Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of New Passive Heating Systems for Low-Cost Greenhouses in a Mild-Winter Area
Next Article in Special Issue
Calcium Route in the Plant and Blossom-End Rot Incidence
Previous Article in Journal
Slightly Acidic Electrolyzed Water Improves the Postharvest Quality of Litchi Fruit by Regulating the Phenylpropane Pathway
Previous Article in Special Issue
Secondary Metabolite-Induced Osmo-Protection and Host Antioxidant Systems in Banana in Waterlogged Sodic Soils
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/horticulturae11070753
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impact of Antibacterial Agents in Horticulture: Risks to Non-Target Organisms and Sustainable Alternatives

by
Mirza Abid Mehmood
1,2,†,
Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal
2,†,
Muhammad Ashfaq
2,
Nighat Raza
3,
Jianguang Wang
1,
Abdul Hafeez
1,*,
Samah Bashir Kayani
4 and
Qurban Ali
5,*
1
School of Ecology and Environmental Science, Yunnan University, Kunming 650504, China
2
Plant Pathology, Institute of Plant Protection, Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan 60000, Pakistan
3
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Food & Home Sciences, Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan 60000, Pakistan
4
Department of Biology, Government Graduate College (Women) Mumtazabad, Multan 60600, Pakistan
5
Department of Biology, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(7), 753; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070753
Submission received: 23 April 2025 / Revised: 3 June 2025 / Accepted: 11 June 2025 / Published: 1 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights into Stress Tolerance of Horticultural Crops)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The global population is rising at an alarming rate and is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, necessitating a substantial increase in food production. However, the overuse of chemical pesticides, including antibacterial agents and synthetic fertilizers, poses a major threat to sustainable agriculture. This review examines the ecological and health impacts of antibacterial agents (e.g., streptomycin, oxytetracycline, etc.) in horticultural crops, focusing on their effects on non-target organisms such as beneficial microbes involved in plant growth promotion and resistance development. Certain agents (e.g., triclosan, sulfonamides, and fluoroquinolones) leach into water systems, degrading water quality, while others leave toxic residues in crops, leading to human health risks like dysbiosis and antibiotic resistance. To mitigate these hazards, sustainable alternatives such as integrated plant disease management (IPDM) and biotechnological solutions are essential. Advances in genetic engineering including resistance-conferring genes like EFR1/EFR2 (Arabidopsis), Bs2 (pepper), and Pto (tomato) help combat pathogens such as Ralstonia solanacearum and Xanthomonas campestris. Additionally, CRISPR-Cas9 enables precise genome editing to enhance inherent disease resistance in crops. Emerging strategies like biological control, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), and nanotechnology further reduce dependency on chemical antibacterial agents. This review highlights the urgent need for sustainable disease management to safeguard ecosystem and human health while ensuring food security.

1. Introduction

Agriculture has become a crucial part of our global village, especially for developing countries. It accounts for 4% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) for developed countries and more than 25% of GDP for developing countries [1]. It is often considered the backbone of developing countries, as approximately 60% of their population relies on agriculture as their source of income [2]. Therefore, it is considered a big source of employment, particularly in rural areas. Secondly, agriculture also boosts industrial growth by simply providing the raw material for agro-based industries and by promoting rural development through improvement in their infrastructure [3]. The population of our global village is increasing at an alarming rate; it is predicted to reach 10 billion by 2050 [4]. This increase in population will lead to a drastic increase in food demand and other resources necessary for life [5]. Unfortunately, food production is not increasing at that rate due to obstacles like insect pests, diseases, weeds, drought, the decline in organic matter of soil, the decline in land for farming, urban development, shortage of irrigation water, high input expenses, loss of biodiversity, climate change, etc. [6,7]. Insect pests, microbial pathogens, and weeds contribute about 18%, 16%, and 34% to crop losses, respectively [8].
Chemical pesticides are cheaper, easy to use, and give reliable results with a minimum interval of time as compared to other means. Therefore, such chemicals have now become a priority for most farmers. There is no doubt that they have become the backbone of our agriculture because without the use of such chemicals, there could be a 78% loss in fruit production, a 32% loss in cereal production, and a 54% loss in vegetable production [9]. But these chemicals, including antibacterial agents, also have demerits; for example, they could be harmful to beneficial organisms, including beneficial insects, beneficial microbes, birds, fish, etc., and they also leave residual effects on agricultural products, which may have residual impact on human health when consumed [10]. These chemicals leach down to the soil and deteriorate the quality of drinking water [11], and they also have some environmental impacts [9]. Some antibacterial agents can leach down in soil and kill the most beneficial bacteria (Azotobacter, Clostridium, Bacillus, Klebsiella, etc.), which play a central role in nitrogen fixation [12]. Extensive and continuous use of antibacterial agents, especially chemical-based, has developed resistance in bacterial pathogens [13]. Even they become unable to control them at double doses. Hence, a new chemical pesticide is required for these pests. Additionally, the amount of pesticides used in agriculture all over the world has crossed 3.69 million tons by 2022 [14]. This has a huge impact on pollinators, as chemical pesticides are the primary reason for their decline [15]. So, pesticides should be used only in case of dire need. Their excessive use should be minimized, and a proper pest management strategy should be adopted, such as the integrated pest management (IPM) strategy [15].
The reliance on chemical pesticides is a major obstacle to achieving sustainable agriculture, a farming approach that prioritizes environmental preservation, long-term soil health, and biodiversity conservation while meeting present and future food demands [16]. Unlike conventional practices, sustainable agriculture minimizes synthetic inputs (e.g., chemical pesticides and fertilizers) and promotes organic farming, renewable resources, and ecological balance [17]. It ensures nutritionally adequate food production, equitable livelihoods across the agricultural value chain, and the protection of natural resources for future generations [18]. However, current farming methods largely fail to meet these sustainability criteria, underscoring the need for transformative change.

2. Types of Antibacterial Agents

2.1. Biological Control Agents

Biological control agents are sustainable and act as an effective substitute for chemical pesticides for both bacterial and fungal plant disease management in horticultural crops. Bacteria are the most exclusively studied biocontrol agents that use multiple types of mechanisms in limiting the development of plant diseases [19,20]. Several types of biopesticides have already been introduced into the markets, which are based on different microbial species belonging to different genera like Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Trichoderma spp., and Streptomyces spp. [21]. Streptomyces spp. is considered as the most studied genus of bacteria. They produce bioactive elements that help inhibit pathogenic microbes in vitro and are effective in managing various types of fungal and bacterial diseases [22]. However, inconsistency in the performance of these bacterial-based biopesticides has limited their extensive use in conventional agriculture. The efficacy of biocontrol agents greatly depends on different types of factors, like the type of microbial agent, targeted plant pathogen, host plants, and environmental conditions [23]. Some of the other biological antibacterial agents are given in Table 1.

2.2. Chemical Agents

Chemical agents are the most extensively used antibacterial agents and are considered the most effective, easy to use, and cost-friendly, and they can quickly manage any type of plant pathogens [39]. Chemicals are now playing an important role in managing all types of crop pests, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, weeds, insects, etc. [40]. Apart from these benefits, such chemical agents also hold some serious hazards. Their extensive use has led to the development of resistance to pathogens, causes environmental pollution, decreases soil fertility, poses risks to human health, and impacts non-target organisms. Different types of chemical agents, including tetracycline, streptomycin, gentamicin, erythromycin, quinolones, copper oxide (CuO), copper oxychloride (CuOCl), copper hydroxide (CuOH), etc., are now being used in managing bacterial plant diseases. Some of the chemical antibacterial agents and their targeted bacterial pathogens are given in Table 2.

2.3. Nanoparticles (NPs)

In the last few years, nanotechnology has become the point of study for many researchers to boost agricultural production [50]. It uses nanoparticles to manage different pests, mostly in horticultural crops. The particles whose size ranges from 1 to 100 nanometers fall in the category of nanoparticles [51]. The first nanoparticles used in plant disease management were Ag nanoparticles [52]. They either lead the bacterial cell to death or enhance the host’s defense against these pathogens. They ensure efficient penetration and sustainable release from host plants and can be divided into inorganic and organic nanoparticles.
Inorganic NPs are the NPs in which the C-atom is completely absent and are further divided into metallic and metallic oxide-based NPs [53]. Metallic NPs are the most common category, which includes copper (Cu), gold (Au), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), and silver (Ag) [54]. These NPs exhibit extraordinary properties, including spherical and cylindrical shapes, crystalline and amorphous structures, small surface areas, and pore sizes [55]. All of these are now being used for plant disease management. For example, AgNPs are used to manage the black leg and soft rot of potatoes [56] caused by Pectobacterium atrosepticum and P. carotovorum, respectively [57]. CuNPs are used to manage the soft rot of potatoes and bacterial wilt of tomatoes [58] caused by E. carotovora and R. solanacearum, respectively [59,60]. The other category is metallic oxide NPs, which can easily react with other atoms and combine with them [61]. This includes cerium oxide (CeO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), copper oxide (CuO), silver oxide (Ag2O), iron oxide (Fe2O3), magnesium oxide (MgO), titanium oxide (TiO2), magnetite (Fe3O4), silicon dioxide (SiO2), and zinc oxide (ZnO) [37]. ZnONPs are used for the management of the bacterial wilt of tomatoes caused by R. solanacearum [62,63].
Organic nanoparticles are also known as nanocapsules and are non-toxic and environmentally friendly. They are highly sensitive to light and heat and include dendrimers, liposomes, micelles, and ferritin [64]. They are highly toxic, can effectively perform their function as antifungal and antibacterial materials, have disinfectant properties, and can be used in the biomedical fields. Ferritin can enhance the resistance of host plants against fire blight caused by E. amylovora, especially in pears [65]. Moreover, dendrimers, liposomes, and micelles are reported as highly antifungal also perform well against insects. There are also some other categories of nanoparticles, i.e., carbon-based nanoparticles like carbon nanotubes (CNTs), fullerenes, graphene, oxide graphene, carbon nanofibers (CNFs), etc. [64], and polymeric NPs, which include alginate, chitosan, zein, etc. [65]. They are also being used in agriculture due to their antifungal and antibacterial properties; for example, graphene oxide is used to manage bacterial spots of peppers and tomatoes, which are caused by Xanthomonas vesicatoria [66]. Zein NPs are used to treat bacterial canker caused by P. syringae [67]. Some of the nanoparticles used for managing bacterial plant diseases are given in Table 3.

3. Action Mechanisms of Antibacterial Agents

3.1. Disruption of Cell Wall Synthesis

Peptidoglycan is a major component of the bacterial cell wall. It comprises about 50% of the weight of the cell wall of Gram-positive bacteria and 10–20% of the weight of the Gram-negative bacterial cell wall [80]. It provides integrity, mechanical strength, and shape to the bacterial cell [81]. Some antibacterial agents work in this mechanism in which they disturb the synthesis of peptidoglycan. As a result, the bacterial cell changes its texture, the cell is weakened, and this ultimately results in cell lysis, which leads to the death of the bacterial cell [82]. Antibacterial agents such as β-lactams that affect the peptidoglycan have excellent toxicity on bacteria as well as other organisms whose cell wall is composed of peptidoglycan [83]. An action mechanism of antibacterial agents is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Inhibition of Protein Synthesis

Some antibacterial agents like tetracycline, streptomycin, gentamycin, erythromycin, etc., are responsible for interfering with protein synthesis in bacterial cells but work on specific mechanisms [84]. Tetracycline binds with the 30S subunit of the bacterial ribosome and blocks the attachment of aminoacyl-tRNA to the ribosome at the A-site [81]. Streptomycin and gentamycin also bind with the 30S subunit of the bacterial ribosome, but they cause misreading of mRNA during the process of translation and result in the formation of faulty protein, which leads to bacterial cell death [85]. Erythromycin and azithromycin bind to the 50S ribosomal subunit of bacterial cells, mostly at the exit site of the polypeptide chain, and block the translocation process [86]. In this way, protein synthesis is blocked, and bacterial death occurs.

3.3. Inhibition of Nucleic Acid Synthesis

Antibacterial agents like quinolones interfere with the nucleic acid synthesis of bacterial cells [87]. These agents target an enzyme, DNA gyrase, which belongs to the topoisomerases class of enzymes and is involved in the topologically based transition of DNA [88]. DNA gyrase is a bacterial enzyme that essentially catalyzes the ATP-dependent negative super-coiling of dsDNA, which is circular [89]. In this way, due to the interference with the transcription and translation of bacterial DNA, no mRNA or DNA is formed, leading to bacterial cell death.

3.4. Cell Membrane Disruption

The bacterial cell membrane is a semi-permeable barrier composed primarily of phospholipids and proteins (in a ~3:1 ratio), which regulates cellular permeability, compartmentalizes organelles, and facilitates critical functions such as transport, energy transduction, and biosynthetic processes [90]. Certain biopesticides and antibacterial agents (e.g., polymyxins) target this membrane by disrupting phospholipid integrity, leading to loss of membrane selectivity. This damage results in the leakage of cellular contents, ultimately causing cell death [91].

3.5. Oxidative Stress-Induced Bacterial Cell Damage

Copper-based chemical antibacterial agents like copper oxide (CuO), copper oxychloride (CuOCl), copper hydroxide (CuOH), etc., are most used in agricultural practices. Copper ions are involved in disrupting the protein function simply by binding to its thiol group. This induces oxidative damage to the cell, which ultimately affects the protein, cell membrane, and DNA, leading to cell death [92].

3.6. Induction of Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR)

There are some types of compounds that do not directly kill the bacteria. Instead, they activate or stimulate the plant’s immune system to fight that pathogen [93]. Compounds like benzothiadiazole or salicylic acid are involved in the activation of the plant’s defense system by activating the pathogenesis-related proteins. These proteins help plants to resist the effect of pathogenic infection [94]. In this way, the host plant restricts the colonization of the bacterial pathogen, and infection does not proceed. SAR is one of the induced resistance mechanisms in host plants, offering a specific defense signaling pathway that systemically occurs after treating the host plant with natural or synthetic compounds or also by localized exposure to a microbial pathogen [95]. An avirulent or less virulent strain causes the programmed death of the host cell, which induces SAR through several ways, for example, by secreting antimicrobial pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, accumulation of defense hormones (e.g., salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, ethylene, etc.), or also by the accumulation of mobile signals [96]. As a result, the rest of the plant remains healthy and safe from secondary infection of the same pathogen. SAR also can pass to progeny through epigenetic regulations [97].

4. Effect of Antibacterial Agents on Non-Target Organisms

Antibacterial agents can also affect the population of non-targeted organisms that are already present in the host plants. But this depends upon the type of antibacterial agent in use. When such agents are applied to plants with the purpose of treating bacterial diseases, they also affect the beneficial microbes like fungi, bacteria, and others necessary for the plant’s health and the surrounding ecosystem. For example, streptomycin and oxytetracycline are used in apple and pear orchards to manage fire blight [98] disease caused by E. amylovora [99]. Such types of antibacterial agents target the actual pathogen of the disease along with targeting some beneficial organisms like P. fluorescens and B. subtilis. These bacteria are involved in disease resistance and promote plant growth in such plants [100]. B. subtilis plays a pivotal role in suppressing the other harmful and disease-causing microbes already present in these plants (seed-borne) or that enter from the outer environment in any growth stage of host plants [101].
Copper-based antibacterial agents like CuO, CuOCl, CuOH, etc., are widely used in daily routine against bacterial spots of tomato, potato, pepper, and many other crops [102]. These types of antibacterial agents have broad-spectrum activity and can affect soil microbes, which could be beneficial for plants and help with nutrient cycling [103]. Excessive and long-term use of such chemical antibacterial agents can result in reduced microbial diversity, degradation of soil, and the inhibition of important processes occurring in soil, like nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium [104]. Such bacteria also form symbiotic relationships with legumes and help in the uptake of nitrogen. So, the disruption of the microbial diversity of these bacteria can cause poor growth and low yield [105].
Another chemical antibacterial agent, i.e., kasugamycin, is widely used to manage the angular leaf spot of tomato (Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans) [106] and has some impact on non-targeted microbes. Similarly, streptomycin is used in controlling citrus canker [107], but unfortunately, it also reduces the population of Actinobacteria [108]. Actinobacteria are a group of soil-borne bacteria that helps in producing natural antibiotics against plant pathogens and help in decomposing organic matter [109]. Thus, decrease in the population of Actinobacteria can lead to a decrease in soil fertility and increased susceptibility to plant pathogens. These examples show that excessive use of antibacterial agents can result in decreasing the population of other beneficial microorganisms, impacting plant health and soil fertility.

5. Impact on Water Quality

The use of antibacterial agents either in agriculture or in industry can significantly affect the water quality [110], which ultimately leads to environmental or public health concerns. These compounds often leach down to the soil or runoff through wastewater or agricultural waste and reach the aquatic environment, where they can cause serious hazards [11]. They can persist in water contents and can disturb the natural microbial communities. These contaminations pose a great threat to the quality of water and to the organisms that depend upon these water bodies [111]. One of the major threats of antibacterial agents is that they are stable, remain active and persistent, and have the potential to accumulate for a longer period [112] without degradation. Antibacterial agents like tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, and sulfamethoxazole are often detected in the ground and surface water present near agricultural areas, especially where horticultural crops are grown [113]. These chemical agents affect the microflora of the ecosystems. Moreover, their accumulation is more hazardous and can disrupt the whole ecosystem by reducing the microbial communities that are essential for maintaining the quality of water [114].
Microorganisms present in the aquatic environment play a pivotal role in nitrogen and phosphorus cycling [115]. These processes maintain the health and quality of water. Antibacterial agents like triclosan or chloramphenicol can accumulate in the water and result in harmful nitrogenous compounds. These nitrogen-based compounds suppress the nitrifying bacteria which basically convert ammonia to nitrate [116], resulting in eutrophication [117], a process in which nutrients are overloaded, stimulating the excessive algal growth [118]. This process reduces the oxygen level, which ultimately harms aquatic life [119]. Recently, an antimicrobial agent named triclosan was found in the European rivers [120]. Similarly, other such agents like sulfonamides and fluoroquinolones have been found in the different lakes and rivers of China [121].

6. Antibacterial Residues in Agricultural Products and Their Impact on Human Health

The excessive use of antibacterial agents can lead to their accumulation as residues in agricultural products, which has a huge impact on food safety and public health [122]. Human beings unintentionally intake these residues through agricultural products like fruits, vegetables, etc., and through animal-derived foods like milk, meat, and eggs. Such types of residues can remain in products even after cooking and processing and can cause serious hazards to humans after consumption [10]. Their minimum and long-term consumption can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance [123]. Antibiotics have continuously been used in crops to manage different types of diseases, including bacterial diseases, for more than 50 years [124]. Many studies have shown the residues of streptomycin and oxytetracyline in orchards of pear and apple [125], reporting streptomycin residues on apple fruit and leaves. The study applied ten applications of streptomycin from April to mid-June from the flowering stage and detected the residues during the season in the leaves at the rate of 0.1 μg/mL, while residues were not detected in fruits at that time. But recent studies have reported antibiotic residues in apple fruits in Austria [126] and developed novel methods to quantify their level in plants [127]. Detected streptomycin was quantified as 2 μg/kg (2 ppb or 0.002 ppm) in treated plants, and no residues were detected in fruits obtained from untreated apple trees.
Another study showed that the application of oxytetracycline through irrigation and foliar spray on leaves results in no residues on coconut palms. However, their direct injection into the trunk resulted in its detection in leaves up to the level of 20 μg/g of leaf tissues [128]. Similarly, many other antibacterial agents have been detected in different fruit and crop plants at a hazardous level. The persistence of antibacterial agents also varies and depends upon several factors, like environmental conditions, the type of agent in use, application frequency, and the time in between harvesting and its last application [129]. This time varies inversely to the amount of residues present in the agricultural products. The residues of chemical antibacterial agents like tetracycline, sulfamethoxazole, and streptomycin have been detected in foods and are continuously used in agriculture and livestock farming to treat different types of bacterial diseases. This continuous intake can have a huge impact on the effectiveness of antibiotics used to treat bacterial infections in humans. Another huge impact of such residues is that they can disrupt the gut microbiome of consumers. The beneficial microorganisms present in the human body, especially in the gut, play a pivotal role in digestion, maintenance of the immune system, and overall health [130] and can be greatly disturbed. When antibacterial residues enter the digestive system, this leads to the development of a condition known as dysbiosis, a condition caused by an imbalance in the microbial population [131]. This results in serious digestive issues and a weakened immune system and makes the body susceptible to other infections. Chemical agents including streptomycin and chloramphenicol in crops can persist in the digestive system of animals and affect the population of microbiota, leading to long-term health issues [131].

7. Ecosystem Influences

Antimicrobial agents like antibiotics and bactericides are the most widely used methods to treat both animal and plant diseases. However, their widespread and excessive use can disturb the ecosystem and biodiversity [132]. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the major concerning issues among all these [133]. Antibacterial agents like oxytetracycline and streptomycin are commonly used in our agricultural practice, mostly to manage the bacterial disease of fruits [134]. For example, they are used to manage fire blight disease caused by a bacterial pathogen named E. amylovora in apple and pear orchards [135]. These compounds are effective against their respective pathogens but are not fully degraded after their application, which leads to their accumulation in both soil and water. In this way, they become one of the initial sources of soil and water pollution [114]. They unintentionally affect the beneficial bacteria present in the soil, like Rhizobium and Azotobacter, which are important in nitrogen fixation and make symbiotic relationships with plants for their betterment [136]. Such types of bacteria play their role in boosting soil fertility [137]. However, the application of antibiotics can lead to reductions in their population, which ultimately affects the nitrogen cycle and soil fertility.
Some soil-dwelling organisms, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and earthworms, play an important role in maintaining the soil ecosystem [138]. However, the excessive and long-term use of copper-based bactericides like copper sulfate and copper hydroxide can disturb the ecosystem [139]. These chemical agents are used in managing bacterial diseases of grapes, tomatoes, citrus, and many other crops. The excessive use of copper has led to the development of resistance in some species of Xanthomonas or Pseudomonas [140]. Therefore, the effectiveness of copper-based chemical agents is decreasing with time. There are some aquatic bacteria like Aeromonas and Vibrio species, which cause diseases in their respective aquatic host species [141]. Contamination caused by tetracyclines and sulfonamides can lead to the development of resistance in such bacteria against these bactericides [142]. These bactericides enter the bodies of water through agricultural runoff. Water systems situated near agricultural lands are more vulnerable to such types of contamination. The ever-increasing resistance level in bacterial pathogens due to the excessive use of antibacterial agents is a serious threat to public health. These bacteria reach humans through food, water, or also through direct contact with contaminated sources. The use of antibacterial agents in agriculture is considered a significant contributor to global AMR threats [143]. The impact of antibacterial agents on ecosystem is depicted in Figure 2.

8. Current Status

Chemical antibacterial agents remain the primary choice for farmers managing bacterial diseases in horticultural crops, including fire blight, bacterial spot, bacterial wilt, citrus canker, and soft rot [144]. Commonly used compounds such as CuOH, CuCl, CuS, streptomycin, oxytetracycline, and kasugamycin provide rapid disease control. However, growing awareness of their environmental and health hazards has prompted some farmers to adopt biological alternatives like Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis [145]. Although these biocontrol agents act more slowly, they offer longer-lasting and sustainable protection.
Copper-based antibacterial agents are widely used all over the world. Still, their efficacy is decreasing due to the emergence of resistance in some bacterial strains [140]. This resistance is developed due to the continuous overuse of these chemicals on the same bacterial pathogens. Its accumulation in the environment, long-term effects on soil, and toxicity to beneficial microbes are some other important concerns [146]. Despite these issues, copper-based chemical agents are still being used in managing bacterial pathogens in crops like tomato, citrus, apple and many other fruits and vegetables. Streptomycin and oxytetracycline were primarily used in high-value crops, including pear and apple, to manage a bacterial disease like fire blight [147]. Streptomycin has remained the most effective treatment for fire blight since the 1950s [148]. However, its continuous overuse has led to the development of resistance in E. amylovora, which ultimately reduces its effectiveness. Oxytetracycline has also been used in place of streptomycin, but it has some low efficacy [98]. Some studies showed that both chemicals leave some residues in agricultural products, resulting in their restricted use in some countries [140]. Due to these limitations and growing concerns, people are moving towards alternatives like biocontrol agents, bacteriophages, and viruses that target bacteria; beneficial bacteria, including P. fluorescens, B. subtilis, etc.; and some beneficial fungi like Trichoderma spp., which are some important biocontrol agents of bacterial pathogens and have target-specificity [149]. Similarly, researchers are also trying to introduce some type of resistance in host crops against these bacterial pathogens.

9. Constraints and Challenges in the Use of Conventional Antibacterial Agents

There is no doubt that antibacterial agents play a role in managing the bacterial diseases of crop plants. However, their ever-increasing and indiscriminate use has led to some unintended consequences (Figure 3). One of their most important and primary challenges is the development of resistance among bacterial pathogens [13]. Repeated application of chemical antibacterial agents results in the development of resistance, such as in the case of oxytetracycline or streptomycin, used for the management of E. amylovora (fire blight in apples and pears) [150]. Similarly, copper-based chemical antibacterial agents have developed resistance in some species of Xanthomonas and Pseudomonas due to their continuous use and overuse throughout the world [140]. This resistance has led to the development of new chemistry antibacterial agents.
Antibacterial agents also pose a great threat to environmental sustainability, as they contain heavy metals like copper and can start accumulating in soil with the passage of time. This accumulation can negatively affect the soil health and its microbiome and makes the soil toxic [139]. Chemical antibacterial agents can leave residues in agricultural products [126], resulting in some serious issues when consumed by human beings leading to their health concerns.
Some chemical antibacterial agents can target the beneficial microbes present in soil or in the plant itself. Copper-based chemical antimicrobial agents, e.g., CuO, CuOCl, CuOH, etc., are now being used in different crops targeting bacterial and fungal pathogens [151]. They can affect many of the most important bacteria present in soil, like nitrogen-cycling bacteria, including Bacillus, Azotobacter, Clostridium, etc. [103]. Likewise, Kasugamycin can target beneficial mycorrhizal fungi along with targeted pathogens [152]. These fungi are involved in the water and mineral absorption by plants [153]. Antibacterial agents are regarded as one of the most affordable and quick approaches to managing bacterial diseases. Therefore, farmers consider it the only solution to these problems without moving towards other strategies. Some countries are trying to limit the use of antibiotics in agriculture due to concern of spreading antibiotic resistance to human pathogens. For example, streptomycin is under scrutiny, and its use is banned or restricted in some regions [154]. This has forced farmers to search for alternative methods for managing diseases using integrated approaches. The government should take some steps to increase awareness about the use and demerits of antibacterial agents so that farmers can move towards integrated plant disease management (IPDM) techniques.

10. Strategies to Use Antibacterial Agents in a Sustainable Way

These strategies should aim at minimizing the risk of resistance development, ensuring healthy crops without leaving their residues, reducing environmental impact, and not targeting beneficial organisms without compromising their efficacy. These strategies should be based on integrated plant disease management (IPDM) and ensure sustainability in horticultural crops. It emphasizes the use of all the available methods, including cultural, biological, physical, and chemical, to manage any type of plant disease [155]. IPDM involves six principles for the management of diseases: exclusion, eradication, protection, resistance, therapy, and avoidance [156].
Exclusion prevents the entrance of pathogens in a disease-free or uninfected field or in an area where that specific pathogen is not present [157]. It acts as a first line of defense in preventing bacterial infection in a new area and starts with the use of disease-free and registered seeds or any other plant-propagating material so that no inoculum should enter the seed. Seed imported from other countries should be tested and quarantined, and the infected or even suspected propagating materials should be returned [158]. Diseases are mostly transferred from an infected area to a new one through this means. There should be proper quarantine and inspection departments to prevent the spread of pathogens between countries or even in individual states, which is regulated by federal and state governments. Eradication involves the removal of a pathogen once it has been established in a field [159]. This is accomplished by the elimination of infected plants or plant parts so that the level of pathogen inoculum is reduced in the field [160]. An example is the case of citrus canker, in which the severely infected branches are pruned, or the infected plants are removed from the nursery [161]. And then, the pruned parts are then pasted with an antibiotic paste, i.e., Bordeaux paste. This also involves the removal of weeds or other host plants from the field that act as secondary hosts for these pathogens [162].
Protection is used to create some protective barriers between the host plant and pathogens [157]. It involves the use of some protective sprays before the appearance of symptoms and after the emergence of symptoms in host plants. These types of protective sprays are more effective when applied before the infection has been established because bacterial infections are very difficult to control once they have penetrated the plant tissues. Resistance involves the use of only resistant, immune, and tolerant varieties. Resistance development is one of the cheapest and most effective methods to control any type of plant disease [157]. Thus, it should be our first preference to select only resistant varieties for our horticultural crops. The genetic makeup of host crops is modified in such a way that will naturally resist the effect of bacterial pathogens. The resistance remains permanent until the pathogen changes its strain. For example, there are some resistant varieties of tomato, including Hawaii 7996, which show resistance against bacterial wilt caused by R. solanacearum [163]. But this variety is frequently influenced by different environmental factors like soil conditions, temperature, and pathogen strain [164]. So, it is important to use only resistant varieties in combination with all other disease management practices.
Therapy means treating the individual plants and cannot be applied on large scales. It involves the treatment and inoculation of plants with something that can inactivate the pathogen [165], like chemotherapy, which is the use of chemical agents to manage the pathogens. Therapeutic options are limited in case of bacterial infection as compared to fungal and viral infection. Streptomycin has some type of therapeutic properties in case of bacterial infection, but its use is highly concerning due to resistance development and environmental impacts [150]. Avoidance focuses on creating such conditions that will prevent the establishment of bacterial infection [166]. It includes the selection of planting or sowing dates of crop plants to interfere with the life cycle of bacterial pathogens and using proper irrigation methods, crop rotation with non-host crops, managing soil health, and improving the health status of crop plants. These conditions create less conducive conditions for the pathogens, which reduces the chances that the outbreak will occur [163]. Managing the insect vector can also reduce the incidence of disease, like controlling the leaf miner in citrus orchards, which ultimately reduces the disease incidence of citrus greening caused by Candidatus liberibacter [167].
These IPDM strategies ensure the sustainable use of antibacterial agents in horticultural crops that are also environmentally friendly or cause the least damage to the environment and host plants. This involves the use of chemical antibacterial agents as the last option, which is unfortunately considered as the first preference on a routine basis and is applied over-dose with the purpose of obtaining better results. These practices then lead to the development of resistance in bacterial pathogens, which are non-eco-friendly, and cause some serious concerns.

11. Alternatives to Antibacterial Agents for Bacterial Disease Management

A suitable alternative to chemicals is necessary in plant disease management to minimize the growing concerns of antibiotic resistance and their impact on the environment. The ever-increasing chemical applications on crops can be harmful for crop plants. These alternatives include cultural, physical, and biological control methods that we can use to manage the disease without relying on chemicals. These methods provide us with a sustainable way to manage any type of pest.
Cultural practices including crop rotation, sanitation, starting with the disease-free seed, or propagating material or the use of resistant varieties could be very effective in reducing the reliance on chemical agents, including antibacterial agents [168]. Growing non-host crops in the infected soil for a few seasons can help in breaking the life cycle of pathogens. Phytosanitary measures like removing the infected plant or plant debris can minimize the chances of the spread of bacterial diseases. The development of resistant crop varieties could be the cheapest, most environmentally friendly, and most sustainable and long-term solution to plant diseases, including bacterial diseases. The selection of plant variety is considered as the initial and the most important step [168].
Managing irrigation practices can also limit the bacterial pathogen spread. Like in the case of flood irrigation, the pathogen can transfer from an infected field to a healthy field. Early or late sowing of crops can also be helpful. The basic purpose is to create conditions that should not be conducive to bacterial pathogens of that host crop. Removal of infected twigs and branches can reduce the disease incidence in the case of citrus canker caused by X. citri pv. citri [169]. Potato scab is prevented by maintaining the soil water near the field capacity [170]. The application of fertilizer and the type being applied also affect the population of insect pests and pathogens, such as potato scab, caused by Streptomyces scabies, which is favored by the application of nitrogenous fertilizers in nitrate form [171], while its application in ammoniacal form makes conditions conducive for the occurrence of black scurf [172].
Physical methods like heat treatment, soil solarization, etc., are also very important in the management of plant diseases. Soil solarization is the process in which soil is covered with a clear plastic sheet for the purpose of increasing its temperature for a few days. This temperature rise will kill soil-borne pathogens, including bacteria. This method is now being used in managing bacterial wilts and other soil-borne diseases of tomato and pepper [173]. Hot water treatment is also applied to the seed and other propagating materials to inactivate seed-borne bacteria and other pathogens to minimize the risk of disease outbreaks in the field [174]. Mulching can also prove to be helpful. The mulch material, like straw or plastic, creates a barrier that limits the movement of bacterial pathogens. Additionally, it also protects the field from weeds that could act as an alternative host for pathogens. There should be a proper drainage system in the field to reduce waterlogged conditions, which could favor the occurrence of bacterial infection [175].

12. Use of Probiotics to Minimize Antibacterial Dependency

Probiotics are living organisms that have some health benefits when consumed or applied to a host [176]. In agriculture, they reduce the need for chemical agents by improving their health status and inhibiting the growth of pathogens. They improve nutrient uptake ability and boost the immune system of their host plants [177]. Probiotics offer a sustainable means for plant disease management. Some of the important probiotic strains found in plant disease management include B. subtilis, P. fluorescens, and Trichoderma spp. They can combat different types of fungal and bacterial diseases [178]. Probiotics have different modes of action depending on their type, host characteristics, and the pathogens against which they are being used. They inhibit pathogens by competing with them for resources, producing antimicrobial compounds, inducing systemic resistance, degrading pathogen biofilms, promoting plant growth and health, and improving the host immune system [179]. For example, B. subtilis and P. fluorescens compete with pathogens for resources to inhibit its growth [180].
R. solanacearum is a bacterial pathogen that causes wilt diseases in different crop plants, including tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, etc. [181]. Probiotics like B. subtilis and P. fluorescens have shown excellent efficacy for the management of bacterial wilts. They produce some antimicrobial compounds that not only inhibit the growth of bacterial pathogens but enhance the host plant immunity [182]. Tomato crops treated with B. subtilis showed a significant reduction of up to 50% in the incidence of bacterial wilt, which ultimately reduces the need for chemical management [183]. E. amylovora is another bacterial pathogen that causes fire blight disease, mostly in apple and pear orchards, and can be managed by using another probiotic named P. agglomerans [184]. These microbes prevent the establishment of fire blight pathogen.

13. Biotechnology in Reducing Antibacterial Use

Biotechnology provides an alternative way to avoid different types of infectious diseases. It plays a pivotal role in reducing the reliance on chemical agents like antibacterial agents in agriculture, helps combat AMR, and promotes more sustainable practices in farming. Its key principle is to develop genetically modified (GM) crops, through which scientists make changes in the genetic makeup of crop plants in such a way that they become able to combat different types of biotic and abiotic stresses. Currently, Bt (B. thuringiensis) crops are gaining importance, which is one of the huge achievements of biotechnology. Such crops contain a gene isolated from a bacterium and show resistance to certain types of chewing insect pests, leading to minimizing the use of insecticides [185]. Plants become able to produce antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). AMPs are proteins that occur naturally in different kinds of organisms that can defend against specific pathogens [186]. This can be helpful against bacterial diseases of plants, which will ultimately reduce the need for external antibacterial agents.
Moreover, the controlled activation of antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) using an enzymatic antibiotic resistance mechanism offers a highly specific and temporally regulated method of gene silencing, with potential applications in both therapeutic and agricultural contexts, whereas ASOs remain inactive until converted enzymatically [187]. Additionally, the use of antisense peptide nucleic acids (PNAs) conjugated to cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs), demonstrates a significant reduction in viability of Erwinia amylovora. This can act as a novel bactericidal method against Erwinia amylovora, the causative agent of fire blight in apples and pears [188].
The genes like EFR1 and EFR2 present in Arabidopsis are used to encode pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs) that recognize the bacterial elongation factor-like Tu (EF-Tu), which is basically a PAMP (pathogen-associated molecular pattern). These genes were transferred to tomato plants and showed resistance against R. solanacearum and P. syringae, causal organisms of bacterial wilt and bacterial speck diseases, respectively, in tomatoes [189]. Bs2 gene obtained from pepper (Capsicum annuum) was transferred to the tomato genome, which started inhibiting bacterial spot disease caused by X. campestris pv. vesicatoria [190]. Similarly, the Pto gene in tomatoes develops resistance against P. syringae pv. tomato, the causal organism of bacterial speck disease. Pto works in combination with the Prf gene. This Prf gene encodes nucleotide-binding site–leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR). NBS-LRR recognizes bacterial proteins including AvrPto and AvrPtoB. This recognition triggers the immune response of host plants against bacteria [191]. The resistance level or immunity of the host crops is enhanced through genetic engineering. Modern plant biotechnology also presents alternative approaches, including RNA interference (RNAi) and CRISPR technology, for precise gene regulation and gene modification [192,193].

13.1. RNA Interference Technology

RNAi technology is an approach in which plants are engineered to silence specific genes present in the genome of host plants that are critically required by pathogens and some other pests to cause stable infection [194]. This technique can target specifically selected genes or multiple genes for silencing [195]. One of the remarkable examples that show bacterial disease management in plants was documented in 2001 [192]. A crown gall disease management strategy was developed by the initiation of RNAi of ipt and iaaM oncogenes. Expression of such genes leads to the development of tumor formation. Transgenic Lycopersicon esculentum and Arabidopsis thaliana, which were transformed through RNAi technique targeting ipt and iaaM genes, showed some level of resistance to the crown gall disease. This was the first report of managing bacterial disease through this technique [192]. One of the RNA silencing mechanisms is given in Figure 4. The hairpin RNAs (hpRNAs) or double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) are used to generate small duplexes of siRNA with the help of dicer molecules. These guided small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) bind with proteins such as Argonaute (Ago) and lead to the formation of RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). The RISC complex then binds with the targeted mRNA that is complementary to it and leads to its degradation or inhibits its translation. The siRNA/mRNA complex can be recycled again and again or can be used by RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRP) to generate siRNA [196]. Additionally, an innovative RNAi-based biopesticides was designed to target both psyllid vectors and Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, the bacterium causing citrus greening disease [197]. This approach emphasizes gene silencing as a precise, environmentally friendly alternative to chemical pesticides.
The exogenous application of RNA molecules, particularly double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) and small interfering RNA (siRNA), has emerged as a powerful and sustainable approach for plant protection and gene regulation. Different types of methods are used for exogenous applications, including spray inoculation, injection, mechanical inoculation, infiltration, direct dropping, etc. [198].

13.2. CRISPR-Cas9

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) technique allows scientists to modify crop genomes more precisely compared to other techniques to develop inherent resistance against different types of pathogens, including bacteria [193,199]. With this technology, the most current and emerging challenges in the realm of agricultural sustainability and food security can be achieved. Scientists are utilizing CRISPR technology for the characterization of genes responsible for disease resistance and stress responses [200]. CRISPR is also being explored as one of the important means to develop bio control agents against pathogenic bacteria. It can be used to engineer beneficial bacteria to express antimicrobial peptides and other compounds that target plant pathogens [201]. Naturally occurring beneficial bacteria in plants can be engineered using CRISPR-Cas9, offering sustainable management of bacterial pathogens. However, there are some demerits of using CRISPR technology. Insertion of target genes in a correct cellular location is one of the challenges, especially in rigid plant cells [202]. There could be some non-target genes, or non-target effects could also occur. This technology is not efficient for all plant species and can target a few plant traits; therefore, some plants do not obtain the desired results. There are also some issues, for example, CRISPR genome editing can lead to the loss of diversity and could also face some legal and regulatory challenges in the line of technological advances [203]. In CRISPR-Cas9, the sequences of the targeted genome are first identified, followed by a guided RNA that is subjected to recognize the particular stretch. This specific RNA is affiliated with molecular scissors (DNA cutting enzymes) of Cas9, and then, this complex is applied to targeted cells. Cas9 recognizes the target sites and cuts the DNA at that specific point (Figure 5). It also allows us to make changes in the existing genome either by modification or addition to the sequences [204].

14. Role of Precision Agriculture in Sustainable Application of Antibacterial Agents

Precision agriculture is a new farming approach that uses the latest technology and data to digitalize crop management. Different types of digital equipment, such as GPS, sensors, drones, and data analytics are used to determine the status of cops [205]. The information obtained through such equipment is used for the accurate application of inputs like irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides at the place where they are needed [206]. Precision agriculture promotes sustainability in crops, minimizing the overuse of inputs such as chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, etc. Farmers can also utilize satellite images to make precise decisions about when, where, and how much antibacterial agent should be applied, preventing the overuse of chemicals. This can enable site-specific applications. Instead of applying the antibacterial agents across the field, one can apply them on the site where bacterial infection is detected [207]. Such infection sites are detected when drones equipped with the latest features along with multispectral sensors are allowed to enter and detect the early signs of bacterial infection. Once the infection sites are mapped, the antibacterial agents can easily be applied in these marked areas, which will significantly reduce the input of chemicals used.
Precision agriculture also provides real-time monitoring of crop health, enabling farmers to make timely decisions. Through the continuous monitoring of factors like temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc., one can precisely detect the occurrence of infection by comparing these data with previous ones [206]. Farmers become able to make some disease management strategies before the initiation of disease. Data analytics and disease prediction models within precision agriculture also proved to be helpful in plant disease management [208]. Precision agriculture uses variable-rate technology (VRT), through which one can use antibacterial agents in a sustainable way. VRT enables the precise application of these agents to different parts of the field based on the crop requirement [209]. If certain parts of the field are more prone to disease, a higher dose of antibacterial agents will be applied there, and on the other hand, a lower dose or no application of these agents will be applied in healthy fields. This not only mitigates the chances for resistance development in pathogens but also lowers the input cost for farmers. This precision agricultural system is being applied in different parts of the world to manage several types of diseases, including bacterial diseases.

15. Future Perspectives

Global agriculture is increasingly embracing sustainable alternatives to conventional antibacterial agents, such as copper-based chemicals, in response to growing concerns about antibiotic resistance, environmental damage, residual toxicity, and regulatory challenges. Promising solutions include biocontrol agents, nanotechnology, and biotechnology, which offer effective disease management while minimizing ecological harm. Biological control methods, such as bacteriophages (e.g., AgriPhage for tomato and pepper diseases) [165] and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) like Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis, provide targeted pathogen suppression in plants [210]. Nanotechnology leverages the potent antibacterial properties of silver and copper nanoparticles, which combat pathogens like Xanthomonas (citrus canker) [211] at low concentrations due to their high reactivity and surface-area-to-volume ratio concentrations [212]. Meanwhile, biotechnology tools like CRISPR-Cas9 enable precise genetic modifications to enhance crop resistance, reducing reliance on chemical treatments. The future of sustainable disease management lies in integrating these advanced approaches with traditional practices, supported by farmer education on responsible pesticide use and adherence to regulatory standards. Together, these strategies can mitigate the drawbacks of conventional antibacterial agents while ensuring productive and eco-friendly agriculture.

16. Conclusions

The sustainable application of antibacterial agents is crucial for minimizing their adverse effects on human health and the environment. The global agricultural sector, particularly horticulture, has become increasingly dependent on chemical inputs to control bacterial plant diseases. This reliance has amplified several critical challenges, including antimicrobial resistance (AMR), environmental contamination, non-target organism toxicity, chemical residues in produce, and public health risks. This review critically examines the risks of antibacterial agents in crop production and advocates for sustainable alternatives in plant disease management. Chemical antibacterial agents, including streptomycin, oxytetracycline, and copper-based formulations, remain widely used against destructive bacterial pathogens such as Xanthomonas spp., Erwinia amylovora, and Pseudomonas syringae. However, overreliance on these chemicals has led to antibiotic-resistant strains, diminished efficacy, and hazardous residue accumulation in horticultural crops (e.g., apples and pears). To address these challenges, integrated plant disease management (IPDM) strategies, combining cultural, biological, physical, and targeted chemical practices, offer a sustainable alternative. Precision agriculture further optimizes disease control by leveraging drone- or satellite-based monitoring to assess symptom progression, enabling judicious antibacterial use. Biotechnology tools like CRISPR-Cas genome editing and RNA silencing are revolutionizing crop protection. CRISPR enables precise modification of host susceptibility genes, blocking bacterial entry and disease progression. RNA silencing disrupts bacterial virulence factors and quorum sensing, neutralizing infections without chemical inputs. These approaches not only curb antibacterial dependency but also mitigate resistance risks, aligning with IPDM principles. Together, they represent a transformative shift toward sustainable agriculture, reducing environmental harm while safeguarding crop productivity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.M., M.A. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.I., N.R., A.H. and S.B.K.; writing—review and editing, M.A.M., M.A. and S.B.K.; visualization, M.M.I., A.H. and Q.A.; supervision, M.A., J.W. and N.R.; funding acquisition, A.H. and Q.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We thank United Arab Emirates University for providing a postdoctoral grant on climate action under grant number “12S140” to Qurban Ali.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data availability is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alhshem, H.H.M.; Ghader, M. A Study of Agriculture Value Added Percentage of Gross Domestic Product for Selected Asian Countries. J. Asian Multicult. Res. Soc. Sci. Study 2022, 3, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Elizabath, A.; Babychan, M.; Mathew, A.M.; Syriac, G.M. Application of Nanotechnology in Agriculture. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2019, 7, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nchuchuwe, F.F.; Adejuwon, K.D. The Challenges of Agriculture and Rural Development in Africa: The Case of Nigeria. Int. J. Acad. Res. Progress. Educ. Dev. 2012, 1, 45–61. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Viola, I.; Marinelli, A. Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Sustainability in the Food System. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Asfaw, S.; Pallante, G.; Palma, A. Distributional Impacts of Soil Erosion on Agricultural Productivity and Welfare in Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 177, 106764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lachaud, M.A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Ludena, C.E. Economic Effects of Climate Change on Agricultural Production and Productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Agric. Econ. 2022, 53, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moore, D.; Robson, G.D.; Trinci, A.P. 21st Century Guidebook to Fungi; University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tudi, M.; Daniel Ruan, H.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D.; Chu, C.; Phung, D.T. Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ben, Y.; Fu, C.; Hu, M.; Liu, L.; Wong, M.H.; Zheng, C. Human Health Risk Assessment of Antibiotic Resistance Associated with Antibiotic Residues in the Environment: A Review. Environ. Res. 2019, 169, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Boxall, A.B.A. New and Emerging Water Pollutants Arising from Agriculture. 2012. Available online: https://pure.york.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/new-and-emerging-water-pollutants-arising-from-agriculture (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  12. Chen, J.S.; Toth, J.; Kasap, M. Nitrogen-Fixation Genes and Nitrogenase Activity in Clostridium Acetobutylicum and Clostridium Beijerinckii. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 27, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rice, L.B.; Bonomo, R.A. Mechanisms of Resistance to Antibacterial Agents. In Manual of Clinical Microbiology; Versalovic, J., Carroll, K.C., Funke, G., Jorgensen, J.H., Landry, M.L., Warnock, D.W., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 1082–1114. ISBN 978-1-68367-411-5. [Google Scholar]
  14. World Food and Agriculture–Statistical Yearbook 2024|FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1725784/ (accessed on 2 June 2025).
  15. Barzman, M.; Bàrberi, P.; Birch, A.N.E.; Boonekamp, P.; Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S.; Graf, B.; Hommel, B.; Jensen, J.E.; Kiss, J.; Kudsk, P.; et al. Eight Principles of Integrated Pest Management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1199–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Muhie, S.H. Novel Approaches and Practices to Sustainable Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 10, 100446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Reganold, J.P.; Papendick, R.I.; Parr, J.F. Sustainable Agriculture. Sci. Am. 1990, 262, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Doula, M.K. Soil: Threats and Protection. Sustainable Agriculture. In Social Responsibility and Science in Innovation Economy; Kawalec, P., Wierzchoslawski, R.P., Eds.; John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin: Lublin, Poland, 2015; pp. 193–272. [Google Scholar]
  19. Legein, M.; Smets, W.; Vandenheuvel, D.; Eilers, T.; Muyshondt, B.; Prinsen, E.; Samson, R.; Lebeer, S. Modes of Action of Microbial Biocontrol in the Phyllosphere. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kalia, V.C.; Patel, S.K.; Kang, Y.C.; Lee, J.-K. Quorum Sensing Inhibitors as Antipathogens: Biotechnological Applications. Biotechnol. Adv. 2019, 37, 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bonaterra, A.; Badosa, E.; Daranas, N.; Francés, J.; Roselló, G.; Montesinos, E. Bacteria as Biological Control Agents of Plant Diseases. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Viaene, T.; Langendries, S.; Beirinckx, S.; Maes, M.; Goormachtig, S. Streptomyces as a Plant’s Best Friend? FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schaechter, M. Encyclopedia of Microbiology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  24. Stockwell, V.O.; Johnson, K.B.; Sugar, D.; Loper, J.E. Antibiosis Contributes to Biological Control of Fire Blight by Pantoea Agglomerans Strain Eh252 in Orchards. Phytopathology® 2002, 92, 1202–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mikiciński, A.; Sobiczewski, P.; Puławska, J.; Maciorowski, R. Control of Fire Blight (Erwinia amylovora) by a Novel Strain 49M of Pseudomonas graminis from the Phyllosphere of Apple (Malus spp.). Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 145, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Drenker, C.; El Mazouar, D.; Bücker, G.; Weißhaupt, S.; Wienke, E.; Koch, E.; Kunz, S.; Reineke, A.; Rondot, Y.; Linkies, A. Characterization of a Disease-Suppressive Isolate of Lysobacter Enzymogenes with Broad Antagonistic Activity against Bacterial, Oomycetal and Fungal Pathogens in Different Crops. Plants 2023, 12, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elsharkawy, M.M.; Khedr, A.A.; Mehiar, F.; El-Kady, E.M.; Baazeem, A.; Shimizu, M. Suppression of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato Infection by Rhizosphere Fungi. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 4350–4356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Singh, D.; Yadav, D.K.; Chaudhary, G.; Rana, V.S.; Sharma, R.K. Potential of Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens for Biocontrol of Bacterial Wilt of Tomato Incited by Ralstonia Solanacearum. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1000327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singh, D.; Yadav, D.K.; Sinha, S.; Upadhyay, B.K. Utilization of Plant Growth Promoting Bacillus Subtilis Isolates for the Management of Bacterial Wilt Incidence in Tomato Caused by Ralstonia Solanacearum Race 1 Biovar 3. Indian Phytopath 2012, 65, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yan, L.; Khan, R.A.A. Biological Control of Bacterial Wilt in Tomato through the Metabolites Produced by the Biocontrol Fungus, Trichoderma Harzianum. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Konappa, N.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Siddaiah, C.N.; Ramachandrappa, N.S.; Chowdappa, S. Evaluation of Biological Efficacy of Trichoderma asperellum against Tomato Bacterial Wilt Caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vidhyasekaran, P.; Kamala, N.; Ramanathan, A.; Rajappan, K.; Paranidharan, V.; Velazhahan, R. Induction of Systemic Resistance by Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf1 against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae in Rice Leaves. Phytoparasitica 2001, 29, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mishra, S.; Arora, N.K. Management of Black Rot in Cabbage by Rhizospheric Pseudomonas Species and Analysis of 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol by qRT-PCR. Biol. Control 2012, 61, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Promnuan, Y.; Promsai, S.; Meelai, S. Antimicrobial Activity of Streptomyces spp. Isolated from Apis Dorsata Combs against Some Phytopathogenic Bacteria. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mácha, H.; Marešová, H.; Juříková, T.; Švecová, M.; Benada, O.; Škríba, A.; Baránek, M.; Novotnỳ, Č.; Palyzová, A. Killing Effect of Bacillus velezensis FZB42 on a Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris (Xcc) Strain Newly Isolated from Cabbage Brassica oleracea Convar. Capitata (L.): A Metabolomic Study. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, L.; Wang, X.; Ma, Q.; Bian, L.; Liu, X.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Shao, J.; Liu, Y. Bacillus Velezensis CLA178-Induced Systemic Resistance of Rosa Multiflora against Crown Gall Disease. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 587667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hernández-Huerta, J.; Tamez-Guerra, P.; Gomez-Flores, R.; Delgado-Gardea, M.C.E.; Robles-Hernández, L.; Gonzalez-Franco, A.C.; Infante-Ramirez, R. Pepper Growth Promotion and Biocontrol against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria by Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis Formulations. PeerJ 2023, 11, e14633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El-Saadony, M.T.; Saad, A.M.; Soliman, S.M.; Salem, H.M.; Ahmed, A.I.; Mahmood, M.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Ebrahim, A.A.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Negm, S.H. Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms as Biocontrol Agents of Plant Diseases: Mechanisms, Challenges and Future Perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 923880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Duhan, J.S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, N.; Kaur, P.; Nehra, K.; Duhan, S. Nanotechnology: The New Perspective in Precision Agriculture. Biotechnol. Rep. 2017, 15, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aktar, W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of Pesticides Use in Agriculture: Their Benefits and Hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sholberg, P.L.; Bedford, K.E.; Haag, P.; Randall, P. Survey of Erwinia amylovora Isolates from British Columbia for Resistance to Bactericides and Virulence on Apple. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2001, 23, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Iqbal, M.; ul Haq, M.E.; Kamran, M.; Idrees, M.; Nazir, S.; Ullah, I.; Naz, S.; Ali, S.; Iqbal, M.Z. Morpho-Molecular Characterization of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri Associated with Kinnow (Mandarin) and Its Management. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 34, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kant, R. Innovative Methods for Management of Black Rot of Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.). Ph.D. Thesis, UHF, Nauni, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  44. Maguvu, T.E.; Frias, R.J.; Hernandez-Rosas, A.I.; Shipley, E.; Dardani, G.; Nouri, M.T.; Yaghmour, M.A.; Trouillas, F.P. Pathogenicity, Phylogenomic, and Comparative Genomic Study of Pseudomonas syringae Sensu Lato Affecting Sweet Cherry in California. Microbiol. Spectr. 2024, 12, e01324-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gao, J.; Li, J.; Liu, C.; Gong, H.; Qi, B.; Zhu, R.; Xia, L.; Li, L.; Liu, S.; Jiang, Q.; et al. Application of Trichloroisocyanuric Acid in Controlling Kiwifruit Bacterial Canker Disease Demonstrates Its Promising Potential as an Eco-Friendly Bactericide. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2025, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. El-Sisi, A.A. Pathological Studies on Bacterial Canker and Wilt Disease on Mango. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agricultural, Benha University, Benha, Egypt, 2013; 131p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ishikawa, R.; Fujimori, K.; Matsuura, K. Antibacterial Activity of Validamycin A against Pseudomonas solanacearum and Its Efficacy against Tomato Bacterial Wilt. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 1996, 62, 478–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khanam, R. Management of Bacterial Wilt of Brinjal by Using Some Chemicals and Bio-Agent. 2020. Available online: http://archive.saulibrary.edu.bd:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/3549 (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  49. El-Khair, H.A. Variation and Control of Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora Isolates, the Causal Agent of Potato Soft Rot Disease. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2004, 49, 377–388. [Google Scholar]
  50. Parisi, C.; Vigani, M.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Agricultural Nanotechnologies: What Are the Current Possibilities? Nano Today 2015, 10, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mohanraj, V.J.; Chen, Y. Nanoparticles-a Review. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2006, 5, 561–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Elmer, W.; Ma, C.; White, J. Nanoparticles for Plant Disease Management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 6, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zahoor, M.; Nazir, N.; Iftikhar, M.; Naz, S.; Zekker, I.; Burlakovs, J.; Uddin, F.; Kamran, A.W.; Kallistova, A.; Pimenov, N. A Review on Silver Nanoparticles: Classification, Various Methods of Synthesis, and Their Potential Roles in Biomedical Applications and Water Treatment. Water 2021, 13, 2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pandiyaraj, V.; Murmu, A.; Pandy, S.K.; Sevanan, M.; Arjunan, S. Metal Nanoparticles and Its Application on Phenolic and Heavy Metal Pollutants. Phys. Sci. Rev. 2023, 8, 2879–2897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amer, M.; Awwad, A. Green Synthesis of Copper Nanoparticles by Citrus Limon Fruits Extract, Characterization and Antibacterial Activity. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3693721 (accessed on 5 April 2025).
  56. Bibi, S.; Raza, M.; Shahbaz, M.; Ajmal, M.; Mehak, A.; Fatima, N.; Abasi, F.; Seelan, J.S.S.; Raja, N.I.; Yongchao, B. Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles Enhanced Wheat Resistance to Bipolaris Sorokiniana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 203, 108067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hashemi Tameh, M.; Primiceri, E.; Chiriacò, M.S.; Poltronieri, P.; Bahar, M.; Maruccio, G. Pectobacterium atrosepticum Biosensor for Monitoring Blackleg and Soft Rot Disease of Potato. Biosensors 2020, 10, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Dorjee, L.; Gogoi, R.; Kamil, D.; Kumar, R.; Verma, A. Copper Nanoparticles Hold Promise in the Effective Management of Maize Diseases without Impairing Environmental Health. Phytoparasitica 2023, 51, 593–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Genin, S.; Denny, T.P. Pathogenomics of the Ralstonia Solanacearum Species Complex. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2012, 50, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ealia, S.A.M.; Saravanakumar, M.P. A Review on the Classification, Characterisation, Synthesis of Nanoparticles and Their Application. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 263, p. 032019. [Google Scholar]
  61. Khan, R.A.A.; Tang, Y.; Naz, I.; Alam, S.S.; Wang, W.; Ahmad, M.; Najeeb, S.; Rao, C.; Li, Y.; Xie, B.; et al. Management of Ralstonia solanacearum in Tomato Using ZnO Nanoparticles Synthesized Through Matricaria chamomilla. Plant Dis. 2021, 105, 3224–3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. El-Sayed, M.E. Nanoadsorbents for Water and Wastewater Remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 139903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Carrasco-Sandoval, J.; Aranda-Bustos, M.; Henríquez-Aedo, K.; López-Rubio, A.; Fabra, M.J. Bioaccessibility of Different Types of Phenolic Compounds Co-Encapsulated in Alginate/Chitosan-Coated Zein Nanoparticles. Lwt 2021, 149, 112024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khare, P.; Talreja, N.; Deva, D.; Sharma, A.; Verma, N. Carbon Nanofibers Containing Metal-Doped Porous Carbon Beads for Environmental Remediation Applications. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 229, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maleki, R.; Abdollahi, H.; Piri, S. Variation of Active Iron and Ferritin Content in Pear Cultivars with Different Levels of Pathogen Resistance Following Inoculation with Erwinia amylovora. J. Plant Pathol. 2022, 104, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bytešníková, Z.; Pečenka, J.; Tekielska, D.; Kiss, T.; Švec, P.; Ridošková, A.; Bezdička, P.; Pekárková, J.; Eichmeier, A.; Pokluda, R.; et al. Reduced Graphene Oxide-Based Nanometal-Composite Containing Copper and Silver Nanoparticles Protect Tomato and Pepper against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria Infection. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2022, 9, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bidyarani, N.; Srivastav, A.K.; Gupta, S.K.; Kumar, U. Synthesis and Physicochemical Characterization of Rhamnolipid-Stabilized Carvacrol-Loaded Zein Nanoparticles for Antimicrobial Application Supported by Molecular Docking. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2020, 22, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vinay, J.U.; Iliger, K.S. Green Nanotechnology in Agriculture: Plant Disease Diagnosis to Management. In Innovative Approaches in Diagnosis and Management of Crop Diseases; Apple Academic Press: Burlington, ON, USA, 2021; pp. 67–95. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ayisigi, M.; Cokislerel, A.; Kucukcobanoglu, Y.; Yalcin, T.; Aktas, L.Y. Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles for an Effective Control on Soft Rot Disease Pathogen Pectobacterium Carotovorum and Growth Stimulation in Pepper. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 26, 574–584. [Google Scholar]
  70. Park, H.J.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, H.J.; Choi, S.H. A New Composition of Nanosized Silica-Silver for Control of Various Plant Diseases. Plant Pathol. J. 2006, 22, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Attia, M.S.; Salem, S.S.; Elakraa, A.A.; Abdel-Maksoud, M.A.; Malik, A.; Kiani, B.H.; Malash, M.N.; El-Sayyad, G.S. Promising Antagonistic Effect of Bimetallic Silver-Selenium Nanoparticles against Ralstonia Solanacearum-Causing Wilt Disease in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2024, 133, 102369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Makarovsky, D.; Fadeev, L.; Salam, B.B.; Zelinger, E.; Matan, O.; Inbar, J.; Jurkevitch, E.; Gozin, M.; Burdman, S. Silver Nanoparticles Complexed with Bovine Submaxillary Mucin Possess Strong Antibacterial Activity and Protect against Seedling Infection. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e02212-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Imada, K.; Sakai, S.; Kajihara, H.; Tanaka, S.; Ito, S. Magnesium Oxide Nanoparticles Induce Systemic Resistance in Tomato against Bacterial Wilt Disease. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. El-Batal, A.I.; Balabel, N.M.; Attia, M.S.; El-Sayyad, G.S. Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Potential of Mono-Dispersed Stable Copper Oxide Nanoparticles-Streptomycin Nano-Drug: Implications for Some Potato Plant Bacterial Pathogen Treatment. J. Clust. Sci. 2020, 31, 1021–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Abdelghany, W.A.; Mohamedin, A.H.; Abo-Elyousr, K.A.M.; Hussein, M.A.M. Control of Bacterial Soft Rot Disease of Potato Caused by Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. Carotovorum Using Different Nanoparticles. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2022, 55, 1638–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Paret, M.L.; Vallad, G.E.; Averett, D.R.; Jones, J.B.; Olson, S.M. Photocatalysis: Effect of Light-Activated Nanoscale Formulations of TiO2 on Xanthomonas perforans and Control of Bacterial Spot of Tomato. Phytopathology® 2013, 103, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. El-Shetehy, M.; Moradi, A.; Maceroni, M.; Reinhardt, D.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B.; Mauch, F.; Schwab, F. Silica Nanoparticles Enhance Disease Resistance in Arabidopsis Plants. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Vera-Reyes, I.; Esparza-Arredondo, I.J.E.; Lira-Saldivar, R.H.; Granados-Echegoyen, C.A.; Alvarez-Roman, R.; Vásquez-López, A.; De Los Santos-Villarreal, G.; Díaz-Barriga Castro, E. In Vitro Antimicrobial Effect of Metallic Nanoparticles on Phytopathogenic Strains of Crop Plants. J. Phytopathol. 2019, 167, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baldassarre, F.; De Stradis, A.; Altamura, G.; Vergaro, V.; Citti, C.; Cannazza, G.; Capodilupo, A.L.; Dini, L.; Ciccarella, G. Application of Calcium Carbonate Nanocarriers for Controlled Release of Phytodrugs against Xylella fastidiosa Pathogen. Pure Appl. Chem. 2020, 92, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Doyle, R.J.; Dziarski, R. The Bacterial Cell: Peptidoglycan. In Molecular Medical Microbiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 137–154. [Google Scholar]
  81. Nguyen, F.; Starosta, A.L.; Arenz, S.; Sohmen, D.; Dönhöfer, A.; Wilson, D.N. Tetracycline Antibiotics and Resistance Mechanisms. Biol. Chem. 2014, 395, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Allison, D.G.; Lambert, P.A. Modes of Action of Antibacterial Agents. In Molecular Medical Microbiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 597–614. [Google Scholar]
  83. Bozcal, E.; Dagdeviren, M. Toxicity of β-Lactam Antibiotics: Pathophysiology, Molecular Biology and Possible Recovery Strategies. In Poisoning-From Specific Toxic Agents to Novel Rapid and Simplified Techniques for Analysis; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  84. Naveed, M.; Chaudhry, Z.; Bukhari, S.A.; Meer, B.; Ashraf, H. Antibiotics Resistance Mechanism. In Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in the Environment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 292–312. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jerinic, O.; Joseph, S. Conformational Changes in the Ribosome Induced by Translational Miscoding Agents. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 304, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Champney, W.S. Antibiotics Targeting Bacterial Ribosomal Subunit Biogenesis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2020, 75, 787–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Naeem, A.; Badshah, S.L.; Muska, M.; Ahmad, N.; Khan, K. The Current Case of Quinolones: Synthetic Approaches and Antibacterial Activity. Molecules 2016, 21, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Spencer, A.C.; Panda, S.S. DNA Gyrase as a Target for Quinolones. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Reece, R.J.; Maxwell, A. DNA Gyrase: Structure and Function. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1991, 26, 335–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Sojo Martinez, V.R. Membrane Bioenergetics at Major Transitions in Evolution. Ph.D. Thesis, UCL (University College London), London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  91. Zou, F.; Tan, C.; Shinali, T.S.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, L.; Han, Z.; Shang, N. Plant Antimicrobial Peptides: A Comprehensive Review of Their Classification, Production, Mode of Action, Functions, Applications, and Challenges. Food Funct. 2023, 14, 5492–5515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Chaturvedi, K.S.; Henderson, J.P. Pathogenic Adaptations to Host-Derived Antibacterial Copper. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2014, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wendehenne, D.; Durner, J.; Chen, Z.; Klessig, D.F. Benzothiadiazole, an Inducer of Plant Defenses, Inhibits Catalase and Ascorbate Peroxidase. Phytochemistry 1998, 47, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kuźniak, E.; Głowacki, R.; Chwatko, G.; Kopczewski, T.; Wielanek, M.; Gajewska, E.; Skłodowska, M. Involvement of Ascorbate, Glutathione, Protein S-Thiolation and Salicylic Acid in Benzothiadiazole-Inducible Defence Response of Cucumber against Pseudomonas syringae pv lachrymans. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2014, 86, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chandra, S.; Sharma, I.P. Elicitins as Microbe-Associated Molecular Patterns and Their Role in Plant Defense. In Unravelling Plant-Microbe Synergy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 77–86. [Google Scholar]
  96. Belete, T. A Critical Review on Defense Mechanismof Plants against Bacterial Pathogens: From Morphological to Molecular Levels. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 534. [Google Scholar]
  97. Fu, Z.Q.; Dong, X. Systemic Acquired Resistance: Turning Local Infection into Global Defense. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2013, 64, 839–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Johnson, K.B.; Smith, T.J.; Temple, T.N.; Gutierrez, E.; Elkins, R.B.; Castagnoli, S.P. Integration of Acibenzolar-S-Methyl with Antibiotics for Protection of Pear and Apple from Fire Blight Caused by Erwinia amylovora. Crop Prot. 2016, 88, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Oh, C.-S.; Beer, S.V. Molecular Genetics of Erwinia Amylovora Involved in the Development of Fire Blight. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 253, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hussein, A.; Mohamed, R.; Amein, T. Biological Control of Fire Blight Disease on Pear Caused by Erwinia amylovora in Erbil Province/Iraq. Tikrit J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 19, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ait Bahadou, S.; Ouijja, A.; Karfach, A.; Tahiri, A.; Lahlali, R. New Potential Bacterial Antagonists for the Biocontrol of Fire Blight Disease (Erwinia amylovora) in Morocco. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 117, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Strayer-Scherer, A.; Liao, Y.Y.; Young, M.; Ritchie, L.; Vallad, G.E.; Santra, S.; Freeman, J.H.; Clark, D.; Jones, J.B.; Paret, M.L. Advanced Copper Composites Against Copper-Tolerant Xanthomonas perforans and Tomato Bacterial Spot. Phytopathology® 2018, 108, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Dewey, K.A.; Gaw, S.K.; Northcott, G.L.; Lauren, D.R.; Hackenburg, S. The Effects of Copper on Microbial Activity and the Degradation of Atrazine and Indoxacarb in a New Zealand Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 52, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bravo, G.; Vega-Celedón, P.; Macaya, C.; Vasconez, I.-N.; Seeger, M. Nitrogen Cycle Bacteria in Agricultural Soils: Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizers, Heavy Metals, Pesticides and Bioremediation Approaches. In Rhizomicrobiome Dynamics in Bioremediation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 335–356. [Google Scholar]
  105. Sindhu, S.S.; Dua, S.; Verma, M.K.; Khandelwal, A. Growth Promotion of Legumes by Inoculation of Rhizosphere Bacteria. In Microbes for Legume Improvement; Khan, M.S., Musarrat, J., Zaidi, A., Eds.; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2010; pp. 195–235. ISBN 978-3-211-99752-9. [Google Scholar]
  106. Vallad, G.E.; Pernezny, K.L.; Balogh, B.; Wen, A.; Figueiredo, J.F.L.; Jones, J.B.; Momol, T.; Muchovej, R.M.; Havranek, N.; Abdallah, N. Comparison of Kasugamycin to Traditional Bactericides for the Management of Bacterial Spot on Tomato. HortScience 2010, 45, 1834–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Tahir, H.A.; Sahi, S.T.; Habib, A.; Haq, I.U.; Ahmad, A.; Ashraf, W. Evaluation of Plant Extracts as Biocontrol Agents against Xanthomonas axonopodis pv Citri the Cause of Citrus Canker. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2016, 28, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  108. Anandan, R.; Dharumadurai, D.; Manogaran, G.P. An Introduction to Actinobacteria. Actinobacteria-Basics Biotechnol. Appl. 2016, 1, 388. [Google Scholar]
  109. Bao, Y.; Dolfing, J.; Guo, Z.; Chen, R.; Wu, M.; Li, Z.; Lin, X.; Feng, Y. Important Ecophysiological Roles of Non-Dominant Actinobacteria in Plant Residue Decomposition, Especially in Less Fertile Soils. Microbiome 2021, 9, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lee, L.S.; Carmosini, N.; Sassman, S.A.; Dion, H.M.; Sepúlveda, M.S. Agricultural Contributions of Antimicrobials and Hormones on Soil and Water Quality. Adv. Agron. 2007, 93, 1–68. [Google Scholar]
  111. Segura, P.A.; François, M.; Gagnon, C.; Sauvé, S. Review of the Occurrence of Anti-Infectives in Contaminated Wastewaters and Natural and Drinking Waters. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chaud, M.; Souto, E.B.; Zielinska, A.; Severino, P.; Batain, F.; Oliveira-Junior, J.; Alves, T. Nanopesticides in Agriculture: Benefits and Challenge in Agricultural Productivity, Toxicological Risks to Human Health and Environment. Toxics 2021, 9, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Viana, P.; Meisel, L.; Lopes, A.; de Jesus, R.; Sarmento, G.; Duarte, S.; Sepodes, B.; Fernandes, A.; Dos Santos, M.M.C.; Almeida, A. Identification of Antibiotics in Surface-Groundwater. A Tool towards the Ecopharmacovigilance Approach: A Portuguese Case-Study. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wang, W.; Luo, T.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, X.; Wang, D.; Yang, G.; Jin, Y. Antibiotic Resistance Gene Distribution in Shine Muscat Grapes and Health Risk Assessment of Streptomycin Residues in Mice. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 465, 133254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. DyhrMaN, S.T.; Ammerman, J.W.; Van Mooy, B.A. Microbes and the Marine Phosphorus Cycle. Oceanography 2007, 20, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Tan, Q.; Chen, J.; Chu, Y.; Liu, W.; Yang, L.; Ma, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qiu, D.; Wu, Z.; He, F. Triclosan Weakens the Nitrification Process of Activated Sludge and Increases the Risk of the Spread of Antibiotic Resistance Genes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chauhan, B.; Dodamani, S.; Malik, S.; Almalki, W.H.; Haque, S.; Sayyed, R.Z. Microbial Approaches for Pharmaceutical Wastewater Recycling and Management for Sustainable Development: A Multicomponent Approach. Environ. Res. 2023, 237, 116983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Khan, M.N.; Mohammad, F. Eutrophication: Challenges and Solutions. In Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Control; Ansari, A.A., Gill, S.S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-94-007-7813-9. [Google Scholar]
  119. Wurtsbaugh, W.A.; Paerl, H.W.; Dodds, W.K. Nutrients, Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms along the Freshwater to Marine Continuum. WIREs Water 2019, 6, e1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Dhillon, G.S.; Kaur, S.; Pulicharla, R.; Brar, S.K.; Cledón, M.; Verma, M.; Surampalli, R.Y. Triclosan: Current Status, Occurrence, Environmental Risks and Bioaccumulation Potential. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2015, 12, 5657–5684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Guo, W.; Xi, B.; Wang, W. Antibiotics in the Aquatic Environments: A Review of Lakes, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 1195–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Arsène, M.M.J.; Davares, A.K.L.; Viktorovna, P.I.; Andreevna, S.L.; Sarra, S.; Khelifi, I.; Sergueïevna, D.M. The Public Health Issue of Antibiotic Residues in Food and Feed: Causes, Consequences, and Potential Solutions. Vet. World 2022, 15, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Angulo, F.J.; Baker, N.L.; Olsen, S.J.; Anderson, A.; Barrett, T.J. Antimicrobial Use in Agriculture: Controlling the Transfer of Antimicrobial Resistance to Humans. In Proceedings of the Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 15, pp. 78–85. [Google Scholar]
  124. McManus, P.S.; Stockwell, V.O.; Sundin, G.W.; Jones, A.L. Antibiotic Use in Plant Agriculture. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, 443–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Shaffer, W.J.; Goodman, R.N. Effectiveness of an Extended Agri-Mycin-17 Spray Schedule against Fireblight. Plant Dis. Rep. 1969, 53, 669–672. [Google Scholar]
  126. Mayerhofer, G.; Schwaiger-Nemirova, I.; Kuhn, T.; Girsch, L.; Allerberger, F. Detecting Streptomycin in Apples from Orchards Treated for Fire Blight. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2009, 63, 1076–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Bohm, D.A.; Stachel, C.S.; Gowik, P. Confirmatory Method for the Determination of Streptomycin in Apples by LC–MS/MS. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 672, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. McCoy, R.E. Uptake, Translocation, and Persistence of Oxytetracycline in Coconut Palm. Phytopathology 1976, 66, 1039–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Christiano, R.S.C.; Reilly, C.C.; Miller, W.P.; Scherm, H. Oxytetracycline Dynamics on Peach Leaves in Relation to Temperature, Sunlight, and Simulated Rain. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 1213–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Gomaa, E.Z. Human Gut Microbiota/Microbiome in Health and Diseases: A Review. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2020, 113, 2019–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Yuan, X.; Pan, Z.; Jin, C.; Ni, Y.; Fu, Z.; Jin, Y. Gut Microbiota: An Underestimated and Unintended Recipient for Pesticide-Induced Toxicity. Chemosphere 2019, 227, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Grenni, P.; Ancona, V.; Caracciolo, A.B. Ecological Effects of Antibiotics on Natural Ecosystems: A Review. Microchem. J. 2018, 136, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Andleeb, S.; Majid, M.; Sardar, S. Environmental and Public Health Effects of Antibiotics and AMR/ARGs. In Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in the Environment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 269–291. [Google Scholar]
  134. Vidaver, A.K. Uses of Antimicrobials in Plant Agriculture. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2002, 34, S107–S110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Adaskaveg, J.; Förster, H.; Holtz, B.A.; Hoffman, E.; Gubler, D.; Erickson, E. Evaluation of Bactericides for Control of Fire Blight of Pears and Apples Caused by Erwinia amylovora. In Proceedings of the X International Workshop on Fire Blight, Bologna, Italy, 5–9 July 2004; Volume 704, pp. 277–282. [Google Scholar]
  136. Halling-Sørensen, B. Inhibition of Aerobic Growth and Nitrification of Bacteria in Sewage Sludge by Antibacterial Agents. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2001, 40, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Aasfar, A.; Bargaz, A.; Yaakoubi, K.; Hilali, A.; Bennis, I.; Zeroual, Y.; Meftah Kadmiri, I. Nitrogen Fixing Azotobacter Species as Potential Soil Biological Enhancers for Crop Nutrition and Yield Stability. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 628379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Brussaard, L. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning in Soil. Ambio 1997, 26, 563–570. [Google Scholar]
  139. La Torre, A.; Iovino, V.; Caradonia, F. Copper in Plant Protection: Current Situation and Prospects. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2018, 57, 201–236. [Google Scholar]
  140. Griffin, K.; Gambley, C.; Brown, P.; Li, Y. Copper-Tolerance in Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Xanthomonas spp. and the Control of Diseases Associated with These Pathogens in Tomato and Pepper. A Systematic Literature Review. Crop Prot. 2017, 96, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sudheesh, P.S.; Al-Ghabshi, A.; Al-Mazrooei, N.; Al-Habsi, S. Comparative Pathogenomics of Bacteria Causing Infectious Diseases in Fish. Int. J. Evol. Biol. 2012, 2012, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Gao, P.; Mao, D.; Luo, Y.; Wang, L.; Xu, B.; Xu, L. Occurrence of Sulfonamide and Tetracycline-Resistant Bacteria and Resistance Genes in Aquaculture Environment. Water Res. 2012, 46, 2355–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Mdegela, R.H.; Mwakapeje, E.R.; Rubegwa, B.; Gebeyehu, D.T.; Niyigena, S.; Msambichaka, V.; Nonga, H.E.; Antoine-Moussiaux, N.; Fasina, F.O. Antimicrobial Use, Residues, Resistance and Governance in the Food and Agriculture Sectors, Tanzania. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Joshi, T.; Sharma, P.; Joshi, T.; Pandey, S.C.; Pande, V.; Pandey, A.; Joshi, D.; Maiti, P.; Nand, M.; Chandra, S. A Spotlight on the Recent Advances in Bacterial Plant Diseases and Their Footprint on Crop Production. Recent Adv. Microb. Divers. 2020, 37–69. [Google Scholar]
  145. Ding, H.; Luo, C.; Li, Y.; Li, Q.; Dong, Y. Impact of Bacillus Subtilis and Pseudomonas Fluorescens Beneficial Bacterial Agents on Soil-Borne Diseases, Growth, and Economics of Continuous Cropping of Flue-Cured Tobacco. Crop Prot. 2024, 177, 106556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Komárek, M.; Čadková, E.; Chrastnỳ, V.; Bordas, F.; Bollinger, J.-C. Contamination of Vineyard Soils with Fungicides: A Review of Environmental and Toxicological Aspects. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Stockwell, V.O.; Temple, T.N.; Johnson, K.B.; Loper, J.E. Integrated Control of Fire Blight with Antagonists and Oxytetracycline. In Proceedings of the XI International Workshop on Fire Blight, Portland, OR, USA, 12–17 August 2007; Volume 793, pp. 383–390. [Google Scholar]
  148. McGhee, G.C.; Sundin, G.W. Evaluation of Kasugamycin for Fire Blight Management, Effect on Nontarget Bacteria, and Assessment of Kasugamycin Resistance Potential in Erwinia amylovora. Phytopathology® 2011, 101, 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Lahlali, R.; Ezrari, S.; Radouane, N.; Kenfaoui, J.; Esmaeel, Q.; El Hamss, H.; Belabess, Z.; Barka, E.A. Biological Control of Plant Pathogens: A Global Perspective. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Sundin, G.W.; Peng, J.; Brown, L.E.; Zeng, Q.; Förster, H.; Adaskaveg, J.E. A Novel IncX Plasmid Mediates High-Level Oxytetracycline and Streptomycin Resistance in Erwinia amylovora from Commercial Pear Orchards in California. Phytopathology® 2023, 113, 2165–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Lamichhane, J.R.; Osdaghi, E.; Behlau, F.; Köhl, J.; Jones, J.B.; Aubertot, J.-N. Thirteen Decades of Antimicrobial Copper Compounds Applied in Agriculture. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bastas, K.K.; Kannan, V.R. Modern Trends of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Control. In Sustainable Approaches to Controlling Plant Pathogenic Bacteria; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; p. 358. [Google Scholar]
  153. Clark, R.B.; Zeto, S.K. Mineral Acquisition by Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2000, 23, 867–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Taylor, P.; Reeder, R. Antibiotic Use on Crops in Low and Middle-Income Countries Based on Recommendations Made by Agricultural Advisors. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2020, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Gulzar, R.M.A.; Javed, I.; Abbas, M. Emerging Trends In Plant Disease Management: A Review Of Sustainable And Innovative Approaches. J. Surv. Fish. Sci. 2023, 10, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Riudavets, J.; Moerman, E.; Vila, E. Implementation of Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouses: From Research to the Consumer. In Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops; Gullino, M.L., Albajes, R., Nicot, P.C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 457–485. ISBN 978-3-030-22303-8. [Google Scholar]
  157. Razdan, V.K.; Sabitha, M. Integrated Disease Management: Concepts and Practices. In Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process; Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 369–389. ISBN 978-1-4020-8991-6. [Google Scholar]
  158. Dubey, S.C.; Gupta, K.; Akhtar, J.; Chalam, V.C.; Singh, M.C.; Khan, Z.; Singh, S.P.; Kumar, P.; Gawade, B.H.; Kiran, R. Plant Quarantine for Biosecurity during Transboundary Movement of Plant Genetic Resources. Indian Phytopathol. 2021, 74, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Fry, W.E. Principles of Plant Disease Management; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  160. Sosnowski, M.R.; Fletcher, J.D.; Daly, A.M.; Rodoni, B.C.; Viljanen-Rollinson, S.L.H. Techniques for the Treatment, Removal and Disposal of Host Material during Programmes for Plant Pathogen Eradication. Plant Pathol. 2009, 58, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Coletta-Filho, H.D.; Castillo, A.I.; Laranjeira, F.F.; de Andrade, E.C.; Silva, N.T.; de Souza, A.A.; Bossi, M.E.; Almeida, R.P.; Lopes, J.R. Citrus Variegated Chlorosis: An Overview of 30 Years of Research and Disease Management. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2020, 45, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Pandey, A.K.; Sain, S.K.; Singh, P. A Perspective on Integrated Disease Management in Agriculture. Bio Bull 2016, 2, 13–29. [Google Scholar]
  163. Wang, J.-F.; Hanson, P.; Barnes, J.A. Worldwide Evaluation of an International Set of Resistance Sources to Bacterial Wilt in Tomato. In Bacterial Wilt Disease; Prior, P., Allen, C., Elphinstone, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 269–275. ISBN 978-3-642-08361-7. [Google Scholar]
  164. Wang, J.-F.; Ho, F.-I.; Truong, H.T.H.; Huang, S.-M.; Balatero, C.H.; Dittapongpitch, V.; Hidayati, N. Identification of Major QTLs Associated with Stable Resistance of Tomato Cultivar ‘Hawaii 7996’to Ralstonia solanacearum. Euphytica 2013, 190, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Balogh, B.; Jones, J.B.; Iriarte, F.B.; Momol, M.T. Phage Therapy for Plant Disease Control. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2010, 11, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Nutter, F.F.W. The Role of Plant Disease Epidemiology in Developing Successful Integrated Disease Management Programs. In General Concepts in Integrated Pest and Disease Management; Ciancio, A., Mukerji, K.G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 45–79. ISBN 978-1-4020-6060-1. [Google Scholar]
  167. Li, S.; Wu, F.; Duan, Y.; Singerman, A.; Guan, Z. Citrus Greening: Management Strategies and Their Economic Impact. HortScience 2020, 55, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ogle, H.; Dale, M. Disease Management: Cultural Practices. In Plant Pathogens and Plant Diseases; Rockvale Publishers: College Grove, TN, USA, 1997; pp. 390–404. [Google Scholar]
  169. Das, A.K. Citrus Canker-A Review. J. Appl. Hortic. 2003, 5, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Lapwood, D.H. The Effects of Soil Moisture at the Time Potato Tubers Are Forming on the Incidence of Common Scab (Streptomyces scabies). Ann. Appl. Biol. 1966, 58, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Kopecky, J.; Rapoport, D.; Sarikhani, E.; Stovicek, A.; Patrmanova, T.; Sagova-Mareckova, M. Micronutrients and Soil Microorganisms in the Suppression of Potato Common Scab. Agronomy 2021, 11, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Tein, B.; Kauer, K.; Runno-Paurson, E.; Eremeev, V.; Luik, A.; Selge, A.; Loit, E. The Potato Tuber Disease Occurrence as Affected by Conventional and Organic Farming Systems. Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 662–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ioannou, N. Management of Soil-Borne Pathogens of Tomato with Soil Solarization. 1999. Available online: http://publications.ari.gov.cy/tb/1999/tb205-n.ioannou.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2025).
  174. Bari, M.L.; Enomoto, K.; Nei, D.; Kawamoto, S. Development of Effective Seed Decontamination Technology to Inactivate Pathogens on Mung Bean Seeds and Its Practical Application in Japan. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. JARQ 2011, 45, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Wright, P.J.; Clark, G.E.; McLachlan, A.R.G. Effects of Wounding, Inoculation with Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora, Water-Logging, and Temperature on Incidence of Bacterial Soft Rot in Calla Plants. In Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Flower Bulbs and Herbaceous Perennials 886, Lisse, The Netherlands, 20–24 April 2008; pp. 401–407. [Google Scholar]
  176. Das, T.K.; Pradhan, S.; Chakrabarti, S.; Mondal, K.C.; Ghosh, K. Current Status of Probiotic and Related Health Benefits. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Spence, C.; Alff, E.; Shantharaj, D.; Bais, H. Probiotics for Plants: Importance of Rhizobacteria on Aboveground Fitness in Plants. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Probiotics; Maheshwari, D.K., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–14. ISBN 978-3-642-27514-2. [Google Scholar]
  178. Sohrabi, F.; Sheikholeslami, M.; Heydari, R.; Rezaee, S.; Sharifi, R. Investigating the Effect of Glomus mosseae, Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma harzianum on Plant Growth and Controlling Meloidogyne javanica in Tomato. Indian Phytopathol. 2020, 73, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Nair, M.S.; Amalaradjou, M.A.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Antivirulence Properties of Probiotics in Combating Microbial Pathogenesis. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 98, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  180. Shafi, J.; Tian, H.; Ji, M. Bacillus Species as Versatile Weapons for Plant Pathogens: A Review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2017, 31, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Gutarra, L.; Herrera, J.; Fernandez, E.; Kreuze, J.; Lindqvist-Kreuze, H. Diversity, Pathogenicity, and Current Occurrence of Bacterial Wilt Bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum in Peru. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Yendyo, S.; Ramesh, G.C.; Pandey, B.R. Evaluation of Trichoderma spp., Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis for Biological Control of Ralstonia Wilt of Tomato. F1000Research 2018, 6, 2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kariuki, C.K.; Mutitu, E.W.; Muiru, W.M. Effect of Bacillus and Trichoderma Species in the Management of the Bacterial Wilt of Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) in the Field. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2020, 30, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Dutkiewicz, J.; Mackiewicz, B.; Lemieszek, M.K.; Golec, M.; Milanowski, J. Pantoea Agglomerans: A Mysterious Bacterium of Evil and Good. Part IV. Beneficial Effects. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2016, 23, 206–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Kebede, G.G. Development of Resistance to Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) Toxin by Insect Pests. Development 2023, 14, 25–41. [Google Scholar]
  186. Goyal, R.K.; Mattoo, A.K. Multitasking Antimicrobial Peptides in Plant Development and Host Defense against Biotic/Abiotic Stress. Plant Sci. 2014, 228, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Darrah, K.E.; Albright, S.; Kumbhare, R.; Tsang, M.; Chen, J.K.; Deiters, A. Antisense Oligonucleotide Activation via Enzymatic Antibiotic Resistance Mechanism. ACS Chem. Biol. 2023, 18, 2176–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Patel, R.R.; Sundin, G.W.; Yang, C.-H.; Wang, J.; Huntley, R.B.; Yuan, X.; Zeng, Q. Exploration of Using Antisense Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA)-Cell Penetrating Peptide (CPP) as a Novel Bactericide against Fire Blight Pathogen Erwinia amylovora. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Lacombe, S.; Rougon-Cardoso, A.; Sherwood, E.; Peeters, N.; Dahlbeck, D.; Van Esse, H.P.; Smoker, M.; Rallapalli, G.; Thomma, B.P.; Staskawicz, B. Interfamily Transfer of a Plant Pattern-Recognition Receptor Confers Broad-Spectrum Bacterial Resistance. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Tai, T.H.; Dahlbeck, D.; Clark, E.T.; Gajiwala, P.; Pasion, R.; Whalen, M.C.; Stall, R.E.; Staskawicz, B.J. Expression of the Bs2 Pepper Gene Confers Resistance to Bacterial Spot Disease in Tomato. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 14153–14158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Scofield, S.R.; Tobias, C.M.; Rathjen, J.P.; Chang, J.H.; Lavelle, D.T.; Michelmore, R.W.; Staskawicz, B.J. Molecular Basis of Gene-for-Gene Specificity in Bacterial Speck Disease of Tomato. Science 1996, 274, 2063–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Escobar, M.A.; Civerolo, E.L.; Summerfelt, K.R.; Dandekar, A.M. RNAi-Mediated Oncogene Silencing Confers Resistance to Crown Gall Tumorigenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 13437–13442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Romero, F.M.; Gatica-Arias, A. CRISPR/Cas9: Development and Application in Rice Breeding. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Karthikeyan, A.; Deivamani, M.; Shobhana, V.G.; Sudha, M.; Anandhan, T. RNA Interference: Evolutions and Applications in Plant Disease Management. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2013, 46, 1430–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Senthil-Kumar, M.; Mysore, K.S. Virus-induced Gene Silencing Can Persist for More than 2 Years and Also Be Transmitted to Progeny Seedlings in Nicotiana benthamiana and Tomato. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2011, 9, 797–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Majumdar, R.; Rajasekaran, K.; Cary, J.W. RNA Interference (RNAi) as a Potential Tool for Control of Mycotoxin Contamination in Crop Plants: Concepts and Considerations. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Hunter, W.B.; Larson, N.R. Invention of RNAi Biopesticides to Psyllid Vectors and Bacterial Pathogens of Citrus: Future Technologies for Gene Targeting. In RNA Interference in Agriculture: Basic Science to Applications; Smagghe, G., Palli, S.R., Swevers, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 383–432. ISBN 978-3-031-81548-5. [Google Scholar]
  198. Dalakouras, A.; Wassenegger, M.; Dadami, E.; Ganopoulos, I.; Pappas, M.L.; Papadopoulou, K. Genetically Modified Organism-Free RNA Interference: Exogenous Application of RNA Molecules in Plants. Plant Physiol. 2020, 182, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. The New Frontier of Genome Engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014, 346, 1258096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Zhang, N.; Roberts, H.M.; Van Eck, J.; Martin, G.B. Generation and Molecular Characterization of CRISPR/Cas9-Induced Mutations in 63 Immunity-Associated Genes in Tomato Reveals Specificity and a Range of Gene Modifications. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Kumar, P.; Singh, S.; Sankhyan, S.; Ray, S. Metabolic Engineering of Lactic Acid Bacteria for Antimicrobial Peptides Production. In Antimicrobial Peptides from Lactic Acid Bacteria; Ray, S., Kumar, P., Mandal, M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2024; pp. 67–95. ISBN 978-981-97-3412-2. [Google Scholar]
  202. Li, L.; He, Z.-Y.; Wei, X.-W.; Gao, G.-P.; Wei, Y.-Q. Challenges in CRISPR/CAS9 Delivery: Potential Roles of Nonviral Vectors. Hum. Gene Ther. 2015, 26, 452–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Gan, W.C.; Ling, A.P. CRISPR/Cas9 in Plant Biotechnology: Applications and Challenges. Biotechnologia 2022, 103, 81. [Google Scholar]
  204. Tavakoli, K.; Pour-Aboughadareh, A.; Kianersi, F.; Poczai, P.; Etminan, A.; Shooshtari, L. Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 as an Advanced Genome Editing System in Life Sciences. BioTech 2021, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Ongadi, P.A. A Comprehensive Examination of Security and Privacy in Precision Agriculture Technologies. GSC Adv. Res. Rev. 2024, 18, 336–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Raj, E.F.I.; Appadurai, M.; Athiappan, K. Precision Farming in Modern Agriculture. In Smart Agriculture Automation Using Advanced Technologies; Choudhury, A., Biswas, A., Singh, T.P., Ghosh, S.K., Eds.; Transactions on Computer Systems and Networks; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 61–87. ISBN 978-981-16-6123-5. [Google Scholar]
  207. Cowan, T.; Zinn, J.A. Precision Agriculture and Site-Specific Management: Current Status and Emerging Policy Issues; Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  208. Akhter, R.; Sofi, S.A. Precision Agriculture Using IoT Data Analytics and Machine Learning. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022, 34, 5602–5618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Garg, S.; Rumjit, N.P.; Roy, S. Smart Agriculture and Nanotechnology: Technology, Challenges, and New Perspective. Adv. Agrochem 2024, 3, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Sivasakthi, S.; Usharani, G.; Saranraj, P. Biocontrol Potentiality of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPR)-Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis: A Review. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 1265–1277. [Google Scholar]
  211. Arif, M.; Ullah, R.; Ahmad, M.; Ali, A.; Ullah, Z.; Ali, M.; Al-Joufi, F.A.; Zahoor, M.; Sher, H. Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Using Euphorbia wallichii Leaf Extract: Its Antibacterial Action against Citrus Canker Causal Agent and Antioxidant Potential. Molecules 2022, 27, 3525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Mohamed, H.I.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A.; Tmam, A.M.; Sofy, M.R. Silver-Based Nanomaterials for Plant Diseases Management: Today and Future Perspectives. In Silver Nanomaterials for Agri-Food Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 495–526. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 11 00753 g001
Figure 1. Mode of action of antibacterial agents.
Figure 1. Mode of action of antibacterial agents.
Horticulturae 11 00753 g001
Horticulturae 11 00753 g002
Figure 2. Effects of antibacterial agents on the environment.
Figure 2. Effects of antibacterial agents on the environment.
Horticulturae 11 00753 g002
Horticulturae 11 00753 g003
Figure 3. Challenges faced by Chemical Antibacterial Agents (CAA).
Figure 3. Challenges faced by Chemical Antibacterial Agents (CAA).
Horticulturae 11 00753 g003
Horticulturae 11 00753 g004
Figure 4. RNA silencing mechanism in plants.
Figure 4. RNA silencing mechanism in plants.
Horticulturae 11 00753 g004
Horticulturae 11 00753 g005
Figure 5. CRISPR-Cas 9 in plant disease management.
Figure 5. CRISPR-Cas 9 in plant disease management.
Horticulturae 11 00753 g005
Table 1. Biological control agents for bacterial diseases in crops.
Table 1. Biological control agents for bacterial diseases in crops.
Biological Antibacterial AgentBacterial PathogenDiseaseHost CropReference
Pantoea agglomeransErwinia amylovoraFire blightApple, pear[24]
Pseudomonas graminis[25]
Lysobacter enzymogenesPseudomonas syringaeBacterial speckTomato[26]
Trichoderma asperellum[27]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensRalstonia solanacearumBacterial wilt[28]
B. subtilis[29]
Trichoderma harzianum,
T. asperellum		[30,31]
P. fluorescensXanthomonas oryzaeBacterial blight[32]
P. fluorescensX. campestrisBlack rotCrucifers[33]
Streptomyces spp.Brassicas[34]
B. velezensisCabbage[35]
B. velezensisAgrobacterium tumefaciensCrown gallJapanese rose[36]
B. thuringiensisX. euvesicatoraBacterial spotPepper[37]
Lactobacillus plantarumXanthomonas arboricolaStone fruits[38]
Table 2. Chemical antibacterial agents for crop bacterial disease management.
Table 2. Chemical antibacterial agents for crop bacterial disease management.
Chemical Antibacterial AgentBacterial PathogenDiseaseHost CropReference
StreptomycinErwinia amylovoraFire blightApple, pear[41]
TetracyclineCandidatus liberibacterHuanglongbing
(Citrus greening)		Citrus[41]
OxytetracyclineX. axonopodis pv. citriCitrus canker[42]
Copper hydroxideX. campestris pv. campestrisBlack rotCabbage[43]
KasugamycinPseudomonas syringaeBlack spotStone fruits[44]
Trichloroisocyanuric acidBacterial cankerKiwifruits[45]
ErythromycinX. campestrisCankerMango[46]
Validamycin AP. solanacearumBacterial wiltTomato[47]
QuinolonesRalstonia solanacearumPotato[48]
ThiabendazoleErwinia carotovoraSoft rot[49]
Table 3. Nanoparticles used for the management of bacterial plant diseases.
Table 3. Nanoparticles used for the management of bacterial plant diseases.
NanoparticleTypeShapePathogenHost CropReference
AgMetallic
(Inorganic)		SphericalXanthomonas perforan (Bacterial spot)Tomato[68]
Pectobacterium carotovorum (Soft rot)Pepper[69]
AuX. axonopodis (Citrus canker)Citrus[68]
SilicaX. campestris pv. Vesicatoria
(Bacterial spot)		Tomato[70]
SeleniumRalstonia solanacearum (Bacterial wilt)Potato[71]
Bovine submaxillary mucin silver nanoparticles (BSM-Ag NPs)-Acidovorax citrulli (Bacterial fruit blotch)Melon[72]
MgOMetallic oxide
(Inorganic)		CubicR. solanacearum (Bacterial wilt)Tomato[73]
CuOCubicClavibacter michiganensis subsp. Sepedonicus
(Bacterial ring rot)		Potato[74]
ZnOSphericalPectobacterium carotovorum (Soft rot)[75]
TiO2X. perforans (Bacterial spot)Tomato[76]
SiO2P. syringaeArabidopsis[77]
Fe3O4-[78]
Calcium carbonate nanocrystalsNon-metallic
(Inorganic)		-Xylella fastidiosa
(Quick decline syndrome)		Olive[79]
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

Mehmood, M.A.; Iqbal, M.M.; Ashfaq, M.; Raza, N.; Wang, J.; Hafeez, A.; Kayani, S.B.; Ali, Q. Impact of Antibacterial Agents in Horticulture: Risks to Non-Target Organisms and Sustainable Alternatives. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070753

AMA Style

Mehmood MA, Iqbal MM, Ashfaq M, Raza N, Wang J, Hafeez A, Kayani SB, Ali Q. Impact of Antibacterial Agents in Horticulture: Risks to Non-Target Organisms and Sustainable Alternatives. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(7):753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070753

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mehmood, Mirza Abid, Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Ashfaq, Nighat Raza, Jianguang Wang, Abdul Hafeez, Samah Bashir Kayani, and Qurban Ali. 2025. "Impact of Antibacterial Agents in Horticulture: Risks to Non-Target Organisms and Sustainable Alternatives" Horticulturae 11, no. 7: 753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070753

APA Style

Mehmood, M. A., Iqbal, M. M., Ashfaq, M., Raza, N., Wang, J., Hafeez, A., Kayani, S. B., & Ali, Q. (2025). Impact of Antibacterial Agents in Horticulture: Risks to Non-Target Organisms and Sustainable Alternatives. Horticulturae, 11(7), 753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070753

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