Next Article in Journal
Filamentous Temperature-Sensitive Z Protein J175 Regulates Maize Chloroplasts’ and Amyloplasts’ Division and Development
Previous Article in Journal
Toxic and Hallucinogenic Plants of Southern Chile of Forensic Interest: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Salinity Stress on Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) and Its Wild Relatives: Morpho-Physiological Insights at the Seedling Stage
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Engineering Oilseed Microbiome Synergy for Saline Alkaline Soil Restoration

1
Crop Research Institute, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
2
Department of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Elviña Campus, University of A Coruña, 15001 A Coruña, Spain
3
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
4
Zhengzhou Research Base, State Key Laboratory of Cotton Bio-Breeding and Integrated Utilization, School of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(14), 2197; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142197
Submission received: 26 May 2025 / Revised: 28 June 2025 / Accepted: 2 July 2025 / Published: 16 July 2025

Abstract

Soil salinization poses a critical threat to global agriculture, necessitating innovative strategies for sustainable remediation. This review synthesizes advances in leveraging plant–microbe interactions to remediate saline–alkali soils, focusing on oilseed crops—Brassica napus, Glycine max, Arachis hypogaea, Helianthus annuus, and Sesamum indicum—as keystone species for ecosystem restoration. These crops exhibit unique adaptive strategies, including root architectural plasticity and exudate-mediated recruitment of stress-resilient microbiomes (Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Ascomycota), which collectively stabilize soil structure and enhance nutrient cycling, ion homeostasis, and soil aggregation to mitigate soil salinity and alkalinity. Emerging technologies further amplify these natural synergies: nanomaterials optimize nutrient delivery and microbial colonization, while artificial intelligence (AI) models predict optimal plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) combinations and simulate remediation outcomes. This integration establishes a roadmap for precision microbiome engineering, offering scalable strategies to restore soil health and ensure food security in saline–alkali ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Soil salinization is a pressing global environmental issue that severely threatens agricultural production and food security [1,2]. Currently, approximately 20% of cultivated land and 33% of irrigated areas worldwide are affected by salinization, with climate change and unsustainable agricultural practices such as poor irrigation and deforestation likely to exacerbate this trend [3,4]. Salinization arises through natural processes such as climatic and hydrological dynamics or anthropogenic activities, characterized by the accumulation of soluble salts, including sodium chloride, calcium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate, which elevate soil electrical conductivity [5]. This process degrades soil structure through reduced permeability and aeration, induces soil dispersion and structural collapse, and may lead to metal toxicity and nutrient deficiencies [6,7,8,9,10]. These changes significantly impair cropland productivity, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions where high evapotranspiration rates accelerate salt accumulation. Subsequently, salt stress directly inhibits plant root water uptake and metabolic activity through osmotic imbalance and ionic toxicity, leading to reduced photosynthesis, stunted growth, and lower crop yields [6,11,12]. Globally, an estimated three hectares of arable land are lost to salinization every minute, potentially resulting in a 30% reduction in food-producing areas within the next 25 years [13,14].
Traditional approaches to saline soil management, including physical drainage and chemical amendments, often prove insufficient and environmentally unsustainable [15]. This has driven the development of innovative biotechnological solutions that harness the synergistic potential of plant–soil–microbe interactions for sustainable soil remediation [16]. These emerging strategies integrate multiple biological components, including specialized crop cultivation, engineered microbial communities, and advanced nanomaterial applications, representing a paradigm shift toward eco-friendly saline soil restoration [17].
Oilseed crops, particularly rapeseed (Brassica napus), have gained attention for their adaptability to saline–alkali soils and soil remediation potential [18]. These crops thrive in diverse saline–alkali environments, utilizing extensive root systems to absorb soil salts and reduce salt concentrations through transpiration. They significantly lower soil pH, total salt content, and sodium ion (Na+) levels while enhancing available phosphorus and potassium [19]. The plant–soil–microbe symbiotic relationship forms the cornerstone of this remediation approach, where tripartite interactions create synergistic effects that exceed the sum of individual components [20]. These interactions enhance nutrient cycling, improve soil structure, and mitigate salt stress through coordinated mechanisms involving root exudates, microbial activity, and soil physicochemical changes. Root architecture–microbe interactions constitute a key remediation mechanism: specialized root traits such as deep rooting improve nutrient acquisition, while rhizosphere microbiome modulation enhances stress resilience [21].
Recent advances in microbial community engineering have demonstrated that structured microbial consortia can be rationally designed to enhance salt tolerance and promote soil restoration functions. The application of high-throughput sequencing technologies has unraveled the complexity of rhizosphere microbiomes, enabling the identification of keystone microbial species that govern community assembly and ecosystem functioning under saline stress [22]. These insights pave the way for the targeted manipulation of microbial communities to improve plant resilience and rehabilitate saline soils sustainably [23]. For instance, inoculation with Pseudomonas fluorescens reshapes the rhizosphere microbial community of oilseed crops, promoting plant growth and nutrient cycling [24].
The integration of nanomaterials and AI into biological remediation systems represents a cutting-edge approach that amplifies the efficiency of plant–microbe interactions [17,25]. Engineered nanoparticles, including biochar nanocomposites and metal oxide nanoparticles, serve as carriers for beneficial microorganisms while simultaneously improving soil physical properties and nutrient retention [26]. These nanoscale interventions can precisely modulate rhizosphere chemistry, enhance microbial colonization, and provide a controlled release of bioactive compounds [17].
The synergy between oilseed crops and rhizosphere microbes alleviates salt–alkali stress through multifaceted pathways: root exudates such as organic acids recruit beneficial microbes including Bacillus subtilis to enhance nitrogen and phosphorus bioavailability, optimizing soil nutrient cycling [27,28]. Concurrently, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) mitigate salt-induced oxidative damage by scavenging reactive oxygen species (ROS), maintaining plant metabolic homeostasis [28]. Furthermore, oilseed cultivation significantly increases microbial diversity in saline–alkali soils [29,30], where high-complexity communities enhance nutrient utilization and ecological resilience to counteract salinity impacts [31]. These coordinated mechanisms provide a systemic biological strategy for saline–alkali soil bioremediation.

2. Oilseed–Microbiome Synergy Under Saline–Alkali Stress

The adaptive capacity of oilseed crops to reconfigure their root systems under environmental stress is increasingly recognized. This plasticity extends beyond root elongation or branching, encompassing intricate interactions between root architecture and exudate composition that shape the rhizosphere microenvironment [32,33]. Transcriptomic analyses have revealed that salt stress triggers differential expression of genes controlling root development, including auxin response factors (ARFs) and lateral organ boundary domain (LBD) genes, which orchestrate morphological remodeling in response to saline conditions [34,35]. Research reveals multidimensional salt–alkali stress response mechanisms through root morphological remodeling, with exudate-mediated rhizosphere regulation being particularly critical. Enhanced vertical root elongation under salt stress serves as a key adaptive mechanism affecting plant functionality and stress resistance in oilseed crops. This root adaptation proves vital in saline–alkali environments by expanding the effective zone for water/nutrient acquisition and mitigating the adverse effects of surface salt accumulation [36,37].
Excessive fertilization with compounds such as nitrate and ammonium or irrigation with sodium-rich water leads to alkaline salt accumulation, including sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate, which elevates soil pH through hydroxyl ion release during hydrolysis [5,38]. Root systems counteract this through organic acid secretion, such as malic and citric acids, which chelate cations, regulate rhizosphere pH, and enhance nutrient uptake efficiency. Concurrently, root-derived phenolic compounds alleviate oxidative damage via ROS scavenging while modulating soil pH to recruit beneficial microorganisms, thereby improving soil health [39,40,41].
Oilseed crops demonstrate varying salt–alkali tolerance levels [42,43]. Transcriptomic profiling of Brassica napus under salt stress reveals an upregulation of sodium/hydrogen antiporter (NHX) genes and high-affinity potassium transporter (HKT) family members, enabling Na+ compartmentalization and K+/Na+ homeostasis, which contribute to salt tolerance and soil amelioration [44]. In Glycine max, RNA-seq analysis indicates that the MYB68 transcription factor enhances salt stress resistance by regulating genes involved in osmoregulation, potentially including aquaporin genes (PIPs and TIPs), and supports photosynthetic efficiency through pathways that may involve ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) activase [45]. Integrated metabolomic and transcriptomic analyses in Helianthus annuus demonstrate proline accumulation through upregulated pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase (P5CS) expression and the maintenance of K+/Na+ homeostasis via differential regulation of Shaker-type potassium channels under salt stress [46]. In Sesamum indicum, transcriptomic analyses suggest molecular coordination through co-expression networks linking plasma membrane H+-ATPases with antioxidant systems, including superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) gene families, to enhance salt stress tolerance [47]. Comparative transcriptomics in Arachis hypogaea under salt stress reveals optimized photosynthate allocation through the differential expression of sucrose transporter genes and potential modulation of root architecture via gravitropic response genes [48].
The coordinated root exudate–morphology responses suggest plant–microbiome synergy as a crucial stress mitigation strategy. Rhizosphere microorganisms participate directly in pH regulation and salt detoxification through exudate metabolism, ion homeostasis modulation, and bioactive compound synthesis. Their structural and functional dynamics may play pivotal roles in saline–alkali soil remediation.

3. Rhizosphere Microbiota Drive Soil Remediation

The relationship between rhizospheric microbial communities and oilseed crops is critical for enhancing plant growth and resilience, particularly in saline–alkali environments. Functional trait-based approaches prioritize microorganisms based on specific capabilities rather than taxonomic identity, enabling targeted remediation strategies.
In Brassica napus, root-associated bacterial communities are dominated by the phyla Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Acidobacteria, and Gemmatimonadetes, while fungal communities primarily comprise the phyla Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, Chytridiomycota, and Zygomycota [49]. In Glycine max, bacterial communities are enriched with Bradyrhizobium and Pseudomonas (both Proteobacteria) and Bacillus (Firmicutes), with fungal communities dominated by Ascomycota and Basidiomycota [50]. Similar bacterial profiles (Bradyrhizobium, Pseudomonas, and Bacillus) are observed in Arachis hypogaea and Glycine max [51]. Helianthus annuus roots predominantly host Acidobacteria and Saccharibacteria, whereas stems are colonized by Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Gemmatimonadetes [52] (Table 1).
Bacterial communities in oilseed crops play pivotal roles in saline–alkali soil remediation. Under salt–alkali stress, core rhizobacteria such as Proteobacteria secrete organic acids including citrate and oxalate to solubilize immobilized phosphate, alleviating phosphorus fixation [53,54,55]. Specific strains such as Rhizobium enhance nitrogen availability through symbiotic nitrogen fixation with legumes [56,57]. Actinobacteria degrade complex organic compounds such as cellulose and chitin and chelate excess metal ions, mitigating ionic toxicity [58,59,60], while antibiotic-producing strains such as Streptomyces suppress soil-borne pathogens to bolster plant resilience [61,62]. Salt-tolerant Acidobacteria maintain metabolic activity via osmoregulation and promote soil aggregate formation to improve structure [63,64]. Gemmatimonadetes accelerate organic matter mineralization, reducing soil alkalinity and enhancing micronutrient availability [65,66].
Fungal communities in oilseed crops contribute synergistically to soil amelioration. Ascomycota secretes biomass-degrading enzymes to release humic substances, improving water retention [67,68]. Trichoderma enhances plant antioxidant defenses [69,70], while Penicillium improves salt tolerance by facilitating nutrient uptake [71,72]. Basidiomycota, including arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus), expand root nutrient acquisition and stabilize soil aggregates via glomalin-related soil protein (GRSP) secretion, counteracting salt-induced hardening [73,74,75]. Halotolerant Chytridiomycota strains adaptively modulate osmotic pressure and metabolic pathways to improve soil physicochemical properties under high salinity [76]. Future research should focus on functional trait-based consortia and multi-omics approaches to identify key metabolic pathways for targeted strain selection.

4. From Insights to Impact: Engineering Sustainable Solutions

Traditional approaches for improving crop yield and soil properties historically relied on crop rotation and intercropping. Oilseed crop intercropping systems exhibit remarkable potential for saline–alkali soil remediation by synergistically enhancing soil physicochemical properties and microbial diversity through the adjacent cultivation of diverse species [77,78,79]. For example, the rotation of Arachis hypogaea and Zea mays optimizes microbial communities, significantly increasing the abundance of beneficial bacteria such as Acidobacteria and fungi such as Ascomycota [80]. Leguminous oilseed crop rotations enhance soil organic carbon, available phosphorus, and total nitrogen by recruiting symbiotic microbes through root exudates [77]. While effective, these conventional methods exhibit limited efficiency, prompting the development of advanced systemic solutions for saline–alkali land restoration (Figure 1).

4.1. Microbiome-Based Technologies

PGPR inoculation technology enhances oilseed crop stress resilience by modulating plant–microbe interactions. In saline–alkali environments, PGPR such as Bacillus and Pseudomonas reshape root architecture via indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) secretion, improving water and nutrient uptake [81,82,83]. Biofilm formation and extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) production by PGPR establish protective root layers, enhancing rhizosphere water retention and nutrient availability [7,84,85]. These bacteria also alleviate salt-induced oxidative damage by activating antioxidant gene expression and promoting osmoprotectant synthesis [84,86,87]. Synergistic interactions with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi such as Glomus further strengthen plant adaptation to saline–alkali stress through enhanced nutrient acquisition and rhizosphere ecological optimization [85,88].

4.2. Nanomaterial-Enhanced Remediation

Nanomaterial engineering introduces novel dimensions for microbial–plant collaborative soil remediation. Engineered materials such as nano-silica and carbon nanotubes directly improve rhizosphere conditions by optimizing soil structure through increased water retention and reduced compaction [89,90]. Beyond soil improvement, nanomaterials directly enhance plant development by promoting root growth, increasing photosynthetic efficiency, and improving stress tolerance mechanisms [91]. Their interactions with microbial communities selectively enrich beneficial taxa such as PGPR, suppress pathogens, and enhance nutrient cycling efficiency [92,93,94]. For instance, carbon-based nanomaterials regulate microbial composition to significantly improve nutrient acquisition in oilseed crops [95,96]. Nano-carriers also serve as slow-release fertilizers, sustaining mineral nutrient supply to boost crop yields while improving long-term soil fertility [97]. However, ecological safety assessments through field trials remain critical to clarify nanomaterial environmental behavior and risks [98,99,100].

4.3. AI-Driven Precision Management

Artificial intelligence (AI) drives precision in microbial remediation strategies. Machine learning algorithms analyze soil pH, electrical conductivity, and other parameters to predict optimal microbial consortia, such as synergistic Bacillus–Pseudomonas co-inoculation [101,102]. AI-powered optimization algorithms design custom microbial cocktails by evaluating strain compatibility, metabolic complementarity, and halotolerance traits, while clustering algorithms identify previously unknown synergistic relationships between bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi.
Deep learning models integrate multi-omics data such as microbiome profiles, plant phenotypes, and environmental variables to construct digital twin systems for simulating remediation outcomes [102,103]. These predictive models reduce development costs by forecasting microbial combination effectiveness before field testing. Reinforcement learning systems continuously refine inoculant formulations based on performance feedback, creating self-improving remediation protocols. Furthermore, these optimized AI-driven methods contribute to the augmented biosynthesis of long-chain fatty acids in oilseed crops, thereby improving crop yield and quality [104].
Smart sensors enable real-time soil monitoring, dynamically adjusting irrigation and fertilization to maintain optimal microbial activity [103,105]. Future AI-driven solutions will integrate satellite imagery, weather data, and soil sensing networks to deliver site-specific microbial treatments, transcending traditional trial-and-error approaches and enabling intelligent decision-making for large-scale saline–alkali soil management.

5. Conclusions

The intricate interplay between oilseed crops and their rhizosphere microbiomes exemplifies nature’s blueprint for sustainable soil restoration in saline–alkali ecosystems. By harnessing the root exudate-mediated recruitment of stress-resilient microbes and leveraging their metabolic versatility—from phosphate solubilization to ROS scavenging—these plant–microbe partnerships redefine soil remediation strategies. The integration of advanced tools such as nanomaterial-enabled nutrient carriers and AI-driven predictive models underscores a paradigm shift from observational ecology to precision microbiome engineering.
However, translating laboratory insights into field efficacy demands rigorous validation. Challenges persist in balancing nanomaterial efficacy with ecological safety, optimizing AI algorithms for heterogeneous soil conditions, and scaling genetically tailored microbial inoculants. Long-term ecological impacts on native soil flora require systematic evaluation, particularly as outcomes may vary significantly under different climatic conditions and soil types. Site-specific optimization of microbial consortia and technologies is essential, as certain soil characteristics may favor specific interventions over others.
Equally important is the comprehensive assessment of biosafety aspects related to products derived from plants grown in remediated soils, ensuring both ecological integrity and regulatory compliance. Future efforts must prioritize the AI-guided discovery of keystone microbial functions, coupled with cross-disciplinary frameworks that unify genetic, environmental, and computational data.
By anchoring innovation in the principles of plant–microbe co-evolution while addressing these ecological and biosafety considerations, this approach not only revitalizes degraded soils but also pioneers a resilient and sustainable agricultural future that harmonizes technological advancement with environmental stewardship.

Author Contributions

S.M. and T.T. were centrally involved in writing the manuscript and in drafting the figures. C.D. revised the manuscript and produced the figures. B.G. and Z.Y. conceived the study, coordinated work, and contributed to manuscript writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work was supported by the Open Project of Key Laboratory of Crop Quality Improvement of Anhui Province (2024ZW005) and the joint research project on Wheat Breeding of Anhui Province (2021–2025).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hassani, A.; Azapagic, A.; Shokri, N. Global predictions of primary soil salinization under changing climate in the 21st century. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Shokri, N.; Hassani, A.; Sahimi, M. Multi-scale soil salinization dynamics from global to pore scale: A review. Rev. Geophys. 2024, 62, e2023RG000804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shrivastava, P.; Kumar, R. Soil salinity: A serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mukhopadhyay, R.; Sarkar, B.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Bolan, N.S. Soil salinity under climate change: Challenges for sustainable agriculture and food security. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bui, E.N. Causes of soil salinization, sodification, and alkalinization. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford AResearch Encyclopedias: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wang, J.; Li, Z.; Qin, X.; Yang, X.; Qin, Q.; Zhang, N. Research on Dynamic Evolution of Soil Salinization in Tianjin Costal Area Using Remote Sensing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 21–26 July 2013; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arora, N.K.; Fatima, T.; Mishra, J.; Mishra, I.; Verma, S.; Verma, R.; Verma, M.; Bhattacharya, A.; Verma, P.; Mishra, P.; et al. Halo-Tolerant Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Improving Productivity and Remediation of Saline Soils. J. Adv. Res. 2020, 26, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ashrafuzzaman, M.; Cerdà, A.; Santos, F.D.; Schmidt, L. Current and Future Salinity Intrusion in the South-Western Coastal Region of Bangladesh. Span. J. Soil Sci. 2022, 12, 10017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tang, H.; Zhong, Z.; Hou, J.; You, L.; Zhao, Z.; Kwok, L.Y.; Bilige, M. Metagenomic Analysis Revealed the Potential of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Improving Natural Saline-Alkali Land. Int. Microbiol. 2023, 27, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ntanasi, T.; Karavidas, I.; Zioviris, G.; Ziogas, I.; Karaolani, M.; Fortis, D.; Conesa, M.À.; Schubert, A.; Savvas, D.; Ntatsi, G. Assessment of Growth, Yield, and Nutrient Uptake of Mediterranean Tomato Landraces in Response to Salinity Stress. Plants 2023, 12, 3551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Perri, S.; Molini, A.; Hedin, L.O.; Porporato, A. Contrasting effects of aridity and seasonality on global salinization. Nat. Geosci. 2022, 15, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Singh, C.; Kumari, G.; Lalita, L.; Gandhi, V.; Jain, A.; Madaan, S.; Saini, S.; Kumar, A.; Mahaveer; Kumar, R. Remediation of Saline Soils Using Halo-Tolerant Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2024, 14, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shokri-Kuehni, S.M.S.; Raaijmakers, B.; Kurz, T.; Or, D.; Helmig, R.; Shokri, N. Water Table Depth and Soil Salinization: From Pore-Scale Processes to Field-Scale Responses. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2019WR026707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Awad-Allah, E.F.A.; Attia, M.; Mahdy, A. Salinity Stress Alleviation by Foliar Bio-Stimulant, Proline and Potassium Nutrition Promotes Growth and Yield Quality of Garlic Plant. Open J. Soil Sci. 2020, 10, 443–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Qadir, M.; Quillérou, E.; Nangia, V.; Murtaza, G.; Singh, M.; Thomas, R.J.; Drechsel, P.; Noble, A.D. Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration. Nat. Resour. Forum 2014, 38, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sen, D.O.U.; Jun, S.; Xiangyun, S.; Rui, C.A.O.; Meng, W.U.; Chenglin, L.I.; Song, G. Are humic substances soil microbial residues or unique synthesized compounds? A perspective on their distinctiveness. Pedosphere 2020, 30, 159–167. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Kumari, A.; Ranjan, A.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; Singh, R.K.; Verma, K.K. Nanotechnology in the restoration of polluted soil. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, W.-N.; Ge, J.-Z.; Yang, H.-C.; Yin, F.-T.; Huang, T.-L.; Kuai, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, B.; Zhou, G.-S.; Fu, T.-D. Adaptation of Feed Crops to Saline-Alkali Soil Stress and Effect of Improving Saline-Alkali Soil; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2022; Volume 48, pp. 1451–1462. [Google Scholar]
  19. El-Ramady, H.; Prokisch, J.; Mansour, H.; Bayoumi, Y.; Shalaby, T.; Veres, S.; Brevik, E.C. Review of Crop Response to Soil Salinity Stress: Possible Approaches From Leaching to Nano-Management. Soil Syst. 2024, 8, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gamalero, E.; Bona, E.; Todeschini, V.; Lingua, G. Saline and arid soils: Impact on bacteria, plants, and their interaction. Biology 2020, 9, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bell, J.K.; Mamet, S.D.; Helgason, B.L.; Siciliano, S.D. Brassica Napus Bacterial Assembly Processes Vary with Plant Compartment and Growth Stage but Not Between Lines. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2022, 88, e0027322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Numan, M.; Bashir, S.; Khan, Y.; Mumtaz, R.; Shinwari, Z.K.; Khan, A.L.; Khan, A.; Al-Harrasi, A. Plant growth promoting bacteria as an alternative strategy for salt tolerance in plants: A review. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 209, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, X.; Dai, Z.; Yuan, R.; Guo, Z.; Xi, H.; He, Z.; Wei, M. Effects of salinity on assembly characteristics and function of microbial communities in the phyllosphere and rhizosphere of salt-tolerant Avicennia marina mangrove species. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e03000–e03022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jiménez, J.A.; Novinscak, A.; Filion, M. Inoculation with the plant-growth-promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens LBUM677 impacts the rhizosphere microbiome of three oilseed crops. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 569366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ashkanani, Z.; Mohtar, R.; Al-Enezi, S.; Smith, P.K.; Calabrese, S.; Ma, X.; Abdullah, M. AI-assisted systematic review on remediation of contaminated soils with PAHs and heavy metals. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 468, 133813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maaz, T.M.; Dobermann, A.; Lyons, S.E.; Thomson, A.M. Review of research and innovation on novel fertilizers for crop nutrition. NPJ Sustain. Agric. 2025, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bhat, M.A.; Kumar, V.; Bhat, M.A.; Wani, I.A.; Dar, F.L.; Farooq, I.; Bhatti, F.; Koser, R.; Rahman, S.; Jan, A.T. Mechanistic Insights of the Interaction of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) With Plant Roots Toward Enhancing Plant Productivity by Alleviating Salinity Stress. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zou, M.; Yu, K.; Liu, H.; Sheng, Q.; Zhang, Y. Effects of Bacillus Subtilis on Rose Growth Promotion and Rhizosphere Microbial Community Changes Under Saline–Alkaline Stress. Agronomy 2024, 14, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, X.; Bai, J.; Wei, T.; Feng, G.; Zhao, H.; Wei, W.; Wang, M.; Zhao, Y. Oilseed Rape Cultivation Increases the Microbial Richness and Diversity in Soils Contaminated with Cadmium. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2451–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qin, Y.; Pan, X.; Kubicek, C.; Druzhinina, I.S.; Chenthamara, K.; Labbé, J.; Yuan, Z. Diverse Plant-Associated Pleosporalean Fungi from Saline Areas: Ecological Tolerance and Nitrogen-Status Dependent Effects on Plant Growth. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Picot, E.; Hale, C.C.; Hilton, S.; Teakle, G.R.; Schäfer, H.; Huang, Y.; Perryman, S.A.M.; West, J.S.; Bending, G.D. Contrasting Responses of Rhizosphere Bacterial, Fungal, Protist, and Nematode Communities to Nitrogen Fertilization and Crop Genotype in Field Grown Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 613269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Louvieaux, J.; Spanoghe, M.; Hermans, C. Root Morphological Traits of Seedlings Are Predictors of Seed Yield and Quality in Winter Oilseed Rape Hybrid Cultivars. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 568009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Qin, T.; Ali, K.; Wang, Y.; Dormatey, R.; Yao, P.; Bi, Z.; Liu, Y.; Sun, C.; Bai, J. Root-Related Genes in Crops and Their Application Under Drought Stress Resistance—A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, L.; Yahaya, B.S.; Li, J.; Wu, F. Enigmatic role of auxin response factors in plant growth and stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1398818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; de Zeeuw, T.; Duijts, K.; Kawa, D.; Lamers, J.; Munzert, K.S.; Li, H.; Zou, Y.; Meyer, A.J.; et al. Root branching under high salinity requires auxin-independent modulation of Lateral Organ Boundary Domain 16 function. Plant Cell 2024, 36, 899–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Z.; An, M.; Hong, D.; Chang, D.; Wang, K.; Fan, H. Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Analyses Reveal the Differential Regulatory Mechanisms of Compound Material on the Responses of Brassica Campestris to Saline and Alkaline Stresses. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 820540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Deng, P.; Feng, N.; Zheng, D. Regulation of Photosynthetic Capacity and Ion Metabolism of Oilseed Rape Under Salt Stress by Prohexadione-Calcium Priming; PrePrints: Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Van Breemen, N.; Mulder, J.; Driscoll, C.T. Acidification and alkalinization of soils. Plant Soil 1983, 75, 283–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sharma, A.; Shahzad, B.; Rehman, A.; Bhardwaj, R.; Landi, M.; Zheng, B. Response of Phenylpropanoid Pathway and the Role of Polyphenols in Plants Under Abiotic Stress. Molecules 2019, 24, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zwetsloot, M.J.; Ucros, J.M.; Wickings, K.; Wilhelm, R.C.; Sparks, J.P.; Buckley, D.H.; Bauerle, T.L. Prevalent Root-Derived Phenolics Drive Shifts in Microbial Community Composition and Prime Decomposition in Forest Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 145, 107797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Clocchiatti, A.; Hannula, S.E.; Berg, M.v.d.; Hundscheid, M.P.J.; Boer, W.d. Evaluation of Phenolic Root Exudates as Stimulants of Saptrophic Fungi in the Rhizosphere. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 644046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, A.; Awan, A.A.; Yasin, M.; Ramzan, A.; Cheema, M.W.A.; Jan, A. Edible Oilseeds: Historical Perspectives, Recent Advances, and Future Directions. In Edible Oilseeds Research-Updates and Prospects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kefale, H.; You, J.; Zhang, Y.; Getahun, S.; Berhe, M.; Abbas, A.F.; Ojiewo, C.O.; Wang, L. Metabolomic Insights Into the Multiple Stress Responses of Metabolites in Major Oilseed Crops. Physiol. Plant. 2024, 176, e14596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, H.-X.; Hodson, J.N.; Williams, J.P.; Blumwald, E. Engineering salt-tolerant Brassica plants: Characterization of yield and seed oil quality in transgenic plants with increased vacuolar sodium accumulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 12832–12836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. He, Y.; Dong, Y.; Yang, X.; Guo, D.; Qian, X.; Yan, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Q. Functional activation of a novel R2R3-MYB protein gene, GmMYB68, confers salt-alkali resistance in soybean (Glycine max L.). Genome 2020, 63, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhao, C.; Liu, Y.; Jia, X.; Liu, S.; Wang, P.; Zhu, Z.; Wan, S.; Duan, W. Transcriptome and metabolome analysis of the responses of salt resistance of different Helianthus annuus germplasms to melatonin. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1558877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, C.; Duan, Y.; Miao, H.; Ju, M.; Wei, L.; Zhang, H. Identification of candidate genes regulating the seed coat color trait in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) using an integrated approach of QTL mapping and transcriptome analysis. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 700469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhang, H.; Zhao, X.; Sun, Q.; Yan, C.; Wang, J.; Yuan, C.; Li, C.; Shan, S.; Liu, F. Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals molecular defensive mechanism of Arachis hypogaea in response to salt stress. Int. J. Genom. 2020, 2020, 6524093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gkarmiri, K.; Mahmood, S.; Ekblad, A.; Alström, S.; Högberg, N.; Finlay, R. Identifying the Active Microbiome Associated with Roots and Rhizosphere Soil of Oilseed Rape. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 2017, 83, e01938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Sugiyama, A. The soybean rhizosphere: Metabolites, microbes, and beyond—A review. J. Adv. Res. 2019, 19, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hossain, M.S.; Frith, C.; Bhattacharyya, S.S.; DeLaune, P.B.; Gentry, T.J. Isolation and Characterization of Bacterial Endophytes from Small Nodules of Field-Grown Peanut. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Adeleke, B.S.; Ayangbenro, A.S.; Babalola, O.O. Bacterial community structure of the sunflower (Helianthus annuus) endosphere. Plant Signal. Behav. 2021, 16, 1974217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eşítken, A.; Yıldız, H.; Erċışlı, S.; Dönmez, M.F.; Turan, M.; Güneş, A. Effects of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) on Yield, Growth and Nutrient Contents of Organically Grown Strawberry. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pindi, P.K.; Sultana, T.; Vootla, P.K. Plant Growth Regulation of Bt-Cotton Through Bacillus Species. 3 Biotech 2013, 4, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mulissa, J.M.; Löscher, C.R.; Albert, R.; Assefa, F. Phosphate Solubilization and Multiple Plant Growth Promoting Properties of Rhizobacteria Isolated from Chickpea (Cicer Aeritinum L.) Producing Areas of Ethiopia. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2016, 15, 1899–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McInnes, A.; Haq, K. Contributions of rhizobia to soil nitrogen fertility. In Soil Biological Fertility: A Key to Sustainable Land Use in Agriculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 99–128. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang, Q.; Sheng, J.; Pan, L.; Cao, H.; Li, C.; Lambers, H.; Wang, X. Soil property determines the ability of rhizobial inoculation to enhance nitrogen fixation and phosphorus acquisition in soybean. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 171, 104346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Döölotkeldieva, T.; Konurbaeva, M.; Bobusheva, S. Microbial Communities in Pesticide-Contaminated Soils in Kyrgyzstan and Bioremediation Possibilities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 25, 31848–31862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lacombe-Harvey, M.-È.; Brzezinski, R.; Beaulieu, C. Chitinolytic functions in actinobacteria: Ecology, enzymes, and evolution. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 7219–7230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pezeshknejad, P.; Ghorbani Nasrabadi, R.; Etesami, H.; Khormali, F. Isolation and characterization of salt tolerant-plant growth promoting actinobacteria from the rhizosphere of crop plants. J. Soil Manag. Sustain. Prod. 2024, 14, 121–142. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nazari, M.T.; Schommer, V.A.; Braun, J.C.A.; dos Santos, L.F.; Lopes, S.T.; Simon, V.; Machado, B.S.; Ferrari, V.; Colla, L.M.; Piccin, J.S. Using Streptomyces spp. as plant growth promoters and biocontrol agents. Rhizosphere 2023, 27, 100741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Al-Quwaie, D.A. The role of Streptomyces species in controlling plant diseases: A comprehensive review. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2024, 53, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, M.; Zhao, S.; Wang, L.; Chen, S.; Li, S.; Lei, X.; Sun, X.; Qin, L. Salt stress-induced changes in microbial community structures and metabolic processes result in increased soil cadmium availability. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 782, 147125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Aliyu, G.O.; Ezugworie, F.N.; Onwosi, C.O.; Nnamchi, C.I.; Ekwealor, C.C.; Igbokwe, V.C.; Sani, R.K. Multi-stress adaptive lifestyle of acidophiles enhances their robustness for biotechnological and environmental applications. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 954, 176190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yang, Y.; Liu, H.; Dai, Y.; Tian, H.; Zhou, W.; Lv, J. Soil organic carbon transformation and dynamics of microorganisms under different organic amendments. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 141719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bandopadhyay, S.; Shade, A. Chapter 3-Soil bacteria and archaea. In Soil Microbiology, Ecology and Biochemistry, 5th ed.; Paul, E.A., Frey, S.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 41–74. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ouni, Y.; Ghnaya, T.; Montemurro, F.; Abdelly, C.; Lakhdar, A. The role of humic substances in mitigating the harmful effects of soil salinity and improve plant productivity. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2014, 8, 353–374. [Google Scholar]
  68. Challacombe, J.F.; Hesse, C.N.; Bramer, L.M.; McCue, L.A.; Lipton, M.; Purvine, S.; Nicora, C.; Gallegos-Graves, L.V.; Porras-Alfaro, A.; Kuske, C.R. Genomes and secretomes of Ascomycota fungi reveal diverse functions in plant biomass decomposition and pathogenesis. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Yasmeen, R.; Siddiqui, Z.S. Physiological Responses of Crop Plants Against Trichoderma Harzianum in Saline Environment. Acta Bot. Croat. 2017, 76, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Boamah, S.; Zhang, S.; Xu, B.; Li, T.; Inayat, R.; Calderón-Urrea, A. The Role of Trichoderma Species in Plants Response to Salt Stress. Asian J. Res. Crop Sci. 2021, 6, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Radhakrishnan, R.; Lee, I.-J. Penicillium–sesame interactions: A remedy for mitigating high salinity stress effects on primary and defense metabolites in plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 116, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chaudhary, S.; Shankar, A.; Singh, A.; Prasad, V. Usefulness of Penicillium in enhancing plants resistance to abiotic stresses: An overview. New Future Dev. Microb. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2018, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yang, G.; Liu, N.; Lu, W.; Wang, S.; Kan, H.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, L.; Chen, Y. The Interaction Between Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Soil Phosphorus Availability Influences Plant Community Productivity and Ecosystem Stability. J. Ecol. 2014, 102, 1072–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Geo, J.A. Association of Glomus Intraradices in Sorghum Bicolor. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol. 2018, 4, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Agnihotri, R.; Sharma, M.P.; Prakash, A.; Ramesh, A.; Bhattacharjya, S.; Patra, A.K.; Manna, M.C.; Kurganova, I.; Kuzyakov, Y. Glycoproteins of arbuscular mycorrhiza for soil carbon sequestration: Review of mechanisms and controls. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gleason, F.H.; Midgley, D.J.; Letcher, P.M.; McGee, P.A. Can soil Chytridiomycota survive and grow in different osmotic potentials? Mycol. Res. 2006, 110, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chamkhi, I.; Cheto, S.; Geistlinger, J.; Zeroual, Y.; Kouisni, L.; Bargaz, A.; Ghoulam, C. Legume-based intercropping systems promote beneficial rhizobacterial community and crop yield under stressing conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 183, 114958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Xu, X.; Guo, L.; Wang, S.; Wang, X.; Ren, M.; Zhao, P.; Huang, Z.; Jia, H.; Wang, J.; Lin, A. Effective strategies for reclamation of saline-alkali soil and response mechanisms of the soil-plant system. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 905, 167179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Qi, W.; Wang, Q.; Mak-Mensah, E.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, D.; Zhou, X.; Zhao, X.; Xu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Q. Effects of soil physicochemical properties on maize, wheat, and soybean yields in maize-wheat and maize-soybean intercropping systems in China: A meta-analysis. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2024, 24, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Han, Y.; Dong, Q.; Zhang, K.; Sha, D.; Jiang, C.; Yang, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; Guo, F. Maize-peanut rotational strip intercropping improves peanut growth and soil properties by optimizing microbial community diversity. PeerJ 2022, 10, e13777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nawaz, A.; Shahbaz, M.; Asadullah; Imran, A.; Marghoob, M.U.; Imtiaz, M.; Mubeen, F. Potential of Salt Tolerant PGPR in Growth and Yield Augmentation of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Under Saline Conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Redondo-Gómez, S.; Mesa-Marín, J.; Pérez-Romero, J.A.; López-Jurado, J.; García-López, J.V.; Mariscal, V.; Molina-Heredia, F.P.; Pajuelo, E.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Flowers, T.J.; et al. Consortia of Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Isolated From Halophytes Improve Response of Eight Crops to Soil Salinization and Climate Change Conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Han, L. Harnessing the Power of PGPR: Unraveling the Molecular Interactions Between Beneficial Bacteria and Crop Roots. Mol. Soil Biol. 2024, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gupta, A.; Mishra, R.; Rai, S.; Bano, A.; Pathak, N.; Fujita, M.; Kumar, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Mechanistic Insights of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria Mediated Drought and Salt Stress Tolerance in Plants for Sustainable Agriculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 3741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sagar, A.; Rathore, P.; Ramteke, P.W.; Ramakrishna, W.; Reddy, M.S.; Pecoraro, L. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Their Synergistic Interactions to Counteract the Negative Effects of Saline Soil on Agriculture: Key Macromolecules and Mechanisms. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chauhan, P.S.; Lata, C.; Tiwari, S.; Chauhan, A.; Mishra, S.K.; Agrawal, L.; Chakrabarty, D.; Nautiyal, C.S. Transcriptional Alterations Reveal Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens-Rice Cooperation Under Salt Stress. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhang, D.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Huhe, F.N.U.; Wu, B.; Gong, X.; Chuang, S.S.C.; Zheng, J. Formulating Zwitterionic, Responsive Polymers for Designing Smart Soils. Small 2022, 18, e2203899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ha-Tran, D.M.; Nguyen, T.T.M.; Hung, S.-H.W.; Huang, E.; Huang, C.C. Roles of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) in Stimulating Salinity Stress Defense in Plants: A Review. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Furnari, D.; Khan, N.; Delaney, M.; Hamlaoui, K.; Lagree, S.; Peace, A.; Sanchez, S.; Eyring, A.; Talyanova, E.; Milczarek, M.; et al. Assessing the Geotechnical Properties of Soils Treated with Cement and Nano-Silica Additives. JOJ Sci. 2020, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Harianja, T.S.; Amalia, D.; Mase, L.Z.; Hendry; Firuliadhim, G.; Muchtar; Pudin, A. Comparative Analysis of Laboratory Unsoaked CBR Values Between Micromaterials and Limestone Nanomaterials in Expansive Soil Stabilization. Braz. J. Dev. 2024, 10, e68636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tripathi, D.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, S.; Pandey, R.; Singh, V.P.; Sharma, N.C.; Prasad, S.M.; Dubey, N.K.; Chauhan, D.K. An overview on manufactured nanoparticles in plants: Uptake, translocation, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Khan, S.T.; Adil, S.F.; Shaik, M.R.; Alkhathlan, H.Z.; Khan, M.; Khan, M. Engineered Nanomaterials in Soil: Their Impact on Soil Microbiome and Plant Health. Plants 2021, 11, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yang, L.; Sun, R.; Li, J.; Zhai, L.; Cui, H.; Fan, B.; Wang, H.; Liu, H. Organic-Inorganic Fertilization Built Higher Stability of Soil and Root Microbial Networks Than Exclusive Mineral or Organic. Fertilization 2021, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhang, P.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, H.; White, J.C.; Lynch, I. Nanomaterial Transformation in the Soil–Plant System: Implications for Food Safety and Application in Agriculture. Small 2020, 16, 2000705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. You, Y.; Kerner, P.; Shanmugam, S.; Khodakovskaya, M.V. Differential Effects of Carbon Nanotube and Graphene on the Tomato Rhizosphere Microbiome. bioRxiv 2022, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Singh, J.; Vishwakarma, K.; Ramawat, N.; Rai, P.; Singh, V.K.; Mishra, R.K.; Kumar, V.; Tripathi, D.K.; Sharma, S. Nanomaterials and Microbes’ Interactions: A Contemporary Overview. 3Biotech 2019, 9, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Al-Gharrawi, A.M.B.; Hayal, A.L.; Fattah, M.Y. Effect of Nano-Carbon on Geotechnics Features of Gypseous Soils. Key Eng. Mater. 2021, 895, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Klaine, S.J.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Batley, G.E.; Fernandes, T.F.; Handy, R.D.; Lyon, D.Y.; Mahendra, S.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Lead, J.R. Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 1825–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Sajid, M.; Ilyas, M.; Basheer, C.; Tariq, M.; Daud, M.; Baig, N.; Shehzad, F. Impact of nanoparticles on human and environment: Review of toxicity factors, exposures, control strategies, and future prospects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 4122–4143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Punniyakotti, P.; Vinayagam, S.; Rajamohan, R.; Priya, S.D.; Moovendhan, M.; Sundaram, T. Environmental fate and ecotoxicological behaviour of pesticides and insecticides in non-target environments: Nanotechnology-based mitigation strategies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 113349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Manasa, M.; Ravinder, P.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; Srinivas, V.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Enshasy, H.A.E.; Yahayu, M.; Zuan, A.T.K.; Kassem, H.S.; Hameeda, B. Co-Inoculation of Bacillus Spp. For Growth Promotion and Iron Fortification in Sorghum. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ansari, F.A.; Ahmad, I. Fluorescent Pseudomonas -FAP2 and Bacillus Licheniformis Interact Positively in Biofilm Mode Enhancing Plant Growth and Photosynthetic Attributes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 4547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Akkem, Y.; Biswas, S.K.; Varanasi, A. Smart farming using artificial intelligence: A review. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 120, 105899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Yang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Ma, S.; Zhang, M.; Tang, T.; Du, C. Bioengineering of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in oilseed crops. Prog. Lipid Res. 2025, 99, 101333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chandra, S.; Askari, K.; Kumari, M. Optimization of Indole Acetic Acid Production by Isolated Bacteria From Stevia Rebaudiana Rhizosphere and Its Effects on Plant Growth. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2018, 16, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Microbiome engineering strategies based on oilseed crop–microbe interactions for soil restoration.
Figure 1. Microbiome engineering strategies based on oilseed crop–microbe interactions for soil restoration.
Plants 14 02197 g001
Table 1. Functional traits of rhizosphere microorganisms in major oilseed crops for saline–alkali soil remediation.
Table 1. Functional traits of rhizosphere microorganisms in major oilseed crops for saline–alkali soil remediation.
Plant SpeciesKey MicroorganismsFunctional TraitsBenefitsReference
Brassica napusProteobacteria, ActinobacteriaOrganic acid production,
metal chelation
P solubilization,
toxicity reduction
[49]
Glycine maxBradyrhizobium, BacillusN-fixation, biocontrolPathogen suppression[50]
Arachis hypogaeaPseudomonas, RhizobiumPGPR activity, symbiosisGrowth promotion,
N-fixation
[51]
Helianthus annuusAcidobacteria, SaccharibacteriaOsmoregulation, aggregationSoil structure improvement[52]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, S.; Tang, T.; Du, C.; Yang, Z.; Gan, B. Engineering Oilseed Microbiome Synergy for Saline Alkaline Soil Restoration. Plants 2025, 14, 2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142197

AMA Style

Ma S, Tang T, Du C, Yang Z, Gan B. Engineering Oilseed Microbiome Synergy for Saline Alkaline Soil Restoration. Plants. 2025; 14(14):2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142197

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Shijie, Tong Tang, Chang Du, Zheng Yang, and Binjie Gan. 2025. "Engineering Oilseed Microbiome Synergy for Saline Alkaline Soil Restoration" Plants 14, no. 14: 2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142197

APA Style

Ma, S., Tang, T., Du, C., Yang, Z., & Gan, B. (2025). Engineering Oilseed Microbiome Synergy for Saline Alkaline Soil Restoration. Plants, 14(14), 2197. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142197

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop