Next Article in Journal
Predicting De-Handing Point in Bananas Using Crown Morphology and Interpretable Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental and Health Impacts of Pesticides and Nanotechnology as an Alternative in Agriculture
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multistrain Microbial Inoculant Enhances Yield and Medicinal Quality of Glycyrrhiza uralensis in Arid Saline–Alkali Soil and Modulate Root Nutrients and Microbial Diversity

1
Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of Sciences, Gansu International Science and Technology Cooperation Base of Microorganism and Plant Germplasm Resources & Genetic Improvement, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
Key Laboratory of Desert and Desertification, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(8), 1879; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081879
Submission received: 27 June 2025 / Revised: 30 July 2025 / Accepted: 1 August 2025 / Published: 3 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)

Abstract

Glycyrrhiza uralensis (G. uralensis), a leguminous plant, is an important medicinal and economic plant in saline–alkaline soils of arid regions in China. Its main bioactive components include liquiritin, glycyrrhizic acid, and flavonoids, which play significant roles in maintaining human health and preventing and adjuvantly treating related diseases. However, the cultivation of G. uralensis is easily restricted by adverse soil conditions in these regions, characterized by high salinity, high alkalinity, and nutrient deficiency. This study investigated the impacts of four multistrain microbial inoculants (Pa, Pb, Pc, Pd) on the growth performance and bioactive compound accumulation of G. uralensis in moderately saline–sodic soil. The aim was to screen the most beneficial inoculant from these strains, which were isolated from the rhizosphere of plants in moderately saline–alkaline soils of the Hexi Corridor and possess native advantages with excellent adaptability to arid environments. The results showed that inoculant Pc, comprising Pseudomonas silesiensis, Arthrobacter sp. GCG3, and Rhizobium sp. DG1, exhibited superior performance: it induced a 0.86-unit reduction in lateral root number relative to the control, while promoting significant increases in single-plant dry weight (101.70%), single-plant liquiritin (177.93%), single-plant glycyrrhizic acid (106.10%), and single-plant total flavonoids (107.64%). Application of the composite microbial inoculant Pc induced no significant changes in the pH and soluble salt content of G. uralensis rhizospheric soils. However, it promoted root utilization of soil organic matter and nitrate, while significantly increasing the contents of available potassium and available phosphorus in the rhizosphere. High-throughput sequencing revealed that Pc reorganized the rhizospheric microbial communities of G. uralensis, inducing pronounced shifts in the relative abundances of rhizospheric bacteria and fungi, leading to significant enrichment of target bacterial genera (Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium), concomitant suppression of pathogenic fungi, and proliferation of beneficial fungi (Mortierella, Cladosporium). Correlation analyses showed that these microbial shifts were linked to improved plant nutrition and secondary metabolite biosynthesis. This study highlights Pc as a sustainable strategy to enhance G. uralensis yield and medicinal quality in saline–alkali ecosystems by mediating microbe–plant–nutrient interactions.

1. Introduction

Saline–sodic soils, also known as salt-affected soils, represent a critical land resource and encompass various soil types including salinized soils, salt soils, solonetzic soils, and alkali soils. According to data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 21 October 2021), global saline–alkali lands cover over 833 million hectares (8.7% of the Earth’s surface), primarily distributed in arid or semi-arid regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America [1]. Statistically, the area of salt-affected soils is expanding at a rate of approximately 1.0–2.0 million hectares per year [2]. About 70% of soil salinization occurs in the semi-arid and arid regions of Northwest in China [3], while approximately 1.02 × 106 hectares of cropland are affected in Gansu Province [4], primarily distributed in the arid and semi-arid regions of northern Hexi Corridor and Jingtai Basin [5]. Soil saline–alkalization of arable land will be increasing in the future if effective solutions are not applied [6,7]. Constrained by water resource scarcity and high economic costs, physical measures such as salt leaching by irrigation are difficult to implement in these regions [8], while applying chemical amendments proves prohibitively expensive [9]. Although these approaches can effectively reduce soil salinity in the short term [10], long-term reliance on them leads to salt rebound [11], soil structure degradation, or environmental pollution [12,13]. Against this backdrop, utilization-oriented bioremediation technologies have gradually emerged as a crucial approach for the amelioration and restoration of arid inland saline–alkali soils [14,15,16].
In the field of integrated saline–alkali land utilization, certain medicinal plants exhibit unique eco-economic dual value [17,18,19,20,21]. These species can improve site conditions by reducing rhizospheric soil pH and increasing organic matter content, leveraging their excellent salt-tolerant physiological mechanisms and salt accumulation capacity. Compared with food crops or forages, they also show significant advantages in economic output per unit area [22]. However, even salt-tolerant plants have limited salinity–alkalinity tolerance. When the salt tolerance threshold is exceeded, the growth of salt-tolerant plants becomes restricted [23,24,25]. Moreover, when such stress persists, single phytoremediation models often fall into a dilemma where stress resistance metabolism takes precedence over growth metabolism [26,27,28].
Take Glycyrrhiza uralensis (G. uralensis), a leguminous medicinal plant widely cultivated in the inland saline–alkali areas of the Hexi Corridor, as an example. It holds an important position in both traditional medical systems (such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, TCM) and modern pharmacology. Its roots and rhizomes are rich in bioactive compounds, including liquiritin, glycyrrhizic acid, and flavonoids. These compounds, as key indicators for evaluating the quality of licorice [29], are widely used in the treatment of inflammatory diseases [30], liver diseases [31], and viral infections [32], as well as in immunomodulation [33] and antioxidation [34,35]. Due to its irreplaceable medicinal properties, G. uralensis has been included in the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China. Its ability to grow in salt-stressed environments is a crucial mechanism underlying its status as an “authentic medicinal material” [36].
Numerous studies have shown that mild soil salinization can promote the growth and accumulation of bioactive components in G. uralensis [37,38,39]. However, as salinization intensifies to moderate and severe levels, the dual stress of high-concentration Na+/Cl or Na+/SO42− toxicity and osmotic pressure imposes significant limitations. These stresses hinder root development, reduce photosynthetic efficiency [40], and cause a 40–60% reduction in biomass accumulation compared to mild saline–alkali conditions, thereby becoming a key bottleneck restricting the species’ application in saline–alkali ecological restoration [41].
Recent research highlights that integrating microbial intervention with plant cultivation not only preserves the saline–alkali land improvement capacity and economic value of medicinal plants but also enhances soil desalination and alkalinity reduction. Through microbial community regulation, the growth inhibition dilemma of single phytoremediation models is overcome, representing a promising synergistic effect in saline–alkali land restoration [42,43,44]. To address this challenge, leveraging the theory of rhizospheric microbe–plant interactions, this study evaluates four liquid microbial inoculants developed by our research group for cultivating G. uralensis in arid saline environments.
The strains in these four inoculants were isolated from the rhizosphere of plants growing in moderately saline–alkaline soils of the Hexi Corridor. Endowed with the advantage of their native origin, they exhibit excellent adaptability to arid environments. By applying these indigenous strains, this study aims to achieve three objectives: (1) screen the optimal inoculant for promoting G. uralensis growth and bioactive component accumulation through comparative analysis of growth indices, yield, and component content; (2) characterize the effects of the optimal inoculant on rhizospheric soil nutrients and microbial community structure; and (3) elucidate the inter-relationships between microbial communities, soil nutrient factors, growth indices, and nutrient contents. By enhancing the rhizospheric microenvironment, the selected inoculant aims to overcome the stress of moderate-to-severe salinization, achieving synergistic improvements in yield and bioactive component enrichment. This research seeks to provide a sustainable solution for biological measures of arid saline–alkali soils, integrating ecological benefits with economic viability.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment Site and Design

The experimental field is situated in Xicha Town, Gaolan County, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, China (36°42′ N,104°19′ E), characterized by a temperate semi-arid continental climate. Climatic conditions include an average annual temperature of 6.9 °C, annual precipitation of 300–350 mm, annual evaporation of 1880 mm, a 139-day frost-free period, annual sunshine duration of 1744–2659 h (60% sunshine percentage), and prevailing northwest winds (average annual wind speed: 2.3 m·s−1), with southeast winds dominant in summer–autumn and northwest winds in winter-spring. The soil is classified as Huangmian soil, a subtype of loessial soil.
Soil properties in the 0–20 cm topsoil layer are as follows: total nitrogen 0.22 g·kg−1, available phosphorus 41.80 mg·kg−1, available potassium 227.22 mg·kg−1, organic matter 6.84 g·kg−1, pH 7.80 (slightly alkaline), and soil soluble salt content 4.08 g·kg−1, indicating moderate salinization [45].
One month prior to planting, the experimental site was prepared by uniformly applying fully decomposed cow manure at a rate of 30,000 kg·ha−1 to the soil surface, followed by plowing to a depth of 25–30 cm. Concurrently, a mixture fertilizer of superphosphate (300 kg·ha−1), diamine phosphate (225 kg·ha−1), and potassium fulvate (75 kg·ha−1) (Yunnan Ruilinfeng Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Kunming, China)was evenly broadcasted over the soil and incorporated through a second plowing to ensure thorough homogenization with the native soil. The field was subsequently leveled to facilitate uniform planting.
The experiment was officially initiated on 25 April 2023. A furrow planting approach was adopted. One-year-old G. uralensis seedlings (sourced from Minqin Gendegen Chinese Medicinal Materials Co., Ltd., Wuwei, China) with uniform growth (root length 40–45 cm, diameter 0.8–1.0 cm) and free of pests/diseases were selected. Seedlings were disinfected by immersion in an 800–1000-fold diluted solution of 50% carbendazim wettable powder (Shandong Chengxin Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Weifang, China) for 10–15 min, air-dried to remove surface moisture, and then coated with inoculant slurries or a control slurry. Each slurry was prepared by diluting microbial inoculant solutions 100-fold with irrigation water and mixing with 2 L of sterile soil to form a uniform mud coating.
A randomized block design was employed, with each plot measuring 9 m × 1.5 m (13.5 m2) and five replicates per treatment. Buffer rows (1.5 m wide) were established around each plot to minimize edge effects. Two planting furrows (15–20 cm deep) were dug per plot, with 30 seedlings placed horizontally and in linear rows with 30 cm spacing between root collar (60 seedlings per plot, 300 seedlings total across five replicates). Seedlings were covered with soil, gently compacted, and irrigated with tap water to settle the roots.
Post-germination, liquid microbial inoculants were applied three times during the growing season at a rate of 2 L·ha−1 (diluted 100-fold), targeting the root zone; the control group received only irrigation water.
Four liquid multistrain inoculants (Pa, Pb, Pc, Pd) were tested, each containing distinct dominant strains (determined based on careful evaluation of functional complementarity and antagonistic interactions):
Pa: Bacillus subtilis and Paenibacillus peoriae;
Pb: Pseudomonas silesiensis, Arthrobacter globiformis, and Sinorhizobium meliloti;
Pc: Pseudomonas silesiensis, Arthrobacter sp. GCG3, and Rhizobium sp. DG1;
Pd: Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas silesiensis, and Arthrobacter globiformis.
The four inoculants described above collectively comprise seven strains, which were isolated from the rhizosphere of plants growing in moderately saline–alkaline soils of the Hexi Corridor, Gansu Province, China. The specific plant species are listed in Table 1.
All of them can tolerate more than 5% NaCl and a pH of 8 or higher in LB medium. Detailed information regarding the specific host plants and functional characteristics is provided in Table 2.
Each strain was individually cultured in LB liquid medium with constant shaking at 180 r·min−1 and 28 °C. Upon reaching the logarithmic phase, the strains were mixed in equal proportions according to the predefined combinations, with the total viable count adjusted to 2 × 1010 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU·mL−1).

2.2. Sample Preparation and Analysis

Plants were harvested in their entirety in September of the following year. Fifteen plants were randomly selected from each plot, yielding 75 plants per treatment. Rhizospheric soil was collected using the root-shaking method: one subsample was immediately stored in sterile self-sealing bags at −80 °C for subsequent high-throughput sequencing, while another subsample was air-dried at room temperature, sieved through a 2 mm mesh, and used for soil nutrient analysis.
Root morphological traits—including main root length (MRL), main root diameter (MRD), and number of lateral roots (LRN)—were recorded in the field. Roots were then transported to the laboratory and gently rinsed with deionized water to remove adhering soil, air-dried, sliced into 0.5 cm segments, and oven-dried at 40 °C to constant weight for biomass determination (single-plant dry weight, SPDW).
Liquiritin and glycyrrhizic acid are the bioactive compounds measured in the chemical analysis. Specifically, their contents (%) were quantified following the protocols outlined in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia (2020 Edition, Volume I) [46]. Total flavonoids were extracted using ultrasonic-assisted extraction [47] and assayed via the AlCl3 colorimetric method [48], with absorbance measured at 510 nm using a spectrophotometer (TU-1901, Beijing Purkinje General Instrument Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). The contents of liquiritin, glycyrrhizic acid, and total flavonoids per plant (SPLQT, SPGA, SPTF) were calculated based on SPDW and their respective mass percentages.
Soil pH, soil soluble salt (SSS) and soil nutrient including soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), and nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) were determined for the content, as mentioned in the book by Bao [49].

2.3. High-Throughput Sequencing of Rhizospheric Microbiota and Data Processing

Soil microbial DNA extraction, PCR amplification, library preparation, and Illumina MiSeq sequencing were performed by Majorbio Bio-Pharm Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). Bacterial and fungal community structures were analyzed by targeting the V3–V4 hypervariable regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and the ITS2 region of the fungal ITS rRNA gene, respectively. Bacterial amplification used universal primers 338F (5′-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCA-3′) and 806R (5′-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′), while fungal amplification employed primers ITS1 (5′-TCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGG-3′) and ITS4 (5′-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′). Quality control of paired-end raw sequencing reads was performed using the fastp v0.19.6 [50], followed by read assembly with the FLASH v1.2.11 [51]. The UPARSE v7.1 [52] was used to cluster the quality-controlled and assembled sequences into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) based on 97% sequence similarity, with chimeras removed simultaneously. To minimize the impact of sequencing depth on subsequent Alpha diversity (α diversity) and Beta diversity (β diversity) analyses, all samples were rarefied to an equal number of sequences. After rarefaction, the average sequence coverage of each sample remained at 97.00%. For species taxonomic annotation, appropriate databases were selected according to the research objects: bacterial OTU sequences were aligned against the Silva 16S rRNA gene database (v138) using the RDP classifier v2.11 [53], while fungal OTU sequences were aligned against the UNITE fungal ITS database (v9.0). A confidence threshold of 70% was set for both, and the community composition of each sample was statistically analyzed at different taxonomic levels.

2.4. Data Analysis

Initial data processing (e.g., mean calculation, error propagation) was performed using Microsoft Excel 2019, while graphical representations were generated using Origin 2021. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was determined via independent samples t-tests in SPSS 26.0.
Microbial community analyses were conducted on the Majorbio platform (https://www.majorbio.com/, accessed on 12 December 2024). Specifically, α diversity and community structure were analyzed using a combination of mothur v1.46.1 [54]. Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrices were calculated using the vegan package (v2.4-6), followed by principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) implemented via phyloseq (v1.16.2). The resulting PCoA plots were visualized using ggplot2 (v2.2.1). Differential abundance analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests implemented in the base stats package. Taxonomic composition bar charts were generated using phyloseq (v1.16.2), while Spearman correlation heatmaps depicting relationships among microbial taxa, soil nutrient factors, G. uralensis growth parameters, and nutrient contents were constructed using the pheatmap package (v1.0.10). All statistical analyses and visualizations were conducted using R software (v3.3.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Different Microbial Inoculants on Growth Indices, Yield, and Component Content of G. uralensis

Different microbial inoculants exhibited differential effects on MRL, MRD, LRNSPDW, SPLQT, SPGA and SPTF in G. uralensis (Figure 1 and Figure 2). No significant differences in MRL were observed among treatments. However, LRN was significantly lower in Pb and Pc treatments compared to the control (p < 0.05). The Pc treatment exhibited the highest SPDW, significantly exceeding Pb, Pd, and control groups. Additionally, Pc showed significant differences in bioactive component contents compared to other treatments and the control (p < 0.05). These results indicate that, compared to other treatments and the control, inoculant Pc exhibited more stable overall growth-promoting performance on G. uralensis. Therefore, inoculant Pc was identified as the optimal microbial compound inoculant for promoting licorice growth and improving quality.

3.2. Effect of Inoculant Pc Application on Rhizospheric Soil Physicochemical Properties of G. uralensis in Saline–Alkali Soil

The effects of inoculant Pc application on rhizospheric soil physicochemical properties of G. uralensis in saline–alkali soil are presented in Table 3. Application of inoculant Pc caused no significant changes in soil pH or soluble salt content, indicating that one year of seedling cultivation did not significantly alter the salinity–alkalinity of moderately saline–alkali soil. However, other indicators showed that SOM and NO3-N in the rhizosphere were significantly lower when compared with both pre-planting soil and CK. AK and AP contents decreased in the CK treatment relative to pre-planting soil but exhibited an increasing trend in treatment Pc.

3.3. Effect of Inoculant Pc Application on Rhizospheric Soil Microbial Diversity of G. Uralensis in Saline–Alkali Soil

3.3.1. Sequencing Depth and α Diversity of the Sampled Soils

With the increase in sequencing depth, the rarefaction curves of rhizospheric soil bacterial communities gradually plateaued. The results (Figure 3a) showed that the sequencing data for each treatment were sufficiently large to accurately reflect the majority of rhizospheric bacterial diversity characteristics. Consistently, coverage indices for all samples exceeded 97.5% (Figure 3b), corroborating the rarefaction curve results and indicating that the sequencing data reliably represented the community composition of rhizospheric soil bacteria in G. uralensis.
Following the application of compound microbial agent Pc, the Chao index (species richness), Sobs index (possibly referring to the number of species in specific groups), and Shannon index (comprehensive diversity index) of rhizospheric soil bacterial communities were significantly lower than the control, while the Simpson index (dominance index) increased significantly (Figure 3d–f). This may be attributed to the target strains in the agent forming a competitive advantage in the rhizospheric environment, suppressing indigenous flora through resource preemption or metabolic products. This leads to a decrease in community species richness and evenness, with dominant species taking the leading role, thereby shifting the community structure toward a direction of low diversity and high prevalence of dominant species.
Similarly, combining the results of rarefaction curves and coverage indices (Figure 4a,b), the sequencing data can also truly reflect the community composition of rhizospheric soil fungi in G. uralensis.
Application of the compound microbial agent Pc significantly increased the species richness of rhizosphere fungi (as indicated by elevated Chao and Sobs indices) and reduced the community dominance (reflected by a decreased Simpson index, i.e., improved evenness). However, the magnitude of the increase in richness and the improvement in evenness offset each other in the calculation of the Shannon index, resulting in no significant difference in the Shannon index (Figure 4c,d). These results indicate that Pc reshapes the rhizosphere fungal community structure primarily through “increasing species number” and “breaking the monopoly of dominant species” but does not significantly alter the overall diversity level of the fungal community.

3.3.2. β Diversity of Microbial Communities in the Sampled Soils

A Bray–Curtis distance-based PCoA analysis of the rhizospheric soil microbial communities in G. uralensis revealed significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) in the community structures between the Pc treatment group and the control group at the OTU level (Figure 5), for both bacterial and fungal communities. This indicates that the application of compound microbial agent Pc can significantly alter the composition of the rhizospheric microbial community in G. uralensis.

3.3.3. Relative Abundance and Differential Analysis of Dominant Rhizospheric Genera of Microbial Communities in the Sampled Soils

The genus-level relative abundances of rhizospheric soil bacteria are depicted in Figure 6a. Among the top 10 dominant taxa, Arthrobacter and Pseudomonas—the keystone constituents of compound microbial agent Pc—ranked first and second, comprising 25.67% and 6.82% of the community, respectively. In the control group, their abundances were 18.68% and 0.96%, corresponding to increases of 37.41% and 608.33% in the Pc treatment. Rhizobium also showed marked enrichment (2.40% vs. 0.66%, +263.63%). Non-inoculant genera exhibited divergent trends: Novosphingobium increased by 26.41%, whereas Sphingomonas decreased by 38.06% (1.53% vs. 2.47%).
Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (Figure 6b) confirmed significant abundance shifts in target genera (Pseudomonas, Rhizobium), as well as Novosphingobium, Sphingomonas, and norank_o_Vicinamibacterales between Pc and control treatments.
Genus-level relative abundances of rhizospheric fungi in G. uralensis are depicted in Figure 6c, illustrating pronounced shifts in fungal community structure following Pc treatment. Noteworthy, the plant pathogen Fusarium exhibited a 26.27% reduction in relative abundance within the Pc-treated rhizosphere (8.56%) compared to the control (11.61%), a suppression effect consistent with our prior findings [55]. Relative abundances of weak pathogenic genera Pseudogymnoascus and Pseudombrophila decreased by 42.44% and 99.55% in the Pc treatment (15.10%, 0.03%) compared to the control (26.29%, 6.68%). Concurrently, beneficial fungi such as Mortierella and Cladosporium were promoted, with Cladosporium exhibiting a 33.39-fold increase (9.35% vs. 0.28%). Filobasidium and Vishniacozyma also showed marked enrichment.
Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (Figure 6d) revealed significant abundance shifts (p < 0.05) between the Pc treatment and control groups for Fusarium, Filobasidium, Vishniaco-zyma, Cladosporium, Pseudombrophila, and Alternaria.

3.4. Correlations Between Dominant Rhizospheric Microbes in G. Uralensis and Soil Nutrients, Plant Growth, and Bioactive Compounds

Correlation analysis between dominant rhizospheric microorganisms and soil properties, plant growth indices, and bioactive compounds (Figure 7) revealed that after colonization by Pc strains, Arthrobacter exhibited a significant positive correlation with single-plant glycyrrhizic acid content (SPGA). Pseudomonas showed positive correlations with single-plant total flavonoids (SPTFs), single-plant total flavonoids (SPLQT), SPGA, single-plant dry weight (SPDW), and available potassium (AK). Similarly, Rhizobium correlated positively with SPTF, SPLQT, SPDW and AK. Conversely, Sphingomonas abundance decreased significantly post-Pc treatment and negatively correlated with SPGA, SPLQT, SPTF, AK, and available potassium (AP).
Similarly, despite lacking fungal components, Pc application significantly increased the abundances of Filobasidium, Chaetomium, Vishniacozyma, and Alternaria. Among these genera, Filobasidium positively correlated with SPLQT, SPGA, SPDW, and AK and AP. Alternaria exhibited positive correlations with SPTF, SPLQT, SPGA, SPDW, and AK and AP. Both Vishniacozyma and Chaetomium were positively associated with SPTF, SPLQT, SPGA, AK and AP; moreover, they were negatively correlated with soil organic matter (SOM) and total nitrogen (TN). In contrast, Pseudombrophila abundance decreased significantly under Pc treatment and negatively correlated with SPTF, SPLQT, SPGA, SPDW, and AK and AP.

4. Discussion

4.1. Microbial Inoculant-Mediated Enhancement of G. uralensis Performance

Microbial inoculants have emerged as a pivotal strategy to promote plant growth and secondary metabolism, with their impacts on medicinal plant quality garnering increasing research attention [56,57,58,59]. This study investigated the effects of four microbial inoculants (Pa, Pb, Pc, Pd) on the growth and bioactive components of G. uralensis, aiming to provide a theoretical basis for their application in licorice cultivation. While the four inoculants did not significantly affect main root length or diameter, Pb and Pc treatments notably reduced lateral root number, with Pc uniquely increasing single-plant dry weight and contents of liquiritin, glycyrrhizic acid, and total flavonoids (p < 0.05). This phenomenon is likely linked to the functional specificity of microbial consortia and root resource allocation strategies.
The inoculants Pc and Pb exhibited similar microbial compositions. Previous studies have shown that Pseudomonas can restructure rhizosphere architecture through plant hormone regulation, volatile compound release, and other pathways, and its positive regulatory effect on lateral root development has been confirmed in most studies [60,61,62]. However, this study found that the number of lateral roots in G. uralensis treated with Pc and Pb consortia containing Pseudomonas was significantly lower than that in the control group. It is speculated that the synergistic interaction between Pseudomonas and Arthrobacter as well as nitrogen-fixing bacteria (such as Sinorhizobium meliloti and Rhizobia sp. DG1) may drive changes in carbon–nitrogen allocation patterns in the rhizosphere by improving nitrogen supply efficiency. Arthrobacter species are mostly involved in nitrogen fixation [55,63,64], while Sinorhizobium meliloti and Rhizobia sp. DG1 through nodule formation and nitrogen fixation maintain the carbon–nitrogen dynamic balance in the rhizosphere [65,66]. This synergistic process may reduce carbon source allocation to lateral roots, prompting carbon skeletons to preferentially transfer to dry matter accumulation and secondary metabolite synthesis in the main roots of G. uralensis.
Notably, the Arthrobacter strains present in both Pc and Pb were isolated from the rhizosphere of G. uralensis. The key difference between these two inoculants lies in their rhizobial components: the Rhizobium sp. DG1 in Pc was derived from the rhizosphere of Nitraria tangutorum, while the Sinorhizobium meliloti in Pb was isolated from the rhizosphere of Medicago sativa. Under the same resource utilization pattern, Pc exhibited significantly superior performance compared to Pb in promoting host rhizosphere growth and accumulation of functional components. This discrepancy may result from functional differentiation among the strain combinations, or differences in signal transduction pathways and nitrogen-fixing efficiency. Although G. uralensis and Medicago sativa both belong to the Fabaceae family, and numerous studies have demonstrated that G. uralensis can form symbiotic relationships with certain Rhizobium species (included in treatment Pc) and Sinorhizobium meliloti (included in treatment Pb) [66,67], the combination of Sinorhizobium meliloti (from Medicago sativa) and Arthrobacter in this study failed to show a synergistic advantage. This phenomenon is likely associated with the specific binding patterns between each leguminous plant and certain rhizobia. These findings provide a new perspective for deciphering the differences in molecular ecological mechanisms through which similar microbial communities regulate host root development.
From the perspective of root functional trade-offs, although reduced lateral root number may decrease root absorption surface area, the rhizospheric mycelial networks formed by Pc strains may compensatorily enhance the availability of soil phosphorus, potassium (Table 3), and other elements, offsetting the absorption disadvantages of fewer lateral roots. This hypothesis warrants further validation in subsequent studies.

4.2. Impact on Rhizospheric Soil Properties

The inoculant Pc induced no significant changes in soil pH or soluble salt content, a phenomenon closely associated with the short-term (1-year) growth cycle. The physicochemical properties of saline–sodic soils typically exhibit strong buffering capacity [68], whereby the synergistic effects of plant roots and microbes may be insufficient to alter baseline soil salinity/alkalinity in the short term [69]. Moreover, most current studies have reported that the combined action of plants and microorganisms indirectly ameliorates saline–alkali soils by enhancing plant adaptability and microecological functions [70,71,72,73], rather than directly altering soil physical and chemical properties. Thus, applying microbial inoculants in moderately saline–sodic soils may require long-term positioning observations for soil property changes (e.g., 2–3-year cycles) or integration with other amelioration measures (e.g., organic fertilization, salt-tolerant crop rotation) to overcome the “threshold effect” of soil salinity [74,75,76].
The significant decrease in SOM and NO3-N in the rhizosphere of G. uralensis under Pc treatment indicates a synergistic interaction between functional microbes and roots. Specifically, this synergy may be reflected in the enhanced decomposition of SOM by functional microbes and the promotion of efficient uptake of NO3-N by roots. The smaller decline in SOM and NO3-N in CK indirectly indicates that the decomposition of SOM by indigenous microbes is less active and the efficiency of the roots in acquiring nitrogen nutrients is relatively low. The increase in available potassium (AK) and available phosphorus (AP) in the rhizosphere treated with the composite microbial inoculant (Pc) can be attributed to multiple microbially mediated mechanisms. For potassium, microorganisms may secrete organic acids, which can enhance the solubility of potassium-bearing minerals in the soil [77]. In addition to solubilization, microorganisms may facilitate the mobilization and release of potassium into the soil through ion exchange processes [78,79]. Furthermore, extracellular polysaccharides or siderophores secreted by them may further promote potassium release [80,81]. For phosphorus, microorganisms secrete phosphatases (to hydrolyze organic phosphorus) and organic acids (to solubilize fixed inorganic phosphorus), converting them into plant-available forms [82,83]. Pseudomonas and Rhizobium sp. DG1 (unpublished results from preliminary experiments) have been confirmed to possess phosphorus-solubilizing capabilities [83,84,85]. Additionally, Arthrobacter sp. GCG3 in the PC inoculant can secrete a large amount of extracellular polysaccharides [55]. Previous research has demonstrated that when EPS-producing salt-tolerant bacteria are inoculated into plants, they enhance the plants’ ability to absorb sodium, calcium, and potassium ions from the soil or increase the content of AP [86,87]. The decline in AK and AP under CK indicates that G. uralensis uptakes available nutrients at a rate exceeding the natural replenishment capacity of the soil. By contrast, the Pc treatment mitigates this nutrient deficit through microbial-mediated processes.

4.3. Microbial Community Restructuring by Pc Inoculation

α and β diversity revealed that Pc significantly restructured the rhizospheric microbial community, likely driven by the competitive dominance of target strains in the inoculant. This is further corroborated by the relative abundances of the top 10 dominant bacterial genera. Core components of Pc—Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas, and Rhizobium—exhibited remarkable rhizospheric colonization, with abundances increasing by 37.41%, 608.33%, and 263.63% compared to the control, respectively. As typical plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), the surge in Pseudomonas abundance may suppress pathogens by secreting siderophores and antibiotics, while establishing a favorable microenvironment for symbiotic microbes [88,89,90]. The enrichment of Rhizobium suggests that Pc enhances host nutrition via improved nitrogen fixation. Existing studies have demonstrated that Novosphingobium plays a pivotal role in environmental pollutant degradation, with strains capable of metabolizing diverse organic contaminants [91], whereas Sphingomonas contributes to plant growth promotion, stress resilience enhancement, soil structure amelioration, and biocontrol [92]. The increase in Novosphingobium and decrease in Sphingomonas reflect that Pc’s functional microbes may possess a competitive edge in nutrient utilization and spatial occupation, leading to reduced abundances of certain beneficial taxa, while others remain less affected or gradually dominate through competition, exhibiting increased relative abundances.
In terms of fungal community structure, Pc treatment significantly inhibited the abundance of pathogenic fungi (such as Fusarium) and markedly reduced the abundance of certain saprophytic fungi, such as Pseudombrophila (a 99.55% reduction). The mechanism may involve antimicrobial secretion and nutritional competition. Meanwhile, beneficial fungi (Mortierella, Cladosporium) also showed obvious proliferation, especially the relative abundance of Cladosporium increased by 33.39-fold, which is consistent with the documented role of Cladosporium in biological control of plant diseases [93]. This indicates that Pc enhances the host’s disease resistance by establishing a beneficial microbial barrier. The enrichment of Filobasidium and Vishniacozyma—also reported to suppress plant diseases [94,95,96]—further enhances rhizosphere stress resistance.
These results provide strong corroboration for the “niche theory” of microbiome regulation [97,98]. Through the introduction of functional strains, Pc systematically reorganizes rhizospheric resource allocation patterns, promoting microbial community succession in a direction conducive to host health. This targeted regulatory effect is not only manifested in the dominant colonization of inoculated target strains but also extends to the remodeling of the entire microbial interaction network via cascade effects—evident in the concurrent suppression of pathogenic fungi and proliferation of beneficial microbial taxa. These findings establish a theoretical foundation for the development of high-efficiency microbial inoculants. Future investigations should prioritize exploring the signal transduction mechanisms between Pc and host plants, as well as evaluating the influence of soil physicochemical properties on field application efficacy, to facilitate the practical translation of microbiome technologies in agricultural ecosystems.

4.4. Mechanistic Links Between Microbes, Nutrients, and Plant Traits

The structural alterations in rhizospheric microbial communities induced by Pc inoculant colonization exhibited a significant association with the functional remodeling of the plant–soil system [99,100]. Positive correlations between the abundance dynamics of plant growth-promoting bacteria (Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium) and single-plant dry weight (SPDW)/bioactive compound accumulation (single-plant dry weight, SPTF; single-plant dry weight, SPLQT and single-plant glycyrrhizic acid SPGA) suggested their potential role in promoting host growth and bioactive component synthesis by regulating secondary metabolic pathways or activating soil AK/AP. The significant decrease in abundances of Sphingomonas and Pseudombrophila following Pc treatment, along with their negative correlations with bioactive compound content (eg. SPGA and SPLQT), suggests their potential role as competitive microbes in the rhizospheric ecosystem. Their negative correlations with AK and AP may reflect their inhibitory effect on soil nutrient activation, which was alleviated by Pc treatment—thus indirectly promoting plant nutrient uptake. While Pc treatment resulted in significantly increased relative abundances of Vishniacozyma and Chaetomium, which showed significant positive correlations with bioactive components (SPTF and SPGA), SPDW and available nutrients (AK/AP), these genera exhibited negative correlations with soil organic matter and total nitrogen. These fungi may release small carbon molecules (e.g., simple sugars, organic acids) when decomposing rhizosphere organic matter. Absorbed by plants, these participate in major metabolic pathways (TCA cycle, glycolysis) to form intermediate metabolites, which act as carbon skeletons for secondary metabolites [101,102]. For instance, acetyl-CoA, derived from organic carbon, is key for synthesizing terpenoids like glycyrrhizic acid [103,104]. Therefore, these fungi may be involved in promoting the increase in active components in G. uralensis in this study. This finding provides a novel perspective for deciphering the multi-kingdom regulatory mechanisms of microbial inoculants.

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

While this study demonstrates short-term efficacy, long-term field trials are needed to assess Pc’s durability in dynamic soil environments. Mechanistic studies should explore the specific metabolites mediating microbe–plant interactions. Additionally, combining Pc with organic amendments could optimize nutrient cycling in severely salinized soils. Genomic analyses of key strains (e.g., Arthrobacter sp. GCG3) may reveal functional genes underlying stress tolerance and secondary metabolite promotion.

5. Conclusions

In this study, four multistrain microbial inoculant formulations were developed using rhizospheric microbial resources isolated from plants in saline–alkali soils of the Hexi Corridor, an arid region in northwestern China. The primary objective was to evaluate their growth-promoting effects on the indigenous economic plant G. uralensis and identify the most beneficial inoculant.
Systematic evaluations demonstrated that inoculant Pc—comprising Pseudomonas silesiensis, Arthrobacter sp. GCG3, and Rhizobium sp. DG1—significantly enhanced the yield and medicinal quality of G. uralensis in arid saline–alkali soils. It exerts its benefits through synergistic regulation of plant–microbe–soil interactions, offering a sustainable solution to the bottlenecks in cultivating medicinal plants in saline–alkali ecosystems. Specifically, Pc increased single-plant dry weight by 101.70% and markedly elevated the contents of key bioactive compounds: liquiritin (177.93%), glycyrrhizic acid (106.10%), and total flavonoids (107.64%) by reshaping the rhizospheric microenvironment.
Mechanistically, Pc promoted root utilization of soil organic matter and nitrate while enhancing the availability of soil potassium and phosphorus. Furthermore, colonization of Pc strains in the rhizosphere of G. uralensis restructured the rhizospheric microbial community, enriching beneficial fungi (e.g., Mortierella, Cladosporium) and suppressing pathogenic taxa (e.g., Fusarium), thereby establishing a microecological balance conducive to plant growth and secondary metabolism.
These findings not only validate the effectiveness of utilizing native salt-tolerant microorganisms to overcome growth limitations of medicinal plants in saline–alkali environments but also provide a mechanistic framework for understanding microbe-mediated nutrient activation and microbial community regulation. Practically, Pc exhibits dual ecological and economic value: it enhances the ecological restoration potential of G. uralensis in saline–alkali lands while improving the yield of high-quality medicinal materials, aligning with goals of sustainable agriculture and ecological remediation.
Looking forward, this research lays a foundation for developing region-specific microbial inoculants tailored to arid saline–alkali ecosystems. It highlights the promise of integrating indigenous microbial resources into agricultural practices to mitigate abiotic stresses, offering a scalable model for improving global medicinal plant productivity and restoring degraded lands.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.G.; data curation, X.L. and P.P.; formal analysis, X.L., P.P. and Q.G.; investigation, J.Z., X.L., P.P., P.W. and Q.G.; methodology, P.W., Q.G., H.Y. and X.X.; project administration, J.Z. and P.W.; supervision, Q.G., H.Y. and X.X.; writing—original draft, J.Z. and Q.G.; writing—review and editing, Q.G., H.Y. and X.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by key projects of department of science and technology in Gansu province (25ZDNA005), the enterprise needs-oriented projects of Gansu Academy of Sciences (2025QYXQ-08).

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article. The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to all reviewers for their patience and help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MRLMain root length
MRDMain root diameter
LRNNumber of lateral roots
SPDWSingle-plant dry weight
SPLQTSingle-plant liquiritin
SPGASingle-plant glycyrrhizic acid
SPTFSingle-plant total flavonoids
SSSSoil soluble salt
SOMSoil organic matter
TNTotal nitrogen
APAvailable phosphorus
AKAvailable potassium
NO3-NNitrate nitrogen

References

  1. FAO. Global Map of Salt Affected Soils Version 1.0. Available online: https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/global-map-of-salt-affected-soils/zh/ (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  2. Hopmans, J.W.; Qureshi, A.S.; Kisekka, I.; Munns, R.; Grattan, S.R.; Rengasamy, P.; Ben-Gal, A.; Assouline, S.; Javaux, M.; Minhas, P.S.; et al. Chapter One-Critical Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities in Global Soil Salinity. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021; Volume 169, pp. 1–191. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wang, L.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhang, K.; Tian, C.Y. Reclamation and utilization of saline soils in arid northwestern China: A promising halophyte drip-irrigation system. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 5518–5519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gansu Provincial Soil Survey Office. Gansu Soil; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 1993.
  5. Nan, L.; Guo, Q.; Cao, S.; Zhan, Z. Diversity of bacterium communities in saline-alkali soil in arid regions of Northwest China. BMC Microbiol. 2022, 22, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kerbab, S.; Silini, A.; Chenari Bouket, A.; Cherif-Silini, H.; Eshelli, M.; El Houda Rabhi, N.; Belbahri, L. Mitigation of NaCl Stress in Wheat by Rhizosphere Engineering Using Salt Habitat Adapted PGPR Halotolerant Bacteria. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Munns, R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shaygan, M.; Baumgartl, T. Reclamation of Salt-Affected Land: A Review. Soil Syst. 2022, 6, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singh, K.; Pandey, V.C.; Singh, B.; Singh, R.R. Ecological restoration of degraded sodic lands through afforestation and cropping. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 43, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oster, J.D.; Jayawardane, N.S. Agricultural Management of Sodic Soils. In Sodic Soil: Distribution, Management and Environmental Consequences; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; pp. 126–147. [Google Scholar]
  11. Keyes, K.L.; Mott, J.B.; Barnes, S.S.; Jensen, D.A. Remediation of brine contaminated soil using Atriplex spp. (Chenopodiaceae). In Proceedings of the Internationl Oil Spill Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 7–12 March, 1999; pp. 757–764. [Google Scholar]
  12. You, Q.G.; Xue, X.; Huang, C.H. Preliminary Study on the Effects of Saline Water Irrigation on Soil Salinization in Deep Groundwater Area:A case study of Minqin oasis. J. Desert Res. 2011, 31, 302–308. [Google Scholar]
  13. Birru, G.A.; Clay, D.E.; DeSutter, T.M.; Reese, C.L.; Kennedy, A.C.; Clay, S.A.; Bruggeman, S.A.; Owen, R.K.; Malo, D.D. Chemical Amendments of Dryland Saline–Sodic Soils Did Not Enhance Productivity and Soil Health in Fields without Effective Drainage. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 496–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hasnain, M.; Abideen, Z.; Ali, F.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; El-Keblawy, A. Potential of Halophytes as Sustainable Fodder Production by Using Saline Resources: A Review of Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Plants 2023, 12, 2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, K.; Tian, C.; Mai, W. Progress of Euhalophyte Adaptation to Arid Areas to Remediate Salinized Soil. Agriculture 2023, 13, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, W.; Wang, D.; Cao, D.; Chen, J.; Wei, X. Exploring the potentials of Sesuvium portulacastrum L. for edibility and bioremediation of saline soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1387102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, Z.; He, K.; Zhang, T.; Tang, D.; Li, R.; Jia, S. Physiological responses of Goji berry (Lycium barbarum L.) to saline-alkaline soil from Qinghai region, China. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Omer, E.; Ahl, H.S.-A.; El Gendy, A.G. Yield and Essential Oil of Ajwain (Trachyspermum ammi) Plant Cultivated in Saline Soil of North Sinai in Egypt. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2014, 17, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Muneeb, A.; Ahmad, I.; Ahmad, M.S.A.; Fatima, S.; Hameed, M.; Ahmad, F.; Asghar, A.; Basharat, S.; Shah, S.M.R.; Shafqat, J.; et al. Ethnobotanical and economic uses of some medicinal plants from native saline areas. Int. J. Appl. Exp. Biol. 2022, 2, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Agrawal, S.; Singh, A.; Gawande, V.; Bhanuvally, M.; Mubeen; Gourkhede, P.H.; Kumar, A. Salt Stress Tolerance in Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2023, 13, 3382–3391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ventura, Y.; Sagi, M. Halophyte crop cultivation: The case for Salicornia and Sarcocornia. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Garcia-Caparros, P.; Al-Azzawi, M.J.; Flowers, T.J. Economic Uses of Salt-Tolerant Plants. Plants 2023, 12, 2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alhaddad, F.A.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.H.; ElAzazi, E.M.; Ahmed, T.A. Salt tolerance of selected halophytes at the two initial growth stages for future management options. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. He, Q.; Silliman, B.R.; Cui, B. Incorporating thresholds into understanding salinity tolerance: A study using salt-tolerant plants in salt marshes. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 6326–6333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, J.-K. Thriving under Stress: How Plants Balance Growth and the Stress Response. Dev. Cell 2020, 55, 529–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cao, D.; Zhang, W.; Yang, N.; Li, Z.; Zhang, C.; Wang, D.; Ye, G.; Chen, J.; Wei, X. Proteomic and metabolomic analyses uncover integrative mechanisms in Sesuvium portulacastrum tolerance to salt stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1277762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, A.; Xiao, Z.; Li, M.-W.; Wong, F.-L.; Yung, W.-S.; Ku, Y.-S.; Wang, Q.; Wang, X.; Xie, M.; Yim, A.K.-Y.; et al. Transcriptomic reprogramming in soybean seedlings under salt stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2019, 42, 98–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, T.; Ren, G.; Zhou, N.; Qiao, Z.; Li, M.; Yin, Y.; Jiang, D.; Liu, C. A new simplified synthetic endophyte community regulates the synthesis of active ingredients in Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. Ind. Crops Prod. 2025, 227, 120781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhong, R.; Wen, C.; Qiu, Y.; Shen, X.; Sun, Z.; Peng, L.; Liu, T.; Huang, S.; Peng, X. Anti-Inflammatory and Immunomodulatory Effects of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. on Ulcerative Colitis in Rats: Role of Nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain 2/Receptor-interacting protein 2/Nuclear factor-kappa B Signaling Pathway. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2025, 344, 119457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fang, Y.; Lin, Z.; Lv, Y.; Ma, C.; Wang, Z.; Dang, J.; Li, G. Isolation and preparation of flavonoids from Glycyrrhiza uralensis fisch. Using multi-dimensional chromatography for treating non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J. Mol. Struct. 2025, 1340, 142516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, J.; Chen, X.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Jin, Y.; Ge, H.M.; Li, E.; Yang, G. Glycyrrhizic acid as the antiviral component of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. against coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus 71 of hand foot and mouth disease. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 147, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ma, C.; Ma, Z.; Liao, X.-L.; Liu, J.; Fu, Q.; Ma, S. Immunoregulatory effects of Glycyrrhizic acid exerts anti-asthmatic effects via modulation of Th1/Th2 cytokines and enhancement of CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in ovalbumin-sensitized mice. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 148, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. He, R.; Ma, T.-T.; Gong, M.-X.; Xie, K.-L.; Wang, Z.-M.; Li, J. The correlation between pharmacological activity and contents of eight constituents of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Fu, Y.; Chen, J.; Li, Y.-J.; Zheng, Y.-F.; Li, P. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of six flavonoids separated from licorice. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 1063–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Xiao, J.; Xiao, J.; Gao, P.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, B.; Wu, H.; Zhang, Y. Enhanced salt tolerance in Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. via Bacillus subtilis inoculation alters microbial community. Microbiol. Spectr. 2024, 12, e03812–e03823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Behdad, A.; Mohsenzadeh, S.; Azizi, M.; Moshtaghi, N. Salinity effects on physiological and phytochemical characteristics and gene expression of two Glycyrrhiza glabra L. populations. Phytochemistry 2020, 171, 112236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gu, J.; Yao, S.; Ma, M. Maternal Effects of Habitats Induce Stronger Salt Tolerance in Early-Stage Offspring of Glycyrrhiza uralensis from Salinized Habitats Compared with Those from Non-Salinized Habitats. Biology 2024, 13, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Wu, Q.; Han, Y.N.; Gao, R.; Ma, M.; Zhao, H.Y. The Respondence of Morphology and Structure of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Seedling Under Salt Stress. Seed 2015, 34, 25–31+34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xiao, X.; Wang, Q.; Ma, X.; Lang, D.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, X. Physiological Biochemistry-Combined Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals Mechanism of Bacillus cereus G2 Improved Salt-Stress Tolerance of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. Seedlings by Balancing Carbohydrate Metabolism. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 712363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Makhanova, U.; Ibraeva, M. Phytoremediation of saline soils using Glycyrrhiza glabra for enhanced soil fertility in arid regions of South Kazakhstan. Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 2025, 14, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ha-Tran, D.M.; Nguyen, T.T.M.; Hung, S.-H.; Huang, E.; Huang, C.-C. Roles of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) in Stimulating Salinity Stress Defense in Plants: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Qin, Y.; Druzhinina, I.S.; Pan, X.; Yuan, Z. Microbially Mediated Plant Salt Tolerance and Microbiome-based Solutions for Saline Agriculture. Biotechnol. Adv. 2016, 34, 1245–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chialva, M.; Lanfranco, L.; Bonfante, P. The plant microbiota: Composition, functions, and engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022, 73, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, L.J.; Feng, Q.; Cheng, A.F. Spatial distribution of soil water and salt contents and reasons of saline soils’ development in the Minqin Oasis. J. Arid Land Resour. 2013, 27, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission. Pharmacopoeia of People’s Republic of China, Part 1 ed.; China Medical Science Press: Beijing, China, 2020; pp. 88–89.
  47. Liu, F.Z.; Yang, J. Effect of exogenous sucrose on growth and active ingredient content of licorice seedlings under salt stress conditions. China J. Chin. Mater. Med. 2015, 40, 4384–4388. [Google Scholar]
  48. Matić, P.; Sabljić, M.; Jakobek, L. Validation of Spectrophotometric Methods for the Determination of Total Polyphenol and Total Flavonoid Content. J. AOAC Int. 2019, 100, 1795–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bao, S.D. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis, 3rd ed.; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2000; pp. 25–114. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gu, J. fastp: An ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, i884–i890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Magoč, T.; Salzberg, S.L. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Edgar, R.C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 2013, 10, 996–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, Q.; Garrity, G.M.; Tiedje, J.M.; Cole, J.R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 5261–5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schloss, P.D.; Westcott, S.L.; Ryabin, T.; Hall, J.R.; Hartmann, M.; Hollister, E.B.; Lesniewski, R.A.; Oakley, B.B.; Parks, D.H.; Robinson, C.J.; et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7537–7541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, J.; Guo, Q.; Yang, H.; Li, X.; Pei, P.Y.; Li, Z.G.; Zhao, J.; Wang, P.Y. Isolation and identification of Arthrobacter sp.GCG3 from glycyrrhiza rhizosphere and its antifungal activity and growth-promoting property. Jiangsu Agric. Sci 2024, 52, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Csorba, C.; Rodić, N.; Zhao, Y.; Antonielli, L.; Brader, G.; Vlachou, A.; Tsiokanos, E.; Lalaymia, I.; Declerck, S.; Papageorgiou, V.P.; et al. Metabolite Production in Alkanna tinctoria Links Plant Development with the Recruitment of Individual Members of Microbiome Thriving at the Root-Soil Interface. mSystems 2022, 7, e00451-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chamkhi, I.; Benali, T.; Aanniz, T.; El Menyiy, N.; Guaouguaou, F.-E.; El Omari, N.; El-Shazly, M.; Zengin, G.; Bouyahya, A. Plant-microbial interaction: The mechanism and the application of microbial elicitor induced secondary metabolites biosynthesis in medicinal plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 167, 269–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tshikhudo, P.P.; Ntushelo, K.; Mudau, F.N. Sustainable Applications of Endophytic Bacteria and Their Physiological/Biochemical Roles on Medicinal and Herbal Plants: Review. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ng, C.W.W.; Yan, W.H.; Xia, Y.T.; Tsim, K.W.K.; To, J.C.T. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhance active ingredient accumulation in medicinal plants at elevated CO2 and are associated with indigenous microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1426893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zamioudis, C.; Mastranesti, P.; Dhonukshe, P.; Blilou, I.; Pieterse, C.M.J. Unraveling Root Developmental Programs Initiated by Beneficial Pseudomonas spp. Bacteria. Plant Physiol. 2013, 162, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, Q.; Li, H.; Yang, Z.; Cheng, X.; Zhao, Y.; Qin, L.; Bisseling, T.; Cao, Q.; Willemsen, V. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas sp. CM11 specifically induces lateral roots. New Phytol 2022, 235, 1575–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chu, T.N.; Bui, L.V.; Hoang, M.T.T. Pseudomonas PS01 Isolated from Maize Rhizosphere Alters Root System Architecture and Promotes Plant Growth. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chhetri, G.; Kim, I.; Kang, M.; So, Y.; Kim, J.; Seo, T. An Isolated Arthrobacter sp. Enhances Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Plant Growth. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhang, M.; He, T.; Wu, P.; Wang, C.; Zheng, C. Recent advances in the nitrogen cycle involving actinomycetes: Current situation, prospect and challenge. Bioresour. Technol. 2025, 419, 132100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Chen, X.; Yao, Q.; Gao, X.; Jiang, C.; Harberd, N.P.; Fu, X. Shoot-to-Root Mobile Transcription Factor HY5 Coordinates Plant Carbon and Nitrogen Acquisition. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kusaba, I.; Nakao, T.; Maita, H.; Sato, S.; Chijiiwa, R.; Yamada, E.; Arima, S.; Kojoma, M.; Ishimaru, K.; Akashi, R.; et al. Mesorhizobium sp. J8 can establish symbiosis with Glycyrrhiza uralensis, increasing glycyrrhizin production:Original Papers. Plant Biotechnol. 2021, 38, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, L.; Sinkko, H.; Montonen, L.; Wei, G.; Lindström, K.; Räsänen, L.A. Biogeography of symbiotic and other endophytic bacteria isolated from medicinal G lycyrrhiza species in C hina. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012, 79, 46–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wen, Y.; Wu, R.; Qi, D.; Xu, T.; Chang, W.; Li, K.; Fang, X.; Song, F. The effect of AMF combined with biochar on plant growth and soil quality under saline-alkali stress: Insights from microbial community analysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024, 281, 116592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. O’Callaghan, M.; Ballard, R.A.; Wright, D. Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: Limitations and opportunities. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1340–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Basu, S.; Kumari, S.; Subhadarshini, P.; Rishu, A.K.; Shekhar, S.; Kumar, G. Plant growth promoting rhizobacterium Bacillus sp. BSE01 alleviates salt toxicity in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) by conserving ionic, osmotic, redox and hormonal homeostasis. Physiol. Plant. 2023, 175, e14076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Peng, M.; Jiang, Z.; Zhou, F.; Wang, Z. From salty to thriving: Plant growth promoting bacteria as nature’s allies in overcoming salinity stress in plants. Front Microbiol 2023, 14, 1169809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. AbuQamar, S.F.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Saad, A.M.; Desoky, E.-S.M.; Elrys, A.S.; El-Mageed, T.A.A.; Semida, W.M.; Abdelkhalik, A.; Mosa, W.F.A.; Al Kafaas, S.S.; et al. Halotolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improve soil fertility and plant salinity tolerance for sustainable agriculture—A review. Plant Stress 2024, 12, 100482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Latif, A.; Ahmad, R.; Ahmed, J.; Mueen, H.; Khan, S.A.; Bibi, G.; Mahmood, T.; Hassan, A. Novel halotolerant PGPR strains alleviate salt stress by enhancing antioxidant activities and expression of selected genes leading to improved growth of Solanum lycopersicum. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 338, 113625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, Y.; Gong, H.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, Z.; Liu, S.; Ma, C.; Wang, X.; Liu, Z. Effects of microbial communities during the cultivation of three salt-tolerant plants in saline-alkali land improvement. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1470081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tedeschi, A.; Schillaci, M.; Balestrini, R. Mitigating the impact of soil salinity: Recent developments and future strategies. Ital. J. Agron. 2023, 18, 2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Paz, A.M.; Amezketa, E.; Canfora, L.; Castanheira, N.; Falsone, G.; Goncalves, M.C.; Gould, I.; Hristov, B.; Mastrorilli, M.; Ramos, T.; et al. Salt-affected soils: Field-scale strategies for prevention, mitigation, and adaptation to salt accumulation. Ital. J. Agron. 2023, 18, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Thepbandit, W.; Athinuwat, D. Rhizosphere microorganisms supply availability of soil nutrients and Induce plant defense. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Askegaard, M.; Hansen, H.C.B.; Schjoerring, J.K. A cation exchange resin method for measuring long-term potassium release rates from soil. Plant Soil 2005, 271, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Masood, S.; Bano, A. Mechanism of potassium solubilization in the agricultural soils by the help of soil microorganisms. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Meena, V.S., Maurya, B.R., Verma, J.P., Meena, R.S., Eds.; Springer India: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 137–147. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sharma, R.; Sindhu, S.S.; Glick, B.R. Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms as Potential Biofertilizer: A Sustainable Climate-Resilient Approach to Improve Soil Fertility and Crop Production in Agriculture. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2024, 43, 2503–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nawaz, A.; Qamar, Z.U.; Marghoob, M.U.; Imtiaz, M.; Imran, A.; Mubeen, F. Contribution of potassium solubilizing bacteria in improved potassium assimilation and cytosolic K+/Na+ ratio in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under saline-sodic conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1196024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Prabhu, N.; Borkar, S.; Garg, S. Chapter 11-Phosphate solubilization by microorganisms: Overview, mechanisms, applications and advances. In Advances in Biological Science Research; Meena, S.N., Naik, M.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 161–176. [Google Scholar]
  83. Alori, E.T.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O. Microbial Phosphorus Solubilization and Its Potential for Use in Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Illmer, P.; Schinner, F. Solubilization of inorganic calcium phosphates—Solubilization mechanisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1995, 27, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. He, D.; Wan, W. Distribution of Culturable Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria in Soil Aggregates and Their Potential for Phosphorus Acquisition. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0029022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bhagat, N.; Raghav, M.; Dubey, S.; Bedi, N. Bacterial Exopolysaccharides: Insight into Their Role in Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 31, 1045–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wu, N.; Pan, H.-X.; Qiu, D.; Zhang, Y.-M. Feasibility of EPS-producing bacterial inoculation to speed up the sand aggregation in the Gurbantunggut Desert, Northwestern China. J. Basic Microbiol. 2014, 54, 1378–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kümmerli, R. Iron acquisition strategies in pseudomonads: Mechanisms, ecology, and evolution. Biometals 2023, 36, 777–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Shao, Z.; Gu, S.; Zhang, X.; Xue, J.; Yan, T.; Guo, S.; Pommier, T.; Jousset, A.; Yang, T.; Xu, Y.; et al. Siderophore interactions drive the ability of Pseudomonas spp. consortia to protect tomato against Ralstonia solanacearum. Hortic. Res. 2024, 11, uhae186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Singh, R.; Soni, S.K.; Kalra, A. Synergy between Glomus fasciculatum and a beneficial Pseudomonas in reducing root diseases and improving yield and forskolin content in Coleus forskohlii Briq. under organic field conditions. Mycorrhiza 2013, 23, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Molina, L.; Udaondo, Z.; Montero-Curiel, M.; Wittich, R.-M.; García-Puente, A.; Segura, A. Clover Root Exudates Favor Novosphingobium sp. HR1a Establishment in the Rhizosphere and Promote Phenanthrene Rhizoremediation. mSphere 2021, 6, e0041221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sajjad, A.; Muhammad, N.; Latif, K.A.; Ahmed, A.-H. Sphingomonas: From diversity and genomics to functional role in environmental remediation and plant growth. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2020, 40, 138–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, S.; Zhao, X.T.; Wang, G.Q. Research Progress of Cladosporium Fungi in Plant Pest Control. Agric. Sci. Technol. Equip. 2023, 6, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Abo-Elyousr, K.A.M.; Imran, M.; Sallam, N.M.A.; Abdel-Aal, A.M.K.; Assiri, M.E.; Abdel-Rahim, I.R. Sustainable biocontrol of purple blotch disease in Allium cepa L. by biocontrol yeasts, Pichia kluyveri and Filobasidium wieringae. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2024, 34, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nian, L.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wang, M.; Yuan, B.; Cheng, S.; Cao, C. Vishniacozyma victoriae: An endophytic antagonist yeast of kiwifruit with biocontrol effect to Botrytis cinerea. Food Chem. 2023, 411, 135442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Gorordo, M.F.; Lucca, M.E.; Sangorrín, M.P. Statistical media optimization using cheese whey powder for production of Vishniacozyma victoriae postharvest biocontrol yeast in pears. Biol. Control 2023, 180, 105203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mendes, R.; Kruijt, M.; de Bruijn, I.; Dekkers, E.; van der Voort, M.; Schneider, J.H.M.; Piceno, Y.M.; DeSantis, T.Z.; Andersen, G.L.; Bakker, P.A.H.M.; et al. Deciphering the Rhizosphere Microbiome for Disease-Suppressive Bacteria. Science 2011, 332, 1097–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Albornoz, F.E.; Prober, S.M.; Ryan, M.H.; Standish, R.J. Ecological interactions among microbial functional guilds in the plant-soil system and implications for ecosystem function. Plant Soil 2022, 476, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, J.; Wang, J.; Liu, H.; Macdonald, C.A.; Singh, B.K. Microbial inoculants with higher capacity to colonize soils improved wheat drought tolerance. Microb. Biotechnol. 2023, 16, 2131–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Li, F.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, P.; Chen, L.; Jie, X.; Hu, D.; Feng, B.; Yue, K.; et al. Rare fungus, Mortierella capitata, promotes crop growth by stimulating primary metabolisms related genes and reshaping rhizosphere bacterial community. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 151, 108017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dixon, R.A.; Paiva, N.L. Stress-Induced Phenylpropanoid Metabolism. Plant Cell 1995, 7, 1085–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Wink, M. Functions and Biotechnology of Plant Secondary Metabolites, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 1–410. [Google Scholar]
  103. Li, Y.; Chen, C.; Xie, Z.; Xu, J.; Wu, B.; Wang, W. Integrated Analysis of mRNA and microRNA Elucidates the Regulation of Glycyrrhizic Acid Biosynthesis in Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Huo, Y.; Feng, P.; Bi, H.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, Y.; Wang, M.; Tan, T. Synergistic acetyl-CoA augmentation strategy (SATS) for improved terpenoid biosynthesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochem. Eng. J. 2025, 213, 109572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Effects of different microbial inoculants on growth indices, yield of G. uralensis: (a) MRL (main root length), (b) MRD (main root diameter), (c) LRN (number of lateral roots), (d) SPDW (single-plant dry weight). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between each microbial inoculant treatment and the control (CK) condition, ANOVA, p < 0.05. The bars represent the standard errors, the same as Figure 2.
Figure 1. Effects of different microbial inoculants on growth indices, yield of G. uralensis: (a) MRL (main root length), (b) MRD (main root diameter), (c) LRN (number of lateral roots), (d) SPDW (single-plant dry weight). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between each microbial inoculant treatment and the control (CK) condition, ANOVA, p < 0.05. The bars represent the standard errors, the same as Figure 2.
Agronomy 15 01879 g001
Figure 2. Effects of different microbial inoculants on component content of G.uralensis: (a) SPLQT (single-plant liquiritin content), (b) SPGA (single-plant glycyrrhizic acid content), (c) SPTF (single-plant total flavonoids content). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between each microbial inoculant treatment and the control (CK) condition, ANOVA, p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Effects of different microbial inoculants on component content of G.uralensis: (a) SPLQT (single-plant liquiritin content), (b) SPGA (single-plant glycyrrhizic acid content), (c) SPTF (single-plant total flavonoids content). Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between each microbial inoculant treatment and the control (CK) condition, ANOVA, p < 0.05.
Agronomy 15 01879 g002
Figure 3. Sequencing depth and α diversity of the rhizospheric soil bacteria of G. uralensis: (a) Rarefaction curve of the Shannon index, (b) Coverage index, (c) Chao index, (d) Sobs index, (e) Simpson index, (f) Shannon index. All indices and curves were calculated at the OTU level. *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Sequencing depth and α diversity of the rhizospheric soil bacteria of G. uralensis: (a) Rarefaction curve of the Shannon index, (b) Coverage index, (c) Chao index, (d) Sobs index, (e) Simpson index, (f) Shannon index. All indices and curves were calculated at the OTU level. *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01879 g003
Figure 4. Sequencing depth and α diversity of the rhizospheric soil fungi of G. uralensis: (a) Rarefaction curve of the Shannon index, (b) Coverage index, (c) Chao index, (d) Sobs index, (e) Simpson index, (f) Shannon index. All indices and curves were calculated at the OTU level. *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.
Figure 4. Sequencing depth and α diversity of the rhizospheric soil fungi of G. uralensis: (a) Rarefaction curve of the Shannon index, (b) Coverage index, (c) Chao index, (d) Sobs index, (e) Simpson index, (f) Shannon index. All indices and curves were calculated at the OTU level. *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01879 g004
Figure 5. Rhizospheric soil microorganisms in G. uralensis based on OTU-level PCoA; (a): bacteria; (b): fungi.
Figure 5. Rhizospheric soil microorganisms in G. uralensis based on OTU-level PCoA; (a): bacteria; (b): fungi.
Agronomy 15 01879 g005
Figure 6. Relative abundance and differential analysis of dominant rhizospheric genera (top 10) in G. uralensis; (a,b): bacterial genera; (c,d): fungal genera; *: p < 0.05.
Figure 6. Relative abundance and differential analysis of dominant rhizospheric genera (top 10) in G. uralensis; (a,b): bacterial genera; (c,d): fungal genera; *: p < 0.05.
Agronomy 15 01879 g006
Figure 7. Correlations between dominant rhizospheric microbes at the genus level in G. uralensis and soil nutrients, plant growth, and bioactive compounds: (a): bacterial genera; (b): fungal genera; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001. The abbreviations are indicated as follows: LRN (number of lateral roots); SPDW (single-plant dry weight); SPLQT (single-plant liquiritin content); SPGA (glycyrrhizic acid content); SPTF (total flavonoids content); SOM (soil organic matter); TN (total nitrogen); AP (available phosphorus); AK (available potassium); NO3-N (nitrate nitrogen).
Figure 7. Correlations between dominant rhizospheric microbes at the genus level in G. uralensis and soil nutrients, plant growth, and bioactive compounds: (a): bacterial genera; (b): fungal genera; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001. The abbreviations are indicated as follows: LRN (number of lateral roots); SPDW (single-plant dry weight); SPLQT (single-plant liquiritin content); SPGA (glycyrrhizic acid content); SPTF (total flavonoids content); SOM (soil organic matter); TN (total nitrogen); AP (available phosphorus); AK (available potassium); NO3-N (nitrate nitrogen).
Agronomy 15 01879 g007
Table 1. Source of the seven strains.
Table 1. Source of the seven strains.
StrainsSource
Bacillus subtilisTamarix chinensis
Paenibacillus peoriaeLycium ruthenicum
Pseudomonas silesiensisElaeagnus angustifolia
Arthrobacter globiformisGlycyrrhiza uralensis
Sinorhizobium melilotiMedicago sativa
Arthrobacter sp. GCG3Glycyrrhiza uralensis
Rhizobium sp. DG1Nitraria tangutorum
Table 2. Functional characteristics of the seven strains.
Table 2. Functional characteristics of the seven strains.
StrainsNitrogenase Activity
(IU·L−1)
IAA
Increment
(μg·mL−1)
Organic
Phosphorus
Increment
(μg·mL−1)
Inorganic
Phosphorus
Increment
(μg·mL−1)
ESP
Increment (mg·L−1)
Siderophore Halo
Diameter
(mm)
Antifungal Rate (%)
BcFsFoRsSs
Bacillus subtilis197.77 ± 1.69 a6.10 ± 0.78 c0.00 ± 0.07 c1.44 ± 0.43 b234.38 ± 16.44 a2.67 ± 1.20 c-----
Paenibacillus peoriae186.49 ± 1.95 b4.44 ± 0.70 d7.27 ± 1.56 a0.00 ± 0.56 c195.49 ± 9.63 bc5.50 ± 0.29 b-----
Pseudomonas silesiensis170.88 ± 0.99 c8.28 ± 1.33 b4.41 ± 1.77 b3.38 ± 0.44 a171.45 ± 2.59 c8.17 ± 0.44 a-----
Arthrobacter globiformis168.44 ± 2.28 c8.82 ± 0.69 b0.00 ± 0.05 c0.00 ± 0.06 c177.14 ± 4.86 c4.33 ± 0.72 bc39.09
± 0.89 b
15.69
± 0.91 b
15.89
± 0.54 b
0.00
± 0.11 c
8.25
± 0.23 b
Sinorhizobium meliloti184.46 ± 2.21 b15.94 ± 1.35 a0.00 ± 0.17 c0.00 ± 0.04 c171.82 ± 5.04 c5.83 ± 0.44 b-----
Arthrobacter sp. GCG3169.64 ± 2.00 c17.70 ± 2.89 a0.00 ± 0.04 c0.00 ± 0.30 c200.26 ± 3.88 bc0.00 ± 0.00 d76.36
± 1.05 a
53.92
± 0.76 a
52.34
± 0.57 a
63.27
± 1.65 a
80.00
± 0.88 a
Rhizobium sp. DG1154.58 ± 1.42 d8.82 ± 0.29 b4.74 ± 0.89 b0.00 ± 0.02 c211.08 ± 5.28 ab6.17 ± 0.44 ab73.82
± 0.56 a
50.98
± 1.38 a
49.72
± 2.06 a
21.43
± 0.06 b
76.67
± 2.33 a
Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments, ANOVA, p < 0.05. Nitrogenase activity was determined following the manufacturer’s instructions for the Microbial Nitrogenase (NITS) ELISA Kit (Jiangsu Enzyme-linked Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Yancheng, China); phosphorus solubilization capacity was measured using the molybdenum-antimony anti-colorimetric method; the increment of IAA in fermentation broth was determined by the Salkowski colorimetric method; the increment of extracellular polysaccharides (ESP) was determined by the phenol-sulfuric acid method; siderophore detection was conducted using the CAS medium plate inoculation method; the inhibitory effects of strains against plant pathogenic fungi were assessed using the dual culture assay; plant pathogenic fungi abbreviations: Bc (Botrytis cinerea), Fs (Fusarium solani), Fo (Fusarium oxysporum), Rs (Rhizoctonia solani), Ss (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum); “-” indicates that the strain exhibits no inhibitory activity against the pathogenic fungus.
Table 3. Effect of inoculant Pc application on rhizospheric soil physicochemical properties of G. uralensis in saline–alkali soil.
Table 3. Effect of inoculant Pc application on rhizospheric soil physicochemical properties of G. uralensis in saline–alkali soil.
TreatmentspHSSS
(g kg−1)
TN
(mg kg−1)
AK
(mg kg−1)
AP
(mg·kg−1)
NO3-N
(μg·g−1)
SOM
(mg·g−1)
Pc8.05 ± 0.08 a7.38 ± 0.02 a291.65 ± 1.61 b269.37 ± 0.40 a45.91 ± 0.39 a13.56 ± 0.54 c4.30 ± 0.07 c
CK7.91 ± 0.05 a7.75 ± 0.18 a356.64 ± 2.57 a97.42 ± 2.20 c36.64 ± 0.60 c15.14 ± 0.34 b6.48 ± 0.08 b
Basic soil data.7.80 ± 0.13 ab7.38 ± 0.13 a216.11 ± 1.97 c227.22 ± 0.52 b41.80 ± 0.68 b48.02 ± 0.48 a6.84 ± 0.06 a
Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments, ANOVA, p < 0.05. The abbreviations are indicated as follows: SSS (soil soluble salt); SOM (soil organic matter); TN (total nitrogen); AP (available phosphorus); AK (available potassium); NO3-N (ni-trate nitrogen).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Pei, P.; Wang, P.; Guo, Q.; Yang, H.; Xue, X. Multistrain Microbial Inoculant Enhances Yield and Medicinal Quality of Glycyrrhiza uralensis in Arid Saline–Alkali Soil and Modulate Root Nutrients and Microbial Diversity. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081879

AMA Style

Zhang J, Li X, Pei P, Wang P, Guo Q, Yang H, Xue X. Multistrain Microbial Inoculant Enhances Yield and Medicinal Quality of Glycyrrhiza uralensis in Arid Saline–Alkali Soil and Modulate Root Nutrients and Microbial Diversity. Agronomy. 2025; 15(8):1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081879

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Jun, Xin Li, Peiyao Pei, Peiya Wang, Qi Guo, Hui Yang, and Xian Xue. 2025. "Multistrain Microbial Inoculant Enhances Yield and Medicinal Quality of Glycyrrhiza uralensis in Arid Saline–Alkali Soil and Modulate Root Nutrients and Microbial Diversity" Agronomy 15, no. 8: 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081879

APA Style

Zhang, J., Li, X., Pei, P., Wang, P., Guo, Q., Yang, H., & Xue, X. (2025). Multistrain Microbial Inoculant Enhances Yield and Medicinal Quality of Glycyrrhiza uralensis in Arid Saline–Alkali Soil and Modulate Root Nutrients and Microbial Diversity. Agronomy, 15(8), 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081879

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