial community. Despite this, the Pseudomonas inoculants may perform uncertainly from one field to another and also from one year to the next, as a consequence of variability in root colonization or expression of biocontrol traits. Henceforth, while the selection of particular strains superior root colonization and effectual functioning in the rhizosphere are key measures.
In the current scenario, unlike chemical pesticides, biocontrol agents require very adequate support for their application to get commenced in the targeted niche. Environmental, as well as consumer concerns, have concentrated on the expansion of biological control agents as an alternative. Pseudomonas is one such proven biological control agent. Most of the success reports by certain scientists around the world have characterized diverse Pseudomonas strains that are fundamentally able to control several fungal, bacterial and nematode diseases in cereals, horticultural crops, oilseeds and others. In this view, PGPR is a group of bacteria that actively colonize plant roots and thus increase plant growth and yield. This can only be achieved through a better understanding of the biocontrol mechanisms, plant-microbe interactions and processes. Thus the future relies on the development of microbial consortia which can provide a more stable ecological community by improving plant growth and working effectively against a broad spectrum of pathogens.

  1. Aeron, A., Kumar, S., Pandey, P. and Maheshwari, D.K. (2011). The Emerging Role of Plant Growth-promoting rhizobacteria in Agrobiology. In: Bacteria in Agrobiology. Crop Ecosystems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. (pp. 1-36).

  2. Ahemad, M., Kibret, M. (2014). Mechanisms and applications of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. Journal of King Saud University Science. Jan 1. 26(1): 1-20.

  3. Alfano, J.R., Charkowski, A.O., Deng, W.L., Badel, J.L., Petnicki-Ocwieja, T., Van Dijk, K. and Collmer, A. (2000). The Pseudomonas syringae Hrp pathogenicity island has a tripartite mosaic structure composed of a cluster of type III secretion genes bounded by exchangeable effector and conserved effector loci that contribute to parasitic fitness and pathogenicity in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97(9): 4856-4861.

  4. Amein, T., Omer, Z. and Welch, C. (2008). Application and evaluation of Pseudomonas strain for biocontrol of wheat seedling blight. Crop Protection. 27(3-5): 532-536.

  5. Behn, O. (2008). Influence of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arbuscular mycorrhiza on the growth, yield, quality and resistance of wheat infected with Gaeumannomyces graminis. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection. 115(1): 4-8.

  6. Belimov, A.A., Dodd, I.C., Safronova, V.I., Hontzeas, N. and Davies, W.J. (2007). Pseudomonas brassicacearum strain Am3 containing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase can show both pathogenic and growth-promoting properties in its interaction with tomatoes. Journal of Experimental Botany. 58(6): 1485-1495.

  7. Bharathi, R., Vivekananthan, R., Harish, S., Ramanathan, A. and Samiyappan, R. (2004). Rhizobacteria-based-formulations for the management of fruit rot infection in chillies. Crop Protection. 23(9): 835-843.

  8. Cartieaux, F., Thibaud, M.C., Zimmerli, L., Lessard, P., Sarrobert, C., David, P. and Nussaume, L. (2003). Transcriptome analysis of Arabidopsis colonized by a plant-growth-promoting rhizobacterium reveals a general effect on disease resistance. The Plant Journal. 36(2): 177-188.

  9. Compant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Clément, C., Barka, A.E. (2005). Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant diseases: Principles, mechanism of action and prospects. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 4951-4959.

  10. Dahiya, J., Singh, D. and Nigam, P. (2001). Decolourisation of molasses wastewater by cells of Pseudomonas fluorescens immobilized on porous cellulose carrier. Bioresource Technology. 78(1): 111-114.

  11. Das, I.K., Fakrudin, B. and Arora, D.K. (2008). RAPD cluster analysis and chlorate sensitivity of some Indian isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina from sorghum and their relationships with pathogenicity. Microbiological Research. 163(2): 215-224.

  12. Dashti, N.H., Ali, N.Y., Cherian, V.M. and Montasser, M.S. (2012). Application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in combination with a mild strain of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) associated with viral satellite RNAs to enhance growth and protection against a virulent strain of CMV in tomato. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology. 34(2): 177-186.

  13. De La Fuente, L., Landa, B.B. and Weller, D.M. (2006). Host crop affects rhizosphere colonization and competitiveness of 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol producing Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathology. 96(7): 751-762.

  14. De Meyer, G. and Höfte, M. (1997). Salicylic acid produced by the rhizobacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa 7NSK2 induces resistance to leaf infection by Botrytis cinerea on the bean. Phytopathology. 87(6): 588-593.

  15. De Silva, N.I., Brooks, S., Lumyong, S. and Hyde, K.D. (2019). Use of endophytes as biocontrol agents. Fungal Biol. Rev. 33: 133-148.

  16. del Rosario Cappellari, L., Santoro, M.V., Nievas, F., Giordano, W. and Banchio, E. (2013). Increase of secondary metabolite content in marigold by inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Applied Soil Ecology. 70: 16-22.

  17. Duijff, B.J., Pouhair, D., Olivain, C., Alabouvette, C. and Lemanceau, P. (1998). The implication of systemic induced resistance in the suppression of fusarium wilt of tomato by Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r and by nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum Fo47. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 104(9): 903-910.

  18. Gamalero, E., Trotta, A., Massa, N., Copetta, A., Martinotti, M.G. and Berta, G. (2004). Impact of two fluorescent pseudomonads and an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus on tomato plant growth, root architecture and P. acquisition. Mycorrhiza. 14(3): 185-192.

  19. Ganeshamoorthi, P., Anand, T., Prakasam, V., Bharani, M., Ragupathi, N. and Samiyappan, R. (2008). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterial (PGPR) bioconsortia mediates induction of defense-related proteins against infection of root rot pathogen in mulberry plants. Journal of Plant Interactions. 3(4): 233-244.

  20. García-Seco, D., Bonilla, A., Algar, E., García-Villaraco, A., Mañero, J.G. and Ramos-Solano, B. (2013). Enhanced blackberry production using Pseudomonas fluorescens as elicitor. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 33(2): 385-392.

  21. Gomila, M., Peña, A., Mulet, M., Lalucat, J. and García-Valdés, E. (2015). Phylogenomics and systematics in Pseudomonas. Frontiers in Microbiology. 6: 214.

  22. Gomila, M., Peña, A., Mulet, M., Lalucat, J. and García-Valdés, E. (2015). Phylogenomics and systematics in Pseudomonas. Frontiers in Microbiology. 6: 214.

  23. Gupta, C., Dubey, R. and Maheshwari, D. (2002). Plant growth enhancement and suppression of Macrophomina phaseolina causing charcoal rot of peanut by fluorescent Pseudomonas. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 35(6): 399-405.

  24. Harthmann, O.E.L., Mógor, Á.F., Wordell Filho, J.A., da Luz, W.C. and Biasi, L.A. (2009). Seed treatment with rhizobacteria the onion production.

  25. Henkes, G.J., Jousset, A., Bonkowski, M., Thorpe, M.R., Scheu, S., Lanoue, A. and Röse, U.S. (2011). Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 maintains carbon delivery to Fusarium graminearum-infected roots and prevents reduction in biomass of barley shoots through systemic interactions. Journal of Experimental Botany. 62(12): 4337-4344.

  26. Hewedy, M.A., Abdel-Wahab, A.F., Mokadem, M.T.E. and El-Sayed, S.Y. (2011). Evaluation of some Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in Bioprotecting Lupine from Infection by Fusarium solani. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control. 21(2).

  27. Jaleel, C.A., Manivannan, P., Sankar, B., Kishorekumar, A., Gopi, R., Somasundaram, R. and Panneerselvam, R. (2007). Pseudomonas fluorescens enhances biomass yield and ajmalicine production in Catharanthus roseus under water deficit stress. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces. 60(1): 7-11.

  28. Joseph, B., Ranjan Patra, R. and Lawrence, R. (2012). Characterization of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria associated with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Plant Production. 1(2): 141-152.

  29. Kamalakaman, A., Mohan, L., Kavitha, K., Harish, S., Radjacommare, R., Nakkeeran, S., Parthiban, V.K., Karuppiah, R., Angayarkanni, T. (2003). Enhancing resistance to stem and stolen rot of peppermint (Mentha piperita Lin.) using biocontrol agents. Acta Phytopathol. Ent. Hung. 38: 293-305.

  30. Kang, S.H., Cho, H.S., Cheong, H., Ryu, C.M., Kim, J.H. and Park, S.H. (2007). Two bacterial entophytes eliciting both plant growth promotion and plant defense on pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 17(1): 96-103.

  31. Karakurt, H., Kotan, R., Dadaşoğlu, F., Aslantaş, R. and Şahin, F. (2011). Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on fruit set, pomological and chemical characteristics, color values and vegetative growth of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus cv. Kütahya). Turkish Journal of Biology. 35(3): 283-291.

  32. Karthikeyan, M., Bhaskaran, R., Radhika, K., Mathiyazhagan, S., Jayakumar, V., Sandosskumar, R. and Velazhahan, R. (2005). Endophytic Pseudomonas fluorescens Endo2 and Endo35 induce resistance in black gram (Vigna mungo L. Hepper) to the pathogen Macrophomina phaseolina. Journal of Plant Interactions. 1(3): 135-143.

  33. Kay, E., Dubuis, C. and Haas, D. (2005). Three small RNAs jointly ensure secondary metabolism and biocontrol in Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102(47): 17136-17141.

  34. Kumar, A., Singh, M., Singh, P.P., Singh, S.K., Singh, P.K. and Pandey, K.D. (2016). Isolation of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and their impact on growth and curcumin content in Curcuma longa (L.). Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 8: 1-7.

  35. Kurek, E. and Jaroszuk-Ściseł, J. (2003). Rye (Secale cereale) growth promotion by Pseudomonas fluorescens strains and their interactions with Fusarium culmorum under various soil conditions. Biological Control. 26(1): 48-56.

  36. Leeman, M., Van Pelt, J.A., Hendrickx, M.J., Scheffer, R.J., Bakker, P.A.H.M. and Schippers, B. (1995). Biocontrol of Fusarium wilt of radish in commercial greenhouse trials by seed treatment with Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS374. Phytopathology. 85(10): 1301-1305.

  37. Mann, S., Bannister, J.V. and Williams, R.J. (1986). Structure and composition of ferritin cores isolated from human spleen, limpet (Patella vulgata) hemolymph and bacterial (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) cells. Journal of Molecular Biology. 188(2): 225-232.

  38. Martins, P.M., Merfa, M.V., Takita, M.A. and De Souza, A.A. (2018). Persistence in phytopathogenic bacteria: Do we know enough? Frontiers in Microbiology. 9: 1099.

  39. McSpadden Gardener, B.B., Gutierrez, L.J., Joshi, R., Edema, R. and Lutton, E. (2005). Distribution and biocontrol potential of phlD+ pseudomonads in corn and soybean fields. Phytopathology. 95(6): 715-724.

  40. Meyer, J.B., Frapolli, M., Keel, C. and Maurhofer, M. (2011). Pyrroloquinoline quinone biosynthesis gene pqqC, a novel molecular marker for studying the phylogeny and diversity of phosphate-solubilizing pseudomonads. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 77(20): 7345-7354.

  41. Molinari, S. and Leonetti, P. (2019). Bio-control agents activate plant immune response and prime susceptible tomatoes against root-knot nematodes. PLoS One. 14(12): e0213230.

  42. Montesinos, E., Bonaterra, A., Badosa, E., Frances, J., Alemany, J., Llorente, I. and Moragrega, C. (2002). Plant-microbe interactions and the new biotechnological methods of plant disease control. International Microbiology. 5(4): 169-175.

  43. Noreen, R., Ali, S.A., Hasan, K.A., Sultana, V., Ara, J. and Ehteshamul-Haque, S. (2015). Evaluation of biocontrol potential of fluorescent Pseudomonas associated with root nodules of mungbean. Crop Protection. 75: 18-24.

  44. Palleroni, N.J. (2015). Pseudomonas. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria. 1-1.

  45. Rajkumar, M., Bruno, L.B. and Banu, J.R. (2017). Alleviation of environmental stress in plants: The role of beneficial Pseudomonas spp. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 47(6): 372-407.

  46. Ramamoorthy, V., Raguchander, T. and Samiyappan, R. (2002). Enhancing resistance of tomato and hot pepper to Pythium diseases by seed treatment with fluorescent pseudomonads. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 108(5): 429-441.

  47. Saikia, R., Yadav, M., Varghese, S., Singh, B.P., Gogoi, D.K., Kumar, R. and Arora, D.K. (2006). Role of riboflavin in induced resistance against Fusarium wilt and charcoal rot diseases of chickpea. The Plant Pathology Journal. 22(4): 339-347.

  48. Sandhya, V.S.K.Z., Ali, S.Z., Grover, M., Reddy, G. and Venkateswarlu, B. (2010). Effect of plant growth-promoting Pseudomonas spp. on compatible solutes, antioxidant status and plant growth of maize under drought stress. Plant Growth Regulation. 62(1): 21-30.

  49. Saravanakumar, D., Vijayakumar, C., Kumar, N. and Samiyappan, R. (2007). PGPR-induced defense responses in the tea plant against blister blight disease. Crop Protection. 26(4): 556-565.

  50. Senthil, R., Selvaraj, S., Anand, T., Raguchander, T. and Samiyappan, R. (2011). Efficacy of liquid Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf1) against sugarcane red rot, caused by Colletotrichum falcatum, under field conditions. International Sugar Journal. 113(1356): 888.

  51. Senthilraja, G., Anand, T., Kennedy, J.S., Raguchander, T. and Samiyappan, R. (2013). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and entomopathogenic fungus bioformulation enhance the expression of defense enzymes and pathogenesis-related proteins in groundnut plants against leafminer insect and collar rot pathogen. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology. 82: 10-19.

  52. Shaharoona, B., Jamro, G.M., Zahir, Z. A., Arshad, M. and Memon, K.S. (2007). Effectiveness of various Pseudomonas spp. and Burkholderia caryophylli containing ACC-deaminase for improving growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 17(8): 1300-1307.

  53. Shaharoona, B., Jamro, G.M., Zahir, Z.A., Arshad, M. and Memon, K.S. (2007). Effectiveness of various Pseudomonas spp. and Burkholderia caryophyllene containing ACC-deaminase for improving growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 17(8): 1300-1307.

  54. Sharma, A., Shankhdhar, D. and Shankhdhar, S.C. (2013). Enhancing grain iron content of rice by the application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Plant, Soil and Environment. 59(2): 89-94.

  55. Sheng, X.F., Xia, J.J., Jiang, C.Y., He, L.Y. and Qian, M. (2008). Characterization of heavy metal-resistant endophytic bacteria from rape (Brassica napus) roots and their potential in promoting the growth and lead accumulation of rape. Environmental Pollution. 156(3): 1164-1170.

  56. Siddiqui, I.A., Shaukat, S.S., Sheikh, I.H. and Khan, A. (2006). Role of cyanide production by Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 in the suppression of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica in tomato. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 22(6): 641-650.

  57. Siddiqui, Z.A. and Shakeel, U. (2007). Screening of Bacillus isolates for potential biocontrol of the wilt disease complex of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) under greenhouse and small-scale field conditions. Journal of Plant Pathology. 179-183.

  58. Singh, D., Sinha, S., Yadav, D.K., Sharma, J.P., Srivastava, D.K., Lal, H.C. and Jaiswal, R.K. (2010). Characterization of biovar/races of Ralstonia solanacearum, the incitant of bacterial wilt in solanaceous crops. Indian Phytopath. 63(3): 261-265.

  59. Singh, P., Khan, S., Pandey, S.S., Singh, M., Banerjee, S., Kitamura, Y. and ur Rahman, L. (2015). Vanillin production in metabolically engineered Beta vulgaris hairy roots through heterologous expression of Pseudomonas fluorescens HCHL gene. Industrial Crops and Products. 74: 839-848.

  60. Spiers, A.J., Buckling, A. and Rainey, P.B. (2000). The causes of Pseudomonas diversity. Microbiology. 146(10): 2345-2350.

  61. Thangavelu, R., Palaniswami, A., Doraiswamy, S. and Velazhahan, R. (2003). The effect of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense on induction of defense enzymes and phenolics in banana. Biologia Plantarum. 46(1): 107-112.

  62. Ton, J., Van Pelt, J.A., Van Loon, L.C. and Pieterse, C.M. (2002). Differential effectiveness of salicylate-dependent and jasmonate/ethylene-dependent induced resistance in Arabidopsis. Molecular Plant-microbe Interactions. 15(1): 27-34.

  63. Umesha, S., Kavitha, R. and Shetty, H.S. (2005). Transmission of seed-borne infection of chilli by Burkholderia solanacearum and effect of biological seed treatment on disease incidence. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 38(4): 281-293.

  64. Vacheron, J., Renoud, S., Muller, D., Babalola, O.O. and Prigent-Combaret, C. (2015). Alleviation of abiotic and biotic stresses in plants by Azospirillum. Handbook for Azospirillum. 333-365.

  65. Verhagen, B.W., Trotel-Aziz, P., Couderchet, M., Höfte, M. and Aziz, A. (2010). Pseudomonas spp.-induced systemic resistance to Botrytis cinerea is associated with induction and priming of defense responses in grape wine. Journal of Experimental Botany. 61(1): 249-260.

  66. Vidhyasekaran, P., Kamala, N., Ramanathan, A., Rajappan, K., Paranidharan, V. and Velazhahan, R. (2001). Induction of systemic resistance by Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae in rice leaves. Phytoparasitica. 29(2): 155.

  67. Vilchez, S., Molina, L., Ramos, C., Ramos, J.L. (2000). Proline catabolism by Pseudomonas putida: Cloning, characterization and expression of the put genes in the presence of root exudates. Journal of Bacteriology. Jan 1. 182(1): 91-9.

  68. Vivekananthan, R., Ravi, M., Ramanathan, A. and Samiyappan, R. (2004). Lytic enzymes induced by Pseudomonas fluorescens and other biocontrol organisms mediate defense against the anthracnose pathogen in mango. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 20(3): 235-244.

  69. Weller, D.M., Mavrodi, D.V., van Pelt, J.A., Pieterse, C.M., van Loon, L.C. and Bakker, P.A. (2012). Induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana against Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato by 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producing Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathology. 102(4): 403-412.

Editorial Board

View all (0)