You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Microorganisms
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

15 June 2023

Bacterial Communities Associated with the Roots of Typha spp. and Its Relationship in Phytoremediation Processes

,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Facultad de Estudios Profesionales Zona Huasteca, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí 79060, Mexico
2
Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado, Centro Nayarita de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología (CENITT), Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Tepic 63173, Mexico
3
Facultad de Química, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Santiago de Querétaro 76010, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms2023, 11(6), 1587;https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11061587
This article belongs to the Special Issue Rhizosphere Microbial Community 2.0
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Heavy metal pollution is a severe concern worldwide, owing to its harmful effects on ecosystems. Phytoremediation has been applied to remove heavy metals from water, soils, and sediments by using plants and associated microorganisms to restore contaminated sites. The Typha genus is one of the most important genera used in phytoremediation strategies because of its rapid growth rate, high biomass production, and the accumulation of heavy metals in its roots. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria have attracted much attention because they exert biochemical activities that improve plant growth, tolerance, and the accumulation of heavy metals in plant tissues. Because of their beneficial effects on plants, some studies have identified bacterial communities associated with the roots of Typha species growing in the presence of heavy metals. This review describes in detail the phytoremediation process and highlights the application of Typha species. Then, it describes bacterial communities associated with roots of Typha growing in natural ecosystems and wetlands contaminated with heavy metals. Data indicated that bacteria from the phylum Proteobacteria are the primary colonizers of the rhizosphere and root-endosphere of Typha species growing in contaminated and non-contaminated environments. Proteobacteria include bacteria that can grow in different environments due to their ability to use various carbon sources. Some bacterial species exert biochemical activities that contribute to plant growth and tolerance to heavy metals and enhance phytoremediation.

1. Introduction

Heavy metals (HMs) are chemicals used in many industrial processes, so their environmental levels have considerably increased, causing damage to living organisms. HM contamination is one of the most critical concerns due to its high persistence in the environment and its harmful effects on human health, plants, animals, and biodiversity [1]. So, physicochemical processes have been developed to remove HMs from polluted sites. However, they are expensive, inefficient, and non-ecofriendly. Therefore, phytoremediation alternatives have been designed to decrease the HM impact on the environment.
Phytoremediation is a sustainable strategy that uses plants to remove, reduce, transform, volatilize, concentrate, or stabilize HMs in soil, water, sludge, and sediments [2,3]. Typha is one of the most important genera used in phytoremediation due to its worldwide distribution in natural aquatic and semiaquatic ecosystems and its ability to persist in polluted environments [4]. T. angustifolia, T. domingensis, and T. latifolia are the most common plant species that remove HMs from water, soil, and sediments in natural and artificial wetlands [5,6,7]. They accumulate Zn, Ni, Pb, Cd, Cu, Al, Fe, and Mn mainly in their roots and, to a lesser extent, in aerial tissues [8,9,10]. Furthermore, Typha sp. removes organic pollutants such as synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and drugs, among other things [11]. Hence, as a versatile species with the potential for organic compound phytoremediation, it is the subject of study in this review.
It has been shown that the roots of plants that grow in HM-polluted environments are colonized by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) that promote plant growth by reducing HM stress and improving phytoremediation [12]. Therefore, bacterial diversity associated with Typha spp. roots has attracted much attention because microorganisms contribute to plant adaptation and environmental conditions. Screening has been performed using culture-dependent techniques and 16S rRNA sequencing to identify bacteria associated with roots and shoots of Typha spp. exposed and non-exposed to HMs. Furthermore, plant–bacteria interaction assays have been established to determine the role of selected bacterial isolates when inoculated in plants exposed to HMs.
Therefore, this review shows the role of Typha sp. in phytoremediation processes, the microbial diversity associated with the roots of plants exposed to HM, and how bacterial communities could contribute to the plant adaptation to contaminants and their participation in phytoremediation.

2. Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation is derived from the Greek prefix phyto and the Latin remedium, meaning plants are used to correct or eliminate a xenobiotic compound [13]. The term phytoremediation was initially used to describe HM extraction from soils. However, it has been extended to plants used for organic compound removal, so concepts are shared to describe both HM and organic compound remediation [14]. Phytoremediation is an in-situ technique for the remediation of contaminated soils and water bodies, in which the plants remove, degrade, immobilize, neutralize, or contain pollutants. Plants and their associated rhizospheric microorganisms absorb, sequester, degrade, or metabolize contaminants through biological and physicochemical processes [15,16]. Phytoremediation is successfully used to clean up toxic metals (Ag, As, Cd, Cu, Co, Cr, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, and Zn), radionuclides (90Sr, 137Cs, 239Pu, 234U, and 238U), explosives, pesticides, and oils [17,18]. However, its use is limited by the climatic and geological site conditions where it is applied and by factors such as temperature, altitude, soil type, and accessibility for agricultural equipment [19].

2.1. Classification of Plants Used in Phytoremediation

HM-tolerant plants can grow in the presence of metals; however, they behave differently according to species and genotype [20]. Plants have been grouped into excluders, indicators, and accumulators according to the HM concentration they can store in their tissues, regarding the amount found in the soil (Figure 1) [20,21].
Figure 1. Classification of plants according to their heavy metal removal ability.
Excluder plants can tolerate the presence of high HM concentrations in the soil because they restrict the entry and translocation of HM to aerial tissues, which allows them to maintain low HM concentrations in aerial tissues regardless of the concentration in the soil [21,22,23]. Excluder plants include grass family members such as Sudan grass, barley grass, and fescue [20].
The indicator species are sensitive to HMs and can accumulate proportional HM concentrations to those found in the soil [21,22]. This group includes grain and cereal crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and oats [20].
Accumulator plants actively absorb metals from the soil and accumulate them in their aerial biomass in non-toxic forms. These plants can contain higher concentrations of HMs in their tissues than the HM concentration found in the soil [20,22]. Some accumulator plants can grow in soils highly contaminated with HMs and accumulate high concentrations in their aerial tissues without showing signs of toxicity. These plants have been called hyperaccumulators [24,25]. To be designated as a hyperaccumulator, a plant must accumulate > 10,000 mg/kg of Mn or Zn, >1000 mg/kg of Co, Cu, Pb, Ni, As, or Se, and >100 mg/kg of Cd [22,26].
The function of HM hyperaccumulation in plant tissue has been shown to serve as a defense against viruses, pathogenic fungi, and herbivores [21,27]. However, this characteristic has been exploited to remediate HM-contaminated soils through phytoremediation [25]. More than 450 hyperaccumulating species distributed among 45 families have been identified, which can accumulate even more than two types of HM [22,28,29].

2.2. HM Phytoremediation Mechanisms

The elimination or transformation of contaminants from soil, water, or sediments by phytoremediation is carried out using at least one of the following processes: phytoextraction, phytovolatilization, phytostabilization, rhizofiltration, phytodegradation, or phytostimulation (Figure 2). Each phytoremediation process uses a different contaminant treatment mechanism (Table 1).
Figure 2. Phytoremediation mechanisms classification.
Table 1. Mechanisms involved in phytoremediation processes.
Phytoextraction uses the ability of hyperaccumulator plants to absorb contaminants from the soil and transport, accumulate, and concentrate them in their aboveground biomass [30,31,32]. It removes contaminants from the soil, without affecting its structure and fertility, and treats wastewater [33,34]. This method extracts HMs, organic contaminants, and radioisotopes [33]. Hyperaccumulator plants can accumulate high levels of HM at levels 100-fold greater than non-hyperaccumulating without showing phytotoxicity symptoms. Some species from the Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Scrophulariaceae families have been characterized as hyperaccumulators, and they are suitable for soil remediation [34].
In phytovolatilization, the plants take up soil contaminants, transform them into volatile forms, and eliminate them into the atmosphere through their leaves in less toxic forms [31,32]. It treats some organic compounds and toxic elements such as Hg, As, and Se in soil, sediment, or water [35]. These elements’ transformation occurs mainly in the root, and their release into the environment occurs during transpiration [36]. Brassica juncea from Brassicaceae family is a good Se volatilizer. Unfortunately, phytovolatilization only transfers pollutants from the soil to the atmosphere, contaminating the air with toxic volatile compounds [34].
Phytostabilization refers to using plants to immobilize contaminants in the soil to reduce their mobility and bioavailability for other plants or microorganisms [30,37]. Phytostabilization reduces leaching, runoff, and the distribution of pollutants to other areas by soil erosion [38,39]. It is accomplished through soil stabilization by roots or plant root exudates and the immobilization of contaminants through chemical and physical mechanisms such as precipitation, formation of insoluble complexes, reduction of valence, or adsorption [33,34,40].
Rhizofiltration is a technique used to remove contaminants from aquatic environments such as groundwater, surface water, and wastewater [41,42]. In this technique, the roots of plants are used to absorb, concentrate, and precipitate toxic metals and organic chemicals. The plants used can be both terrestrial and aquatic and have a high growth rate, in which the pollutants are absorbed and concentrated in their roots and stem [43]. Root exudates and changes in pH in the rhizosphere can also cause the precipitation of metals on root surfaces [43,44]. The most common aquatic plants used in rhizofiltration are hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes), azolla (Azolla filiculoides), duckweed (Lemna minor), cattail (Typha sp.), and poplar (Populus sp.) because of their fast growth, high biomass, and high tolerance and accumulation of HMs. Likewise, terrestrial plants such as Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) have good capacities for HM rhizofiltration [34].
Phytodegradation is used in the degradation of organic pollutants or the transformation of these to other less-toxic forms through the enzymatic activity of dehalogenases, oxygenases, and reductases of plants or rhizospheric microorganisms [43,45]. Through this mechanism, aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides such as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, chlorinated compounds, explosives such as trichloroethylene, and detergents can be degraded [32,43,45,46].
Phytostimulation is a phytoremediation mechanism in which substances exuded from plant roots stimulate the growth of microorganisms capable of degrading organic contaminants [33,47].
Overall, the best phytoremediation mechanism is exerted by hyperaccumulator plants for permanent HM removal. However, most hyperaccumulators are short-lived, with low biomass production and slow growth rates, limiting their phytoextraction efficiency. Thus, high biomass-producing non-hyperaccumulators can be used as alternatives. Although non-hyperaccumulator plants accumulate lower HM concentrations in their aboveground tissues, their high biomass production reaches HM accumulation levels similar to those of hyperaccumulators [34].
Therefore, the rhizofiltration technique is applied in constructed wetlands to remove HMs and organic pollutants from groundwater, surface water, and wastewater. Some species of Scirpus, Phagmites, Eichhornia, Azolla, Lemna, and Typha genera have been studied and have demonstrated their abilities to reduce the concentration of contaminants in water or sediment. Among these, Typha stands out due to its capacity to adapt to nutrient deprivation, flood, salinity, and drought. Moreover, high biomass production, fast growth, and high HM tolerance and removal make the Typha species an excellent option for removing HMs from wetland wastewater.

3. Typha Genus

The Typha genus, commonly known as “Cattail”, is distributed worldwide, except in Greenland and Antarctica. Plants belonging to this genus are erect, rhizomatous, perennial herbs that flourish on a slender stem up to 3 m high [48]. The flowers are small and clustered in spikes, while the creeping lateral rhizomes, or underground stems, reach up to 70 cm in length and 3 cm in diameter. The leaves are lanceolate, distichous, flat, long, and grayish-green [49,50]. The Typha genus includes nine species: T. minima, T. elephantine, T. angustifolia, T. domingensis, T. capensis. T. latifolia, T. shuttleworthii, T. orientalis, and T. laxmannii [48].
Typha species grow in bogs, swamps, wetlands, roadside ditches, lakeshores, pond shores, irrigation canals, and ponds agricultural irrigation ditches [50,51,52]. Although Typha species are ecologically important, they can also be considered an invasive native species in aquatic ecosystems because of their high growth rate and ability to adapt to saline environments, nutrient deficiencies, floods, and drought [48,49,53].
Moreover, Typha species have an essential role in wetland biogeochemistry since they are the main producers and drivers of the organic matter cycle, directly affecting wetland biodiversity because it is the habitat of several animal species and microorganisms [54]. Wetlands represent one of the most significant biological carbon (C) pools [55] and have received much attention for their potential for the sequestration and long-term storage of substantial amounts of atmospheric CO2 and climate change mitigation [56,57]. The Typha sp. has played an essential role in this ecosystem service. Eid and Shaltout [55] concluded that Lake Burullus in Egypt, associated with T. domingensis plants, has the potential to sequester C. Additionally, in T. angustifolia, it has been reported that the amount of biomass, and therefore the efficiency of carbon sequestration, is higher than in other macrophytes [57,58].
Although wetlands provide an optimal environment for CO2 sequestration, they are sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly methane (CH4) [56], which is documented in restored wetlands with Typha plants in California, where significant CH4 emissions were recorded while sequestering C [59]. High water levels have been associated with higher CH4 emissions in wetlands planted with T. latifolia due to aerenchyma, which allows it to grow in flooded environments and consequently increases CH4 emissions [60,61]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the water level dynamics of wetlands with T. latifolia and other Typhaceas to regulate CO2 and CH4 fluxes and achieve ecosystem balance. On the other hand, paludiculture (perennial crops growing in humid or re-humidified agricultural peatlands) has been considered a solution to GHG emissions. The paludiculture with T. latifolia has effectively improved water quality and reduced GHG (such as CH4) emissions in rewet peatlands [60,62].
The sequestration of C in Typha spp. is determined by the proportion of leaf, stem and root biomass, structure and morphology, water levels, restoration design, wetland age, and disturbance events [57,58,61,63]. Therefore, these factors must be considered to understand the balance between CO2 and CH4 exchanges in wetlands with Typha sp. Furthermore, there is a need to protect these wetlands, which are essential for carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services to reduce climate change.

Typha spp. Applications in Phytoremediation

Plants belonging to the Typha genus can quickly colonize wetlands through their rhizomatous propagation, rapid growth rate, and high capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions [49]. They are used in artificial and natural wetlands for wastewater treatment, and thus are essential in maintaining ecosystem health [64].
Typha sp. can perform water depuration processes removing contaminants, including HMs, nutrients (nitrates, phosphates, etc.), solvents, explosives, crude oil, organic pollutants, and pesticides [11,65,66]. So, it removes contaminants from aquatic ecosystems, allowing wildlife development and protecting coasts from erosion and marine environments [49].
Typha species have been successfully used in phytoremediation strategies due to their growing ability in HM-polluted environments [1,53]. Their remarkable efficiency in removing metallic ions lie in their airy internal structure, comprised of tissues with open spaces, allowing better contaminant absorption [67]. T. latifolia, domingensis, and T. angustifolia are the most common species used in phytoremediation due to their rapid growth, large biomass amount, and HM tolerance abilities [7]. They are employed in natural and constructed wetlands to eliminate HMs from polluted water, accumulating mainly in the roots and scarcely in their aerial tissues (Table 2). These abilities are because most Typha species possess a bioconcentration factor (BCF) > 1, indicating the remarkable capacity to remove HMs from water, sediments, and HM solutions and accumulate them in their roots. On the other hand, Typha species have a translocation factor (TF) < 1, meaning a low capacity to translocate HMs to aerial tissues. Plants with a BCF greater than one and a TF less than one can be used for rhizoremediation due to their phytostabilization potential [7]. So, Typha species have been used in tertiary wastewater treatment due to their remarkable ability to accumulate toxic elements in their root system by rhizofiltration [68].
Typha sp. has been used to treat wastewater containing high concentrations of organic matter, nitrogen, sulfur compounds, and chromium from tanneries [69]. T. domingensis, T. latifolia, and T. angustifolia have been used to remove Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn from a natural wetland containing municipal wastewater and HM contamination [7]. Likewise, Carranza-Álvarez et al. [70] demonstrated that T. latifolia removed Pb, Cd, Cr, Mn, and Fe from Tanque Tenorio, an artificial lagoon highly polluted by municipal and industrial wastewater. Klink et al. [71] showed that T. latifolia removed Pb, Cu, Co, and Zn from small ponds and accumulated them in their roots and rhizomes. The HM tolerance, high element uptake ability, and the excellent biomass production of Typha species make them the best species for the phytoremediation of HM-contaminated environments.
Table 2. Metal accumulation in various plant parts of Typha species.
Table 2. Metal accumulation in various plant parts of Typha species.
SpeciesSite/SystemHeavy MetalMetal Concentration (mg/Kg)References
Shoots/Leaves/StemsRootsRhizome
T. latifoliaConstructed wetlandZn59.29177.28NR[5]
Cu14.7333.29NR
Natural wetlandAl38.3–48.51740–1780845–1055[7]
As0.08–0.121.87–2.211.21–1.65
Cd0.06–0.080.39–0.460.16–0.22
Cr0.95–1.015.54–6.753.24–3.85
Cu4.66–5.8712.8–13.19.87–11.8
Hg0.49–0.632.88–3.351.55–1.83
Mn29.7–41132–15570.1–103
Ni8.42–10.335.6–41.228.5–30.2
Pb0.44–0.5213.5–15.24.32–6.65
StreamZn215340NR[9]
Ni4055NR
Cu3050NR
Pb813NR
Co1024NR
Mn990860NR
Cd0.210.44NR
Cr2144NR
Artificial lagoonZn28.7–41110–11596.5–103[70]
Cd0.1–1.850.1–25NR
Cr1–321–60NR
Mn63–1162.5125–2375NR
Fe130–375325–500NR
PondFe17884311875[71]
Mn4771943292
Zn2837365.6
Cu38.623.97
Cd0.017.282.72
Pb3.012.16.33
Ni3.727.88.92
Co0.252.570.96
Cr635.711.7
Constructed wetlandCd276–622932–2339NR[72]
Pb272–9271365–4867NR
Natural wetlandCu16.0013–26537[73]
Ni5438880
Zn8–6724–57223,894
Fe114–504777–57,138105–17,162
Mn64–173416–90116–552
Mg564–2550882–5542745–2872
Ca2687–16,9931781–11,5741209–6726
Constructed wetlandFe25–91650–1250NR[74]
Cu15–49.9810–31.45NR
Pb2.5–3.9545,049NR
Hg2.545,082NR
Zn11,87115–35NR
Constructed wetlandCu13.5232.92NR[75]
Cd11.8414.68NR
Mn50.2632.14NR
Cr11.4610.72NR
Co8.2811.1NR
Zn123.7102.9NR
Pb19.3824.38NR
Ni7.411.82NR
RiverCd0.891.1NR[76]
Ni1.95526.9NR
Zn9.6698.1NR
Cu4.88530.2NR
Constructed wetlandPbNR65.6NR[77]
CrNR22.1NR
MnNR219NR
Constructed wetlandAs0.001–0.020.008–0.03NR[78]
Cd17–118185–319NR
Cr2.8437–99NR
LakesFe58.551252125[79]
Pb4.3651.077.79
Mn127.85536115
Cd0.0752.760.14
Cu3.18511.64.19
Ni0.729.423.14
Zn18.977.658.4
Constructed wetlandCd26.1–13150.9–279NR[80]
T. domingensisConstructed wetlandFe63.2340.6NR[6]
Mn8.5928.88NR
Ni4.824.3NR
Pb0.517NR
Cr8.1717.6NR
Natural wetlandAl38–50.91756–1890850–920[7]
As0.08–0.102.78–3.211.29–1.34
Cd0.05–0.080.44–0.610.15–0.18
Cr1.05–1.243.67–5.883.01–4.57
Cu3.50–4.6715.2–18.510.4–12.7
Hg0.85–0.973.21–3.672.02–2.56
Mn32.1–51.2138–15174.2–83.8
Ni10.8–10.936.6–53.329.6–38.7
Pb0.65–0.7110.9–13.74.21–4.33
Zn35.4–38.8118–12297.3–103
Natural wetlandBa75.651.57NR[81]
Natural wetlandCd1.25–21.3188.62–234.10NR[82]
Constructed wetlandCr10–9050–75010–300[83]
Ni10–60100–80010–250
Zn15–6050–15010–50
RiverHg0.0506–0.56040.9785–5.4740.4238–1.802[84]
Plastic reactorCr2200–40003500–7000200–1500[85]
Ni1400500–1000200–500
Zn2350–4750300–3000100–500
Constructed wetlandBa41.85–1398303.15–3795.27NR[86]
PondAl187–282220.82–350.55NR[87]
Fe102–173307.5–582.44NR
Zn11.49–5728.06–149.60NR
Pb1.7–9.01.26–20.46NR
Constructed wetlandHg0.1785–273.3515NRNR[88]
Constructed wetlandCrNR82NR[89]
Ni1266NR
Zn28178NR
T. angustifoliaNatural wetlandAl36.1–44.61568–1865821–962[7]
As0.05–0.061.95–2.861.06–1.42
Cd0.040.38–0.510.10–0.20
Cr0.75–0.914.26–5.15 1.89–2.48
Hg0.35–0.551.98–2.751.01–1.96
Mn31.6- 3695.8–12677.6–103
Ni8.96–12.328.8–35.720.2–21.6
Pb0.52–0.758.90–10.23.25–5.23
Constructed wetlandZn33.937NR[90]
Cd7.37.2NR
Pb0.82.8NR
Constructed wetlandCd20.3–42.3241–378.3NR[91]
Pb354.9–1875.920,173.6–22,462NR
Constructed wetlandCd0.2250.82NR[92]
Cr8.34559.13NR
Cu8.5535.14NR
Fe701.3753327NR
Ni4.02521.1NR
Pb10.46550.82NR
Zn100.075150NR
Natural wetlandCd0.03–0.650.1–0.8NR[93]
Pb0.3–4.51–6NR
Cr0.75–7.751.5–7.5NR
Ni1.75–16.252.5–15NR
Zn20–7010–100NR
Cu0.75–25.52.5–17.5NR
Constructed wetlandPb57.8–167.31265.2–8937.468.7–158.9[94]
Hydroponics Cr234.02–1157.28287.16–4399.79NR[95]
T. capensisNatural wetlandCr69–3560.5222–16,04770–786[96]
Fe3176.5–8511.59413–13,8332303–8970
Zn21–5956–16224–30
Cu13–3135–22410–56
Co11–2958–1245–10
Cd23.5–26.516–2218–21
Ni29–44196–89117–88
Pb7.5–54.527–636–16
NR: Data not reported.

4. Bacteria Associated with the Rhizosphere of Typha spp.

The Typha genus has a root zone rich in dissolved oxygen and organic carbon that provides favorable conditions for colonization by microorganisms [97]. Plants’ root exudates are essential in the selection and abundance of bacterial communities at the rhizoplane and endosphere roots [98]. Moreover, the composition and structure of bacterial communities are determined by environmental factors, including the type of wetland (natural or artificial), water quality, soil composition, pH, geographical location, root zone, plant species, plant phenological phase, stress, and disease events [99,100]. So, rhizospheric bacterial communities can vary in the diversity and abundance of species across the plants, even between plants belonging to the same species. In all ecosystems, bacterial communities are adapted to the plant rhizosphere conditions, where they establish a range of beneficial and deleterious interactions among themselves. Moreover, these bacterial populations contribute to development, growth, and plant adaptation to ecosystems (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Bacterial phyla commonly associated with the plant rhizosphere. Bacterial phyla comprise species adapted to the rhizosphere conditions, where they interact among themselves by establishing complex interaction networks that contribute to the plant’s fitness to the environmental conditions. Biochemical activities of bacteria are discussed below.

4.1. Bacterial Communities Associated with Typha Roots in Natural Environments

A few studies have been explored bacterial communities associated with Typha roots growing in natural environments. Bacteria have been identified by traditional microbiology techniques or by 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Supplementary Materials Table S1).
Jha and Kumar [101] isolated ten endophytic diazotrophic bacteria from T. australis roots collected from ditches of the agricultural farms at Banaras Hindu University (Figure 4). Bacteria were characterized according to their plant growth-promoting abilities, with Klebsiella oxytoca GR-3 being the most efficient because of its nitrogenase activity, IAA production, and phosphate solubilization. A plant–bacteria interaction assay showed that K. oxytoca GR-3 promotes the growth of rice seedlings by increasing the root and shoot length, fresh weight, and chlorophyll content [101]. Thus, root-endophytic K. oxytoca GR-3 was the first PGPR isolated from the Typha genus. Despite its plant growth-promoting potential, the effect of K. oxytoca GR-3 in its host, T. australis, remains unknown.
Figure 4. Bacteria associated with the roots of Typha species growing in natural environments.
Likewise, Ashkan and Bleakley [102] isolated nine cultivable endophytic bacteria from the roots of Typha sp. collected at streams of Hot Springs, South Dakota. Then, 16S rRNA sequencing identified seven Bacillus sp. (Firmicutes) and two Pseudomonas sp. (Proteobacteria) (Figure 4). These studies were limited because the screening was focused on cultivable bacteria. Furthermore, the plant growth-promoting abilities of the isolates were not tested, so their role in Typha sp. is unknown.
On the other hand, PCR-guided analysis of the 16S rRNA gene was performed to elucidate the composition of the root-associated bacterial microbiota of T. latifolia growing in a wetland in the natural paradise “Le Mortine Oasis”, Campania, southern Italy [65]. The root-associated microbiota of T. latifolia was dominated by the phylum Proteobacteria (31 isolates, 39 %), followed by Actinobacteria (20 isolates, 25%), Firmicutes (12 isolates, 15%), Planctomycetes (8 isolates, 10%), Acidobacteria (5 isolates, 6%), and Chloroflexi (3 isolates, 4%) (Figure 4). Among them, Proteobacteria dominate rhizoplane, rhizosphere, and at least a 2 m radius of surrounding water of T. latifolia collected in the wetland. These results agree with previous data obtained for the plant microbiota, mainly dominated by Proteobacteria [103]. Rhizobiales, Rhodobacterales, and Pseudomonadales were the most abundant Proteobacteria associated with T. latifolia roots [65]. This is due to Proteobacteria being fast-growing r-strategists that are able to utilize a broad range of root-derived carbon substrates, showing adaptation to the diverse plant rhizospheres [103,104]. The most abundant phyla, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes, include bacterial species of the families Rhizobiaceae, Pseudomonadaceae, Streptomycetaceae, and Bacillaceae that potentially promote plant growth [103]. These bacterial species could be involved in adapting T. latifolia to the environmental conditions in the “Le Mortine Oasis”. These results indicated that sequencing analysis generated a broader overview of bacteria associated with plant roots and is an excellent strategy for exploring bacterial diversity and abundance in the plant rhizosphere.
Cultivable bacteria from T. latifolia rhizoplane were also isolated, and we determined their biofilm formation capacity [65]. The best biofilm-forming bacteria were identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, revealing the presence of Microbacterium chocolatum, Streptomyces sp., Streptomyces mirabilis, Rhodococcus sp., Wautersiella sp., Pseudomonas sp., Janthinobacterium lividum, and family members of Xanthomonadaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, and Bacillaceae, which colonize the T. latifolia rhizoplane. However, the PGPR activities of bacterial isolates were not determined, as they could contribute to the adaptation and growth of T. latifolia in the “Le Mortine Oasis” [65]. Overall, combining 16S rRNA gene sequencing and isolation by culture-dependent techniques offers a broader view of microbial populations associated with T. latifolia roots (Supplementary Materials Table S1). Even bacterial isolates or consortia could be tested in interaction assays with their host to identify the most efficient isolates that promote the growth of T. latifolia.

4.2. Bacterial Communities Associated with the Roots of Typha Exposed to HMs

Typha species have been used in phytoremediation because of their abilities to remove HMs from the surrounding environment [1,53,66]. It has been demonstrated that HM removal is enhanced by microorganisms associated with the plant roots [105]. So, identifying bacterial populations associated with the roots of Typha species has gained importance (Table 3; Supplementary Materials Table S2). However, available information has been obtained from Typha species collected in different environmental conditions and using either culture-dependent or gene sequencing strategies (Figure 5). So, the information on specific bacterial communities of each Typha species is scarce for defining the Typha microbiome.
Table 3. Phyla associated with Typha exposed to heavy metals.
Figure 5. Bacteria associated with the roots of Typha species growing in presence of HMs.
The first study with a Typha species was conducted by Pacheco-Aguilar et al. [69], who isolated bacteria that colonize the roots of Typha sp. growing in an artificial wetland to treat the wastewater of a tannery contaminated with high concentrations of organic matter, chromium, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds. Eight bacterial strains of the phylum Proteobacteria were isolated, including three Pseudomonas sp., two Acinetobacter sp., two Alcaligenes sp., and one Ochrobactrum sp. (Table 3; Supplementary Materials Table S2). The characteristics of the wastewater agree with the predominance of bacteria belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria, which could be involved in degrading organic matter.
It is known that the versatile Pseudomonas genus can tolerate HMs because of its ability to adapt to various environmental conditions [108,109]. Ochrobactrum strains have been shown to alleviate Cd toxicity in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) [110] and rice (Oryza sativa) [111] and adsorb Cd and Cr in their cell wall due to exopolysaccharides content [112,113,114]. Similarly, some Acinetobacter strains have been applied to improve the removal efficiency of heavy metals such as Cr [115,116,117], while Alcaligenes has been reported to be tolerant to Cd, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Cr [118,119].
It is probable that Pseudomonas sp., Acinetobacter sp., Alcaligenes sp., and Ochrobactrum sp. play an essential role in adapting Typha sp. to wetland conditions and improving the Cr removal by the plant.
Shehzadi et al. [106] isolated cultivable endophytic bacteria from the shoots and roots of T. domingensis grown in wetlands to treat textile effluents contaminated with organic matter, phosphates, sulphates, nitrates, and Ni, Fe, Cr, and Cd. These endophytic bacteria belong to the phyla Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes (Table 3; Supplementary Materials Table S2). Among them, Bacillus sp. TYSI17, Microbacterium arborescens TYSI04, Microbacterium sp. TYSI08, Rhizobium sp. TYRI06, Pantoea sp. TYRI15, and Pseudomonas fluorescens TYSI35 exerted PGPR activities and exhibited the best textile effluent degrading activity. These results suggest that bacterial strains could be involved in the growth and adaptation of T. domingensis to the wetland conditions. The most efficient bacterial strains could be used to remediate industrial effluents.
Saha et al. [64] isolated ten cultivable endophytic bacteria from the roots of T. angustifolia grown at a uranium mine tailing contaminated with iron. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing of the isolates indicated that the endophytic bacteria belonged to the phyla Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria (Table 3; Supplementary Materials Table S2). All bacterial isolates exerted biochemical activities, including auxin synthesis, siderophore production, and nitrogen fix. Plant–bacteria interaction assays showed that a consortium including ten isolates promotes the growth of T. angustifolia and rice seedlings, indicating that isolates are PGPR, which could participate in the adaptation of T. angustifolia to the contaminated site. Thus, the consortium has the biotechnological potential to be applied for plant-bacteria remediation purposes.
Additionally, Zhou et al. [107] investigated the composition and abundance of ammonium-oxidizing bacteria in the rhizosphere of T. orientalis exposed to Cu, Cr, Pb, Cd, and Zn on the shores of Jinshan Lake Park in China, and 16S rRNA sequencing revealed that the bacterial communities belonged to the phylum Planctomycetes (Table 3; Supplementary Materials Table S2). The bacterial composition of the rhizosphere was affected by the presence of Cu, Pb, and Zn, the availability of nitrogen, and even the stage of growth and the year’s season. The phylum Planctomycetes has been associated with soil microbial communities in response to stress from heavy metals, such as Hg, Cd, and Cr [120,121]. This phylum can detoxify heavy metals by secreting extracellular substances, such as polysaccharides and proteins, reducing the toxic effects of metals [122,123]. The increase in the Planctomycetes population has also been related to an acidic pH, and this phylum’s diversity varies according to environmental conditions [120,121].
Rolón-Cárdenas et al. [53] isolated four endophytic strains of Pseudomonas rhodesiae from the roots of T. latifolia exposed to Cd in a contaminated site. Bacterial strains showed high tolerance to Cd and exerted biochemical activities such as PGPR (Table 3; Supplementary Materials Table S2). Plant–bacteria interaction assays showed that P. rhodesiae strains promote the growth of Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings exposed and non-exposed to Cd. Likewise, P. rhodesiae decreases oxidative stress in T. latifolia seedlings exposed to Cd and improves Cd translocation to the shoot in an axenic hydroponic system [124]. Additionally, Rubio-Santiago et al. [125] isolated endophytic bacteria P. azotoformans, P. fluorescens, P. gessardii, and P. veronii from the roots of T. latifolia growing at a Pb- and Cd-contaminated site. Bacterial strains exerted biochemical activities such as PGPR and promoted the growth of T. latifolia seedlings exposed and non-exposed to either Pb or Cd. Thus, these bacterial strains could be used in plant–bacteria interactions for phytoremediation with T. latifolia.
The studies of microorganisms associated with the roots of the Typha genus were focused on isolating PGPR tolerant to HMs, because they promote plant growth and improve phytoextraction capacity in contaminated environments. However, the mechanisms by which endophytic bacteria enhance phytoremediation in Typha remain unclear. Furthermore, no Typha-bacteria model is available to determine the global mechanisms involved in phytoremediation.

5. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Associated with HM-Tolerant Plants

The rhizosphere is a narrow zone of soil that extends at least 2 mm from the root surface and contains exudates, including organic acids, sugars, amino acids, small peptides, and secondary metabolites released by the root plants. It has been shown that the rhizosphere is colonized by 108–1012 bacteria per gram of soil, approximately a thousand-fold higher than in bulk soil [100,126]. Rhizospheric bacteria are essential in organic matter transformations and biogeochemical cycles [103]. So, the bacteria’s role in the rhizosphere can be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral for plants according to the soil conditions [127].
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are found in the plant rhizosphere, where they promote plant growth through different mechanisms, including indole acetic acid (IAA), siderophores production, phosphate solubilization, and reducing plant stress by the action of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC)-deaminase, which interferes in ethylene biosynthesis [128]. Overall, PGPR mechanisms are involved in plant growth in natural environments and plants exposed to stress by salinity, drought, organic compounds, and HMs [129].
The study of plant–PGPR interaction for HM removal has recently increased (Table 4). PGPR can colonize the roots of plants exposed to HMs, where they modify plant physiology by modulating hormonal status, restoring photosynthetic pigment synthesis, and increasing the synthesis of antioxidants such as phenolic compounds, glutathione, soluble sugars, and proline, which reduce oxidative stress in plants [105,124]. Furthermore, PGPR improve the processes for metabolism, extraction, and accumulation of HMs in plant tissues through the mechanisms described below [102,130].

5.1. Indole Acetic Acid’s Role in Plant Tolerance to HMs

PGPR can synthesize IAA and related compounds from L-Trp by five biosynthetic pathways [131]. IAA synthesized by bacteria is a strategy to colonize plant roots since it increases root growth and elongation, providing a larger surface to colonize and absorb nutrients [132]. PGPR can promote plant root growth by regulating auxin biosynthetic pathways in its host plant. For instance, Wu et al. [105] demonstrated that Cd-tolerant endophytic Pseudomonas fluorescens colonizes the root system of its host, upregulating genes involved in IAA synthesis that promote adventitious roots emergence in Sedum alfredii exposed to Cd. Furthermore, P. fluorescens increases the Cd-removal capacity of S. alfredii, suggesting that interaction improves the phytoextraction process.
IAA-producing bacteria have been shown to restore photosynthetic pigment production in plants exposed to HM stress. IAA-producing bacteria Sphingomonas sp. [133], P. fluorescens [134], and Buttiauxella sp. [135] increase the chlorophyll content in S. alfredii, while Serratia sp. increases it in L. usitatissimum [136]. Furthermore, IAA-producing bacteria decrease plant oxidative stress by inducing antioxidant compound synthesis. More details are available in Rolón-Cárdenas et al. [124], who reported the effect of auxin and auxin-producing bacteria in plant tolerance and accumulation of Cd.

5.2. Siderophore’s Role in Plant Tolerance to HMs

Siderophores are low-molecular-weight molecules that chelate iron with a very high and specific affinity. Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria secrete them to scavenge iron from their extracellular environment. Siderophore–iron complexes are transported into the cell through specific receptors in the bacterial membrane [137]. Diazotroph microorganisms, plant pathogens, and PGPR produce these compounds. The presence of HMs and nutrient deficiency stimulate their production. It has been shown that PGPR produce siderophores mainly in HM stress conditions. Thus, they can increase metal solubility by releasing siderophores in the rhizosphere [138].
Siderophore-producing PGPR have been isolated from S. alfredii and Withania somnifera growing in Cd-contaminated soils [139,140]. Sinha and Mukherjee [141] demonstrated that Pseudomonas aeruginosa KUCd1 increases pyoverdine excretion when exposed to high Cd concentrations. Likewise, high Cd, Al, Cu, and Ni levels induce siderophore production in Streptomyces sp. [142]. Increased bacterial siderophore production reduces free metal ions’ toxicity since siderophore–HM complexes prevent metal from entering the cell [143,144].
Although their primary function is to chelate ferric iron, siderophores can bind to metallic ions such as Cr, Al, Cu, Cd, Eu, and Pb, playing an essential role in HM removal from contaminated sites, thus becoming a beneficial ecological agent for their remediation. These compounds increase metals’ solubility, availability, and accumulation while decreasing toxicity. They also stimulate plant growth in contaminated sites and, in some cases, reduce the absorption of metals [145,146] (Table 4).

5.3. Phosphate Solubilization’s Role in Plant Tolerance to HMs

HMs in the soil interfere with iron and phosphorus absorption, so their deficiency causes slow plant growth and decreased biomass. The solubilization of inorganic phosphates and siderophores production by bacteria can compensate for this limitation. PGPR produce low-molecular-weight organic acids to solubilize phosphate from HM-polluted soils, thus contributing to phosphorus bioavailability for plant nutrition. Phosphate solubilization is carried out by the action of organic acids synthesized by bacteria such as oxalic, citric, butyric, malonic, lactic, succinic, malic, gluconic, acetic, glycolic, fumaric, adipic, and 2-ketogluconic acid [147] (Table 4). Phosphate-solubilizing PGPR have been approached in phytoremediation because organic acids synthesized by them chelate cations and thus improve phytoextraction by metal mobilization and accumulation in plant tissues [148]. Additionally, Teng et al. [149] demonstrated that in addition to organic acids synthesis, acid phosphatase activity in Leclercia adecarboxylata and Pseudomonas putida was involved in phosphate solubilization activity.
Furthermore, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria have been shown to improve phytostabilization by decreasing metal toxicity by transforming metal species into immobile forms. For instance, L. adecarboxylata can complex lead ions into hydroxyapatite (Pb10(PO4)6(OH)2) and pyromorphite (Pb5(PO3)3Cl), indicating its potential for Pb immobilization [149].
The phytoremediation of metals associated with phosphate-solubilizing PGPR has been shown to overcome drawbacks imposed by metal stress on plants [148]. Likewise, it improves the phytoextraction and phytostabilization of HMs; hence, this bacterial group could be used in phytoremediation strategies.

5.4. ACC Deaminase’s Role in Plant Tolerance to HMs

Ethylene is an important plant phytohormone involved in both growth and senescence, playing a pivotal role in accomplishing the plant life cycle. However, when plants are exposed to biotic and abiotic stress, it is produced in high amounts as a defense mechanism to inhibit plant growth in adverse environmental conditions [150,151,152].
The presence of HMs in soils causes the increase of ethylene, which negatively affects the growth of plants exposed to them [150,151]. However, PGPR with ACC-deaminase activity hydrolyze the precursor of ethylene biosynthesis, the 1-amino cyclopropane carboxylic (ACC), producing α-ketobutyrate and ammonia. Thus, this reduces ethylene levels and stress in plants, therefore restoring plant growth in HM-contaminated environments [153] (Table 4). Evidence demonstrates that PGPR possessing ACC-deaminase activity improves plants’ growth in the presence of HMs. For instance, Grichko et al. [154] demonstrated that the transgenic tomato plant Lycopersicon esculentum, expressing the bacterial gene ACC deaminase, tolerates Cd, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Pb, or Zn and accumulates greater amounts than non-transgenic plants. Moreover, it has been established that PGPR with ACC-deaminase activity improve the growth of plants in adverse environmental conditions, including heat, cold, drought, flooding, nutrient deficiency, phytopathogens, and pest attacks [155].
Table 4. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria associated with HM-tolerant plants.
Table 4. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria associated with HM-tolerant plants.
Heavy MetalBacteriumPlantPGPR ActivitiesBacterial Effects on PlantsReferences
Cd2+Serratia sp. strain CP-13rifLinum usitatissimum L.Phosphate solubilization, IAA production, and ACC deaminase activity.Bacterium enhances biomass accumulation and the roots and shoots growth. It increases photosynthetic pigments (Chl a, Chl b, and Chl total), proline, phenolic compounds, protein content, CAT activity and reduces H2O2 and MDA levels.[136]
Cd2+Raoultella sp. strain X13Brassica chinensis L.Phosphate solubilization, IAA, and siderophore production.Bacteria enhance fresh and dry biomass accumulation and increase the content of soluble sugars.[156]
Cd2+Cupriavidus necator strain GX_5Brassica napusSiderophore secretion, ACC deaminase, IAA, and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) production.Bacterium enhances dry biomass accumulation and root growth.[157]
Sphingomonas sp. strain GX_15IAA production.
Curtobacterium sp. strain GX_31ACC deaminase, IAA, and HCN production.
Cd2+Kocuria rhizophila strain 14aspGlycine max L.Phosphate solubilization, catalase activity, ACC-deaminase, IAA, and ammonia production.Bacterium enhances the growth of the shoots.[158]
Cd2+Serratia marcescens strain S2I7Oryza sativaPhosphate solubilization, production of siderophore, IAA, and HCN.Bacterium increases shoot growth and root length.[159]
Cd2+Sphingomonas sp. strain SaMR12Sedum alfrediiSiderophore production, phosphate solubilization, IAA production.Bacterial inoculation increases photosynthetic pigments (Chl). It decreases H2O2 and MDA levels in roots. In shoots, it downregulates the SaZIP2 gene, whereas it upregulates SaZIP3, SaNramp6, SaHMA2, and SaHMA3 genes. In roots, the bacterium upregulates SaZIP3 and SaNramp1 genes and downregulates the SaNramp3 gene.[133,160,161]
Cd2+Pseudomonas fluorescens strain Sasm05Sedum alfrediiIAA production, siderophore production, and ACC deaminase activity.Bacterium enhances biomass accumulation, promotes shoots, and root formation and increases photosynthetic pigments (Chl). In shoots, it upregulates SaHMA2, SaHMA3, SaNramp1, SaNramp6, SaZIP2, SaZIP3, SaZIP4, and IRT1 genes, whereas in roots it upregulates SaHMA3, SaNramp6, SaZIP2, SaZIP4, SaZIP11, and IRT1 genes.[162]
Cd2+Buttiauxella sp. strain SaSR13Sedum alfrediiIAA production, phosphate solubilization, siderophore production, and ACC deaminase activity.Bacterium enhances biomass accumulation, root growth, and root-surface area, increases photosynthetic pigments (Chl), and reduces superoxide anion levels.[135]
Cd2+Pseudomonas veronii strain E02Panicum virgatumIAA production and ACC deaminase activity.Bacterium enhances biomass accumulation and increases stem growth.[163]
Cd2+Pseudomonas rhodesiae strains GRC065, GRC066, GRC093, GRC140Arabidopsis thaliana Col-0Phosphate solubilization, siderophore production, IAA, and ACC deaminase activity.Bacteria promote the development of lateral roots in A. thaliana seedlings cultivated in conditions with and without cadmium.[53]
Cd2+Enterobacter sp. strain S2Oryza sativaACC deaminase activity, IAA production, phosphate solubilization, and nitrogen fixation.Bacterium enhances seedling growth, germination percentage, root-shoot length, fresh and dry weight, amylase, and protease activity. Furthermore, it exhibited alleviation of Cd-induced oxidative stress, reduction of stress ethylene, and decreased Cd accumulation in seedlings, conferring plant tolerance to cadmium.[164]
Cd2+Pseudomonas fluorescensSedum alfrediiIAA production, siderophore production, and ACC deaminase activity.Bacterium promotes lateral root formation, enhances biomass, Cd uptake and accumulation, increases IAA concentration, and decreases abscisic acid, brassinolide, trans-zeatin, ethylene, and jasmonic acid in roots, thereby inducing lateral root emergence. Moreover, it activates plant hormone-related genes.[105]
Cd2+Rhodococcus ruber N7Sorghum bicolorACC deaminase activity, siderophore, and IAA production.Bacterium increases the activity of peroxidase, laccase, and tyrosinase. Under cadmium contamination, it successfully colonizes the roots and contributes to metal accumulation in the plant roots.[165]
Cd2+Pseudomonas rhodesiae strain GRC140Cucumis sativus L.Phosphate solubilization, siderophore production, ACC deaminase activity, IAA andphenylacetic acid (PAA) synthesis.In Cd-exposed seedlings, the bacterium improves the growth of C. sativus L.[166]
Cd2+Enterobacter cloacae strain AS10Oryza sativaPhosphate solubilization, ACC deaminase activity, nitrogen fixation, siderophore, HCN, and IAA production.Bacterium enhances root-shoot growth at the seedling stage through Cd immobilization. It increases total sugar content and prevents the surge of ethylene and oxidative stress.[167]
Cd2+, Ni2+ and Pb2+Citrobacter werkmanii strain WWN1Triticum aestivum L.Zn, K, and PO4 solubilization, siderophore production.Bacteria enhance plant shoot and root length, fresh and dry weight, and photosynthetic pigments (Chl a and b) under HM stress. Moreover, it improves antioxidant activity.[168,169]
Enterobacter cloacaecepa strain JWM6
Cr6+Pseudomonas sp. strain NT27Medicago sativaPhosphate solubilization, siderophore production, IAA and HCN production.Bacterium increases shoot and root dry weights in the presence of Cr. Increases chlorophyll content and decreases stress markers, malondialdehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and proline levels.[170]
Cr6+Pseudomonas sp. strain CPSB21Helianthus annuus L. and Solanum lycopersicum L.Phosphate solubilization, siderophores, IAA, HCN and ammonia production.Bacterium enhances shoot and root length, fresh and dry weight, chlorophyll, and soluble protein content. It reduces adverse effects of metal stress.[171]
Cr3+Bacillus cereus strain B05Brassica nigraPhosphate solubilization, siderophore production, ACC deaminase synthesis, phytohormones (IAA, CK, ABA).Bacterium promotes plant growth and reduces chromium toxicity. It enhances seed germination %, shoot and root length, fresh, and dry biomass, and photosynthetic pigments. It improves phytoextraction of Cr.[172]

6. Other Microorganisms Associated with the Rhizosphere of Typha spp.

The rhizosphere is the habitat of many microorganisms and invertebrates, considered one of Earth’s most dynamic interfaces [104]. Although bacteria are the main inhabitants of the rhizosphere, the plant roots can be colonized by fungi, protozoa, rotifers, nematodes, and microarthropods, which are attracted by rhizodeposits, nutrients, exudates, border cells, and mucilage released by the plant root [100].
The presence of endophytic fungi has been reported in T. latifolia roots, including Aspergillus sp., Myrothecium sp., Phoma sp., Penicillium sp., Acremonium sp., and Fusarium sp., while in its rhizome Penicillium sp., Myrothecium sp., and Fusarium sp. have been found [173]. Furthermore, the efficiency of Aspergillus niger, Acremonium sp., Aureobasidium sp., Cephalosporium sp., and Fusarium sp., to degrade pollutants or absorb HMs has been demonstrated; thus, they are an option in mycoremediation [173,174]. On the other hand, a study conducted in Zhejiang Province, Eastern China, by Guan et al. [175] reported the presence of common fungal species including Pleosporales sp., Teratosphaeria microspora, Geotrichum candidum, Engyodontium album, Blastocladiales sp., uncultured soil fungus, Fusarium graminearum, and Cladosporium bruhnei in the rhizosphere of T. latifolia and T. orientalis. While Paramicrosporidium saccamoebae, Rhynchosporium secalis, Acremonium roseolum, and Cladosporium sphaerospermun were found in T. latifolia, and uncultured soil fungus in T. orientalis.
Finally, arbuscular vesicular (AV) fungi are known to increase plant resistance to heavy metals, and this differs according to fungal species, plant, and environmental conditions [176].

7. Conclusions

The Typha genus is used in phytoremediation because of its ability to remove heavy metals and accumulate them in its roots. This ability is enhanced by the action of bacterial communities associated with the plant roots. However, little is known about bacterial species that colonize the roots of Typhaceas.
Efforts have been made using microbiological and molecular strategies to identify either cultivable or non-cultivable bacteria associated with the root of Typha species grown in natural environments and wetlands contaminated with HMs. However, the information available is scarce, making it difficult to establish the core of bacterial communities associated with the roots of Typhaceas.
Data available in the GenBank database show that the rhizosphere of T. latifolia growing in natural wetlands is mainly colonized by bacteria belonging to Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes; among them are bacterial species classified as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria that exert biochemical activities possibly involved in plants adapting to natural wetland conditions.
On the other hand, cultivable plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria have attracted much attention because they can be used in plant–bacteria–metal interaction assays. It has been demonstrated that endophytic bacteria isolated from T. angustifolia promote the growth of their host plant in the presence of Fe. Likewise, endophytic Pseudomonas species isolated from the roots of T. latifolia promote the development of their host plant in the presence of Cd or Pb. The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria during their plant interaction could be attributed to IAA production, phosphate solubilization, siderophore production, and ACC-deaminase activity, which modulate plant physiology to adapt to environmental conditions.
Although there are significant advances in the role of some root-endophytic bacteria in their Typha host, it is necessary to continue identifying bacteria associated with the roots of Typha species growing in heavy metal-contaminated environments in order to select the most tolerant bacterial isolates and combine them in consortia to evaluate their contribution to plant development and phytoremediation. Additionally, it is important to establish the Typha–bacteria interaction model to determine the mechanisms involved in promoting plant growth and phytoremediation improvement. If well-characterized consortia or bacterium are available, they could help us to assist Typha in removing heavy metals from contaminated sites.

8. Outlooks

Industrial or domestic effluents are known to contain a diversity and abundance of compounds, including HMs, organic matter, nutrients, and emergent contaminants. Their concentration can vary in function of annual stages, weather, drought, and rains. These variations influence plant physiology, growth and development, and the released root exudates. The chemical composition of root exudates influences the recruitment, composition, and abundance of bacteria inside the root endosphere or in the root rhizoplane of Typha. Therefore, the bacterial population’s structure can vary during the year in each microhabitat of the plant, and even along the wetland.
It has been suggested that plants select bacterial populations that improve their growth in the wetland’s conditions. Thus, it is essential to determine the population dynamics of non-cultivable and cultivable bacteria associated with the roots of Typha species growing in wetlands to treat wastewater. Although main plant-colonizer rhizobacteria have been identified, their behavior, ecological interactions, HM-tolerance mechanisms, biochemical abilities, PGPR activities, colonization site, abundance, and diversity remain poorly understood. Likewise, it is important to establish if bacterial populations are specific for the tolerance and removal of a specific heavy metal or whether a bacterial core community is involved in the tolerance and removal of multiple heavy metals. Finally, bacterial communities’ knowledge could help to select specific bacterial isolates for bioaugmentation, enhancing contaminant removal and the rational manipulation of plant–microbiota interactions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms11061587/s1, Table S1. Bacteria associated with the roots of Typha sp. growing in natural sites; Table S2. Bacteria associated with the roots of Typha sp. growing in heavy metal contaminated environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing—review and editing, and funding acquisition A.H.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.M.-M., S.R.-L. and G.A.R.-C.; supervision, J.L.A.-G., C.C.-Á., J.R.M.-P. and J.R.P.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work reported was funded by grants from CONACYT, Programa Presupuestario F003 (Formerly Fondo Sectorial de Investigación para la Educación CB2017-2018), Project number: A1-S-40454 and Fondos Concurrentes de la UASLP (FCR UASLP 210920280) to Alejandro Hernández-Morales. Joana Guadalupe Martínez-Martínez (CVU: 1143723) and Stephanie Rosales-Loredo (CVU: 1143748) thank CONACYT-Mexico for the financial support given to carry out their MSc studies.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author, A.H.-M., upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Inouhe, M.; Huang, H.; Chaudhary, S.K.; Gupta, D.K. Heavy Metal Bindings and Their Interactions with Thiol Peptides and Other Biological Ligands in Plant Cells. In Metal Toxicity in Plants: Perception, Signaling and Remediation; Gupta, D.K., Sandalio, L.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–21. ISBN 978-3-642-22081-4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Munive Cerrón, R.; Loli Figueroa, O.; Azabache Leyton, A.; Gamarra Sánchez, G. Fitorremediación Con Maíz (Zea mays L.) y Compost de Stevia En Suelos Degradados Por Contaminación Con Metales Pesados. Sci. Agropecu. 2018, 9, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Santana-Flores, A.; Sánchez-Ayala, A.; Romero-Ramírez, Y.; Toledo-Hernández, E.; Ortega-Acosta, S.Á.; Toribio-Jiménez, J. Identification and Isolation of Heavy-Metal Tolerant and Bioaccumulator Bacteria Obtained from El Fraile Mine Tailings, Mexico. Terra Latinoam. 2020, 38, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nandakumar, R.; Chen, L.; Rogers, S.M.D. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of the Wetland Monocot Typha latifolia L. (Broadleaf Cattail). Plant Cell Rep. 2005, 23, 744–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hejna, M.; Moscatelli, A.; Stroppa, N.; Onelli, E.; Pilu, S.; Baldi, A.; Rossi, L. Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals from Wastewater through a Typha latifolia and Thelypteris palustris Phytoremediation System. Chemosphere 2020, 241, 125018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shahid, M.J.; Ali, S.; Shabir, G.; Siddique, M.; Rizwan, M.; Seleiman, M.F.; Afzal, M. Comparing the Performance of Four Macrophytes in Bacterial Assisted Floating Treatment Wetlands for the Removal of Trace Metals (Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Cr) from Polluted River Water. Chemosphere 2020, 243, 125353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bonanno, G.; Cirelli, G.L. Comparative Analysis of Element Concentrations and Translocation in Three Wetland Congener Plants: Typha domingensis, Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 143, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cristescu, A.C.; Covaliu, C.; Popa, L.; Dumitru, D.; Anghelet, A. Study on Use of Typha angustifolia L. in Wastewater Treatment: Promising Method in Removal of Copper Ions Present in Aquatic Solution. In Proceedings of the 17th International Scientific Conference, Jelgava, Latvia, 23–25 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sasmaz, A.; Obek, E.; Hasar, H. The Accumulation of Heavy Metals in Typha latifolia L. Grown in a Stream Carrying Secondary Effluent. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, B.; Zhang, C.; Li, S.; Lu, G.; Lu, G.; Li, S.; Zhou, Y. An Approach to Biodegradation of Chlorobenzenes: Combination of Typha angustifolia and Bacterial Effects on Hexachlorobenzene Degradation in Water. Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 74, 1409–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zapata-Morales, A.L.; Alfaro-De la Torre, M.C.; Hernández-Morales, A.; García-De la Cruz, R.F. Isolation of Cultivable Bacteria Associated with the Root of Typha latifolia in a Constructed Wetland for the Removal of Diclofenac or Naproxen. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. 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]
  13. Etim, E. Phytoremediation and Its Mechanisms: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Bioenergy 2012, 2, 120–136. [Google Scholar]
  14. Reichenauer, T.G.; Germida, J.J. Phytoremediation of Organic Contaminants in Soil and Groundwater. ChemSusChem 2008, 1, 708–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Manahan, S.E. Introducción a la Química Ambiental; Reverte: Barcelona, Spain, 2006; ISBN 978-84-291-7907-1. [Google Scholar]
  16. Onweremadu, E.U. Selected Bioremediation Techniques in Polluted Tropical Soils; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ismail, S. Phytoremediation: A Green Technology. 2012, pp. 567–576. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348008872_Phytoremediation_a_green_technology (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  18. Jadia, C.D.; Fulekar, M.H. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals: Recent Techniques. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8. [Google Scholar]
  19. Marques, A.P.G.C.; Rangel, A.O.S.S.; Castro, P.M.L. Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils: Phytoremediation as a Potentially Promising Clean-Up Technology. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 39, 622–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Adriano, D.C. Nickel. In Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 677–705. ISBN 978-1-4684-9505-8. [Google Scholar]
  21. Leitenmaier, B.; Küpper, H. Compartmentation and Complexation of Metals in Hyperaccumulator Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kidd, P.S.; Castro, C.B.; Lestón, M.G.; Monterroso, C. Aplicación de plantas hiperacumuladoras de níquel en la fitoextracción natural: El género Alyssum L. Ecosistemas 2007, 16, 3. [Google Scholar]
  23. Llugany, M.; Tolrá, R.; Poschnrieder, C.; Barceló, J. Hiperacumulación de metales: ¿una ventaja para la planta y para el hombre? Ecosistemas 2007, 16, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kopittke, P.M.; Lombi, E.; Menzies, N.W.; Naidu, R. Principles of Plant-Based Remediation of Contaminated Soils. Ind. Crops Uses 2010, 446–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sanghi, R.; Singh, V. Green Chemistry for Environmental Remediation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-118-28772-9. [Google Scholar]
  26. Neilson, S.; Rajakaruna, N. Roles of Rhizospheric Processes and Plant Physiology in Applied Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soils Using Brassica oilseeds. In The Plant Family Brassicaceae: Contribution Towards Phytoremediation; Anjum, N.A., Ahmad, I., Pereira, M.E., Duarte, A.C., Umar, S., Khan, N.A., Eds.; Environmental Pollution; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 313–330. ISBN 978-94-007-3913-0. [Google Scholar]
  27. Poschenrieder, C.; Tolrà, R.; Barceló, J. Can Metals Defend Plants against Biotic Stress? Trends Plant Sci. 2006, 11, 288–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rascio, N.; Navari-Izzo, F. Heavy Metal Hyperaccumulating Plants: How and Why Do They Do It? And What Makes Them so Interesting? Plant Sci. 2011, 180, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Steinberg, C.E.W. Stress Ecology: Environmental Stress as Ecological Driving Force and Key Player in Evolution; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-94-007-2072-5. [Google Scholar]
  30. Awa, S.H.; Hadibarata, T. Removal of Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soil by Phytoremediation Mechanism: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, B.X.Y.; Hadibarata, T.; Yuniarto, A. Phytoremediation Mechanisms in Air Pollution Control: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kafle, A.; Timilsina, A.; Gautam, A.; Adhikari, K.; Bhattarai, A.; Aryal, N. Phytoremediation: Mechanisms, Plant Selection and Enhancement by Natural and Synthetic Agents. Environ. Adv. 2022, 8, 100203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Raza, A.; Habib, M.; Kakavand, S.N.; Zahid, Z.; Zahra, N.; Sharif, R.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Phytoremediation of Cadmium: Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular Mechanisms. Biology 2020, 9, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yan, A.; Wang, Y.; Tan, S.N.; Mohd Yusof, M.L.; Ghosh, S.; Chen, Z. Phytoremediation: A Promising Approach for Revegetation of Heavy Metal-Polluted Land. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sharma, J.K.; Kumar, N.; Singh, N.P.; Santal, A.R. Phytoremediation Technologies and Their Mechanism for Removal of Heavy Metal from Contaminated Soil: An Approach for a Sustainable Environment. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Muthusaravanan, S.; Sivarajasekar, N.; Vivek, J.S.; Vasudha Priyadharshini, S.; Paramasivan, T.; Dhakal, N.; Naushad, M. Research Updates on Heavy Metal Phytoremediation: Enhancements, Efficient Post-Harvesting Strategies and Economic Opportunities. In Green Materials for Wastewater Treatment; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 191–222. ISBN 978-3-030-17723-2. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gabriele, I.; Race, M.; Papirio, S.; Esposito, G. Phytoremediation of Pyrene-Contaminated Soils: A Critical Review of the Key Factors Affecting the Fate of Pyrene. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 293, 112805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. DalCorso, G.; Fasani, E.; Manara, A.; Visioli, G.; Furini, A. Heavy Metal Pollutions: State of the Art and Innovation in Phytoremediation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Grzegórska, A.; Rybarczyk, P.; Rogala, A.; Zabrocki, D. Phytoremediation—From Environment Cleaning to Energy Generation—Current Status and Future Perspectives. Energies 2020, 13, 2905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shackira, A.M.; Puthur, J.T. Phytostabilization of Heavy Metals: Understanding of Principles and Practices. In Plant-Metal Interactions; Srivastava, S., Srivastava, A.K., Suprasanna, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 263–282. ISBN 978-3-030-20732-8. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wani, Z.A.; Ahmad, Z.; Asgher, M.; Bhat, J.A.; Sharma, M.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, V.; Kumar, A.; Pant, S.; Lukatkin, A.S.; et al. Phytoremediation of Potentially Toxic Elements: Role, Status and Concerns. Plants 2023, 12, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mocek-Płóciniak, A.; Mencel, J.; Zakrzewski, W.; Roszkowski, S. Phytoremediation as an Effective Remedy for Removing Trace Elements from Ecosystems. Plants 2023, 12, 1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sabreena; Hassan, S.; Bhat, S.A.; Kumar, V.; Ganai, B.A.; Ameen, F. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals: An Indispensable Contrivance in Green Remediation Technology. Plants 2022, 11, 1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zhang, H.; Yuan, X.; Xiong, T.; Wang, H.; Jiang, L. Bioremediation of Co-Contaminated Soil with Heavy Metals and Pesticides: Influence Factors, Mechanisms and Evaluation Methods. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 398, 125657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khan, I.U.; Qi, S.-S.; Gul, F.; Manan, S.; Rono, J.K.; Naz, M.; Shi, X.-N.; Zhang, H.; Dai, Z.-C.; Du, D.-L. A Green Approach Used for Heavy Metals ‘Phytoremediation’ Via Invasive Plant Species to Mitigate Environmental Pollution: A Review. Plants 2023, 12, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Raklami, A.; Meddich, A.; Oufdou, K.; Baslam, M. Plants—Microorganisms-Based Bioremediation for Heavy Metal Cleanup: Recent Developments, Phytoremediation Techniques, Regulation Mechanisms, and Molecular Responses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bartucca, M.L.; Cerri, M.; Del Buono, D.; Forni, C. Use of Biostimulants as a New Approach for the Improvement of Phytoremediation Performance—A Review. Plants 2022, 11, 1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhou, B.; Tu, T.; Kong, F.; Wen, J.; Xu, X. Revised Phylogeny and Historical Biogeography of the Cosmopolitan Aquatic Plant Genus Typha (Typhaceae). Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 8813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Baldwin, B.; Cannon, A. Typha Review; Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sesin, V.; Davy, C.M.; Freeland, J.R. Review of Typha spp. (Cattails) as Toxicity Test Species for the Risk Assessment of Environmental Contaminants on Emergent Macrophytes. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ciotir, C.; Freeland, J. Cryptic Intercontinental Dispersal, Commercial Retailers, and the Genetic Diversity of Native and Non-Native Cattails (Typha spp.) in North America. Hydrobiologia 2016, 768, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Grace, J.B.; Harrison, J.S. The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Typha latifolia L., Typha angustifolia L. and Typha xglauca Godr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1986, 66, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rolón-Cárdenas, G.A.; Arvizu-Gómez, J.L.; Pacheco-Aguilar, J.R.; Vázquez-Martínez, J.; Hernández-Morales, A. Cadmium-Tolerant Endophytic Pseudomonas rhodesiae Strains Isolated from Typha latifolia Modify the Root Architecture of Arabidopsis thaliana Col-0 in Presence and Absence of Cd. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2021, 52, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ciotir, C.; Szabo, J.; Freeland, J. Genetic Characterization of Cattail Species and Hybrids (Typha spp.) in Europe. Aquat. Bot. 2017, 141, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Eid, E.M.; Shaltout, K.H. Evaluation of Carbon Sequestration Potentiality of Lake Burullus, Egypt to Mitigate Climate Change. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2013, 39, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mitsch, W.J.; Bernal, B.; Nahlik, A.M.; Mander, Ü.; Zhang, L.; Anderson, C.J.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Brix, H. Wetlands, Carbon, and Climate Change. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 583–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Valach, A.C.; Kasak, K.; Hemes, K.S.; Anthony, T.L.; Dronova, I.; Taddeo, S.; Silver, W.L.; Szutu, D.; Verfaillie, J.; Baldocchi, D.D. Productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net CO2 sinks with site-level factors driving uptake variability. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pal, S.; Chattopadhyay, B.; Datta, S.; Mukhopadhyay, S.K. Potential of Wetland Macrophytes to Sequester Carbon and Assessment of Seasonal Carbon Input into the East Kolkata Wetland Ecosystem. Wetlands 2017, 37, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hemes, K.S.; Chamberlain, S.D.; Eichelmann, E.; Knox, S.H.; Baldocchi, D.D. A Biogeochemical Compromise: The High Methane Cost of Sequestering Carbon in Restored Wetlands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018, 45, 6081–6091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Günther, A.; Huth, V.; Jurasinski, G.; Glatzel, S. The Effect of Biomass Harvesting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Rewetted Temperate Fen. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 1092–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Were, D.; Kansiime, F.; Fetahi, T.; Hein, T. Carbon Dioxide and Methane Fluxes from Various Vegetation Communities of a Natural Tropical Freshwater Wetland in Different Seasons. Environ. Process. 2021, 8, 553–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vroom, R.J.E.; Xie, F.; Geurts, J.J.M.; Chojnowska, A.; Smolders, A.J.P.; Lamers, L.P.M.; Fritz, C. Typha latifolia Paludiculture Effectively Improves Water Quality and Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Rewetted Peatlands. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 124, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Johnson, O.F.; Panda, A.; Lishawa, S.C.; Lawrence, B.A. Repeated Large-Scale Mechanical Treatment of Invasive Typha under Increasing Water Levels Promotes Floating Mat Formation and Wetland Methane Emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 147920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saha, C.; Mukherjee, G.; Agarwal-Banka, P.; Seal, A. A Consortium of Non-Rhizobial Endophytic Microbes from Typha angustifolia Functions as Probiotic in Rice and Improves Nitrogen Metabolism. Plant Biol. 2016, 18, 938–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pietrangelo, L.; Bucci, A.; Maiuro, L.; Bulgarelli, D.; Naclerio, G. Unraveling the Composition of the Root-Associated Bacterial Microbiota of Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ponce-Hernández, A.; Maldonado-Miranda, J.; Medellin-Castillo, N.; Alonso-Castro, A.; Carranza Alvarez, C. Phytoremediation Technology: Sustainable Solution for Cleaning Up of Recalcitrant Pollutants from Disturbed Environs. In Bioremediation and Biotechnology, Vol 3: Persistent and Recalcitrant Toxic Substances; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 245–268. ISBN 978-3-030-46074-7. [Google Scholar]
  67. Petry, C.T.; Costa, D.T.; Droste, A. Removal of Ammoniacal Nitrogen from Municipal Landfill Leachate with Floating Typha domingensis (Typhaceae). Acta Biológica Colomb. 2020, 25, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ali, S.; Abbas, Z.; Rizwan, M.; Zaheer, I.E.; Yavaş, İ.; Ünay, A.; Abdel-Daim, M.M.; Bin-Jumah, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Kalderis, D. Application of Floating Aquatic Plants in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals Polluted Water: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pacheco-Aguilar, J.R.P.; Peña-Cabriales, J.J.P.; Maldonado-Vega, M.M. Identification and Characterization of Sulfur-Oxidizing Bacteria in an Artificial Wetland That Treats Wastewater From a Tannery. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2008, 10, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Carranza-Álvarez, C.; Alonso-Castro, A.J.; Alfaro-De La Torre, M.C.; García-De La Cruz, R.F. Accumulation and Distribution of Heavy Metals in Scirpus americanus and Typha latifolia from an Artificial Lagoon in San Luis Potosí, México. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2008, 188, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Klink, A.; Macioł, A.; Wisłocka, M.; Krawczyk, J. Metal Accumulation and Distribution in the Organs of Typha latifolia L. (Cattail) and Their Potential Use in Bioindication. Limnologica 2013, 43, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alonso-Castro, A.J.; Carranza-Álvarez, C.; Alfaro-De la Torre, M.C.; Chávez-Guerrero, L.; García-De la Cruz, R.F. Removal and Accumulation of Cadmium and Lead by Typha latifolia Exposed to Single and Mixed Metal Solutions. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, 57, 688–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Taylor, G.J.; Crowder, A.A. Uptake and Accumulation of Heavy Metals by Typha latifolia in Wetlands of the Sudbury, Ontario Region. Can. J. Bot. 1983, 61, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Anning, A.K.; Korsah, P.E.; Addo-Fordjour, P. Phytoremediation of Wastewater with Limnocharis flava, Thalia geniculata and Typha latifolia in Constructed Wetlands. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2013, 15, 452–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Rana, V.; Maiti, S.K. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Potential and Metal Accumulation Strategies of Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott and Typha latifolia L. in a Constructed Wetland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Azizi, A.; Krika, A.; Krika, F. Heavy Metal Bioaccumulation and Distribution in Typha latifolia and Arundo donax: Implication for Phytoremediation. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 18, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Santos-Díaz, M.D.S.; Barrón-Cruz, M.D.C. Lead, Chromium and Manganese Removal by In Vitro Root Cultures of Two Aquatic Macrophytes Species: Typha latifolia L. and Scirpus americanus Pers. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2011, 13, 538–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Leura-Vicencio, A.; Alonso-Castro, A.J.; Carranza-Álvarez, C.; Loredo-Portales, R.; Alfaro-De la Torre, M.C.; García-De la Cruz, R.F. Removal and Accumulation of As, Cd and Cr by Typha latifolia. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 90, 650–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Klink, A. A Comparison of Trace Metal Bioaccumulation and Distribution in Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis: Implication for Phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 3843–3852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, Y.; Shen, Q. Phytoremediation of Cadmium-Contaminated Wetland Soil with Typha latifolia L. and the Underlying Mechanisms Involved in the Heavy-Metal Uptake and Removal. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 4905–4916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. de Carvalho, C.F.M.; Viana, D.G.; Pires, F.R.; Egreja Filho, F.B.; Bonomo, R.; Martins, L.F.; Cruz, L.B.S.; Nascimento, M.C.P.; Cargnelutti Filho, A.; da Rocha Júnior, P.R. Phytoremediation of Barium-Affected Flooded Soils Using Single and Intercropping Cultivation of Aquatic Macrophytes. Chemosphere 2019, 214, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Oliveira, J.P.V.; Pereira, M.P.; Duarte, V.P.; Corrêa, F.F.; Castro, E.M.; Pereira, F.J. Cadmium Tolerance of Typha domingensis Pers. (Typhaceae) as Related to Growth and Leaf Morphophysiology. Braz. J. Biol. 2018, 78, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Hadad, H.R.; Mufarrege, M.D.L.M.; Di Luca, G.A.; Maine, M.A. Long-Term Study of Cr, Ni, Zn, and P Distribution in Typha domingensis Growing in a Constructed Wetland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 18130–18137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lominchar, M.Á.; Sierra, M.J.; Jiménez-Moreno, M.; Guirado, M.; Martín-Doimeadios, R.C.R.; Millán, R. Mercury Species Accumulation and Distribution in Typha domingensis under Real Field Conditions (Almadén, Spain). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 3138–3144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mufarrege, M.M.; Hadad, H.R.; Di Luca, G.A.; Maine, M.A. The Ability of Typha domingensis to Accumulate and Tolerate High Concentrations of Cr, Ni, and Zn. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. de Castro Ribeiro, P.R.C.; Viana, D.G.; Pires, F.R.; Egreja Filho, F.B.; Bonomo, R.; Cargnelutti Filho, A.; Martins, L.F.; Cruz, L.B.S.; Nascimento, M.C.P. Selection of Plants for Phytoremediation of Barium-Polluted Flooded Soils. Chemosphere 2018, 206, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hegazy, A.K.; Abdel-Ghani, N.T.; El-Chaghaby, G.A. Phytoremediation of Industrial Wastewater Potentiality by Typha domingensis. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 8, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gomes, M.V.T.; de Souza, R.R.; Teles, V.S.; Araújo Mendes, É. Phytoremediation of Water Contaminated with Mercury Using Typha domingensis in Constructed Wetland. Chemosphere 2014, 103, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Maine, M.A.; Hadad, H.R.; Camaño Silvestrini, N.E.; Nocetti, E.; Sanchez, G.C.; Campagnoli, M.A. Cr, Ni, and Zn Removal from Landfill Leachate Using Vertical Flow Wetlands Planted with Typha domingensis and Canna indica. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2022, 24, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sricoth, T.; Meeinkuirt, W.; Pichtel, J.; Taeprayoon, P.; Saengwilai, P. Synergistic Phytoremediation of Wastewater by Two Aquatic Plants (Typha angustifolia and Eichhornia crassipes) and Potential as Biomass Fuel. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 5344–5358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Panich-Pat, T.; Upatham, S.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Kruatrachue, M.; Lanza, G.R. Phytoextraction of Metal Contaminants by Typha angustifolia: Interaction of Lead and Cadmium in Soil-Water Microcosms. J. Environ. Prot. 2010, 1, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chandra, R.; Yadav, S. Phytoremediation of Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Fe, Ni, Pb and Zn from Aqueous Solution Using Phragmites cummunis, Typha angustifolia and Cyperus Esculentus. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2011, 13, 580–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Demırezen, D.; Aksoy, A. Accumulation of Heavy Metals in Typha angustifolia (L.) and Potamogeton pectinatus (L.) Living in Sultan Marsh (Kayseri, Turkey). Chemosphere 2004, 56, 685–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Panich-Pat, T.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Kruatrachue, M.; Upatham, E.S.; Srinives, P.; Lanza, G.R. Removal of Lead from Contaminated Soils by Typha angustifolia. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2004, 155, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vidayanti, V.; Choesin, D.N.; Iriawati, I. Phytoremediation of Chromium: Distribution and Speciation of Chromium in Typha angustifolia. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2017, 8, 6870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zaranyika, M.F.; Nyati, W. Uptake of Heavy Metals by Typha capensis from Wetland Sites Polluted by Effluent from Mineral Processing Plants: Implications of Metal–Metal Interactions. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Gao, T.; Shi, X.-Y. Taxonomic Structure and Function of Seed-Inhabiting Bacterial Microbiota from Common Reed (Phragmites australis) and Narrowleaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia L.). Arch. Microbiol. 2018, 200, 869–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Li, Y.H.; Zhu, J.N.; Liu, Q.F.; Liu, Y.; Liu, M.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Q. Comparison of the Diversity of Root-Associated Bacteria in Phragmites australis and Typha angustifolia L. in Artificial Wetlands. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 29, 1499–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Arroyo, P.; de Miera, L.E.S.; Ansola, G. Influence of Environmental Variables on the Structure and Composition of Soil Bacterial Communities in Natural and Constructed Wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 506–507, 380–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kennedy, A.C.; de Luna, L.Z. Rhizosphere. In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment; Hillel, D., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 399–406. ISBN 978-0-12-348530-4. [Google Scholar]
  101. Jha, P.N.; Kumar, A. Endophytic Colonization of Typha australis by a Plant Growth-promoting Bacterium Klebsiella oxytoca Strain GR-3. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 1311–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ashkan, M.F.; Bleakley, B. Isolation, Characterization and Identification of Putative Bacterial Endophytes from Some Plants in Hot Springs, South Dakota. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 756–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lagos, L.; Maruyama, F.; Nannipieri, P.; Mora, M.L.; Ogram, A.; Jorquera, M.A. Current Overview on the Study of Bacteria in the Rhizosphere by Modern Molecular Techniques: A Mini-review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 504–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Philippot, L.; Raaijmakers, J.M.; Lemanceau, P.; van der Putten, W.H. Going Back to the Roots: The Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 789–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wu, Y.; Ma, L.; Liu, Q.; Vestergård, M.; Topalovic, O.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, Q.; Huang, L.; Yang, X.; Feng, Y. The Plant-Growth Promoting Bacteria Promote Cadmium Uptake by Inducing a Hormonal Crosstalk and Lateral Root Formation in a Hyperaccumulator Plant Sedum alfredii. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 395, 122661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Shehzadi, M.; Fatima, K.; Imran, A.; Mirza, M.S.; Khan, Q.M.; Afzal, M. Ecology of Bacterial Endophytes Associated with Wetland Plants Growing in Textile Effluent for Pollutant-Degradation and Plant Growth-Promotion Potentials. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2016, 150, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zhou, X.; Zhang, J.; Wen, C. Community Composition and Abundance of Anammox Bacteria in Cattail Rhizosphere Sediments at Three Phenological Stages. Curr. Microbiol. 2017, 74, 1349–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Chellaiah, E.R. Cadmium (Heavy Metals) Bioremediation by Pseudomonas Aeruginosa: A Minireview. Appl. Water Sci. 2018, 8, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Fakhar, A.; Gul, B.; Gurmani, A.R.; Khan, S.M.; Ali, S.; Sultan, T.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Rafique, M.; Rizwan, M. Heavy Metal Remediation and Resistance Mechanism of Aeromonas, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 52, 1868–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Renu, S.; Sarim, K.M.; Singh, D.P.; Sahu, U.; Bhoyar, M.S.; Sahu, A.; Kaur, B.; Gupta, A.; Mandal, A.; Thakur, J.K.; et al. Deciphering Cadmium (Cd) Tolerance in Newly Isolated Bacterial Strain, Ochrobactrum intermedium BB12, and Its Role in Alleviation of Cd Stress in Spinach Plant (Spinacia oleracea L.). Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 758144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Pandey, S.; Ghosh, P.K.; Ghosh, S.; De, T.K.; Maiti, T.K. Role of Heavy Metal Resistant Ochrobactrum sp. and Bacillus spp. Strains in Bioremediation of a Rice Cultivar and Their PGPR like Activities. J. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Faisal, M.; Hasnain, S. Beneficial Role of Hydrophytes in Removing Cr(VI) from Wastewater in Association with Chromate-Reducing Bacterial Strains Ochrobactrum intermedium and Brevibacterium. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2005, 7, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kavita, B.; Keharia, H. Reduction of Hexavalent Chromium by Ochrobactrum intermedium BCR400 Isolated from a Chromium-Contaminated Soil. 3 Biotech 2012, 2, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ozdemir, G.; Ozturk, T.; Ceyhan, N.; Isler, R.; Cosar, T. Heavy Metal Biosorption by Biomass of Ochrobactrum anthropi Producing Exopolysaccharide in Activated Sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 90, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bhattacharya, A.; Gupta, A. Evaluation of Acinetobacter sp. B9 for Cr (VI) Resistance and Detoxification with Potential Application in Bioremediation of Heavy-Metals-Rich Industrial Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 6628–6637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Pang, B.; Lv, L.; Pang, C.; Ye, F.; Shang, C. Optimization of Growth Conditions of Acinetobacter sp. Cr1 for Removal of Heavy Metal Cr Using Central Composite Design. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Zakaria, Z.A.; Zakaria, Z.; Surif, S.; Ahmad, W.A. Hexavalent Chromium Reduction by Acinetobacter haemolyticus Isolated from Heavy-Metal Contaminated Wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 146, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Ndeddy Aka, R.J.; Babalola, O.O. Effect of Bacterial Inoculation of Strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Alcaligenes feacalis and Bacillus subtilis on Germination, Growth and Heavy Metal (Cd, Cr, and Ni) Uptake of Brassica juncea. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2016, 18, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Sodhi, K.K.; Kumar, M.; Singh, D.K. Multi-Metal Resistance and Potential of Alcaligenes sp. MMA for the Removal of Heavy Metals. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Liu, W.; Wang, Q.; Wang, B.; Hou, J.; Luo, Y.; Tang, C.; Franks, A.E. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance the Growth and Cd Uptake of Sedum plumbizincicola in a Cd-Contaminated Soil. J. Soils Sediments 2015, 15, 1191–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Salam, L.B.; Shomope, H.; Ummi, Z.; Bukar, F. Mercury Contamination Imposes Structural Shift on the Microbial Community of an Agricultural Soil. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Li, D.; Chen, J.; Zhang, X.; Shi, W.; Li, J. Structural and Functional Characteristics of Soil Microbial Communities in Response to Different Ecological Risk Levels of Heavy Metals. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1072389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zhang, J.; Shi, Q.; Fan, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, J. Distinction between Cr and Other Heavy-Metal-Resistant Bacteria Involved in C/N Cycling in Contaminated Soils of Copper Producing Sites. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Rolón-Cárdenas, G.A.; Martínez-Martínez, J.G.; Arvizu-Gómez, J.L.; Soria-Guerra, R.E.; Alfaro-De la Torre, M.C.; Alatorre-Cobos, F.; Rubio-Santiago, J.; González-Balderas, R.D.M.; Carranza-Álvarez, C.; Macías-Pérez, J.R.; et al. Enhanced Cd-Accumulation in Typha latifolia by Interaction with Pseudomonas rhodesiae GRC140 under Axenic Hydroponic Conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Rubio-Santiago, J.; Hernández-Morales, A.; Rolón-Cárdenas, G.A.; Arvizu-Gómez, J.L.; Soria-Guerra, R.E.; Carranza-Álvarez, C.; Rubio-Salazar, J.E.; Rosales-Loredo, S.; Pacheco-Aguilar, J.R.; Macías-Pérez, J.R.; et al. Characterization of Endophytic Bacteria Isolated from Typha latifolia and Their Effect in Plants Exposed to Either Pb or Cd. Plants 2023, 12, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Barillot, C.D.C.; Sarde, C.-O.; Bert, V.; Tarnaud, E.; Cochet, N. A Standardized Method for the Sampling of Rhizosphere and Rhizoplan Soil Bacteria Associated to a Herbaceous Root System. Ann. Microbiol. 2013, 63, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Singh, A.K.; Varaprasad, K.S. Criteria for Identification and Assessment of Agro-Biodiversity Heritage Sites: Evolving Sustainable Agriculture. Curr. Sci. 2008, 94, 1131–1138. [Google Scholar]
  128. Khanna, K.; Ohri, P.; Bhardwaj, R.; Ahmad, P. Unsnarling Plausible Role of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Mitigating Cd-Toxicity from Plants: An Environmental Safety Aspect. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 41, 2514–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Backer, R.; Rokem, J.S.; Ilangumaran, G.; Lamont, J.; Praslickova, D.; Ricci, E.; Subramanian, S.; Smith, D.L. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Context, Mechanisms of Action, and Roadmap to Commercialization of Biostimulants for Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. He, W.; Megharaj, M.; Wu, C.-Y.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Dai, C.-C. Endophyte-Assisted Phytoremediation: Mechanisms and Current Application Strategies for Soil Mixed Pollutants. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2020, 40, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Patten, C.L.; Blakney, A.J.C.; Coulson, T.J.D. Activity, Distribution and Function of Indole-3-Acetic Acid Biosynthetic Pathways in Bacteria. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 39, 395–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Ahmed, A.; Hasnain, S. Auxins as One of the Factors of Plant Growth Improvement by Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria. Pol. J. Microbiol. 2014, 63, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Pan, F.; Luo, S.; Shen, J.; Wang, Q.; Ye, J.; Meng, Q.; Wu, Y.; Chen, B.; Cao, X.; Yang, X.; et al. The Effects of Endophytic Bacterium SaMR12 on Sedum alfredii Hance Metal Ion Uptake and the Expression of Three Transporter Family Genes after Cadmium Exposure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 9350–9360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Chen, B.; Luo, S.; Wu, Y.; Ye, J.; Wang, Q.; Xu, X.; Pan, F.; Khan, K.Y.; Feng, Y.; Yang, X. The Effects of the Endophytic Bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens Sasm05 and IAA on the Plant Growth and Cadmium Uptake of Sedum alfredii Hance. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wu, K.; Luo, J.; Li, J.; An, Q.; Yang, X.; Liang, Y.; Li, T. Endophytic Bacterium buttiauxella sp. SaSR13 Improves Plant Growth and Cadmium Accumulation of Hyperaccumulator Sedum alfredii. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 21844–21854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Shahid, M.; Javed, M.T.; Masood, S.; Akram, M.S.; Azeem, M.; Ali, Q.; Gilani, R.; Basit, F.; Abid, A.; Lindberg, S. Serratia sp. CP-13 Augments the Growth of Cadmium (Cd)-Stressed Linum usitatissimum L. by Limited Cd Uptake, Enhanced Nutrient Acquisition and Antioxidative Potential. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 126, 1708–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Tamariz-Angeles, C.; Huamán, G.D.; Palacios-Robles, E.; Olivera-Gonzales, P.; Castañeda-Barreto, A. Characterization of Siderophore-Producing Microorganisms Associated to Plants from High-Andean Heavy Metal Polluted Soil from Callejón de Huaylas (Ancash, Perú). Microbiol. Res. 2021, 250, 126811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Asad, S.A.; Farooq, M.; Afzal, A.; West, H. Integrated Phytobial Heavy Metal Remediation Strategies for a Sustainable Clean Environment—A Review. Chemosphere 2019, 217, 925–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rathaur, P.; Ramteke, P.W.; Raja, W.; John, S.A. Isolation and Characterization of Nickel and Cadmium Tolerant Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria from Rhizosphere of Withania somnifera. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2012, 6, 253–261. [Google Scholar]
  140. Xinxian, L.; Xuemei, C.; Yagang, C.; Woon-Chung, W.J.; Zebin, W.; Qitang, W. Isolation and Characterization Endophytic Bacteria from Hyperaccumulator Sedum alfredii Hance and Their Potential to Promote Phytoextraction of Zinc Polluted Soil. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 27, 1197–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sinha, S.; Mukherjee, S.K. Cadmium–Induced Siderophore Production by a High Cd-Resistant Bacterial Strain Relieved Cd Toxicity in Plants Through Root Colonization. Curr. Microbiol. 2008, 56, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Dimkpa, C.O.; Svatoš, A.; Dabrowska, P.; Schmidt, A.; Boland, W.; Kothe, E. Involvement of Siderophores in the Reduction of Metal-Induced Inhibition of Auxin Synthesis in Streptomyces spp. Chemosphere 2008, 74, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Nair, A.; Juwarkar, A.A.; Singh, S.K. Production and Characterization of Siderophores and Its Application in Arsenic Removal from Contaminated Soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 180, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Rajkumar, M.; Ae, N.; Freitas, H. Endophytic Bacteria and Their Potential to Enhance Heavy Metal Phytoextraction. Chemosphere 2009, 77, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Perea-Vélez, Y.S.; Carrillo-González, R.; González-Chávez, M.C.A. Fitorremediación Asistida Por Microorganismos: Enfásis En Bacterias Promotoras Del Crecimiento De Plantas. Agro Product. 2017, 10, 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  146. Saha, M.; Sarkar, S.; Sarkar, B.; Sharma, B.K.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Tribedi, P. Microbial Siderophores and Their Potential Applications: A Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 3984–3999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Paredes-Mendoza, M.; Espinosa-Victoria, D. Ácidos orgánicos producidos por rizobacterias que solubilizan fosfato: Una revisión crítica. Terra Latinoam. 2010, 28, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
  148. Ahemad, M. Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria-Assisted Phytoremediation of Metalliferous Soils: A Review. 3 Biotech 2015, 5, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Teng, Z.; Shao, W.; Zhang, K.; Huo, Y.; Li, M. Characterization of Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria Isolated from Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils and Their Potential for Lead Immobilization. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Camelo, M.; Vera, S.P.; Bonilla, R.R. Mecanismos de acción de las rizobacterias promotoras del crecimiento vegetal. Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecu. 2011, 12, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Johnston-Monje, D.; Raizada, M.N. Plant and Endophyte Relationships. In Comprehensive Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 713–727. ISBN 978-0-08-088504-9. [Google Scholar]
  152. Glick, B.R. Modulation of Plant Ethylene Levels by the Bacterial Enzyme ACC Deaminase. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 251, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Saleem, M.; Arshad, M.; Hussain, S.; Bhatti, A.S. Perspective of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) Containing ACC Deaminase in Stress Agriculture. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 34, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Grichko, V.P.; Filby, B.; Glick, B.R. Increased Ability of Transgenic Plants Expressing the Bacterial Enzyme ACC Deaminase to Accumulate Cd, Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn. J. Biotechnol. 2000, 81, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Chandwani, S.; Amaresan, N. Role of ACC Deaminase Producing Bacteria for Abiotic Stress Management and Sustainable Agriculture Production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 22843–22859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Xu, S.; Xing, Y.; Liu, S.; Huang, Q.; Chen, W. Role of Novel Bacterial Raoultella sp. Strain X13 in Plant Growth Promotion and Cadmium Bioremediation in Soil. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 3887–3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Li, X.; Yan, Z.; Gu, D.; Li, D.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, D.; Su, L.; Ao, Y. Characterization of Cadmium-Resistant Rhizobacteria and Their Promotion Effects on Brassica napus Growth and Cadmium Uptake. J. Basic Microbiol. 2019, 59, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Hussain, A.; Amna; Kamran, M.A.; Javed, M.T.; Hayat, K.; Farooq, M.A.; Ali, N.; Ali, M.; Manghwar, H.; Jan, F.; et al. Individual and Combinatorial Application of Kocuria rhizophila and Citric Acid on Phytoextraction of Multi-Metal Contaminated Soils by Glycine max L. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 159, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Kotoky, R.; Nath, S.; Kumar Maheshwari, D.; Pandey, P. Cadmium Resistant Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Serratia marcescens S2I7 Associated with the Growth Promotion of Rice Plant. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 2, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Pan, F.; Meng, Q.; Wang, Q.; Luo, S.; Chen, B.; Khan, K.Y.; Yang, X.; Feng, Y. Endophytic Bacterium Sphingomonas SaMR12 Promotes Cadmium Accumulation by Increasing Glutathione Biosynthesis in Sedum alfredii Hance. Chemosphere 2016, 154, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Zhang, X.; Lin, L.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y.; An, Q. Colonization and Modulation of Host Growth and Metal Uptake by Endophytic Bacteria of Sedum alfredii. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2013, 15, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Chen, S.; Han, X.; Fang, J.; Lu, Z.; Qiu, W.; Liu, M.; Sang, J.; Jiang, J.; Zhuo, R. Sedum alfredii SaNramp6 Metal Transporter Contributes to Cadmium Accumulation in Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Begum, N.; Afzal, S.; Zhao, H.; Lou, L.; Cai, Q. Shoot Endophytic Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Reduce Cadmium Toxicity and Enhance Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) Biomass. Acta Physiol. Plant 2018, 40, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Mitra, S.; Pramanik, K.; Sarkar, A.; Ghosh, P.K.; Soren, T.; Maiti, T.K. Bioaccumulation of Cadmium by Enterobacter sp. and Enhancement of Rice Seedling Growth under Cadmium Stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 156, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Muratova, A.; Lyubun, Y.; German, K.; Turkovskaya, O. Effect of Cadmium Stress and Inoculation with a Heavy-Metal-Resistant Bacterium on the Growth and Enzyme Activity of Sorghum bicolor. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 16098–16109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Rolón-Cárdenas, G. Effect of Pseudomonas rhodesiae GRC140 on Cucumis sativus L. Seedlings with and without Cadmium. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 2020, 7, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ghosh, A.; Pramanik, K.; Bhattacharya, S.; Mondal, S.; Ghosh, S.K.; Maiti, T.K. A Potent Cadmium Bioaccumulating Enterobacter Cloacae Strain Displays Phytobeneficial Property in Cd-Exposed Rice Seedlings. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2021, 3, 100101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ajmal, A.W.; Yasmin, H.; Hassan, M.N.; Khan, N.; Jan, B.L.; Mumtaz, S. Heavy Metal–Resistant Plant Growth–Promoting Citrobacter werkmanii Strain WWN1 and Enterobacter cloacae Strain JWM6 Enhance Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Growth by Modulating Physiological Attributes and Some Key Antioxidants Under Multi-Metal Stress. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 815704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Ajmal, A.W.; Saroosh, S.; Mulk, S.; Hassan, M.N.; Yasmin, H.; Jabeen, Z.; Nosheen, A.; Shah, S.M.U.; Naz, R.; Hasnain, Z.; et al. Bacteria Isolated from Wastewater Irrigated Agricultural Soils Adapt to Heavy Metal Toxicity While Maintaining Their Plant Growth Promoting Traits. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Tirry, N.; Kouchou, A.; El Omari, B.; Ferioun, M.; El Ghachtouli, N. Improved Chromium Tolerance of Medicago sativa by Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2021, 19, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Gupta, P.; Rani, R.; Chandra, A.; Kumar, V. Potential Applications of Pseudomonas sp. (Strain CPSB21) to Ameliorate Cr6+ Stress and Phytoremediation of Tannery Effluent Contaminated Agricultural Soils. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Akhtar, N.; Ilyas, N.; Yasmin, H.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Hasnain, Z.; Elsayed, E.A.; El Enshasy, H.A. Role of Bacillus cereus in Improving the Growth and Phytoextractability of Brassica nigra (L.) K. Koch in Chromium Contaminated Soil. Molecules 2021, 26, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Khan, A.A.H. Endophytic Fungi and Their Impact on Agroecosystems. In Medicinal Plants: Biodiversity, Sustainable Utilization and Conservation; Khasim, S.M., Long, C., Thammasiri, K., Lutken, H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 443–499. ISBN 9789811516368. [Google Scholar]
  174. Yadav, A.; Goyal, D.; Prasad, M.; Singh, T.B.; Shrivastav, P.; Ali, A.; Dantu, P.K. Bioremediation of Toxic Pollutants: Features, Strategies, and Applications. In Contaminants in Agriculture: Sources, Impacts and Management; Naeem, M., Ansari, A.A., Gill, S.S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 361–383. ISBN 978-3-030-41552-5. [Google Scholar]
  175. Guan, M.; Pan, X.-C.; Wang, S.; Wei, X.-L.; Zhang, C.-B.; Wang, J.; Liu, W.-L.; Liu, S.-Y.; Chang, J. Comparison of Fungal Communities among Ten Macrophyte Rhizospheres. Fungal Biol. 2018, 122, 867–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Cheng, S. Effects of Heavy Metals on Plants and Resistance Mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2003, 10, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Exploring the Potential of Oral Microbiome Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Systematic Review
Previous
Glucose Transport in Escherichia coli: From Basics to Transport Engineering
Next