Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Zinc Accumulation and Bioavailability in Wheat Grains by Integrated Zinc and Pesticide Application
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Photosystem II of the Host Plant Under Salt Stress: A Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): A Versatile and Sustainable Crop for Renewable Energy Production in Europe
Previous Article in Special Issue
Screening, Identification, and Optimization of Fermentation Conditions of an Antagonistic Endophyte to Wheat Head Blight
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Deciphering the Symbiotic Plant Microbiome: Translating the Most Recent Discoveries on Rhizobia for the Improvement of Agricultural Practices in Metal-Contaminated and High Saline Lands

1
Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, 50144 Florence, Italy
2
Department of Biology, University of Florence, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
3
Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
4
Department of Agricultural and Food Science (DISTAL), University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2019, 9(9), 529; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090529
Submission received: 1 July 2019 / Revised: 27 August 2019 / Accepted: 5 September 2019 / Published: 10 September 2019

Abstract

:
Rhizosphere and plant-associated microorganisms have been intensely studied for their beneficial effects on plant growth and health. These mainly include nitrogen-fixing bacteria (NFB) and plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). This beneficial fraction is involved in major functions such as plant nutrition and plant resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, which include water deficiency and heavy-metal contamination. Consequently, crop yield emerges as the net result of the interactions between the plant genome and its associated microbiome. Here, we provide a review covering recent studies on PGP rhizobia as effective inoculants for agricultural practices in harsh soil, and we propose models for inoculant combinations and genomic manipulation strategies to improve crop yield.

1. Introduction

The last ten years have witnessed a number of discoveries and an increased awareness of the importance of the microbiome for the health and the growth of host macroorganisms [1,2]. Plants and their related microbiota can be considered holobionts, complex systems ruled by interdependent and composite interactions [3,4,5]. Indeed, plants are colonized by an astounding number of microorganisms that can reach numbers much greater than those of plant cells. This is especially relevant for the rhizosphere, the thin layer of soil surrounding and influenced by plant roots, where it is possible to observe a staggering diversity of microorganisms; a single gram of rhizospheric soil hosts tens of thousands of distinct microbial species [6,7]. Plants influence the composition of their rhizosphere microbiota through the production of root exudates [8], which differ in space and time [9], contributing to the positive selection of plant-growth promoting (PGP) and beneficial bacteria [10]. Indeed, it has been suggested that plants may have evolved the beneficial trait of secreting specific compounds to recruit protective microorganisms in response to pathogen attacks [11,12]. Plant-based bacterial selection relies on the microorganism already present in the soils where they are grown. Therefore, crop productivity could be increased by modifying root microbiota with microbial inoculants, which may be composed of a single strain or a consortia of different PGP rhizobacteria (PGPR) [13,14].
Within the beneficial plant microbiota, rhizobia constitute one of the most studied fraction [15]. The “rhizobium” definition is based on the ability to induce the formation of root/stem nodules in leguminous plants [16]. However, rhizobia are found not only on legumes, but are also found in association with several plant species [17]. Within legume nodules, rhizobia differentiate into bacteroids and synthesize a protein complex called nitrogenase that converts atmospheric dinitrogen to ammonia (biological nitrogen fixation, BNF) [18]. The produced ammonia is then transferred to the host plant to sustain its biosynthetic pathways [16]. The establishment of the symbiotic interaction between the nitrogen fixing rhizobia and leguminous plants is highly regulated and begins with mutual recognition between the plant and the rhizobia present in the rhizosphere. To date, rhizobia have been identified in two bacterial classes, the Alphaproteobacteria and the Betaproteobacteria. In the Alphaproteobacteria, rhizobial strains are present in the genera Sinorhizobium (syn. Ensifer), Rhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Azorhizobium, Methylobacterium, Devosia, Ochrobactrum, Aminobacter, Microvirga, Shinella, and Phyllobacterium. In the Betaproteobacteria, rhizobia are present within strains of the genera Paraburkholderia, Cupriavidus, and Trinickia [19,20,21]. While the beta-rhizobia are mainly found in association with tropical legumes, the alpha-rhizobia appear to be more widespread and nodulate tropical to temperate legumes including pasture, tree, and grain legumes. The alpha-rhizobia have received more research attention than the beta-rhizobia; among the alpha-rhizobia, Sinorhizobium (syn. Ensifer) is likely the most studied genus, followed by the genera Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium [22,23].
In this review, we highlight the most recent studies on PGP rhizobia isolated from, and adapted to, drought-affected and metal-contaminated soils and their possible use as effective inoculants for legumes grown in harsh agricultural soils. We cover the identification of the genetic determinants of their tolerance, as well as the mechanisms that allow rhizobia to survive and to improve host plant growth in harsh soils. Models of inoculant combinations and genomic manipulation strategies for the improvement of crop yield are discussed.

2. The Need for Rhizobial Inoculants

The demand for plant proteins for human nutrition has increased tremendously over the last fifteen years. This can be related to: (i) Demographic growth and urbanization, (ii) the limited land areas that can be used for the production of food crops while farming systems are switching to specialized but unsustainable cereal production (for market competitiveness), and (iii) decreases in animal protein production due to shortage of irrigation and/or rainfall water especially in arid areas. The demand for plant proteins can be met in part through the cultivation of protein-rich leguminous crops. Additionally, legumes can help improve soil fertility through symbiotic nitrogen fixation, and they can help protect ground water from toxicity resulting from excessive application of N-fertilizers [24].
In the past three decades, eco-sustainable agronomic practices have been employed in an attempt to replace chemical fertilizers and pesticide-based agriculture [25,26]. Therefore, the exploitation of beneficial microorganisms as biofertilizer has become of primary importance [27]. In particular, rhizobial bioformulations could partially or completely substitute mineral nitrogen fertilizers [28,29]. Rhizobium-legume symbioses provide more than half of the world’s biologically fixed nitrogen [30], and it was reported that rhizobial nitrogen fixation introduces 40–48 million tonnes of nitrogen into agricultural systems each year [31]. The impact of BNF on the global agricultural economy was estimated to be worth the equivalent of USD160–180 billion [32]. Rhizobium inoculants are already widely used in agriculture, providing one of the most cost-effective ways to boost legume performances [33,34]. However, with a few exceptions, the last fifteen years has seen only small enhancements in the production of traditionally grown grain legumes such as fava bean, chickpea, lentils, or common beans [35]. Generally, yield instability is the main constraint for increasing plant productivity. Thus, special attention must be given to the factors that reduce soil quality and decrease plant yield.
Recent works have highlighted that microbial species associated with plants (rhizobial and non-rhizobial strains, including mycorrhizal fungi) can positively influence plant tolerance to water deficiency [36]. This is due to their PGP features such as indoleacetic acid, siderophore production, phosphate and zinc solubilization [37], and the synthesis of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase [38], which are more evident and easily identified in stressful conditions [39]. Nevertheless, legumes are strongly affected by water deficit. In particular, BNF appears to be more sensitive to water deficit than other physiological functions such as photosynthesis or nutrient uptake [40]. Sometimes, this results in impaired nodule development [41] or the accumulation of small, generally organic, osmolytes called compatible solutes [42].
Aside from water deficiency and soil nutrient depletion, heavy-metal contamination due to anthropic activities (agricultural and industrial practices) or the weathering of metal-enriched rocks have recently increased exponentially, becoming a worldwide problem for crop productivity [43,44,45]. Generally, plant-associated microbes can contribute to a plant’s ability to perform phytoextraction (accumulation of toxic compounds in the plant tissues) and phytostabilization (adsorption through the roots and conversion into harmless compounds). In legumes, phytostabilization is the key process when considering the phytoremediation of contaminated soils [46,47], and their associated rhizobia can promote chemical transformation and the chelation of heavy-metal compounds [48] (Figure 1). Therefore, plant growth and agricultural yield is related not only to the plant genotype and the soil condition, but, especially for legumes, their associated microbiota also play important roles [49,50]. As such, the selection of rhizobial strains resistant to water deficiency and capable of alleviating metal phytotoxicity could be a crucial strategy to improve the yield of legumes growth in arid or in metal-contaminated soils.

3. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobia in Saline and Harsh Soil

Salinity due to water deficiency is one of the largest environmental constraints for plant growth and productivity in stricken regions [51,52]. It was estimated that almost 40% of the world’s lands can potentially become arid or semi-arid [52], most of which are located in the tropics and in the Mediterranean area [53,54]. The persistent increase of anthropic activities (such as poor agricultural practices) decreases soil water availability, alters the soil microbiota, and reduces the nutritive value of soils [55]. The progressive salinization of soil may cause several stresses to the plants that decrease their growth. This negatively affects crop productivity, hindering the agricultural economy of developing countries [56].
Desiccated soils can lead to alterations in plant homeostasis due to a reduction in the osmotic potential and inappropriate ionic distribution [56]. The alteration in nutrient supply and the resulting nutritional imbalance induces a loss of turgor pressure and the growth of smaller leaves [56]. Furthermore, increasing Na+ and Cl concentrations commonly leads to the formation of burn-like lesions that alter leaf transpiration [57]. Continued growth interruption results in less efficient photosynthesis, respiratory variations, premature senescence, and the loss of cellular integrity leading to plant death [58,59]. Salt tolerance among legume species can fluctuate and is dependent on the chemical features of the soil, the climatic conditions, and the growth stage of the plant [53,60,61]. Tree legumes such as Prosopis [53,62] and Acacia spp. [53,63] are highly tolerant to salinity, as are the grain legumes Glycine max [51] and Vicia faba [61,64]. On the contrary, Cicer arietinum, Phaseolus vulgaris, and Pisum sativum are known to be extremely sensitive to salt stress [64,65,66,67]. BNF can also be strongly affected by a lack of water, influencing the mutual symbiotic interaction between the host plants and their associated rhizobia [53]. Generally, salt and osmotic stresses lead to a decrease in rhizobium nodulation, affecting the early stages of the symbiotic process [68,69,70,71]. This commonly includes poor root colonization by the bacteria and reduced curling and deformation of roots hairs [53,72,73]. Furthermore, a decrease in nitrogenase activity under drought/salinity stress is commonly attributed to a reduction in nodule respiration [67,74,75,76], which reduces the synthesis of cytosolic proteins such as leghemoglobin [67,76,77].
It was reported that host legumes are less tolerant to salt than their associated rhizobia [71,73,78]. For example, Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii TA-1 can tolerate up to 350 mM of NaCl in vitro [78]. The highest levels of salt tolerance seem to be associated with rhizobia isolated from woody legumes (e.g., Prosopis, Acacia, and Leucaena), which are tolerant of up to 850 mM of NaCl [73,79,80]. For example, Sakrouhi and collaborators [81] isolated 20 symbiotic N2-fixing bacteria from Acacia tortilis and Acacia gummifera that were able to grow in high salt media (400 mM). The intracellular accumulation of low-molecular-weight organic solutes, osmo-protectants, is an osmotic adaptation mechanism used by a large variety of bacterial species [53]. These compounds are acquired through de novo synthesis or uptake from the environment, and they can be accumulated to high intracellular concentrations without interfering with cellular processes [56], such as in the S. meliloti 102F34 strain [82,83,84]. The accumulation of poly-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) has also been reported as a protective measure to help rhizobia survive in high saline environments [85]. Following a decrease in osmolarity, the osmo-protectants are released by bacteria into the surrounding environment and actively recovered by plants, which are unable to synthesize them de novo [84]. The successful uptake of these compounds by the plants improve their growth under osmotic stress [56]. Additionally, intracellular trehalose accumulation by R. leguminosuarum seems to be involved in metabolic osmoregulation of the host plants [86,87]. The intracellular accumulation of glycine betaine was identified as one of the most frequent osmotic stress responses of rhizobia [88,89]. Several lines of evidence suggest that this process plays a role in maintaining bacteroid nitrogenase activity in Medicago sativa nodules [53,90,91,92].
Nowadays, the massive use of fertilizers to offset the effect of soil nutrient loss (also due to salinization) on crop productivity seems to be the preferred solution. This choice has progressively contributed to the deterioration of the soils that were already compromised by intense agricultural practices. An alternative is to make use of bacterial inoculants adapted to these harsh conditions. Studying the bacterial communities associated with plants growing in saline soils, and the underlying mechanism of their effectiveness, can be a good starting point for the use of microbial inoculant in agricultural practices to reduce saline stress [56,93]. To begin addressing this, the genomes of several rhizobia that nodulate plants in harsh environments were sequenced to identify stress-adaption genes. Examples include: Rhizobium sp. LCM 4573 (a salt-tolerant rhizobium from Senegalese soil [94]), R. leucaenae (a stress-tolerant species nodulating plants in tropical acid soils [95]), S. meliloti AK21 (from the Aral Sea Region that experiences saline and drought conditions [96]) and Ensifer aridi (isolated from arid soils of diverse deserts [97]). Transcriptomic and proteomic studies have been instrumental in highlighting how rhizobia respond to environmental stresses (a detailed list is provided elsewhere [98]). Studies with Mesorhizobium loti suggested heat shock results in a global downregulation of protein expression possibly to conserve energy [99], while salt stress leads to over-expression of ABC transporters and genes associated with nucleotide transport and metabolism [100]. Similarly, characterization of the acid stress response in S. meliloti suggested that this stress results in an elevated metabolic respiration rate [101]. However, to date only a few studies have examined the responses of differentiated bacteroids to environmental stress [102,103], although several studies have examined the responses of the plant partner [104]. Additional studies characterizing the response of bacteroids to environmental stresses would be beneficial to complement the free-living datasets.
The agricultural significance of uncovering the genetic and metabolic basis of stress resistance in rhizobia and other PGP bacteria has been emphasized from at least the early 1990s [105]. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated that genetically modifying rhizobia can increase or decrease their symbiotic abilities in stressful environments [106]. The grain yield of common bean plants grown in drought conditions was significantly higher when inoculated with a Rhizobium etli strain overexpressing otsA, encoding a trehalose-6-phosphate [107]. Similar results were obtained for maize plants inoculated with a non-rhizobium diazotroph Azospirillum brasilense strain overexpressing a trehalose biosynthesis gene [108]. In contrast, soybean plants inoculated with a Bradyrhizobium japonicum putA mutant that is unable to catabolize proline produced fewer seeds than plants inoculated with the wild-type parental strain when grown in moderate drought conditions [109]. S. meliloti strains overexpressing betS displayed improved nitrogen fixation phenotypes during salt stress [110], while salt-sensitive Rhizobium tropici mutants were poor symbionts even in the absence of stress [111]. Finally, ACC-deaminases encoded by some rhizobia can reduce the overproduction of the plant gas hormone ethylene during abiotic stresses [38,112], reducing the deleterious effect of ethylene and thus improving plant growth [113].
The inoculation of plants with microbial communities has also been shown to improve plant tolerance to environmental stresses. The co-inoculation of soybean (Glycine max) with Chryseobacterium balustinum Aur9 and Ensifer (Sinorhizobium) fredii SMH12 led to increased symbiotic performance under saline conditions (25 mM NaCl) [114]. In the same study, co-inoculation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with R. tropici CIAT899 and C. balustinum Aur9 enhanced bean growth in both saline (25 mM NaCl) and control conditions compared to single strain inoculation [114]. Moreover, co-inoculation of Rhizobium phaseoli M6 and M9, Pseudomonas syringae Mk1, Pseudomonas fluorescens Mk20, and Pseudomonas fluorescens biotype G Mk25 strains decreased the effects of salinity stress in bean, enhancing its nodulation process in vitro and in fields conditions [115,116].

4. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobia in Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil

Anthropogenic activities, such as the use of fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural soils, the production of sewage sludge waste, and industrial and mining activities, are responsible for the accumulation of toxic heavy metals in the food chain [117]. Low concentrations of metals such as zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo) and cobalt (Co) are necessary for the metabolism of all organisms [118]. However, high concentrations of these metals, as well as the long term persistence in the soil of elements such as cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and arsenic (As), negatively affect the composition of microbial communities [119], the dynamics of the rhizosphere niche [120], and the growth, the biomass, and the photosynthesis of plants [121]. Plant species used for the remediation of heavy metal polluted sites represent an environment-friendly, aesthetically appealing, and cost-effective solution. Legumes may be ideal species for bioremediation as surveys of plant species surviving in long-term metal-contaminated environments have shown legumes to account for a dominant portion of these populations [122]. The metal tolerant plant species used for bioremediation have developed several mechanisms that allow them to thrive in these contaminated environments and to accumulate high concentrations of specific metals in the aboveground tissue. Among these, both enzymatic and non-enzymatic molecular mechanisms have been described. Heavy-metal stressed plants may protect themselves from reactive oxygen species thought the production of antioxidant enzymes or scavenger compounds [123]. Recently, PGP bacteria, including rhizobia, have been shown to reduce the toxicity of plant exposure to heavy metals [124,125]. Heavy-metal contaminated soil remediation can be performed with different strategies [126]. Plants able to decrease the mobility and/or the bioavailability of metals can be used in both phytostabilization and phytoimmobilization to prevent their leaching into ground water or their entry into the food chain. Mechanisms involved in this process include adsorption by roots, and the precipitation and complexation of the metals in the root zone [127]. Phytovolatilization involves the conversion of a metal (i.e., Hg as the mercuric ion) into the volatile form and its release into the atmosphere through the stomata [128]. However, the most important phytoremediation approach for removal of metals and metalloids from contaminated soils, water, and sediments is phytoextraction [129,130,131]. The main contribution of rhizobia towards phytostabilization and phytoimmobilization is plant growth enhancement [132]. Bacteria that nodulate their hosts may increase metal accumulation in root nodules, while those that remain in the rhizosphere would reduce metal toxicity locally by precipitation, chelation, immobilization, and biosorption. The nodule itself has an important role in metal-resistance: Once the symbiosis is established, nodules could serve as storage areas that provide plants an extra place to stock metals and reduce the risk of direct exposure [133].
Accelerating the phytoremediation of metalliferous soils by increasing mobilization and phytoextraction of heavy metals though the metabolic activity of rhizobia is a well-known practice [37,131,134,135,136,137]. Currently, the most studied metal resistance mechanisms in microorganisms include metal exclusion, protein binding-mediated extra- and intra-cellular sequestration, enzymatic detoxification, active transport of the metal, passive tolerance, and reduction in metal sensitivity of the cellular targets [138,139]. Bacteria can also contribute to phytoremediation through the production of extracellular polymeric substances. For example, studies of the interaction between metals and extracellular polymeric substances demonstrated that biosorption can reduce heavy metal contamination of wastewater systems [140,141]. Unlike salt-tolerant bacteria, there have been numerous studies on the use of bacteria isolated from metal contaminated soil as inoculants to promote plant growth in contaminated environments [37,48]. Although not all rhizobia are intrinsically tolerant to metals, metal-tolerant strains of taxonomically diverse rhizobia have been isolated from various plants in heavy metal contaminated environments [37,142]. Metal resistance determinants provide protection for rhizobia to survive and maintain effective nodulation of legumes, allowing them to play a role in promoting plant growth. In addition, the existence of a symbiotic relationship may provide protection for the survival of rhizobia in soils with elevated metal concentrations [143,144].
Arsenic toxicity, and the oxidative damage that it produces in cells through the overproduction of reactive oxygen species, affects DNA, proteins, and lipids. This provokes chlorosis, necrosis, delays in flowering, and a reduction in yield [145]. PGP rhizobia may play a beneficial role in protecting plants from arsenic contamination. This can be accomplished by stimulating the antioxidant enzymatic activities in plants, and stabilizing heavy metals and metalloids thereby reducing their accumulation in aerial organs [146,147,148]. For this reason, the use of PGP rhizobia in heavy metal and metalloid contaminated soils should not only promote the growth of the plant but should also immobilize and decrease the concentration of these elements in plant organs to reduce human exposure to toxic concentrations [149,150]
The presence of heavy metals can also influence the results of inoculant treatment of crops. For example, inoculation of soybean plants with two different strains of Bradyrhizobium, B. diazoefficiens USDA110 and Bradyrhizobium sp. Per 3.61, was studied in the Córdoba province of Argentina where arsenic contamination of groundwater is a consistent environmental problem [151]. The results demonstrated that only B. diazoefficiens USDA110 could nodulate soybean at the highest tested As(V) concentrations, while Bradyrhizobium sp. Per 3.61 was the better symbiont in the presence of low As(V) concentrations as it limited the translocation of the metal to the legume aerial compartments [151]. Numerous studies have also examined the effect of plant inoculation with pairs of PGP bacteria [152,153,154,155]. For instance, the co-inoculation of soybean with B. japonicum E109 and Azospirillum brasilense Az39 influenced plant growth and arsenic phytostabilization in arsenic contaminated conditions [156]. Furthermore, it was observed that the indole acetic acid (IAA) produced by A. brasilense Az39 had a protective effect on B. japonicum E109 when exposed to arsenic [156]. B. japonicum strains can use IAA as a carbon source, which seems to serve as a signal to coordinate bacterial behaviour to enhance protection under adverse conditions [157]. The presence of high levels of lead in soil is toxic for plants, resulting in chlorosis, blackening of roots, and reduced growth [158]. A study using Brassica juncea showed that the inoculation of autochthonous PGP rhizobial strains can alleviate the harmful effects of lead exposure. Sinorhizobium sp. Pb002 was isolated from the rhizosphere of B. juncea grown in Pb-contaminated soil [159]. In a microcosm experiment, the presence of strain Pb002 stimulated biomass formation by B. juncea and increased plant survival and lead uptake [159]. Nickel and zinc are essential elements for plant growth; however, excessive amounts of these nutrients can be toxic [160,161]. This toxicity can be alleviated, at least in part, through rhizobium inoculation. For example, inoculation of green gram plants with Bradyrhizobium sp. (vigna) RM8 or Rhizobium sp. RP5 increased both seed yield and grain protein in the presence of excessive nickel or zinc [162,163]. The presence of Cd in soil can impair plant growth due to a reduction in chlorophyll content and photosynthesis [164]. Moreover, Cd alters the cell redox potential and increases the amount of reactive oxygen species in the cell, which in turn negatively impacts cell membranes and biomolecules [164,165]. Bradyrhizobium sp. Yl-6, isolated from G. max nodules grown in Chinese Cd-contaminated soil, displayed an ability to increase mineral nutrient (Fe) uptake while reducing Cd accumulation [166].
Researchers have identified potential metalloid stress-adaptation genes in rhizobia and they have investigated their transcriptional responses. Putative nickel adaptation genes were identified using association mapping with 47 symbiotic Mesorhizobium strains isolated from either nickel-enriched serpentine soils or nearby non-serpentine soils [167]. The identified genes included several transporters, an opine dehydrogenase, and an exopolysaccharide export protein, among others [166]. Additionally, investigation of the transcriptional response of S. meliloti strain CCNWSX0020 upon exposure to copper or zinc stress allowed the identification of several upregulated genes, including four genes (yedYZ, fixH-like, cusA-like, and cueO) whose mutation impaired either early or late symbiotic processes [168]. As for rhizobia colonizing saline and arid environments, genetically modified strains can have different symbiotic abilities. For example, a M. amorphaecopA deletion mutant displayed impaired symbiotic capabilities in copper contaminated soils, whereas overexpression of a flavodoxin gene in S. meliloti led to a more efficient symbiosis under cadmium stress [169].
Together, the studies discussed in this review (and summarized in Table 1) highlight how the rhizobial genotype can strongly influence symbiotic effectiveness and the plant response in harsh environments. Fully elucidating the genetic and molecular bases of these phenotypes would lay a strong foundation to aid the development of improved bio-inoculants, either through genetic engineering or the rational selection of optimal wild isolates.

5. Development of Rhizobial Inoculants

The use of rhizobial bioinoculants began in the USA at the end of 19th century, where soil containing naturally-occurring rhizobia was mixed with seeds. Since then, rhizobium inoculation has become a common practice to improve crop production [178]. Since the first marketed rhizobium biofertilizer “Nitragin”, which was developed by Nobbe and Hiltner in 1896, rhizobial bioformulations have improved dramatically. From the second half of the 19th century, liquid inoculants formulation [179] moved initially to freeze-dried inoculant lyophilization [180], and then to gel-based products such as polyacrylamide (PER) [181], alginate (AER), or xanthan (XER) [27,182]. Over the last 30 years, a huge number of formulations have been patented and commercialized; examples include vermiculite-based Gold CoatTM Rhizobium inoculant [183], liquid seed applied soybean inoculant Cell-Tech® [184], liquid in-furrow inoculant LIFT, and air-dried clay powder for alfalfa Nitragin® Gold [27,184]. In 1997, the first marketing of a genetically engineered S. meliloti strain RMBPC-2 was approved [185].
Eventually, additives and cell protectant-based liquid inoculant formulations were developed that increased cell survival through the use of compounds such as the polymer polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) [186], gum Arabic [142], sodium alginate [182], and glycerol [187]. The choice of inoculant carriers that can promote the long-lasting maintenance and protection of viable microbial cells is a global issue [24,188]. Peat is currently the most common organic carrier material for bioformulation production [189], especially in North and South America, Europe, and Australia [190], although other materials (such as coal, bagasse, coir, dust, and perlite) are also used [191]. Supported by successful in vitro experiments, Albareda and collaborators suggested the use of broth culture media as a rhizobial carrier for soybean cultivation [191]. It was demonstrated that after 3 months of storage, liquid cultures were able to maintain more than 109 cfu/mL of Sinorhizobium fredii SMH12 and Bradyrhizobium japonicum USDA110 [191]. Therefore, aqueous-, oil-, or polymer-based liquid formulations have increased enormously in recent years (for details see [190,192,193,194]). Additionally, the inclusion of microbial or plant secondary metabolites, such as flavonoids and phytohormones, has become a common practice in bioformulation preparation to improve the efficiency of the inoculants [25,195,196,197].

6. Inoculant Combinations and Phenomic Strategies for Improving Crop Yield

Screening for rhizobia with high nitrogen fixation rates is performed in many laboratories; however, the use of effectiveness as the sole criterion for rhizobia selection may not always be the most relevant criterion for field applications [75]. Indeed, in the soil the rhizobia have to overcome many different adverse conditions (pH, desiccation, nutrient deficiencies, salinity/alkalinity, extreme temperatures, toxicities) [75,198] and they have to outcompete other rhizobial strains [199,200]. It is thought that there is generally an alignment between the fitness of rhizobia and the fitness of their host plants [201]. However, rhizobia are not vertically transmitted but are instead soil bacteria that colonize plant roots. Therefore, ineffective or less effective rhizobia can become abundant and outcompete more effective strains. Moreover, a single plant can be infected by multiple strains with different nitrogen fixation efficiency [202,203]. Recent data suggested that legumes cannot discriminate between effective and ineffective strains prior to infection [204]. Instead, legumes limit the loss of resources by sanctioning individual nodules containing ineffective strains [205]. However ineffective strains may escape from plant sanctions by co-infecting nodules together with effective strains [202].
One way to overcome these competition issues is to select or create highly competitive strains [3]. Rhizobial symbiosis genes (nod, nif, and fix) are generally located on chromosomal mobile elements or on symbiosis plasmids [206]. Taking advantage of these features, it is possible to create hybrid strains without the insertion of exogenous DNA. For example, a hybrid strain of S. meliloti was recently created by moving the pSymA megaplasmid (accounting for nearly 20% of total genome content) from a donor S. meliloti strain to an acceptor strain [207]. Interesting, the resulting cis-hybrid strain seemed to exhibit a cultivar-specific improvement in symbiotic properties, compared to the parental strains, in controlled laboratory conditions [207]. Similarly, the transfer of symbiotic plasmids between different R. leguminosarum strains improved various measures of symbiotic efficiency in laboratory settings [208,209,210,211]. Therefore, genome-wide replicon-based remodeling of bacterial strains, potentially supported with a metabolic modelling framework [212], could be a powerful tool in precision agriculture by creating highly efficient strains depending of the farm/soil features [213]. This “Natural Genome Assisted Breeding” approach, based on the transfer of replicons among different strains, will also prevent the introduction of non-natural genes into the environment (Figure 2).
One of the major issues related to the application of rhizobium inoculants is the inclusion of other additives (e.g., fungicides, nutrients [193], and fertilizers) that may reduce the viability or effectiveness of rhizobia. A recent trend to overcome this issue is to use microbial consortia instead of single strain biostimulants [214]. Consortia are formed by a combination of bacterial and/or fungal species to cover a broader spectrum of usage and soil conditions [214]. Microbes within a consortium are better able to handle biotic and abiotic stresses as they may work synergistically by exchanging nutrients and removing toxic compounds [215,216]. Using rhizobia in combination with other PGPR may improve their effect; for example, it has been reported that the combination of Rhizobium strains with Bacillus strains can improve root structure and increase nodule formation in bean, pigeon pea, and soybean (see [217] and references therein). Other well documented examples of mixed inoculants involving rhizobia and PGPR strains that led to improved symbiotic phenotype are: Rhizobium with Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus megaterium; Rhizobium tropici with Chryseobacterium balustinum, Bacillus atrophaeus, and Burkholderia cepacia; Mesorhizobium with Pseudomonas; Mesorhizobium in combination with Azotobacter chroococcum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Trichoderma harzianum; and S. meliloti with a consortia of Burkholderia spp. (see [217] and references therein). Increased growth promotion could be due to a direct effect on nodulation, the production of phytohormones, or enhanced resistance to crop diseases [216,217]. Additionally, the synergistic interaction between arbuscular mycorrhiza and rhizobia for enhancing crop yield through improving nutrients uptake has also been heavily investigated [217]. Indeed, arbuscular mycorrhiza symbiosis can increase rhizobium nodulation of legumes under control [218] and saline conditions [219]. The consortium can also improve the uptake and transfer of nitrogen in a soybean/maize inter-cropping system [220].
Overall, the use of consortia composed of rhizobia and other PGPR combined with recent advances in rhizobium genomic manipulation could lead to increased inoculum efficiency in field conditions.

7. Concluding Remarks

In recent years, many studies were focused on the development and the optimization of technologies for the improvement of sustainable crop production, in particular in harsh (arid and/or metal-contaminated) environments. The studies were mainly spurred by an increasing requirement for plant proteins, which is due to the increasing worldwide human population and the need to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers. The demand for increasing plant protein production and reducing the use of fertilizers can be accomplished, in part, through the cultivation of legumes; legumes are rich in protein and are able to improve soil fertility through BNF performed by their associated rhizobia. A huge number of studies conducted in the last thirty years have highlighted the ability of rhizobia to colonize particularly harsh soils, and to promote the growth of the leguminous plants to which they are associated. In this review, we summarized the most recent and detailed literature on plant growth promoting rhizobia isolated from (and thus, adapted to) arid and heavy metal contaminated soils, as well as their possible use as inoculants for legume-based agriculture in harsh soils. Despite the current knowledge on the topic, which ranges from genetic to molecular mechanisms, further research should be conducted on the feasibility of plant or soil specific rhizobia-based inoculations. Here, we proposed genetic manipulation strategies, which simulate natural evolution, and strain combination to optimize plant-specific rhizobial inoculants for the improvement of crop yield.

Author Contributions

A.C., conceptualization, original draft preparation, review, editing; A.B., C.F., original draft preparation, literature review sections; G.C.d., original draft preparation, review, editing; F.P., original draft preparation, figures conceptualization; C.V., review, editing. All authors contributed to critically revising the manuscript and gave final approval for publication.

Funding

This research was partially supported by project METATRACK granted by FONDAZIONE CASSA DI RISPARMIO FIRENZE. AC was partially supported by Fondazione Adriano Buzzati-Traverso.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Alessio Mengoni for critical reading of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the review was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vandenkoornhuyse, P.; Quaiser, A.; Duhamel, M.; Le Van, A.; Dufresne, A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Turnbaugh, P.J.; Ley, R.E.; Hamady, M.; Fraser-Liggett, C.M.; Knight, R.; Gordon, J.I. The human microbiome project: Exploring the microbial part of ourselves in a changing world. Nature 2007, 449, 804–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Checcucci, A.; DiCenzo, G.C.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Mengoni, A. Trade, diplomacy, and warfare: The quest for elite rhizobia inoculant strains. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hassani, M.A.; Durán, P.; Hacquard, S. Microbial interactions within the plant holobiont. Microbiome 2018, 6, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sánchez-Cañizares, C.; Jorrín, B.; Poole, P.S.; Tkacz, A. Understanding the holobiont: The interdependence of plants and their microbiome. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2017, 38, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gans, J.; Wolinsky, M.; Dunbar, J. Computational improvements reveal great bacterial diversity and high metal toxicity in soil. Science 2005, 309, 1387–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Schloss, P.D.; Handelsman, J. Toward a census of bacteria in soil. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2006, 2, e92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hartmann, A.; Schmid, M.; van Tuinen, D.; Berg, G. Plant-driven selection of microbes. Plant Soil 2009, 321, 235–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pini, F.; East, A.K.; Appia-Ayme, C.; Tomek, J.; Karunakaran, R.; Mendoza-Suárez, M.; Edwards, A.; Terpolilli, J.J.; Roworth, J.; Downie, J.A. Bacterial biosensors for in vivo spatiotemporal mapping of root secretion. Plant Physiol. 2017, 174, 1289–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Edwards, J.A.; Santos-Medellín, C.M.; Liechty, Z.S.; Nguyen, B.; Lurie, E.; Eason, S.; Phillips, G.; Sundaresan, V. Compositional shifts in root-associated bacterial and archaeal microbiota track the plant life cycle in field-grown rice. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2003862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Thijs, S.; Sillen, W.; Rineau, F.; Weyens, N.; Vangronsveld, J. Towards an enhanced understanding of plant–microbiome interactions to improve phytoremediation: Engineering the metaorganism. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Berendsen, R.L.; Pieterse, C.M.; Bakker, P.A. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Mueller, U.G.; Sachs, J.L. Engineering microbiomes to improve plant and animal health. Trends Microbiol. 2015, 23, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Trivedi, P.; Schenk, P.M.; Wallenstein, M.D.; Singh, B.K. Tiny microbes, big yields: Enhancing food crop production with biological solutions. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 999–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pini, F.; Galardini, M.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Mengoni, A. Plant-bacteria association and symbiosis: Are there common genomic traits in Alphaproteobacteria? Genes (Basel) 2011, 2, 1017–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brill, W.J. Genetics of N2-fixing organisms. In The Biology of Nitrogen Fixation; Quispel, A., Ed.; North-Hol land Pub. Co.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chi, F.; Shen, S.-H.; Cheng, H.-P.; Jing, Y.-X.; Yanni, Y.G.; Dazzo, F.B. Ascending migration of endophytic rhizobia, from roots to leaves, inside rice plants and assessment of benefits to rice growth physiology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 7271–7278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Vitousek, P.M.; Menge, D.N.L.; Reed, S.C.; Cleveland, C.C. Biological nitrogen fixation: Rates, patterns and ecological controls in terrestrial ecosystems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20130119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Checcucci, A.; Perrin, E.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Mengoni, A. Genomic diversity and evolution of rhizobia. In Microbial Diversity in the Genomic Era; Das, S., Dash, H.R., Eds.; Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  20. Estrada-de Los Santos, P.; Palmer, M.; Steenkamp, E.T.; Maluk, M.; Beukes, C.; Hirsch, A.M.; James, E.K.; Venter, S.N. Trinickia dabaoshanensis sp. nov., a new name for a lost species. Arch. Microbiol. 2019, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Estrada-de los Santos, P.; Palmer, M.; Chávez-Ramírez, B.; Beukes, C.; Steenkamp, E.; Briscoe, L.; Khan, N.; Maluk, M.; Lafos, M.; Humm, E.; et al. Whole genome analyses suggests that Burkholderia sensu lato contains two additional novel genera (Mycetohabitans gen. nov., and Trinickia gen. nov.): Implications for the Evolution of Diazotrophy and Nodulation in the Burkholderiaceae. Genes 2018, 9, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sprent, J.I.; Ardley, J.; James, E.K. Biogeography of nodulated legumes and their nitrogen-fixing symbionts. New Phytol. 2017, 215, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dwivedi, F.; Upadhyaya, K.L.; Galardini, A.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Biondi, M.; Hungria, E.G.; Kaschuk, M.; Blair, G.; Dwivedi, S.L.; Sahrawat, K.L.; et al. Advances in host plant and rhizobium genomics to enhance symbiotic nitrogen fixation in grain legumes. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Elsevier Science BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 129, pp. 1–116. [Google Scholar]
  24. Galloway, J.N.; Townsend, A.R.; Erisman, J.W.; Bekunda, M.; Cai, Z.; Freney, J.R.; Martinelli, L.A.; Seitzinger, S.P.; Sutton, M.A. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 2008, 320, 889–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Alori, E.T.; Dare, M.O.; Babalola, O.O. Microbial inoculants for soil quality and plant health. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 22, pp. 281–307. [Google Scholar]
  26. Carvajal-Muñoz, J.S.; Carmona-Garcia, C.E. Benefits and limitations of biofertilization in agricultural practices. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2012, 24, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bhardwaj, D.; Ansari, M.W.; Sahoo, R.K.; Tuteja, N. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb. Cell Fact. 2014, 13, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Arora, N.K.; Verma, M.; Mishra, J. Rhizobial bioformulations: Past, present and future. In Rhizotrophs: Plant Growth Promotion To Bioremediation; Mehnaz, S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; Volume 2, pp. 69–99. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tairo, E.V.; Ndakidemi, P.A. Possible benefits of rhizobial inoculation and phosphorus supplementation on nutrition, growth and economic sustainability in grain legumes. Am. J. Res. Commun 2013, 1, 532–556. [Google Scholar]
  30. Smil, V. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch and the Transformation of World Food Production; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  31. Herridge, D.F.; Peoples, M.B.; Boddey, R.M. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant Soil 2008, 311, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rajwar, A.; Sahgal, M.; Johri, B.N. Legume–rhizobia symbiosis and interactions in agroecosystems. In Plant Microbe Symbiosis: Fundamentals and Advances; Arora, N., Ed.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2013; pp. 233–265. [Google Scholar]
  33. Deshwal, V.K.; Singh, S.B.; Kumar, P.; Chubey, A. Rhizobia unique plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A review. Int. J. Life Sci. 2013, 2, 74–86. [Google Scholar]
  34. Xavier, I.J.; Holloway, G.; Leggett, M. Development of rhizobial inoculant formulations. Crop Manag. 2004, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akibode, C.S.; Maredia, M.K. Global and Regional Trends in Production, Trade and Consumption of Food Legume Crops. 2012. Available online: https://ispc.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/images/Legumetrendsv2.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2019).
  36. Pérez-Montaño, F.; Alías-Villegas, C.; Bellogín, R.A.; Del Cerro, P.; Espuny, M.R.; Jiménez-Guerrero, I.; López-Baena, F.J.; Ollero, F.J.; Cubo, T. Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: From microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 169, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Glick, B.R. Using soil bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. Biotechnol. Adv. 2010, 28, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Checcucci, A.; Azzarello, E.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Carlo, A.D.; Emiliani, G.; Mancuso, S.; Spini, G.; Viti, C.; Mengoni, A. Role and regulation of ACC deaminase gene in Sinorhizobium melilotr: Is it a symbiotic, rhizospheric or endophytic gene? Front. Genet. 2017, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Brígido, C.; Nascimento, F.X.; Duan, J.; Glick, B.R.; Oliveira, S. Expression of an exogenous 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase gene in Mesorhizobium spp. reduces the negative effects of salt stress in chickpea. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2013, 349, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Djekoun, A.; Planchon, C. Water status effect on dinitrogen fixation and photosynthesis in soybean. Agron. J. 1991, 83, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Serraj, R.; Sinclair, T.R.; Purcell, L.C. Symbiotic N2 fixation response to drought. J. Exp. Bot. 1999, 50, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Elsheik, E.A.E. Effects of salt on rhizobia and bradyrhizobia: A review. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1998, 132, 507–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fagorzi, C.; Checcucci, A.; diCenzo, G.; Debiec-Andrzejewska, K.; Dziewit, L.; Pini, F.; Mengoni, A. Harnessing rhizobia to improve heavy-metal phytoremediation by legumes. Genes 2018, 9, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chibuike, G.U.; Obiora, S.C. Heavy metal polluted soils: Effect on plants and bioremediation methods. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2014, 2014, 752708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lebrazi, S.; Fikri-Benbrahim, K. Rhizobium-legume symbioses: Heavy metal effects and principal approaches for bioremediation of contaminated soil. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R., Das, A., Yadav, G., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 205–233. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mahar, A.; Wang, P.; Ali, A.; Awasthi, M.K.; Lahori, A.H.; Wang, Q.; Li, R.; Zhang, Z. Challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soils: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 126, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bolan, N.S.; Park, J.H.; Robinson, B.; Naidu, R.; Huh, K.Y. Phytostabilization: A green approach to contaminant containment. Adv. Agron. 2011, 112, 145–204. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kong, Z.; Glick, B.R. The role of plant growth-promoting bacteria in metal phytoremediation. In Advances in Microbial Physiology; Poole, R.K., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; Volume 71, pp. 97–132. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sturz, A.V.; Nowak, J. Endophytic communities of rhizobacteria and the strategies required to create yield enhancing associations with crops. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000, 15, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Theis, K.R.; Dheilly, N.M.; Klassen, J.L.; Brucker, R.M.; John, F.; Bosch, T.C.G.; Cryan, J.F.; Gilbert, S.F.; Goodnight, C.J.; Lloyd, E.A.; et al. Getting the hologenome concept right: An eco—Evolutionary framework for hosts and their microbiomes. Systems 2016, 29, 00028-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Khan, M.H.; Panda, S.K. Alterations in root lipid peroxidation and antioxidative responses in two rice cultivars under NaCl-salinity stress. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2008, 30, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bouhmouch, I.; Souad-Mouhsine, B.; Brhada, F.; Aurag, J. Influence of host cultivars and Rhizobium species on the growth and symbiotic performance of Phaseolus vulgaris under salt stress. J. Plant Physiol. 2005, 162, 1103–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zahran, H.H. Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and nitrogen fixation under severe conditions and in an arid climate. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999, 63, 968–989. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Cordovilla, M.P.; Ligero, F.; Lluch, C. The effect of salinity on N fixation and assimilation in Vicia faba. J. Exp. Bot. 1994, 45, 1483–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abbaspoor, A.; Zabihi, H.R.; Movafegh, S.; Asl, M.H.A. The efficiency of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield and yield components of two varieties of wheat in salinity condition. Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 2009, 3, 824–828. [Google Scholar]
  56. Arora, N.K.; Tewari, S.; Singh, S.; Lal, N.; Maheshwari, D.K. PGPR for protection of plant health under saline conditions. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Stress Management; Maheshwari, D.K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 239–258. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vijayan, K.; Chakraborti, S.P.; Ercisli, S.; Ghosh, P.D. NaCl induced morpho-biochemical and anatomical changes in mulberry (Morus spp.). Plant Growth Regul. 2008, 56, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Drew, M.C.; Hold, P.S.; Picchioni, G.A. Inhibition by NaCl of net CO2 fixation and yield of cucumber. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1990, 115, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cheeseman, J.M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Physiol. 1988, 87, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gupta, B.; Huang, B. Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: Physiological, biochemical, and molecular characterization. Int. J. Genom. 2014, 2014, 701596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cordovilla, M.P.; Ocana, A.; Ligero, F.; Lluch, C. Growth stage response to salinity in symbiosis Vicia faba-Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae. Plant Physiol. 1995, 14, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fagg, C.W.; Stewart, J.L. The value of Acacia and Prosopis in arid and semi-arid environments. J. Arid Environ. 1994, 27, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, X.; Harper, R.; Karsisto, M.; Lindström, K. Diversity of Rhizobium bacteria isolated from the root nodules of leguminous trees. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1991, 41, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wahab, A.M.A.; Zahran, H.H. Effects of salt stress on nitrogenase activity and growth of four legumes. Biol. Plant. 1981, 23, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bernstein, L.; Francois, L.E.; Clark, R.A. Interactive effects of salinity and fertility on yields of grains and vegetables 1. Agron. J. 1974, 66, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Maas, E.V.; Hoffman, G.J. Crop salt tolerance–current assessment. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 1977, 103, 115–134. [Google Scholar]
  67. Delgado, M.J.; Ligero, F.; Lluch, C. Effects of salt stress on growth and nitrogen fixation by pea, faba-bean, common bean and soybean plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sulieman, S.; Tran, L.-S. Asparagine: An amide of particular distinction in the regulation of symbiotic nitrogen fixation of legumes. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2013, 33, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ballen, K.G.; Graham, P.H. The role of acid pH in symbiosis between plants and soil organisms. In Handbook of Plant Growth pH as the Master Variable; Rengel, Z., Ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 383–404. [Google Scholar]
  70. Qureshi, M.I.; Muneer, S.; Bashir, H.; Ahmad, J.; Iqbal, M. Nodule physiology and proteomics of stressed legumes. In Advances in Botanical Research; Kader, J.C., Delseny, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 56, pp. 1–48. ISBN 0065-2296. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zahran, H.H. Conditions for successful Rhizobium-legume symbiosis in saline environments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1991, 12, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tu, J.C. Effect of salinity on Rhizobium-root-hair interaction, nodulation and growth of soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1981, 61, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zahran, H.H.; Sprent, J.I. Effects of sodium chloride and polyethylene glycol on root-hair infection and nodulation of Vicia faba L. plants by Rhizobium leguminosarum. Planta 1986, 167, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ikeda, J.; Kobayashi, M.; Takahashi, E. Salt stress increases the respiratory cost of nitrogen fixation. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1992, 38, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Walsh, K.B. Physiology of the legume nodule and its response to stress. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1995, 27, 637–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hungria, M.; Vargas, M.A.T. Environmental factors affecting N2 fixation in grain legumes in the tropics, with an emphasis on Brazil. Field Crop. Res. 2000, 65, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Delgado, M.J.; Garrido, J.M.; Ligero, F.; Lluch, C. Nitrogen fixation and carbon metabolism by nodules and bacteroids of pea plants under sodium chloride stress. Physiol. Plant. 1993, 89, 824–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zahran, H.H. Rhizobia from wild legumes: Diversity, taxonomy, ecology, nitrogen fixation and biotechnology. J. Biotechnol. 2001, 91, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lal, B.; Khanna, S. Selection of salt-tolerant Rhizobium isolates of Acacia nilotica. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1994, 10, 637–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zahran, H.H.; Räsänen, L.A.; Karsisto, M.; Lindström, K. Alteration of lipopolysaccharide and protein profiles in SDS-PAGE of rhizobia by osmotic and heat stress. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1994, 10, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sakrouhi, I.; Belfquih, M.; Sbabou, L.; Moulin, P.; Bena, G.; Filali-Maltouf, A.; Le Quéré, A. Recovery of symbiotic nitrogen fixing acacia rhizobia from Merzouga desert sand dunes in South East Morocco–Identification of a probable new species of Ensifer adapted to stressed environments. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 39, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gouffi, K.; Pica, N.; Pichereau, V.; Blanco, C. Disaccharides as a new class of nonaccumulated osmoprotectants for Sinorhizobium meliloti. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 1491–1500. [Google Scholar]
  83. Gouffi, K.; Blanco, C. Is the accumulation of osmoprotectant the unique mechanism involved in bacterial osmoprotection? Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000, 55, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Talibart, R.; Jebbar, M.; Gouesbet, G.; Himdi-Kabbab, S.; Wroblewski, H.; Blanco, C.; Bernard, T. Osmoadaptation in rhizobia: Ectoine-induced salt tolerance. J. Bacteriol. 1994, 176, 5210–5217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Arora, N.K.; Singhal, V.; Maheshwari, D.K. Salinity-induced accumulation of poly-β-hydroxybutyrate in rhizobia indicating its role in cell protection. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 22, 603–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bree6dveld, M.W.; Zevenhuizen, L.P.T.M.; Zehnder, A.J.B. Osmotically-regulated trehalose accumulation and cyclic β-(1, 2)-glucan excretion by Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii TA-1. Arch. Microbiol. 1991, 156, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ghittoni, N.E.; Bueno, M.A. Changes in the cellular content of trehalose in four peanut rhizobia strains cultured under hypersalinity. Symbiosis 1996, 20, 117–127. [Google Scholar]
  88. Le Rudulier, D.; Bernard, T. Salt tolerance in Rhizobium: A possible role for betaines. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 1986, 2, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Smith, L.T.; Pocard, J.-A.; Bernard, T.; Le Rudulier, D. Osmotic control of glycine betaine biosynthesis and degradation in Rhizobium meliloti. J. Bacteriol. 1988, 170, 3142–3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Elsheikh, E.A.E.; Wood, M. Salt effects on survival and multiplication of chickpea and soybean rhizobia. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1990, 22, 343–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fougere, F.; Le Rudulier, D. Uptake of glycine betaine and its analogues by bacteroids of Rhizobium meliloti. Microbiology 1990, 136, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hickey, E.W.; Hirshfield, I.N. Low-pH-induced effects on patterns of protein synthesis and on internal pH in Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1990, 56, 1038–1045. [Google Scholar]
  93. Shaharoona, B.; Arshad, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Khalid, A. Performance of Pseudomonas spp. containing ACC-deaminase for improving growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in the presence of nitrogenous fertilizer. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 2971–2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Diagne, N.; Swanson, E.; Pesce, C.; Fall, F.; Diouf, F.; Bakhoum, N.; Fall, D.; Faye, M.N.; Oshone, R.; Simpson, S. Permanent draft genome sequence of Rhizobium sp. strain LCM 4573, a salt-tolerant, nitrogen-fixing bacterium isolated from Senegalese soils. Genome Announc. 2017, 5, e00285-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ormeño-Orrillo, E.; Gomes, D.F.; del Cerro, P.; Vasconcelos, A.T.R.; Canchaya, C.; Almeida, L.G.P.; Mercante, F.M.; Ollero, F.J.; Megías, M.; Hungria, M. Genome of Rhizobium leucaenae strains CFN 299 T and CPAO 29.8: Searching for genes related to a successful symbiotic performance under stressful conditions. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 534. [Google Scholar]
  96. Molina-Sánchez, M.D.; López-Contreras, J.A.; Toro, N.; Fernández-López, M. Genomic characterization of Sinorhizobium meliloti AK21, a wild isolate from the Aral Sea region. Springerplus 2015, 4, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Le Quéré, A.; Tak, N.; Gehlot, H.S.; Lavire, C.; Meyer, T.; Chapulliot, D.; Rathi, S.; Sakrouhi, I.; Rocha, G.; Rohmer, M. Genomic characterization of Ensifer aridi, a proposed new species of nitrogen-fixing rhizobium recovered from Asian, African and American deserts. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 85. [Google Scholar]
  98. DiCenzo, G.C.; Zamani, M.; Checcucci, A.; Fondi, M.; Griffitts, J.S.; Finan, T.M.; Mengoni, A. Multidisciplinary approaches for studying Rhizobium–legume symbioses. Can. J. Microbiol. 2018, 65, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Alexandre, A.N.A.; Laranjo, M.; Oliveira, S. Global transcriptional response to heat shock of the legume symbiont Mesorhizobium loti MAFF303099 comprises extensive gene downregulation. DNA Res. 2013, 21, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Laranjo, M.; Alexandre, A.; Oliveira, S. Global transcriptional response to salt shock of the plant microsymbiont Mesorhizobium loti MAFF303099. Res. Microbiol. 2017, 168, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Draghi, W.O.; Del Papa, M.F.; Hellweg, C.; Watt, S.A.; Watt, T.F.; Barsch, A.; Lozano, M.J.; Lagares Jr, A.; Salas, M.E.; López, J.L. A consolidated analysis of the physiologic and molecular responses induced under acid stress in the legume-symbiont model-soil bacterium Sinorhizobium meliloti. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Irar, S.; González, E.M.; Arrese-Igor, C.; Marino, D. A proteomic approach reveals new actors of nodule response to drought in split-root grown pea plants. Physiol. Plant. 2014, 152, 634–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Larrainzar, E.; Wienkoop, S.; Scherling, C.; Kempa, S.; Ladrera, R.; Arrese-Igor, C.; Weckwerth, W.; González, E.M. Carbon metabolism and bacteroid functioning are involved in the regulation of nitrogen fixation in Medicago truncatula under drought and recovery. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 1565–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Larrainzar, E.; Wienkoop, S. A proteomic view on the role of legume symbiotic interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Graham, P.H. Stress tolerance in Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium, and nodulation under adverse soil conditions. Can. J. Microbiol. 1992, 38, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Da-Silva, J.R.; Alexandre, A.; Brígido, C.; Oliveira, S. Can stress response genes be used to improve the symbiotic performance of rhizobia. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 365–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Suárez, R.; Wong, A.; Ramírez, M.; Barraza, A.; Orozco, M.C.; Cevallos, M.A.; Lara, M.; Hernández, G.; Iturriaga, G. Improvement of drought tolerance and grain yield in common bean by overexpressing trehalose-6-phosphate synthase in rhizobia. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2008, 21, 958–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Rodriguez-Valera, F.; Martin-Cuadrado, A.B.; Rodriguez-Brito, B.; Pašić, L.; Thingstad, T.F.; Rohwer, F.; Mira, A. Explaining microbial population genomics through phage predation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 828–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Straub, P.F.; Shearer, G.; Reynolds, P.H.S.; Sawyer, S.A.; Kohl, D.H. Effect of disabling bacteroid proline catabolism on the response of soybeans to repeated drought stress. J. Exp. Bot. 1997, 48, 1299–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Boscari, A.; Van de Sype, G.; Le Rudulier, D.; Mandon, K. Overexpression of BetS, a Sinorhizobium meliloti high-affinity betaine transporter, in bacteroids from Medicago sativa nodules sustains nitrogen fixation during early salt stress adaptation. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2006, 19, 896–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nogales, J.; Campos, R.; BenAbdelkhalek, H.; Olivares, J.; Lluch, C.; Sanjuan, J. Rhizobium tropici genes involved in free-living salt tolerance are required for the establishment of efficient nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with Phaseolus vulgaris. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2002, 15, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Vaishnav, A.; Varma, A.; Tuteja, N.; Choudhary, D.K. PGPR-mediated amelioration of crops under salt stress. In Plant-Microbe Interaction: An Approach to Sustainable Agriculture; Choudhary, D.K., Varma, A., Tuteja, N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 205–226. [Google Scholar]
  113. Glick, B.R. Modulation of plant ethylene levels by the bacterial enzyme ACC deaminase. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 251, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Estevez, J.; Dardanelli, M.S.; Megías, M.; Rodríguez-Navarro, D.N. Symbiotic performance of common bean and soybean co-inoculated with rhizobia and Chryseobacterium balustinum Aur9 under moderate saline conditions. Symbiosis 2009, 49, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Aamir, M.; Aslam, A.; Khan, M.Y.; Jamshaid, M.U.; Ahmad, M.; Asghar, H.N.; Zahir, Z.A. Co-inoculation with Rhizobium and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for inducing salinity tolerance in mung bean under field condition of semi-arid climate. Asian J. Agric. Biol. 2013, 1, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  116. Ahmad, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Asghar, H.N.; Asghar, M. Inducing salt tolerance in mung bean through coinoculation with rhizobia and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria containing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase. Can. J. Microbiol. 2011, 57, 578–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Etesami, H. Bacterial mediated alleviation of heavy metal stress and decreased accumulation of metals in plant tissues: Mechanisms and future prospects. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Noll, M.R. Trace elements in terrestrial environments: Biogeochemistry, bioavailability, and risks of metals. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ahemad, M.; Khan, M.S. Effect of fungicides on plant growth promoting activities of phosphate solubilizing Pseudomonas putida isolated from mustard (Brassica compestris) rhizosphere. Chemosphere 2012, 86, 945–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Pajuelo, E.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Dary, M.; Palomares, A.J. Toxic effects of arsenic on Sinorhizobium-Medicago sativa symbiotic interaction. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 154, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V.M. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Del Rio, M.; Font, R.; Almela, C.; Velez, D.; Montoro, R.; De Haro Bailon, A. Heavy metals and arsenicuptake by wild vegetation in the Guadiamar river area after the toxic spill of the Aznalcollar mine. J. Biotechnol. 2002, 98, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Adejumo, S.A. Mechanisms of lead and chromium hyperaccumulation and tolerance in plant. Environtropica 2019, 15, 11–29. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ma, Y.; Oliveira, R.S.; Freitas, H.; Zhang, C. Biochemical and molecular mechanisms of plant-microbe-metal interactions: Relevance for phytoremediation. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zubair, M.; Shakir, M.; Ali, Q.; Rani, N.; Fatima, N.; Farooq, S.; Shafiq, S.; Kanwal, N.; Ali, F.; Nasir, I.A. Rhizobacteria and phytoremediation of heavy metals. Environ. Technol. Rev. 2016, 5, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sarwar, N.; Imran, M.; Shaheen, M.R.; Ishaque, W.; Kamran, M.A.; Matloob, A.; Rehim, A.; Hussain, S. Phytoremediation strategies for soils contaminated with heavy metals: Modifications and future perspectives. Chemosphere 2017, 171, 710–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Erakhrumen, A.A. Phytoremediation: An environmentally sound technology for pollution prevention, control and remediation in developing countries. Educ. Res. Rev. 2007, 2, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  128. Ghosh, M.; Singh, S.P. A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of it’s by products. Asian J. Energy Env. 2005, 6, 18. [Google Scholar]
  129. He, Z.L.; Yang, X.E.; Stoffella, P.J. Trace elements in agroecosystems and impacts on the environment. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2005, 19, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Seth, C.S. A review on mechanisms of plant tolerance and role of transgenic plants in environmental clean-up. Bot. Rev. 2012, 78, 32–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Sajad, M.A. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—Concepts and applications. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 869–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Glick, B.R. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Can. J. Microbiol. 1995, 41, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hao, X.; Taghavi, S.; Xie, P.; Orbach, M.J.; Alwathnani, H.A.; Rensing, C.; Wei, G. Phytoremediation of Heavy and Transition Metals Aided by LegumeRhizobia Symbiosis, Int. J. Phytoremediation 2014, 16, 179–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rajkumar, M.; Sandhya, S.; Prasad, M.N.; Freitas, H. Perspectives of plant-associated microbes in heavy metal phytoremediation. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 1562–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sessitsch, A.; Kuffner, M.; Kidd, P.; Vangronsveld, J.; Wenzel, W.W.; Fallmann, K.; Puschenreiter, M. The role of plant-associated bacteria in the mobilization and phytoextraction of trace elements in contaminated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 60, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Sharma, R.K.; Archana, G. Cadmium minimization in food crops by cadmium resistant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 107, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ullah, A.; Heng, S.; Munis, M.F.H.; Fahad, S.; Yang, X. Phytoremediation of heavy metals assisted by plant growth promoting (PGP) bacteria: A review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 117, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wheaton, G.; Counts, J.; Mukherjee, A.; Kruh, J.; Kelly, R. The confluence of heavy metal biooxidation and heavy metal resistance: Implications for bioleaching by extreme thermoacidophiles. Minerals 2015, 5, 397–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bruins, M.R.; Kapil, S.; Oehme, F.W. Microbial resistance to metals in the environment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2000, 45, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Atieno, M.; Lesueur, D. Opportunities for improved legume inoculants: Enhanced stress tolerance of rhizobia and benefits to agroecosystems. Symbiosis 2018, 77, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Pal, A.; Paul, A.K. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: Central elements in heavy metal bioremediation. Indian J. Microbiol. 2008, 48, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Giller, K.E.; Witter, E.; McGrath, S.P. Heavy metals and soil microbes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 2031–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Martensson, A.; Witter, E. Influence of various soil amendments on nitrogen-fixing soil microorganisms in a long-term field experiment, with special reference to sewage sludge. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1990, 22, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Obbard, J.P.; Jones, K.C. The effect of heavy metals on dinitrogen fixation by Rhizobium-white clover in a range of long-term sewage sludge amended and metal-contaminated soils. Environ. Pollut. 1993, 79, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gulz, P.A.; Gupta, S.-K.; Schulin, R. Arsenic accumulation of common plants from contaminated soils. Plant Soil 2005, 272, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Fatnassi, I.C.; Chiboub, M.; Saadani, O.; Jebara, M.; Jebara, S.H. Phytostabilization of moderate copper contaminated soils using co-inoculation of Vicia faba with plant growth promoting bacteria. J. Basic Microbiol. 2015, 55, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Delgadillo, J.; Lafuente, A.; Doukkali, B.; Redondo-Gómez, S.; Mateos-Naranjo, E.; Caviedes, M.A.; Pajuelo, E.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D. Improving legume nodulation and Cu rhizostabilization using a genetically modified rhizobia. Environ. Technol. 2015, 36, 1237–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Pajuelo, E.; Pérez-Palacios, P.; Romero-Aguilar, A.; Delgadillo, J.; Doukkali, B.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Caviedes, M.A. Improving legume–rhizobium symbiosis for copper phytostabilization through genetic manipulation of both symbionts. In Biological Nitrogen Fixation and Beneficial Plant-Microbe Interaction; González-Andrés, F., James, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 183–193. [Google Scholar]
  149. Drewniak, L.; Sklodowska, A. Arsenic-transforming microbes and their role in biomining processes. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 7728–7739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  150. Pinter, M.I.F.; Salomon, M.V.; Berli, F.; Gil, R.; Bottini, R.; Piccoli, P. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria alleviate stress by AsIII in grapevine. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 267, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bianucci, E.; Godoy, A.; Furlan, A.; Peralta, J.M.; Hernández, L.E.; Carpena-Ruiz, R.O.; Castro, S. Arsenic toxicity in soybean alleviated by a symbiotic species of Bradyrhizobium. Symbiosis 2018, 74, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Fatnassi, I.C.; Chiboub, M.; Saadani, O.; Jebara, M.; Jebara, S.H. Impact of dual inoculation with Rhizobium and PGPR on growth and antioxidant status of Vicia faba L. under copper stress. C. R. Biol. 2015, 338, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Dary, M.; Chamber-Pérez, M.A.; Palomares, A.J.; Pajuelo, E. “In situ” phytostabilisation of heavy metal polluted soils using Lupinus luteus inoculated with metal resistant plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 177, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kamaludeen, S.P.B.; Ramasamy, K. Rhizoremediation of metals: Harnessing microbial communities. Indian J. Microbiol. 2008, 48, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Singh, N.K.; Rai, U.N.; Tewari, A.; Singh, M. Metal accumulation and growth response in Vigna radiata L. inoculated with chromate tolerant rhizobacteria and grown on tannery sludge amended soil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 84, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Armendariz, A.L.; Talano, M.A.; Nicotra, M.F.O.; Escudero, L.; Breser, M.L.; Porporatto, C.; Agostini, E. Impact of double inoculation with Bradyrhizobium japonicum E109 and Azospirillum brasilense Az39 on soybean plants grown under arsenic stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 138, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Spaepen, S.; Vanderleyden, J.; Remans, R. Indole-3-acetic acid in microbial and microorganism-plant signaling. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 31, 425–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Sharma, P.; Dubey, R.S. Lead toxicity in plants. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2005, 17, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Di Gregorio, S.; Barbafieri, M.; Lampis, S.; Sanangelantoni, A.M.; Tassi, E.; Vallini, G. Combined application of Triton X-100 and Sinorhizobium sp. Pb002 inoculum for the improvement of lead phytoextraction by Brassica juncea in EDTA amended soil. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Zhao, F.J.; Lombi, E.; McGrath, S.P. Assessing the potential for zinc and cadmium phytoremediation with the hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens. Plant Soil 2003, 249, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Seregin, I.V.; Kozhevnikova, A.D. Physiological role of nickel and its toxic effects on higher plants. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 53, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wani, P.A.; Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A. Effect of metal-tolerant plant growth-promoting Rhizobium on the performance of pea grown in metal-amended soil. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2008, 55, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Wani, P.A.; Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A. Effect of metal tolerant plant growth promoting Bradyrhizobium sp. (vigna) on growth, symbiosis, seed yield and metal uptake by greengram plants. Chemosphere 2007, 70, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Fujita, M. Cadmium Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants: From Physiology to Remediation; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; ISBN 0128148659. [Google Scholar]
  165. Yu, R.; Tang, Y.; Liu, C.; Du, X.; Miao, C.; Shi, G. Comparative transcriptomic analysis reveals the roles of ROS scavenging genes in response to cadmium in two pak choi cultivars. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Guo, J.; Chi, J. Effect of Cd-tolerant plant growth-promoting Rhizobium on plant growth and Cd uptake by Lolium multiflorum Lam. and Glycine max (L.) Merr. in Cd-contaminated soil. Plant Soil 2014, 375, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Porter, S.S.; Chang, P.L.; Conow, C.A.; Dunham, J.P.; Friesen, M.L. Association mapping reveals novel serpentine adaptation gene clusters in a population of symbiotic Mesorhizobium. ISME J. 2017, 11, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Lu, M.; Jiao, S.; Gao, E.; Song, X.; Li, Z.; Hao, X.; Rensing, C.; Wei, G.; Lu, C.M. Transcriptome response to heavy metals in Sinorhizobium meliloti CCNWSX0020 reveals new metal eesistance determinants that also promote bioremediation by Medicago lupulina in metal-contaminated soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, 1244–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Hao, X.; Xie, P.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Taghavi, S.; Wei, G.; Rensing, C. Copper tolerance mechanisms of Mesorhizobium amorphae and its role in aiding phytostabilization by Robinia pseudoacacia in copper contaminated soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 2328–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Hussain, M.B.; Zahir, Z.A.; Asghar, H.N.; Asgher, M. Can catalase and exopolysaccharides producing rhizobia ameliorate drought stress in wheat? Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2014, 16, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  171. Baldani, V.L.D.; Alvarez, M.A.B.; Baldani, J.I.; Döbereiner, J. Establishment of inoculated Azospirillum spp. in the rhizosphere and in roots of field grown wheat and sorghum. Plant Soil 1986, 90, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Fasciglione, G.; Casanovas, E.M.; Quillehauquy, V.; Yommi, A.K.; Goñi, M.G.; Roura, S.I.; Barassi, C.A. Azospirillum inoculation effects on growth, product quality and storage life of lettuce plants grown under salt stress. Sci. Hortic. Amst. 2015, 195, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Staudinger, C.; Mehmeti-Tershani, V.; Gil-Quintana, E.; Gonzalez, E.M.; Hofhansl, F.; Bachmann, G.; Wienkoop, S. Evidence for a rhizobia-induced drought stress response strategy in Medicago truncatula. J. Proteom. 2016, 136, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Bordeleau, L.M.; Antoun, H.; Lachance, R.-A. Effets des souches de Rhizobium meliloti et des coupes successives de la luzerne (Medicago sativa) sur la fixation symbiotique d’azote. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1977, 57, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Bertrand, A.; Dhont, C.; Bipfubusa, M.; Chalifour, F.-P.; Drouin, P.; Beauchamp, C.J. Improving salt stress responses of the symbiosis in alfalfa using salt-tolerant cultivar and rhizobial strain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015, 87, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Bromfield, E.S.P.; Wheatcroft, R.; Barran, L.R. Medium for direct isolation of Rhizobium meliloti from soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Noel, K.D.; Vandenbosch, K.A.; Kulpaca, B. Mutations in Rhizobium phaseoli that lead to arrested development of infection threads. J. Bacteriol. 1986, 168, 1392–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Smith, R.S. Legume inoculant formulation and application. Can. J. Microbiol. 1992, 38, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Nobbe, F.; Hiltner, L. Inoculation of the soil for cultivating leguminous plants. US Pat. 1896, 570, 813. [Google Scholar]
  180. Brockwell, J. Inoculation methods for field experimenters and farmers. In Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes; Vincent, J.M., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp. 211–227. [Google Scholar]
  181. Dommergues, Y.R.; Diem, H.G.; Divies, C. Polyacrylamide-entrapped Rhizobium as an inoculant for legumes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1979, 37, 779–781. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  182. Jung, G.; Mugnier, J.; Diem, H.G.; Dommergues, Y.R. Polymer-entrapped Rhizobium as an inoculant for legumes. Plant Soil 1982, 65, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Paau, A.S.; Graham, L.L.; Bennett, M. Progress in formulation research for PGPR and biocontrol inoculants. Bull. OILB SROP 1991, 14, 8. Available online: http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=FR9202869 (accessed on 30 April 2019).
  184. Smith, R.S. Inoculant formulations and applications to meet changing needs. In Nitrogen Fixation: Fundamentals and Applications; Tikhonovich, I.A., Provorov, N.A., Romanov, V.I., Newton, W.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; Volume 27, pp. 653–657. [Google Scholar]
  185. Singleton, P.; Keyser, H.; Sande, E. Development and evaluation of liquid inoculants. In Proceedings of the Inoculants and Nitrogen Fixation of Legumes in Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam, 17–18 February 2001; pp. 52–66. [Google Scholar]
  186. Rohr, T. Rheological Study of the Mixture Carboxymethylcellulose/Starch and Its Use As a Vehicle for the Bacterial Inoculation. Ph.D. Thesis, Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  187. Manikandan, R.; Saravanakumar, D.; Rajendran, L.; Raguchander, T.; Samiyappan, R. Standardization of liquid formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 for its efficacy against Fusarium wilt of tomato. Biol. Control. 2010, 54, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Ferreira, E.M.; Castro, I.V. e Residues of the cork industry as carriers for the production of legumes inoculants. Silva. Lusit. 2005, 13, 159–167. [Google Scholar]
  189. Kaljeet, S.; Keyeo, F.; Amir, H. Temperature on survivability of rhizobial inoculant. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2011, 10, 331–337. [Google Scholar]
  190. Bashan, Y.; de-Bashan, L.E.; Prabhu, S.R.; Hernandez, J.-P. Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: Formulations and practical perspectives (1998–2013). Plant Soil 2014, 378, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Albareda, M.; Rodríguez-Navarro, D.N.; Camacho, M.; Temprano, F.J. Alternatives to peat as a carrier for rhizobia inoculants: Solid and liquid formulations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2771–2779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Rivera, D.; Obando, M.; Barbosa, H.; Rojas Tapias, D.; Bonilla Buitrago, R. Evaluation of polymers for the liquid rhizobial formulation and their influence in the Rhizobium-Cowpea interaction. Univ. Sci. 2014, 19, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Brahmaprakash, G.P.; Sahu, P.K. Biofertilizers for sustainability. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 2012, 92, 37–62. [Google Scholar]
  194. Vandergheynst, J.; Scher, H.; Guo, H.-Y.; Schultz, D. Water-in-oil emulsions that improve the storage and delivery of the biolarvacide Lagenidium giganteum. BioControl 2007, 52, 207–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Nápoles, M.C.; Carrió, E.G.; Montero, F.; Ferreira, A.; Rossi, A. Role of Bradyrhizobium japonicum induced by genistein on soybean stressed by water deficit. Spanish J. Agric. Res. 2009, 7, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Tank, N.; Saraf, M. Salinity-resistant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria ameliorates sodium chloride stress on tomato plants. J. Plant Interact. 2010, 5, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Kudoyarova, G.R.; Arkhipova, T.N.; Melent’ev, A.I. Role of bacterial phytohormones in plant growth regulation and their development. In Bacterial Metabolites in Sustainable Agroecosystem; Maeshwari, D., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 69–86. [Google Scholar]
  198. Giller, K.E.; Murwira, M.S.; Dhliwayo, D.K.C.; Mafongoya, P.L.; Mpepereki, S. Soyabeans and sustainable agriculture in southern Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2011, 9, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Lupwayi, N.Z.; Clayton, G.W.; Rice, W.A. Rhizobial inoculants for legume crops. J. Crop. Improv. 2006, 15, 289–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Thilakarathna, M.S.; Raizada, M.N. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of diverse rhizobia inoculants on soybean traits under field conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 105, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Friesen, M.L. Widespread fitness alignment in the legume—Rhizobium symbiosis. New Phytol. 2012, 194, 1096–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Checcucci, A.; Azzarello, E.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Galardini, M.; Lagomarsino, A.; Mancuso, S.; Marti, L.; Marzano, M.C.; Mocali, S.; Squartini, A.; et al. Mixed nodule infection in Sinorhizobium meliloti–Medicago sativa symbiosis suggest the presence of cheating behavior. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. West, S.A.; Kiers, E.T.; Simms, E.L.; Denison, R.F. Sanctions and mutualism stability: Why do rhizobia fix nitrogen? Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2002, 269, 685–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Westhoek, A.; Field, E.; Rehling, F.; Mulley, G.; Webb, I.; Poole, P.S.; Turnbull, L.A. Policing the legume-Rhizobium symbiosis: A critical test of partner choice. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Kiers, E.T.; Denison, R.F. Sanctions, cooperation, and the stability of plant-rhizosphere mutualisms. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2008, 39, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. MacLean, A.M.; Finan, T.M.; Sadowsky, M.J. Genomes of the symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria of legumes. Plant Physiol. 2007, 144, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Checcucci, A.; DiCenzo, G.C.; Ghini, V.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Beker, A.; Decorosi, F.; Dohlemann, J.; Fagorzi, C.; Finan, T.M.; Fondi, M.; et al. Creation and Characterization of a Genomically Hybrid Strain in the Nitrogen-Fixing Symbiotic Bacterium Sinorhizobium meliloti. ACS Synth. Biol. 2018, 7, 296483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Brewin, N.J.; Wood, E.A.; Young, J.P.W. Contribution of the symbiotic plasmid to the competitiveness of Rhizobium leguminosarum. Microbiology 1983, 129, 2973–2977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Brewin, N.J.; DeJong, T.M.; Phillips, D.A.; Johnston, A.W.B. Co-transfer of determinants for hydrogenase activity and nodulation ability in Rhizobium leguminosarum. Nature 1980, 288, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. DeJong, T.M.; Brewin, N.J.; Phillips, D.A. Effects of plasmid content in Rhizobium leguminosarum on pea nodule activity and plant growth. Microbiology 1981, 124, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. DiCenzo, G.C.; Checcucci, A.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Mengoni, A.; Viti, C.; Dziewit, L.; Finan, T.M.; Galardini, M.; Fondi, M. Metabolic modelling reveals the specialization of secondary replicons for niche adaptation in Sinorhizobium meliloti. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Checcucci, A.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Mengoni, A. Exploiting Nitrogen-Fixing Rhizobial Symbionts Genetic Resources for Improving Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soils. In Enhancing Cleanup of Environmental Pollutants; Anjum, N., Tuteja, N., Eds.; Spinger: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 275–288. [Google Scholar]
  213. Bradáčová, K.; Florea, A.S.; Bar-Tal, A.; Minz, D.; Yermiyahu, U.; Shawahna, R.; Kraut-Cohen, J.; Zolti, A.; Erel, R.; Dietel, K. Microbial consortia versus single-strain inoculants: An advantage in PGPM-assisted tomato production? Agronomy 2019, 9, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Bashan, Y. Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture. Biotechnol. Adv. 1998, 16, 729–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Nadeem, S.M.; Naveed, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Asghar, H.N. Plant–microbe interactions for sustainable agriculture: Fundamentals and recent advances. In Plant Microbe Symbiosis: Fundamentals and Advances; Arora, N., Ed.; Springer: New Dehli, India, 2013; pp. 51–103. [Google Scholar]
  216. Sekar, J.; Raj, R.; Prabavathy, V.R. Microbial consortial products for sustainable agriculture: Commercialization and regulatory issues in india. In Agriculturally Importantmicroorganisms; Sarma, B., Keswani, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 107–132. [Google Scholar]
  217. Abd-Alla, M.H.; El-Enany, A.-W.E.; Nafady, N.A.; Khalaf, D.M.; Morsy, F.M. Synergistic interaction of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as a plant growth promoting biofertilizers for faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in alkaline soil. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 169, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Tajini, F.; Trabelsi, M.; Drevon, J.-J. Co-inoculation with Glomus intraradices and Rhizobium tropici CIAT899 increases P use efficiency for N 2 fixation in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under P deficiency in hydroaeroponic culture. Symbiosis 2011, 53, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Zhu, R.-F.; Tang, F.; Liu, J.; Liu, F.-Q.; Deng, X.-Y.; Chen, J.-S. Co-inoculation of arbuscular mycorrhizae and nitrogen fixing bacteria enhance alfalfa yield under saline conditions. Pakistan J. Bot. 2016, 48, 763–769. [Google Scholar]
  220. Meng, L.; Zhang, A.; Wang, F.; Han, X.; Wang, D.; Li, S. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Rhizobium facilitate nitrogen uptake and transfer in soybean/maize intercropping system. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The mechanisms involved in bioremediation of heavy-metal contaminated soil and the contribution of PGP rhizobia.
Figure 1. The mechanisms involved in bioremediation of heavy-metal contaminated soil and the contribution of PGP rhizobia.
Agronomy 09 00529 g001
Figure 2. Different approach aimed to promote plant growth: Natural genome assisted breeding as a genomic manipulation strategy, and microbial consortia (multi-strains combination) for the improvement of plant-specific rhizobial inoculants in harsh environments.
Figure 2. Different approach aimed to promote plant growth: Natural genome assisted breeding as a genomic manipulation strategy, and microbial consortia (multi-strains combination) for the improvement of plant-specific rhizobial inoculants in harsh environments.
Agronomy 09 00529 g002
Table 1. Studies of plant growth improvement mediated by rhizobium-inoculants on harsh soil.
Table 1. Studies of plant growth improvement mediated by rhizobium-inoculants on harsh soil.
StrainIsolation ConditionsCropEffect/Action MechanismReference
SiteMetal Contamination
Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiensUSDA110Ref. strainAsSoybeanLimits metalloid translocation and accumulation in edible parts of the legume[151]
Bradyrhizobium sp. Per 3.61Nodules of soybeansAs
A. brasilense Az39 AsSoybeanEnhances growth of the plant and phytostabilization of As when co-inoculated[156]
B. japonicum E109 As
Sinorhizobium sp. Pb002Rhizospere of Brassica junceaCdBrassica junceaIncreases plant survival and lead uptake[159]
Bradyrhizobium sp. (vigna) RM8Nodules of greengramNi, ZnGreengramIncreases the number of nodules on the plant, as well as IAA and siderophore production[163]
Rhizobium sp. RP5
Bradyrhizobium sp.Nodules of Glycine maxCdGlycine maxIncreases mineral nutrient uptake (Fe) and reduces cadmium accumulation in the plant[166]
Rhizobium leguminosarum (LR-30), Mesorhizobium ciceri (CR.30 and CR-39) and Rhizobium phaseoli (MR-2)Lens culinaris L., Vigna radiata L., Cicer aretinum L. Wheat (Triticum aestivum)Improves plant growth, biomass, and drought stress through production of catalase, IAA, and exopolysaccharides under PEG-6000 simulated drought conditions[170]
StrainIsolation conditionsCropEffect/Mechanism of actionReference
Azospirillum Sp245Surface-sterilized wheat roots of (Brazil) [171] Lattuce (L.sativa L.)Promotes aerial biomass, higher ascorbic acid content accompanied by a lower oxidation rate, better overall visual quality due to higher chlorophyll content, hue, Chroma, L and lower browning intensity [172]
Sinorhizobium medicae WSM419Nodules of Medicago murex Medicago truncatulaDelays stress-induced leaf senescence and abscission and nutrient acquisition during drought stress[173]
Sinorhizobium meliloti A2 strainsCommercial strain,
Eastern Canada [174]
Medicago sativa cv Apica, Medicago sativa cv HaloIncreases shoot/root ratio, shoot water content, and the concentrations of starch and pinitol in nodules[175]
Sinorhizobium meliloti Rm1521Ottawa vicinity [176]
Rhizobium etli CE3 overexpressing trehalose-6-phosphate synthase geneCFN42 derivate [177], original isolate from P. vulgaris noduleP. vulgaris var. Negro JamapaEnhances drought tolerance due to upregulation of genes involved in stress tolerance, carbon and nitrogen metabolism by trehalose[107]
Co-inoculationCropEffect/Mechanism of actionReference
RhizobiaPGPRs
Rhizobium phaseoli M6; M9.
phaseoli M6 and M9 and PGPR
Pseudomonas syringae,
Mk1;
Pseudomonas fluorescens Mk20;
Pseudomonas
fluorescens biot. G Mk25
Vigna radiata L.Decreases damaging effect of salinity stress on mung bean growth[116]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bellabarba, A.; Fagorzi, C.; diCenzo, G.C.; Pini, F.; Viti, C.; Checcucci, A. Deciphering the Symbiotic Plant Microbiome: Translating the Most Recent Discoveries on Rhizobia for the Improvement of Agricultural Practices in Metal-Contaminated and High Saline Lands. Agronomy 2019, 9, 529. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090529

AMA Style

Bellabarba A, Fagorzi C, diCenzo GC, Pini F, Viti C, Checcucci A. Deciphering the Symbiotic Plant Microbiome: Translating the Most Recent Discoveries on Rhizobia for the Improvement of Agricultural Practices in Metal-Contaminated and High Saline Lands. Agronomy. 2019; 9(9):529. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090529

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bellabarba, Agnese, Camilla Fagorzi, George C. diCenzo, Francesco Pini, Carlo Viti, and Alice Checcucci. 2019. "Deciphering the Symbiotic Plant Microbiome: Translating the Most Recent Discoveries on Rhizobia for the Improvement of Agricultural Practices in Metal-Contaminated and High Saline Lands" Agronomy 9, no. 9: 529. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090529

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop