Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Sustainable Management of Bacterial Spot of Peaches: Insights into Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni Pathogenicity and Control Strategies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improving Plant Performance Through Microbiome Manipulation: The Potential Role of Current Bioengineering Approaches
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Microbial Solutions in Agriculture: Enhancing Soil Health and Resilience Through Bio-Inoculants and Bioremediation

1
Department of Microbiology, Graphic Era (Deemed to be University), 566/6, Bell Road, Clement Town, Dehradun 248002, Uttarakhand, India
2
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
3
Centre for AMR & One Health Research, School of Biological, Health & Sports Sciences, Technological University Dublin, D07 ADY7 Dublin, Ireland
4
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Laboratory, Department of Botany, University of Calcutta, 35, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata 700019, West Bengal, India
5
Crop Physiology and Biochemistry Division, ICAR-Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack 753006, Odisha, India
6
Department of Botany, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar 751004, Odisha, India
7
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Division, Department of Botany, University of Calicut, Thenhipalam 673635, Kerala, India
8
Genetics Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
9
Crop Production Division, ICAR-Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack 753006, Odisha, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bacteria 2025, 4(3), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4030028
Submission received: 8 April 2025 / Revised: 22 May 2025 / Accepted: 18 June 2025 / Published: 24 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Harnessing of Soil Microbiome for Sustainable Agriculture)

Abstract

Soil microbes are important for maintaining agricultural ecosystems by promoting nutrient cycling, plant growth, and soil resilience. Microbial-based inoculants, such as bio-inoculants and bioremediation agents, have been identified as suitable means to promote soil health, reduce environmental deterioration, and achieve sustainable agriculture. Bio-inoculants, such as biofertilizers and biopesticides, promote nutrient availability, plant growth, and chemical input dependency reduction. Diverse microbial populations, especially plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB), enhance resistance by promoting a symbiotic association with plants and inducing natural resistance against insects. Bioremediation, the second significant microbial intervention, is the use of microorganisms for detoxifying and rehabilitating polluted soils. Methods effectively degrade organic pollutants, immobilize heavy metals, and mitigate the toxic effects of industrial and agricultural pollutants. Recent advances in microbial ecology and biotechnology, such as metagenomics, have transformed the knowledge of microbial soil communities, and tailor-made microbial formulations and monitoring equipment may be developed to maximize their activity. Though promising, environmental heterogeneity, scalability, and lack of field-based evidence constrain their widespread application. Multidimensional applications of microbial solutions in agroecology are explored in this review, with a focus on their potential in maintaining soil health, crop production, and environmental sustainability. It also addresses the application of bioremediation and microbial inoculants in agroecosystems and technological innovations with future research objectives. Microbial innovation to shape the soil microbiome offers a valid tool for addressing global challenges in agriculture, food security, and ecological resilience in the context of climate change.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The process of soil development, fertility, plant growth and development, resistance to stress, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration are all directly or indirectly affected by the soil microbiome [1]. Nonetheless, most knowledge regarding the soil microbiome originates from research into the surface top layers, discounting the subsurface layers or subsoils. Environmental impact, new additions of organic matter, levels of nutrients, amounts of gases and moisture, and physical properties all are affected by depth in soils [2]. These soil property changes influence the soil microbial community composition and modify the functional characteristics of microorganisms [3]. We can refine the precision of terrestrial C flow models and obtain a better perception of ecosystem function by understanding the variation in microbial processes with depth in the soil [4].
In the present review, the influence of soil health on the soil microbiome is reviewed, with a specific emphasis on disparities between the very top and the very bottom subsurface horizons. An inherent quality of soil is its health, which is a collection of attributes that determine and categorize the soil [5]. It is an external quality of soil that varies with the ways individuals intend to use it, e.g., to produce recreational goods or for wildlife sustainability, agricultural yields, or watershed conservation. Future harvests will have to be doubled through sustainable methods because of rising food demands and a lack of new agricultural land development since the population of the world is expected to grow at a fast pace [6]. Another integrated strategy that can responsibly address the intrinsic and pragmatic concerns about food production is sustainable agriculture. It develops new, environmentally friendly activities by combining ecological, chemical, physical, and biological concepts [7]. Sustainability may contribute to addressing global food agricultural demands. Crop development can be supplemented by the plant rhizosphere, the very small area of soil closest to the root system, with or even without balanced or minimized pesticide inputs. Evaluation of soil health is grounded in soil quality indicators that ensure a sustainable crop production for agricultural purposes [8].
The significance of soil biota elements, including the microbial community, abundance, diversity, activity, and stability, as soil quality indicators has been demonstrated in a few studies. Besides converting nitrogen into organic and inorganic forms and affecting the plant mineral consumption, structure, and yield, the soil biota facilitates mineralization of plant residues [9]. The basic processes that confer stability and production to agroecosystems are sustained by microbial communities. Soil microbial populations like beneficial nematodes, active bacteria, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF) are interrelated with the crop yield, fruit quality, water storage in the soil, and nutrient cycling for differentiating between improved plant health and fertility of the soil [10]. Organic farms contain greater microbial biomass carbon in the soil compared to conventionally farmed fields, as found in a seven-year study on vegetables and field crops [11]. In mold board ploughing under organic agriculture, the mean total earthworm population was higher than reduced tillage (297 m−2) [12].
Global attention should be given to enhancing or rejuvenating soil health, and the evaluation of soil health indicators will enable us to gain a deeper understanding of the ingredients that form the basis of the systems that ensure sustainable agriculture [13]. Soil microorganisms, which can modify the soil structure and nutritional content, are adversely affected by climate change. Soil tillage, crop type, fertilizer transport, and water management are agronomic practices that alter the microclimate of agriculture and affect soil microorganisms. In agricultural environments, these practices also increase agrarian production [14]. Especially in agricultural environments, soil microorganisms play a key role in maintaining the ecological balance, promoting nutrient cycling, and supporting crop growth.
Tillage of the soil, the crop variety, transportation of fertilizer, and management of water are agronomic factors that alter agriculture’s microclimate and influence agricultural soil microbes [15]. These procedures increase the agrarian yield in farm settings as well. Plant development, resistance against disease, and nutrition are promoted through bio-inoculants, which are compounds of microbes with beneficial properties increasing crop yields and soil health. They are essential to sustainable farming since they lower the use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers [16]. Legume plants and rhizobia bacteria, for example, enter symbiotic relationships that drastically lower the demand for nitrogen fertilizer by allowing nitrogen fixation. Bio-inoculants can increase the crop yield and enhance the soil structure and nutritional capacity. By enhancing the water quality and restoring the biological equilibrium, bioremediation is an environmentally sound and cost-saving approach to conventional cleanup. Microbial consortia in aquatic ecosystems break down oil spills, avoiding long-term environmental degradation and promoting marine biodiversity [17]. Bioremediation methods are increasingly being incorporated into industrial waste management programs because of their considerable reduction in pollutant levels and cleaning expenses compared to older methods [18]. Microbial solutions can revolutionize a variety of industries, spanning agricultural production, environmental cleansing, economic benefits, and sustainability over the long term, as per quantitative estimations [19]. Soil health, carbon capture, and enhanced resilience against climate change effects can be improved by farmers adopting microbially supported sustainable farming practices.
The soil microbiome refers to a sophisticated network of microbes in soils, comprising viruses, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and protozoa. Microbes are responsible for plant growth, soil fertility, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem functioning because they interact with the soil environment and among themselves [20]. Knowledge of the composition and function of the soil microbiome is vital for enhancing soil fertility, land management, and agriculture. The soil microbiome is rich in diversity, with parameters including the soil texture, water content, pH, temperature, organic matter, and vegetation influencing the soil’s types of microorganisms [21]. Bacteria are the most frequent and ubiquitous microorganisms in soil, accounting for the maximum microbial biomass, with important functions like nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and nitrogen fixation [22]. Fungi, archaea, and viruses also make a substantial contribution. Fungi, however, are less dominant compared to bacteria but are essential in the soil microbial community, making up most of the overall microbial biomass. Archaea play a central role in carbon and nitrogen cycling, particularly in soils with extreme characteristics such as high salinity, acidic pH values, and high temperatures. Archaea are implicated in ammonia oxidation and methanogenesis, which produce methane. Crenarchaeotes and Euryarcheotic represent some of the most prevalent phyla of archaea. Viruses are also prevalent among soil microbiomes, ranging up to 10:1 more virus particles than bacteria [23]. They can infect the bacterium and fungus, changing microbial numbers and the nutrient cycle. Protozoa and nematodes, which are two eukaryotic microbes, contribute to the soil microbiome through predation, affecting the microbial community structure and nutrient cycling.

2. Interactions Between Microorganisms and Plants in the Rhizosphere

To assist plants in receiving essential nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium, which are often not available due to soil limitations, rhizosphere bacteria are required [24]. Through the conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into usable ammonia, nitrogen fixation, facilitated by bacteria such as Rhizobium and Frankia, makes a nitrogen source required for growth available to the plant. Leguminous plants can gain from this process through the uptake of 50–100 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year, making the soil more fertile. The productivity of plants is enhanced when there are Rhizobium bacteria in the rhizosphere [25]. Phosphorus solubilization, facilitated by bacteria like Pseudomonas and Bacillus, boosts the phosphorus availability in soils where this nutrient is lacking. By producing organic acids that degrade insoluble phosphorus molecules, phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria facilitate the uptake of phosphorus by plants more efficiently. In potassium-deficient soils, in particular, rhizosphere bacteria like Bacillus and Pseudomonas facilitate the mobilization of potassium, enhancing plants’ uptake of potassium.
Microorganisms present in the rhizosphere reduce disease by protecting plants from soil-borne diseases. The microbes produce antimicrobial compounds, induce systemic resistance in plants, and compete with harmful diseases for space and resources [26]. Through competition with pathogenic microorganisms for resources and space, helpful bacteria such as plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) inhibit the growth and development of harmful diseases. If used on plants such as maize, wheat, and tomatoes, PGPB have the capability of reducing the incidence of diseases. PGPB also produce secondary metabolites, enzymes, and antibiotics among other antimicrobials. Fungi from the genus Trichoderma are capable of lowering pathogen-induced root diseases and protecting the plant against root rot diseases caused by fungi such as Fusarium and Rhizoctonia [27]. Another way in which certain rhizosphere bacteria and fungi condition the plant’s immune system to respond more effectively to subsequent pathogen infections is referred to as induced systemic resistance (ISR). Quantitative studies indicate that ISR can reduce the severity of diseases such as graymold and powdery mildew in treated plants.
Through the production of vitamins, enzymes, and phytohormones, rhizosphere microorganisms, especially PGPB, play a crucial role in promoting plant growth [28]. Auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins are some of the phytohormones that stimulate cell division, nutrient uptake, and root development. For example, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), which is synthesized by Azospirillum species, increases nutrient and water uptake. In rice and maize crops, PGPB treatment can increase root biomass. Cellulases, chitinases, and phosphatases are a few enzymes that can assist in degrading organic compounds and improving nutrition availability [29]. During organic agriculture when microbial degradation makes soil nutrients accessible, it is particularly useful. Soil fertility improvement can occur with the enhancement of the decomposition of organic material by enzyme-secreting bacteria. Also, some of the rhizosphere microbes produce growth hormones and vitamins enhancing the health of plants, like folic acid and biotin, which are crucial for plant development and metabolic processes [30].
Fungi, especially arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), form symbiotic relationships with the roots of plants [31]. Some instances of the taxonomy of the AMF are Amanita, Boletus, and Russula, whereas Glomus is a well-known genus [32]. Orchid Mycorrhizal fungi are members of the Rhizoctonia genus, while ericoid Mycorrhizal fungi are members of the Helotiales genus [33]. This interaction has several outcomes. By extending fungal networks of hyphae over the soil around them, these microorganisms enable plants to take up minerals, especially phosphorus. The plant supplies the fungus with carbohydrates produced through photosynthesis and nutrient transfer by providing a greater surface area for nutrient uptake [34]. AMF allows plants to take up micronutrients such as copper and zinc as well as phosphorus, which otherwise are hard to obtain [35]. In several crop varieties, it is estimated that AMF enhances phosphorus uptake [36]. AMF also improves water and nitrogen uptake, which makes plants drought-resistant. Studies have shown that AMF symbiotic plants are more resistant to drought, with some crops showing increases in production when under water stress. The hyphal networks formed by AMF also contribute to soil aggregation, which improves the soil structure. Plant growth is facilitated by this aggregation, which boosts air penetration and water retention. AMF-inoculated soil aggregates are believed to enhance soil porosity, which will facilitate root development and soil aeration [37].
Beneficial fungi, bacteria, and other microbes are types of microbial inoculants increasingly widely recognized as a critical component of sustainable agriculture [38]. Soil, seeds, or crops are sprayed with these beneficial microbes to enhance soil fertility, promote plant growth, prevent disease, and enhance overall crop yield. With the growing demand for environmentally friendly farming methods that reduce chemical application, microbial inoculants offer an alternative that assists farmers in soil management, increasing yields and reducing the environmental impact [39]. The effectiveness of microbial inoculants, particularly when quantitatively measured, highlights their significance as an essential part of modern farming methods.

3. Roles and Benefits of Microbial Inoculants

3.1. Enhanced Nutrient Availability

Under less-nutrient-rich soils, where plant growth is often limited by the supply of essential elements such as nitrogen and phosphorus, microbial inoculants are beneficial in enhancing the availability of nutrients. Rhizobium and Azospirillum bacteria form symbiotic relationships with legumes, fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere and converting it into ammonium, which can be utilized by plants [40]. Moreover, they reduce the dependence on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, which reduce costs and are environmentally friendly. Microorganisms that produce organic acids, including Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Penicillium, solubilize phosphorus and make it available to plants [41]. Phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria in phosphorus-deficient soils can increase phosphorus availability, which can boost the crop yield. By releasing potassium from the insoluble minerals in the soil, microbial inoculants are capable of mobilizing potassium, yet another nutrient for plants. Through research, potassium-solubilizing microbes can enhance uptake in plants such as rice and maize up to the maximum level.

3.1.1. Nitrogen Fixation (Symbiotic and Free-Living)

In symbiotic relationships with legumes and non-leguminous plants, respectively, various bacteria, primarily Rhizobium and Azospirillum, convert atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into ammonia (NH3) or other forms that can be readily used by plants [42]. Because nitrogen is often the most limiting factor in soils, nitrogen fixing is a critical process. In agriculture, where there is excessive consumption of artificial nitrogen fertilizers and resultant adverse effects on the environment, such as acidification of soils and greenhouse gases, this becomes very crucial. Rhizobium bacteria induce the formation of nodules in legume root cells like peas and soybeans [43]. The bacteria in the nodules convert nitrogen in the atmosphere to ammonium ions, which are later absorbed by plants to develop proteins, amino acids, and other essential plant constituents. Azospirillum attaches itself to grasses like wheat and maize, fixing nitrogen in the rhizosphere, particularly in places where nitrogen is limited. Rhizobium inoculation can increase nitrogen fixation the most, which increases legume crop yields [44]. In nitrogen-deficient conditions, Azospirillum inoculation can increase the nitrogen uptake, boosting the plant biomass and favoring healthier development.

3.1.2. Phosphorus Solubilization

Phosphorus is often present in soils in forms that are unavailable to plants, particularly as insoluble phosphates. Microbial inoculants, particularly phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) such as Bacillus and Pseudomonas, secrete organic acids, phosphatases, and other metabolites that hydrolyze these insoluble phosphorus compounds into plant-available forms [45]. Through the release of protons (H+) or organic acids into the soil, these bacteria facilitate the breakdown of the bonds that phosphorus shares with other minerals, thus making it better available to the roots of plants. Phosphate ions are liberated when organic phosphorus molecules are hydrolyzed by the enzymatic synthesis of phosphatases. Under phosphorus-deficient conditions, use of phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria can increase the availability of phosphorus, and in many cases, this leads to an increase in crop yield [46]. These bacteria, through the conversion of bound phosphorus into a bioavailable form, could raise the phosphorus uptake in soils with high phosphorus.

3.1.3. Potassium Mobilization

Even though potassium is required for plant growth and health, it often occurs in soil in an insoluble state unavailable to plants. Through the formation of organic acids and other metabolites, some microbial inoculants, e.g., Bacillus and Pseudomonas, can make potassium soluble by mobilizing potassium from soil minerals and enhancing plant availability [47]. By dissolving insoluble potassium salts or potassium-bearing minerals in the soil, these microorganisms increase the amount of potassium that is available. In potassium-deficient soils, the application of microorganisms that solubilize potassium can increase absorption. Compared to non-inoculated plants, potassium solubilization can lead to the maximum increase in growth and yield in certain crops, like rice and maize [48].
Microbial inoculants not only enhance the pool of nutrients but also induce plant growth directly via the synthesis of growth-regulating substances like vitamins, enzymes, and phytohormones (auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins).

3.2. Phytohormone Production

Auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins are some of the plant growth hormones that are synthesized by many beneficial microorganisms, particularly PGPB, which act to directly stimulate growth in plants by influencing root initiation, cell division, and plant metabolism [49,50]. By promoting elongation and branching in roots, auxins such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) enhance a plant’s ability to gain water and nutrients from the soil. Cytokinins induce faster plant growth by encouraging cell division and shoot development. Gibberellins facilitate stem elongation and overall plant growth by facilitating seed germination and growth. Auxin-producing PGPB inoculation has the potential to enhance the nutrient uptake to the maximum and raise the root biomass in crops such as rice, maize, and wheat [51]. Efficiency in nutrient uptake is increased by root surface area expansion, especially in conditions of stress such as drought. Auxins, which are synthesized by some bacteria like Azospirillum, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas, stimulate elongation and branching of roots, enhancing the uptake of water and nutrients [52]. Based on reviews, the application of these microbes can increase root biomass, enhancing plant growth and stress resistance. In addition, rhizosphere microorganisms produce gibberellins and cytokinins that stimulate cell division and shoot elongation, which further enhances plant growth.

3.3. Vitamin and Enzyme Production

Beneficial microbes also produce vitamins, including B vitamins, and enzymes that enhance plant metabolism. For instance, Bacillus species can synthesize folic acid and biotin, both of which are required for plant growth [53]. Soil fertility is also enhanced with enzymes such as cellulases and phosphatases, which degrade organic matter and make nutrients available for absorption into plants. Especially in cases where nutrients are scarce, the collective effect of these compounds can promote the overall health and energy of plants.

3.4. Disease Suppression and Plant Health

The management of plant diseases caused by soil-borne pathogens necessitates the application of microbial inoculants via antibiosis, systemic resistance elicitation, and competitive exclusion, they can restrain infections via competitive exclusion in crops such as tomatoes, potatoes, and wheat, meaning root rot, blight, and wilting diseases decrease [54]. This happens as beneficial fungi and bacteria block the space and nutrient occupation required by pathogens for development in the rhizosphere. In plants such as beans and cucumbers, antimicrobial production, e.g., Trichoderma spp., suppresses the root disease severity by inhibiting the development of soil-borne fungal infections [55]. Certain rhizobacteria, e.g., Bacillus and Pseudomonas, induce systemic resistance (ISR), which conditions plants’ immune systems to resist infections. This form of resistance offers an environmentally friendly alternative to chemical pesticides and fungicides. Microbial inoculants can contribute to the suppression of soil-borne diseases through several processes. Pathogenic organisms have less chance to become established in the rhizosphere when helpful microorganisms such as Bacillus and Pseudomonas compete with pathogenic germs for resources and space [56]. Antimicrobial metabolites such as antibiotics and antifungal compounds are produced by the most beneficial bacteria, particularly Trichoderma species, and directly inhibit the development of pathogens. Some bacteria present in the rhizosphere induce plants to acquire systemic resistance, which conditions their immune systems to combat infection. The ability of the plant to resist many diseases is enhanced through this resistance. Trichoderma inoculation enhances plant health and yield by reducing the intensity of fungal infections such as root rot [57]. It has been proven that PGPB inoculants are able to reduce the incidence of damping-off diseases in vegetables such as tomatoes and cucumbers. Bacillus species can reduce the severity of disease, particularly in the case of bacterial and fungal diseases such as powdery mildew and fusarium wilt.

3.5. Soil Health and Structural Improvement

Through the stimulation of soil aggregation, enhancement of organic matter decomposition, and augmentation of soil diversity, microbial inoculants can enhance soil health and structure. Mycorrhizal fungi, for example, can enhance soil aggregation, enhancing porosity, infiltration of water, and root penetration, thereby diminishing the susceptibility to soil erosion and enhancing the water retention capacity, in turn enhancing plant growth [58]. Microbial inoculants also hasten the decomposition of organic residues, liberating nutrients that enhance soil fertility; cellulolytic bacteria can accelerate crop residue decomposition, enhancing soil health; and favorable microorganisms can enhance soil microbial diversity, facilitating a healthier and more stable soil ecosystem [59]. Complex microbial communities can adapt more readily to environmental change, resist disease outbreaks, and maintain soil fertility in the long term. This process, by facilitating the decomposition of organic matter, enhancing soil aggregation, and enhancing soil aeration and water-holding capacity, means microbial inoculants have the potential to enhance the structure and health of the soil. Soil aggregation extracellular polysaccharides from Mycorrhizal fungi and certain bacteria, including Bacillus, act to bind soil particles and form stable aggregates [60]. This reduces soil erosion, enhances water infiltration, and increases soil strength. Organic matter decomposition crop residues and other organic materials are decomposed into simple chemicals by microbes such as cellulolytic bacteria, which supply nutrients to the soil. More tolerant ecosystems, equipped to withstand environmental stress factors such as drought or disease, can be facilitated through enhanced microbial diversity in the soil, which is achieved by incorporating beneficial microbes [61]. Under arid conditions, Mycorrhizal fungi may enhance soil aggregation, enhancing root growth and water infiltration. Cellulolytic bacterial inoculation would enhance organic matter decomposition, enhancing soil fertility and speeding up nutrient cycling.

3.6. Stress Tolerance Enhancement

Microbial inoculants help plants to counteract a variety of environmental stresses, including salt, drought, and extreme temperatures. Many PGPB produce compounds such as osmo protectants, which help in the regulation of osmotic stress in plants or trigger the defense mechanisms of a plant itself [62]. Microbes produce osmo protectants, including proline and trehalose, which protect plant cells from dehydration during periods of excessive salt or drought. Microbial interactions yield heat shock proteins (HSPs) to enable plants to cope with temperature fluctuations and excessive heat stress. PGPB inoculation can enhance drought tolerance among crops, enabling them to survive prolonged water scarcity conditions [63]. Microbial inoculants have been shown to enhance the yield and water-use efficiency in salt-stressed crops through the mitigation of salinity effects on growth.

4. Types of Microbial Inoculants

Different types of microbial inoculants can be distinguished based on their composition and intended application. The following are the main categories of microbial inoculants (Table 1; Supplementary Table S1).

5. Microbial Bioremediation: Restoring Soil Health

5.1. Degradation of Organic Pollutants

A very common bioremediation process is the degradation of organic pollutants, such as hydrocarbons, insecticides, and solvents. Enzymes in microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes can break down large organic molecules into simpler, less toxic forms. This can occur either aerobically (with oxygen) or anaerobically (without oxygen) depending on the contaminant and microbial species [73]. When organic pollutants such as petroleum hydrocarbons are aerobically degraded, oxygen is typically employed to oxidize the pollutants and convert them into water and carbon dioxide (CO2). Reductive dichlorination is employed by specialized bacteria to degrade organic pollutants such as chlorinated solvents in anaerobic conditions, often producing non-toxic end products such as ethene. Quantitative data confirm the efficacy of bioremediation in the degradation of organic pollutants. For example, it has been reported that fungi such as Phanerochaete chrysosporium can degrade man-made colors and pesticides in contaminated soils [74], and that bacteria such as Pseudomonas putida and Mycobacterium species can degrade petroleum hydrocarbons within weeks [75]. By stimulating natural microbial activities to eliminate toxins from the environment, bioremediation not only reduces the toxicity of pollutants but can also potentially heal ecosystems [76].

5.2. Detoxification of Heavy Metals Through Biosorption and Bioaccumulation

Since heavy metals are environmentally persistent and toxic to living organisms, there is increasing concern about heavy metal contamination. The two major operations carried out under heavy metal bioremediation are biosorption and bioaccumulation. However, many other mechanisms of detoxification are possible in a microbial cell (Figure 1; Supplementary Table S2). The procedure by which bacteria and fungi adsorb metal ions on their cell wall or extracellular material is referred to as biosorption [77]. This process is often a passive accumulation process and does not require the bacteria to metabolize the metals. Bioaccumulation, in contrast, is where the heavy metals are actively taken in and concentrated inside microbial cells. Some species of Bacillus and Pseudomonas can bioaccumulate lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg) from contaminated environments, storing them in non-toxic forms [78]. These transformations play a crucial role in microbial detoxification and bioremediation strategies. For example, mercury can be enzymatically reduced to elemental mercury, which is volatile and less reactive, or it can be precipitated as mercuric sulfide, an insoluble and stable compound. Cadmium may be sequestered intracellularly through binding with metallothionein, like proteins, or precipitated as cadmium phosphate, reducing its mobility and toxicity [78]. Similarly, lead can be immobilized through the formation of insoluble compounds, such as lead phosphate or lead sulfide. These biochemical conversions as highlighted in the review by Alotaibi et al., 2021, along with the functional versatility of these microbial genera in mitigating heavy metal contamination through bioinformation and bioaccumulation mechanisms [78]. Heavy metal amounts in polluted zones may be significantly reduced thanks to the ability of microorganisms to accumulate and detoxify them. For instance, it has been shown that Sphingomonas species can bioaccumulate as much as or at higher levels than chromium in industrial effluent, while Pseudomonas putida could accumulate as much dry weight as copper ions in contaminated water [79]. The concentration of heavy metals in contaminated areas is, at times, brought down by maximally using such microbes in the process of bioremediation, making the environment healthier for both flora and fauna.

5.3. Transformation of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Toxic chemicals referred to as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) tend to accumulate in living organisms, are resistant to breakdown in the environment, and cause severe health risks [80]. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and pesticides like DDT are some examples of POPs. Microorganisms with the ability to change the chemical structure of POPs can modify them via bioremediation, reducing their toxicity and enhancing their biodegradability [80]. The stable, complex structures of POPs can be degraded into less toxic intermediates by enzymatic reactions called biotransformation, which is a function of certain bacteria and fungi. Reductive dichlorination, which converts chlorinated compounds such as PCBs and DDT into less chlorinated or non-chlorinated products, is another reaction that bacteria can sometimes carry out [81]. Bacillus and Mycobacterium species have been used to break down organochlorine pesticides, including DDT, in contaminated soils, whereas Dehalococcoides species have been shown to dechlorinate as much as PCB congeners in contaminated sediments [82]. Such types of bioremediation methods help reduce the long-term impacts of POPs on ecosystems and human health as well as reduce their persistence in the environment.

6. Applications for Bioremediation in Agricultural Soils

6.1. Cleaning up Pesticide-Contaminated Soils

Though essential for crop pest management, the application of pesticides in agriculture often leads to the contamination of water and soil resources. Pesticides such as organochlorines (e.g., DDT), organophosphates, and carbamates are examples that can persist for many years in the soil, causing damage to soil microorganisms, reducing biodiversity, and affecting the crop yield [83]. Through the action of microorganisms that can degrade or transform pesticides into harmless byproducts, bioremediation offers a sustainable method for remediating pesticide-polluted soils. Microbial species such as Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Rhodococcus are known to metabolize a wide range of pesticides by dissolving their complex chemical structures [84]. The microorganisms dechlorinate or hydrolyze pesticides, reducing their toxicity, through the action of enzymes such as esterases and dehalogenases. For instance, Pseudomonas putida can significantly reduce the concentration of organophosphate pesticides in the soil by degrading them within a few weeks [85]. Apart from detoxifying the toxins, bioremediation restores the microbiome of the soil, providing an environment that is more conducive to microbial diversity and plant growth (Table 2).

6.2. Managing Industrial Effluents and Wastewater in Agroecosystems

Wastewater and toxic effluents are often discharged into the environment due to industrial activities, destroying nearby agricultural lands [101,102]. Heavy metals, oils, organic solvents, and other toxic substances that could harm plants and lower the soil quality could be contained in these effluents [103]. By utilizing microorganisms that could either degrade or immobilize the pollutants, bioremediation provides an effective means of managing such pollutants, minimizing their toxicity. Petroleum hydrocarbons, for example, can be degraded into simpler non-toxic compounds by hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria and fungi that act on hydrocarbon components of industrial waste [104,105]. Additionally, through a process such as biosorption and bioaccumulation, bacteria such as Bacillus and Pseudomonas efficiently remove heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium from polluted water and soil. Aside from sanitizing the effluents, microorganisms decrease the bioavailability of toxic metals so that plants and animals cannot take them up. Biological ecosystems in agriculture can benefit from reduced levels of chemical pollution by using bioremediation methods, which will lead to better soil and increased crop production [106].

6.3. Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the primary greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by the agricultural sector [107]. Rice paddies emit methane, but waste management and commercial fertilizers emit nitrous oxide. By increasing microbial processes that either oxidize or reduce GHGs, bioremediation can be instrumental in reducing these emissions. Denitrifying soil nitrates to nitrogen gas (N2) in anaerobic conditions, for instance, certain soil microbes, including denitrifying bacteria, can effectively limit the release of this potent greenhouse gas [108]. Methane release in rice paddies may also be limited by using bioremediation methods involving methanotrophic bacteria, which utilize methane as a source of energy. Second, enhancing soil organic matter by adding organic amendments (e.g., compost) will stimulate carbon-sequestering microbial communities, decreasing atmospheric CO2 levels [109]. As well as reducing GHG emissions, these microbial applications increase crop yields, fertility, and soil health.

6.4. Integration of Microbial Solutions into Agroecosystems

Agroecosystem incorporation of microbial solutions presents an integrated strategy to achieve profitable and sustainable agricultural practices [110]. Farmers may enhance crop growth, reduce environmental contamination, and enhance soil integrity by integrating bio-inoculants and bioremediation strategies. Apart from mitigating prevailing problems such as insect infestations, soil contamination, and nutrient shortages, this integrated strategy towards soil management enhances ecological sustainability in the long term [111].

6.5. Combining Bio-Inoculants and Bioremediation for Holistic Soil Management

There is substantial potential for enhancing soil fertility and productivity by using the dual approach of bio-inoculants and bioremediation. Mycorrhizal fungi, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria are some examples of bio-inoculants that could promote the growth of plants, enhance nutrient uptake, and reduce the requirement for synthetic fertilizers [112]. But bioremediation techniques can eliminate toxins from the soil and re-establish its microbial equilibrium through the application of microorganisms to detoxify heavy metals and degrade organic pollutants. Practically, this could be achieved through the application of fungi such as Trichoderma, which degrades pesticide residues in polluted soils, in combination with Rhizobium or Azospirillum for nitrogen fixation, which can enhance soil fertility [113], promote healthier plant growth, and minimize the environmental impact of agricultural practices. When these two approaches are combined, they create a synergistic effect that not only stimulates plant growth but also purifies the soil of toxic chemicals, minimizes nutrient leaching, and revives the microbial ecosystem.

6.6. Strategies for Incorporating Microbial Products into Integrated Pest and Nutrient Management Systems

Through the successful integration of microbial solutions into nutrient management and integrated pest management (IPM) systems, agroecosystem issues can be handled in a sustainable way. Microbial products such as biopesticides Bacillus thuringiensis, Beauveria bassiana, and Trichoderma spp. represent a natural alternative to traditional pesticides in integrated pest control [114,115]. Without posing a threat to the ecosystem or beneficial organisms in the soil, these microbial bioagents eradicate or inhibit pest and disease development. For example, Trichoderma species are very effective in controlling fungal diseases in the soil, while Bacillus thuringiensis is widely used to control insect pests like caterpillars. These microbial biopesticides reduce the use of traditional pesticides, which can adversely affect biodiversity, soil quality, and human health [116]. Microbial inoculants play a significant role in enhancing the availability of essential nutrients such as potassium, phosphorus, and nitrogen in nutrient supply systems. Fertilization programs may utilize microorganisms that fix nitrogen such as Rhizobium and Azotobacter or phosphorus solubilizers such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus species to reduce nutrient runoff into adjacent ecosystems and reduce the need for chemical fertilizers [117,118,119]. These microbial metabolites help promote the sustainability of agroecosystems through enhanced soil aggregation, decomposition of organic matter, and water absorption as well as providing nutrition to plants.

6.7. Synergistic Effects of Diverse Microbial Communities over Single Strains

The synergistic effect that multiple strains can exert on the use of a single microbial strain is one of the primary benefits of adding various microbial communities to agroecosystems. While individual microbial species may offer specific benefits, e.g., disease control or nitrogen fixation, a diverse community of microorganisms can serve the environment more generally and strongly [120]. Collectively, these communities perform numerous functions that enhance the balance and functionality of the agroecosystem, including nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, disease suppression, and soil structural development. Applying a mixed inoculant that harbors both Mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen-fixing bacteria might be more effective than the application of each organism separately [121]. The Mycorrhizal fungi enhance the water uptake and nutrient acquisition, especially phosphorus, and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria enhance the pool of available nitrogen. Bacteria also aid in maintaining ecosystem stability by protecting each other from abiotic stresses such as drought or temperature fluctuations. By stimulating competition among beneficial microorganisms and harmful pathogens, the combination of diverse microbial species further enhances disease suppression [122]. Soil diversity, plant resistance against pests and diseases, and total agricultural production may all be enhanced by richly diverse microbial populations.

7. Advances in Soil Microbiome Research and Technology

7.1. Metagenomics and Microbial Ecology

Metagenomics is transforming our comprehension of microbial diversity and the community composition, especially for soil communities. Metagenomics examines genetic material directly from environmental samples, which enables scientists to obtain a broad picture of microbial communities without the necessity of cultivating microorganisms [123]. Metagenomics enables the development of novel microbial inoculants by providing comprehensive insights into the diversity, structure, and functional potential of soil and rhizosphere microbiomes without the need for cultivation. Through high-throughput sequencing, it identifies genes responsible for beneficial plant traits such as nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, hormone production, and stress tolerance. This allows researchers to discover unculturable or previously unknown microbial taxa and assess their functional roles, making it possible to select, design, or engineer microbial consortia with synergistic capabilities tailored to specific crops or environments. Consequentially, metagenomics facilities the formulation of targeted efficient and sustainable biofertilizers and soil inoculants that enhance the plant growth nutrient uptake and resilience to stress. Metagenomic analysis detects intricate interactions that form microbial communities, including bacteria, viruses, fungus, archaea, and protists. It also reveals the functional potential of such communities by discovering genes that are responsible for vital processes such as nutrient cycling, disease suppression, and plant growth promotion. The most fascinating use of metagenomics in microbial ecology is the identification of functional genes with possible agricultural uses [124]. Such genes, involved in nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, and hormone production, can be utilized to enhance sustainable agriculture (Table 3). Metagenomics also holds the potential to create bio-based fertilizers and soil inoculants to allow microorganisms to exert beneficial processes. Discovery of stress tolerance or disease resistance genes in plants would result in more resilient crops, which would mitigate the environmental effects of traditional agriculture [125].

7.2. Biotechnology in Microbial Product Development

Biotechnology has played a major role in the production of microbial products, most importantly stress-resistant strains and efficient delivery systems for microbial inoculants [175]. Genetic engineering techniques can increase microbial strains’ tolerance to environmental stresses such as drought, salt, high temperatures, and changes in soil pH. Modified microorganisms can improve sustainable agricultural practices by reducing the negative effects on plant growth. Stress-tolerant strains of Rhizobium or Azotobacter have been bred to enhance nitrogen fixation in nutrient-poor soils [176]. To ensure the efficacy of these biotechnologically modified microorganisms, innovative formulation and delivery systems for microbial inoculants must be formulated in parallel. Traditional microbial inoculants tend to lack viability, shelf life, and soil environment establishment. Biotechnological advancements are directed towards encapsulating microbial strains within protective vehicles such as hydrogels, nanoparticles, or bio-based matrices [177]. Controlled-release methods are also in progress to facilitate effective delivery to the root zone. Such biotechnological advances are developing more robust and potent microbial products that are poised to substantially influence sustainable agriculture.

7.3. Monitoring and Assessment Tools

Monitoring and evaluation tools are essential for establishing soil health and microbial activity. Biomarkers and molecular tools, including qPCR, metagenomics, and DNA/RNA sequencing, are the leaders in this area [178]. These methods precisely detect and measure microbial abundance and functional genes and yield excellent information on microbial diversity, community composition, and potential functions. Biomarkers are molecules or genes that indicate microbial activity, health, and ecosystem functioning [179]. For example, particular functional genes such as nitrogenase or phosphatase genes are suitable as microbial activity biomarkers of essential processes in soil fertility and plant growth. The technology further enables microbial activity monitoring using gene expression assessment, meta transcriptomics, and enzymatic activity meta proteomics [180]. Molecular biosensors and probes are being created to detect microbial activities or species linked to the health of soil so that farmers and soil scientists can quickly diagnose. These new monitoring techniques can inform the creation of targeted plans for enhancing soil health and sustainability.

8. Challenges and Future Perspectives

Soil–microbe–plant interaction agriculture is confronted with various challenges because of an unawareness of the complex interactions between soil, microbes, plants, and the environment [181]. The specific mechanisms of these processes are under study, and the success of microbial treatments is soil- and crop-dependent locally. Standard protocols for applying and validating microbial treatments are another serious challenge. The scalability of microbial solutions to large-scale agricultural systems is still challenging owing to aspects like microbial viability upon storage, inconsistent performance between different environments, and variability in microbial product compositions [182]. Lack of proper regulations and lengthy approval procedures might discourage farmers from embracing microbial solutions. There is a need for interdisciplinary research to create more resilient, scalable, and locally applicable microbial products. Socioeconomic determinants must be taken into consideration, as knowledge of farmer conduct, economic viability, and effects of microbial solutions on yields and profitability is key to their uptake at the large scale [183]. Policy support for regulation and marketing of microbial products is required, with governments and intergovernmental organizations developing policies in favor of research and development on microbial biotechnology, offering fiscal incentives for eco-friendly agriculture operations, and putting regulations in place for the proper use of microbial inoculants in the field [184]. Microbial solutions have strong potential in climate-smart agriculture because they could counteract climate change-induced increases in droughts, floods, and temperature extremes. Nitrogen-fixing or phosphorus-solubilizing soil bacteria could minimize the use of chemical fertilizers, and drought-tolerant microbial isolates could enhance water-use efficiency in arid areas [185]. Soil microbes have the potential to mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration mechanisms. Regulatory frameworks and policy support are essential to streamline approval processes for microbial solutions, ensuring their safe and effective implementation in large-scale agriculture and production. Additionally, addressing stakeholder concerns, including farmer adoption and economic viability, will be key to accelerating the use of microbial innovations in sustainable farming.

9. Conclusions

Microbial technologies can enhance soil health and decrease the dependency on chemical fertilizers. Soil fertility can be increased by adding beneficial microbes such as Mycorrhizal fungi, phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria, raising yields. Bio-inoculants can also elevate stress tolerance towards salinity and drought, while drought-resistant varieties can improve the efficiency of water use. Bacteria in soil have an important role to play in bioremediation, decontaminating toxins such as pesticides, heavy metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons, enriching the quality of soil, and lessening pollution. Certain bacteria have the capability of producing the maximum breakdown of residues from pesticides in polluted soils in weeks. Microbial solutions assist in the establishment of stable organic carbon in soils, which enriches the soil structure and water storage capacity. Yet, there are obstacles like standard application routes and a microbial efficiency difference that must be overcome prior to extensive application. Microbial solutions should become a central pillar of sustainable agricultural practices, as agriculture shifts towards more climate-responsible strategies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bacteria4030028/s1, Table S1: Comprehensive classification of microbial inoculants based on composition, species diversity, and functional purpose; Table S2: Quantitative Comparison Between Bioprecipitation and Biosorption in Heavy Metal Removal.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M. and M.P.; investigation, D.M.; resources, D.M.; data curation, R.K., B.F., A.M., R.D. and J.M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, R.K., B.F., A.M., R.D., A.P. (Alivia Paul), S.M., M.P. and D.M.; writing—review and editing, L.K., A.P. (Alivia Paul), S.M., A.P. (Aditi Pandit) and P.P.; visualization, R.K. and D.M.; supervision, D.M. and M.P.; project administration, D.M. and M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

J.M.J. gratefully acknowledges the financial assistance provided by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in the form of a Senior Research Fellowship with the NTA (Ref. No. 211610073457).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

PGPBPlant growth-promoting bacteria
CCarbon
NNitrogen
PPhosphorus
AMFArbuscular mycorrhizal fungus
ISRInduced systemic resistance
IAAIndole-3-acetic acid
NH3Ammonia
N2Nitrogen
PSBPhosphorus-solubilizing bacteria
H+Protons
HSPsHeat shock proteins
CO2Carbon dioxide
PbLead
CdCadmium
HgMercury
POPsPersistent organic pollutants
DDTDichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
CH4Methane
N2ONitrous oxide
GHGsGreenhouse gases
IPMIntegrated pest management

References

  1. Yadav, A.N.; Kour, D.; Kaur, T.; Devi, R.; Yadav, A.; Dikilitas, M. Abdel-Azeem AM, Ahluwalia AS, Saxena AK. Biodiversity, and biotechnological contribution of beneficial soil microbiomes for nutrient cycling, plant growth improvement and nutrient uptake. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2021, 33, 102009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mukherjee, A.; Lal, R. Biochar impacts on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions. Agronomy 2013, 3, 313–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pan, S.Y.; Dong, C.D.; Su, J.F.; Wang, P.Y.; Chen, C.W.; Chang, J.S.; Kim, H.; Huang, C.P.; Hung, C.M. The role of biochar in regulating the carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen cycles exemplified by soil systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. He, X.; Abs, E.; Allison, S.D.; Tao, F.; Huang, Y.; Manzoni, S.; Abramoff, R.; Bruni, E.; Bowring, S.P.; Chakrawal, A.; et al. Emerging multiscale insights on microbial carbon use efficiency in the land carbon cycle. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 8010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Choudhury, B.U.; Mandal, S. Indexing soil properties through constructing minimum datasets for soil quality assessment of surface and profile soils of intermontane valley (Barak, North East India). Ecol. Indic. 2021, 123, 107369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Giller, K.E.; Delaune, T.; Silva, J.V.; Descheemaeker, K.; Van De Ven, G.; Schut, A.G.; Van Wijk, M.; Hammond, J.; Hochman, Z.; Taulya, G.; et al. The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Secur. 2021, 13, 1073–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barzman, M.; Bàrberi, P.; Birch, A.N.; 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]
  8. Lehmann, J.; Bossio, D.A.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Rillig, M.C. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dhaliwal, S.S.; Shukla, A.K.; Behera, S.K.; Dubey, S.K.; Sharma, S.; Randhawa, M.K.; Kaur, G.; Toor, A.S. Impact of fertilization and tillage practices on transformations of carbon, essential plant nutrients and microbial biota composition in soils: A review. Technol. Agron. 2024, 4, e003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wahab, A.; Muhammad, M.; Munir, A.; Abdi, G.; Zaman, W.; Ayaz, A.; Khizar, C.; Reddy, S.P. Role of arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi in regulating growth, enhancing productivity, and potentially influencing ecosystems under abiotic and biotic stresses. Plants 2023, 12, 3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stockdale, E.A.; Watson, C.A. Biological indicators of soil quality in organic farming systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009, 24, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Feledyn-Szewczyk, B.; Radzikowski, P.; Stalenga, J.; Matyka, M. Comparison of the effect of perennial energy crops and arable crops on earthworm populations. Agronomy 2019, 9, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shah, K.K.; Tripathi, S.; Tiwari, I.; Shrestha, J.; Modi, B.; Paudel, N.; Das, B.D. Role of soil microbes in sustainable crop production and soil health: A review. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2021, 13, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Silva, E.M.; Vieira, E.T.; Tashima, L.D.; Guilherme, D.D. A sustainability rereading of agrarian production systems. Interações 2017, 18, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saha, M.; Bandyopadhyay, P.K.; Sarkar, A.; Nandi, R.; Singh, K.C.; Sanyal, D. Understanding the impacts of sowing time and tillage in optimizing the micro-environment for rainfed lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) production in the lower Indo-Gangetic Plain. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 2536–2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tripathi, S.; Srivastava, P.; Devi, R.S.; Bhadouria, R. Influence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides on soil health and soil microbiology. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation; Butterworth-Heinemann: Waltham, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 25–54. [Google Scholar]
  17. Andrey, F.; Lenar, A.; Irina, P.; Inna, S. Removal of oil spills in temperate and cold climates of Russia experience in the creation and use of biopreparations based on effective microbial consortia. In Biodegradation, Pollutants and Bioremediation Principles; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 137–159. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gupta, N.; Wijenayake, W.P.T.; Roy, D.; Kumar, R.; Rangot, M.; Chugh, P.; Santoyo, G.; Chattaraj, S.; Bhaskar, S.S.; Andjelković, S.; et al. Smart Recycling and Sustainable Lignocellulosic Waste Management. In Value Addition and Utilization of Lignocellulosic Biomass: Through Novel Technological Interventions; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2025; pp. 221–250. [Google Scholar]
  19. Verstraete, W.; Yanuka-Golub, K.; Driesen, N.; De Vrieze, J. Engineering microbial technologies for environmental sustainability: Choices to make. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Das, P.P.; Singh, K.R.; Nagpure, G.; Mansoori, A.; Singh, R.P.; Ghazi, I.A.; Kumar, A.; Singh, J. Plant-soil-microbes: A tripartite interaction for nutrient acquisition and better plant growth for sustainable agricultural practices. Environ. Res. 2022, 214, 113821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ren, B.; Hu, Y.; Chen, B.; Zhang, Y.; Thiele, J.; Shi, R.; Liu, M.; Bu, R. Soil pH and plant diversity shape soil bacterial community structure in the active layer across the latitudinal gradients in continuous permafrost region of Northeastern China. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 5619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dai, Z.; Xiong, X.; Zhu, H.; Xu, H.; Leng, P.; Li, J.; Tang, C.; Xu, J. Association of biochar properties with changes in soil bacterial, fungal and fauna communities and nutrient cycling processes. Biochar 2021, 3, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Doytchinov, V.V.; Dimov, S.G. Microbial community composition of the Antarctic ecosystems: Review of the bacteria, fungi, and archaea identified through an NGS-based metagenomics approach. Life 2022, 12, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Soumare, A.; Djibril, S.A.; Diédhiou, A.G. Potassium sources, microorganisms and plant nutrition: Challenges and future research directions. Pedosphere 2023, 33, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sindhu, S.S.; Sharma, R.; Sindhu, S.; Sehrawat, A. Soil fertility improvement by symbiotic rhizobia for sustainable agriculture. Soil Fertil. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 1, 101–166. [Google Scholar]
  26. Olowe, O.M.; Akanmu, A.O.; Asemoloye, M.D. Exploration of microbial stimulants for induction of systemic resistance in plant disease management. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2020, 177, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boamah, S.; Ojangba, T.; Zhang, S.; Zhu, N.; Osei, R.; John Tiika, R.; Boakye, T.A.; Khurshid, A.; Inayat, R.; Effah, Z.; et al. Evaluation of salicylic acid (SA) signaling pathways and molecular markers in Trichoderma-treated plants under salinity and Fusarium stresses. A Review. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2023, 166, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Santoyo, G.; Urtis-Flores, C.A.; Loeza-Lara, P.D.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.; Glick, B.R. Rhizosphere colonization determinants by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Biology 2021, 10, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sharma, I.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, V.; Singh, A.K.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, A.; Singh, J.; Sharma, A. PGPR-Enabled bioremediation of pesticide and heavy metal-contaminated soil: A review of recent advances and emerging challenges. Chemosphere 2024, 362, 142678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sonbarse, P.P.; Kiran, K.; Sharma, P.; Parvatam, G. Biochemical and molecular insights of PGPR application for the augmentation of carotenoids, tocopherols, and folate in the foliage of Moringa oleifera. Phytochemistry 2020, 179, 112506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khaliq, A.; Perveen, S.; Alamer, K.H.; Zia, U.l.; Haq, M.; Rafique, Z.; Alsudays, I.M.; Althobaiti, A.T.; Saleh, M.A.; Hussain, S.; et al. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis to enhance plant–soil interaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sharma, R. Ectomycorrhizal mushrooms: Their diversity, ecology and practical applications. Mycorrhiza-Funct. Divers. State Art 2017, 4, 99–131. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sathiyadash, K.; Muthukumar, T.; Karthikeyan, V.; Rajendran, K. Orchid Mycorrhizal fungi: Structure, function, and diversity. Orchid Biol. Recent Trends Chall. 2020, 1, 239–280. [Google Scholar]
  34. Khan, Y.; Shah, S.; Tian, H. The roles of arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi in influencing plant nutrients, photosynthesis, and metabolites of cereal crops—A review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bhantana, P.; Rana, M.S.; Sun, X.C.; Moussa, M.G.; Saleem, M.H.; Syaifudin, M.; Hu, C.X. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi and its major role in plant growth, zinc nutrition, phosphorous regulation and phytoremediation. Symbiosis 2021, 84, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Beslemes, D.; Tigka, E.; Roussis, I.; Kakabouki, I.; Mavroeidis, A.; Vlachostergios, D. Effect of arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi on nitrogen and phosphorus uptake efficiency and crop productivity of two-rowed barley under different crop production systems. Plants 2023, 12, 1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Visconti, F.; López, R.; Olego, M.Á. The health of vineyard soils: Towards a sustainable viticulture. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. O’Callaghan, M.; Ballard, R.A.; Wright, D. Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: Limitations and opportunities. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1340–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Elnahal, A.S.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Saad, A.M.; Desoky, E.S.; El-Tahan, A.M.; Rady, M.M.; AbuQamar, S.F.; El-Tarabily, K.A. The use of microbial inoculants for biological control, plant growth promotion, and sustainable agriculture: A review. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2022, 162, 759–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Abd-Alla, M.H.; Al-Amri, S.M.; El-Enany, A.W. Enhancing rhizobium–legume symbiosis and reducing nitrogen fertilizer use are potential options for mitigating climate change. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sánchez-de Prager, M.; Cisneros-Rojas, C.A. Organic acids production by rhizosphere microorganisms isolated from a Typic Melanudands and its effects on the inorganic phosphates solubilization. Acta Agronómica 2017, 66, 241–247. [Google Scholar]
  42. Markos, D.; Yoseph, T. Revitalizing maize production through managing biological N fixation, soil acidification and nitrous oxide emission from legumes in tropics. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol 2024, 18, 21–40. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yang, J.; Lan, L.; Jin, Y.; Yu, N.; Wang, D.; Wang, E. Mechanisms underlying legume–rhizobium symbioses. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2022, 64, 244–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Genetu, G.; Yli-Halla, M.; Asrat, M.; Alemayehu, M. Rhizobium inoculation and chemical fertilisation improve faba bean yield and yield components in Northwestern Ethiopia. Agriculture 2021, 11, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arif, M.S.; Shahzad, S.M.; Yasmeen, T.; Riaz, M.; Ashraf, M.; Ashraf, M.A.; Mubarik, M.S.; Kausar, R. Improving plant phosphorus (P) acquisition by phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Essent. Plant Nutr. Uptake Use Effic. Manag. 2017, 1, 513–556. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tian, J.; Ge, F.; Zhang, D.; Deng, S.; Liu, X. Roles of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms from managing soil phosphorus deficiency to mediating biogeochemical P cycle. Biology 2021, 10, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Olaniyan, F.T.; Alori, E.T.; Adekiya, A.O.; Ayorinde, B.B.; Daramola, F.Y.; Osemwegie, O.O.; Babalola, O.O. The use of soil microbial potassium solubilizers in potassium nutrient availability in soil and its dynamics. Ann. Microbiol. 2022, 72, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Basak, B.B.; Maity, A.; Ray, P.; Biswas, D.R.; Roy, S. Potassium supply in agriculture through biological potassium fertilizer: A promising and sustainable option for developing countries. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2022, 68, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Oleńska, E.; Małek, W.; Wójcik, M.; Swiecicka, I.; Thijs, S.; Vangronsveld, J. Beneficial features of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for improving plant growth and health in challenging conditions: A methodical review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Jain, S.; Kumar, R.; Gunsola, D.; Živković, S.; Vasić, T.; Chattaraj, S.; Mitra, D. Strigolactones and Control of Parasitic Weeds. Strigolactones Emerg. Plant Horm. 2025, 1, 261–279. [Google Scholar]
  51. Iqbal, M.; Naveed, M.; Sanaullah, M.; Brtnicky, M.; Hussain, M.I.; Kucerik, J.; Holatko, J.; Mustafa, A. Plant microbe mediated enhancement in growth and yield of canola (Brassica napus L.) plant through auxin production and increased nutrient acquisition. J. Soils Sediments 2023, 23, 1233–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Çakmakçı, R.; Mosber, G.; Milton, A.H.; Alatürk, F.; Ali, B. The effect of auxin and auxin-producing bacteria on the growth, essential oil yield, and composition in medicinal and aromatic plants. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shaida, B.; Singh, V.; Alavudeen, S.S.; Ahmad, M.F.; Akhtar, M.S. Microbial vitamins in nutrition and healthcare. In Microbial Vitamins and Carotenoids in Food Biotechnology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2024; pp. 223–260. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mohamed, B.F.; Sallam, N.M.; Alamri, S.A.; Abo-Elyousr, K.A.; Mostafa, Y.S.; Hashem, M. Approving the biocontrol method of potato wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) using Enterobacter cloacae PS14 and Trichoderma asperellum T34. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2020, 30, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abdelaziz, A.M.; Hashem, A.H.; El-Sayyad, G.S.; El-Wakil, D.A.; Selim, S.; Alkhalifah, D.H.; Attia, M.S. Biocontrol of soil borne diseases by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2023, 48, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, H.; Liu, R.; You, M.P.; Barbetti, M.J.; Chen, Y. Pathogen biocontrol using plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPR): Role of bacterial diversity. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Asad, S.A. Mechanisms of action and biocontrol potential of Trichoderma against fungal plant diseases—A review. Ecol. Complex. 2022, 49, 100978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pan, R.; Martinez, A.; Brito, T.; Seidel, E. Processes of soil infiltration and water retention and strategies to increase their capacity. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2018, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gupta, A.; Singh, U.B.; Sahu, P.K.; Paul, S.; Kumar, A.; Malviya, D.; Singh, S.; Kuppusamy, P.; Singh, P.; Paul, D.; et al. Linking soil microbial diversity to modern agriculture practices: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kaur, R.; Page, K.L.; Dalal, R.C.; Menzies, N.W.; Dang, Y.P. Can molecular genetic techniques improve our understanding of the role the microbial biomass plays in soil aggregation? Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2022, 73, e13307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mikiciuk, G.; Miller, T.; Kisiel, A.; Cembrowska-Lech, D.; Mikiciuk, M.; Łobodzińska, A.; Bokszczanin, K. Harnessing Beneficial Microbes for Drought Tolerance: A Review of Ecological and Agricultural Innovations. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ha-Tran, D.M.; Nguyen, T.T.; Hung, S.H.; Huang, E.; Huang, C.C. Roles of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in stimulating salinity stress defense in plants: A review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gowtham, H.G.; Singh, S.B.; Shilpa, N.; Aiyaz, M.; Nataraj, K.; Udayashankar, A.C.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Murali, M.; Poczai, P.; Gafur, A.; et al. Insight into recent progress and perspectives in improvement of antioxidant machinery upon PGPR augmentation in plants under drought stress: A review. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lindström, K.; Mousavi, S.A. Effectiveness of nitrogen fixation in rhizobia. Microb. Biotechnol. 2020, 13, 1314–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Naqqash, T.; Malik, K.A.; Imran, A.; Hameed, S.; Shahid, M.; Hanif, M.K.; Majeed, A.; Iqbal, M.J.; Qaisrani, M.M.; van Elsas, J.D. Inoculation with Azospirillum spp. acts as the liming source for improving growth and nitrogen use efficiency of potato. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 929114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Liu, X.; Jiang, X.; He, X.; Zhao, W.; Cao, Y.; Guo, T.; Li, T.; Ni, H.; Tang, X. Phosphate-solubilizing Pseudomonas sp. strain P34-L promotes wheat growth by colonizing the wheat rhizosphere and improving the wheat root system and soil phosphorus nutritional status. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 1314–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. de Sousa, S.M.; de Oliveira, C.A.; Andrade, D.L.; de Carvalho, C.G.; Ribeiro, V.P.; Pastina, M.M.; Marriel, I.E.; de Paula Lana, U.G.; Gomes, E.A. Tropical Bacillus strains inoculation enhances maize root surface area, dry weight, nutrient uptake and grain yield. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 40, 867–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guzmán-Guzmán, P.; Kumar, A.; de Los Santos-Villalobos, S.; Parra-Cota, F.I.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.; Fadiji, A.E.; Hyder, S.; Babalola, O.O.; Santoyo, G. Trichoderma species: Our best fungal allies in the biocontrol of plant diseases—A review. Plants 2023, 12, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Akter, S.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Sarder, M.P.; Amin, M.S.; Joardar, J.C.; Islam, M.S.; Nasrin, S.; Islam, M.U.; Islam, F.; Rabbi, S.; et al. Mycorrhizal fungi increase plant nutrient uptake, aggregate stability and microbial biomass in the clay soil. Symbiosis 2024, 93, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dimkić, I.; Janakiev, T.; Petrović, M.; Degrassi, G.; Fira, D. Plant-associated Bacillus and Pseudomonas antimicrobial activities in plant disease suppression via biological control mechanisms—A review. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2022, 117, 101754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Harindintwali, J.D.; Zhou, J.; Yu, X. Lignocellulosic crop residue composting by cellulolytic nitrogen-fixing bacteria: A novel tool for environmental sustainability. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Meena, V.S.; Bahadur, I.; Maurya, B.R.; Kumar, A.; Meena, R.K.; Meena, S.K.; Verma, J.P. Potassium-solubilizing microorganism in evergreen agriculture: An overview. Potassium Solubilizing Microorg. Sustain. Agric. 2016, 1, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  73. Fouad, F.A.; Youssef, D.G.; Shahat, F.M.; Abd El-Ghany, M.N. Role of microorganisms in biodegradation of pollutants. In Handbook of Biodegradable Materials; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  74. Efremenko, E.; Stepanov, N.; Senko, O.; Aslanli, A.; Maslova, O.; Lyagin, I. Using fungi in artificial microbial consortia to solve bioremediation problems. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Baig, Z.T.; Abbasi, S.A.; Memon, A.G.; Naz, A.; Soomro, A.F. Assessment of degradation potential of Pseudomonas species in bioremediating soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2022, 97, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kumar, R.; Kamboj, N.; Mitra, D. Microbial innovations in agriculture: Interdisciplinary approaches to leveraging microbes for food sustainability and security. Indian J. Microbiol. Res. 2024, 11, 129–139. [Google Scholar]
  77. Priya, A.K.; Gnanasekaran, L.; Dutta, K.; Rajendran, S.; Balakrishnan, D.; Soto-Moscoso, M. Biosorption of heavy metals by microorganisms: Evaluation of different underlying mechanisms. Chemosphere 2022, 307, 135957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Alotaibi, B.S.; Khan, M.; Shamim, S. Unraveling the underlying heavy metal detoxification mechanisms of Bacillus species. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Li, X.; Yin, X.; Lian, B. The degradation of dimethoate and the mineral immobilizing function for Cd2+ by Pseudomonas putida. Geomicrobiol. J. 2017, 34, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Krithiga, T.; Sathish, S.; Renita, A.A.; Prabu, D.; Lokesh, S.; Geetha, R.; Namasivayam, S.K.; Sillanpaa, M. Persistent organic pollutants in water resources: Fate, occurrence, characterization and risk analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154808. [Google Scholar]
  81. Elangovan, S.; Pandian, S.B.; SJ, G.; Joshi, S.J. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental fate, challenges and bioremediation. Microb. Metab. Xenobiotic Compd. 2019, 1, 165–188. [Google Scholar]
  82. Matturro, B.; Frascadore, E.; Rossetti, S. High-throughput sequencing revealed novel Dehalococcoidia in dechlorinating microbial enrichments from PCB-contaminated marine sediments. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2017, 93, fix134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Arya, S.; Kumar, R.; Prakash, O.; Rawat, A.; Pant, A.K. Impact of insecticides on soil and environment and their management strategies. In Agrochemicals in Soil and Environment: Impacts and Remediation; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 213–230. [Google Scholar]
  84. Gangola, S.; Bhatt, P.; Kumar, A.J.; Bhandari, G.; Joshi, S.; Punetha, A.; Bhatt, K.; Rene, E.R. Biotechnological tools to elucidate the mechanism of pesticide degradation in the environment. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 133916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Cycoń, M.; Wójcik, M.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Biodegradation of the organophosphorus insecticide diazinon by Serratia sp. and Pseudomonas sp. and their use in bioremediation of contaminated soil. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tunlid, A.; White, D.C. Biochemical analysis of biomass, community structure, nutritional status, and metabolic activity of microbial communities in soil. In Soil Biochemistry; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 229–262. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ducklow, H. Bacterial production and biomass in the oceans. Microb. Ecol. Ocean. 2000, 1, 85–120. [Google Scholar]
  88. Khan, K.S.; Mack, R.; Castillo, X.; Kaiser, M.; Joergensen, R.G. Microbial biomass, fungal and bacterial residues, and their relationships to the soil organic matter C/N/P/S ratios. Geoderma 2016, 271, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yarwood, S.A. The role of wetland microorganisms in plant-litter decomposition and soil organic matter formation: A critical review. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94, fiy175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Naranjo-Ortiz, M.A.; Gabaldón, T. Fungal evolution: Diversity, taxonomy and phylogeny of the Fungi. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 2101–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Baker, B.J.; De Anda, V.; Seitz, K.W.; Dombrowski, N.; Santoro, A.E.; Lloyd, K.G. Diversity, ecology and evolution of Archaea. Nat. Microbiol. 2020, 5, 887–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Hejran, A.B.; Alimyar, O.; Afghan, R.; Niazi, P. Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Viruses in Sustaining Biodiversity: Mechanisms, Implications, and Contributions to Ecosystems Stability. Sci. Technol. Sci. Soc. 2024, 1, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martins, S.J.; Taerum, S.J.; Triplett, L.; Emerson, J.B.; Zasada, I.; de Toledo, B.F.; Kovac, J.; Martin, K.; Bull, C.T. Predators of soil bacteria in plant and human health. Phytobiomes J. 2022, 6, 184–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sharma, R.; Salwan, R.; Sharma, V. Biology of nitrogen fixation in Frankia. In The Chemical Dialogue Between Plants and Beneficial Microorganisms; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 271–281. [Google Scholar]
  95. Condron, L.; Stark, C.; O’Callaghan, M.; Clinton, P.; Huang, Z. The role of microbial communities in the formation and decomposition of soil organic matter. Soil Microbiol. Sustain. Crop Prod. 2010, 1, 81–118. [Google Scholar]
  96. Bhanwaria, R.; Singh, B.; Musarella, C.M. Effect of organic manure and moisture regimes on soil physiochemical properties, microbial biomass Cmic: Nmic: Pmic turnover and yield of mustard grains in arid climate. Plants 2022, 11, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Emami-Karvani, Z.; Chitsaz-Esfahani, Z. Phosphorus solubilization: Mechanisms, recent advancement and future challenge. In Soil Microbiomes for Sustainable Agriculture: Functional Annotation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 85–131. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ali, N.; Abbas, S.A.; Sharif, L.; Shafiq, M.; Kamran, Z.; Haseeb, M.; Shahid, M.A. Microbial extracellular polymeric substance and impacts on soil aggregation. In Bacterial Secondary Metabolites; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 221–237. [Google Scholar]
  99. Nwokolo, N.L.; Enebe, M.C.; Chigor, C.B.; Chigor, V.N.; Dada, O.A. The contributions of biotic lines of defence to improving plant disease suppression in soils: A review. Rhizosphere 2021, 19, 100372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. EL Sabagh, A.; Islam, M.S.; Hossain, A.; Iqbal, M.A.; Mubeen, M.; Waleed, M.; Reginato, M.; Battaglia, M.; Ahmed, S.; Rehman, A.; et al. Phytohormones as growth regulators during abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 765068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tariq, A.; Mushtaq, A. Untreated wastewater reasons and causes: A review of most affected areas and cities. Int. J. Chem. Biochem. Sci 2023, 23, 121–143. [Google Scholar]
  102. Kumar, R.; Kamboj, N.; Mitra, D.; Ray, A. Strengthening Local Communities Through Advanced Recycling Technology for Sustainable Growth. In AI Technologies for Enhancing Recycling Processes; Mitra, D., Choudhury, T., Madan, A., Chattaraj, S., Pellegrini, M., Eds.; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 393–420. [Google Scholar]
  103. Kumar, R.; Kamboj, N.; Mitra, D.; Verma, D.; Choudhury, T. Bacterial Strategies: Novel Pathways for Sustainable Development Through Wastewater. In AI Technologies for Enhancing Recycling Processes; Mitra, D., Choudhury, T., Madan, A., Chattaraj, S., Pellegrini, M., Eds.; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 421–440. [Google Scholar]
  104. Mekonnen, B.A.; Aragaw, T.A.; Genet, M.B. Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil: A review on principles, degradation mechanisms, and advancements. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1354422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kumar, R.; Gupta, G.; Hussain, A.; Rani, A.; Thapliyal, A.; Gunsola, D.; Mitra, D. Pioneering zero-waste technologies utilization and its framework on sustainable management: International, national and state level. Discov. Appl. Sci. 2025, 7, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Aparicio, J.D.; Raimondo, E.E.; Saez, J.M.; Costa-Gutierrez, S.B.; Álvarez, A.; Benimeli, C.S.; Polti, M.A. The current approach to soil remediation: A review of physicochemical and biological technologies, and the potential of their strategic combination. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Filonchyk, M.; Peterson, M.P.; Zhang, L.; Hurynovich, V.; He, Y. Greenhouse gases emissions and global climate change: Examining the influence of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 935, 173359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ranatunga, T.; Hiramatsu, K.; Onishi, T.; Ishiguro, Y. Process of denitrification in flooded rice soils. Rev. Agric. Sci. 2018, 6, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Olawepo, G.K.; Kolawole, O.S.; Isah, J.O. Enhancing Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Global South: The Roles of Microbes and Biological Matter. In Sustainable Soil Systems in Global South; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 395–425. [Google Scholar]
  110. Koskey, G.; Mburu, S.W.; Awino, R.; Njeru, E.M.; Maingi, J.M. Potential use of beneficial microorganisms for soil amelioration, phytopathogen biocontrol, and sustainable crop production in smallholder agroecosystems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 606308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Goud, B.R.; Raghavendra, M.; Prasad, P.S.; Hatti, V.; Halli, H.M.; Nayaka, G.V.; Suresh, G.; Maheshwari, K.S.; Adilakshmi, G.; Reddy, G.P.; et al. Sustainable management and restoration of the fertility of damaged soils. Agric. Issues Policies 2022, 1, 113. [Google Scholar]
  112. Maitra, S.; Brestic, M.; Bhadra, P.; Shankar, T.; Praharaj, S.; Palai, J.B.; Shah, M.M.; Barek, V.; Ondrisik, P.; Skalický, M.; et al. Bioinoculants—Natural biological resources for sustainable plant production. Microorganisms 2021, 10, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Aslam, A.A.; Shamim, M.; Nazir, M.S.; Ishtaiq, M.; Akhtar, M.N.; Ali, Z.; Tahir, Z.; Abdullah, M.A. Applications of microbes in soil health maintenance for agricultural applications. Appl. Microbes Environ. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 1, 365–399. [Google Scholar]
  114. Ayilara, M.S.; Adeleke, B.S.; Akinola, S.A.; Fayose, C.A.; Adeyemi, U.T.; Gbadegesin, L.A.; Omole, R.K.; Johnson, R.M.; Uthman, Q.O.; Babalola, O.O. Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1040901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Kumar, R.; Lakhera, A.; Gulati, M.; Rani, A.; Thapliyal, A.; Gunsola, D.; Mitra, D. Genome Mining of Biocontrol Agents for Bioprospecting Action Modes. In Bio-Control Agents for Sustainable Agriculture; Mitra, D., de los Santos Villalobos, S., Rani, A., Elena Guerra Sierra, B., Andjelković, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  116. Daraban, G.M.; Hlihor, R.M.; Suteu, D. Pesticides vs. biopesticides: From pest management to toxicity and impacts on the environment and human health. Toxics 2023, 11, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Igiehon, N.O.; Babalola, O.O. Rhizosphere microbiome modulators: Contributions of nitrogen fixing bacteria towards sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kamboj, N.; Chugh, P.; Wijenayake, W.P.T.; Mitra, D.; Panneerselvam, P.; Kumar, R. Multifunctionality and Diversity of Antagonistic Potential Fungi as Biocontrol Agent. In Bio-Control Agents for Sustainable Agriculture; Mitra, D., de los Santos Villalobos, S., Rani, A., Elena Guerra Sierra, B., Andjelković, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  119. Samal, S.; Kumar, R.; Thapliyal, M.; Gunsola, D.; Apaarna; Mondal, S.; Khoshru, B.; Knezevic, M.; Dodiya, R.D.; Mitra, D. Insight into an Effective Development of Biocontrol Agent Formulation for Commercial Production. In Bio-Control Agents for Sustainable Agriculture; Mitra, D., de los Santos Villalobos, S., Rani, A., Elena Guerra Sierra, B., Andjelković, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  120. Harman, G.E.; Uphoff, N. Symbiotic root-endophytic soil microbes improve crop productivity and provide environmental benefits. Scientifica 2019, 2019, 9106395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Menéndez, E.; Paço, A. Is the application of plant probiotic bacterial consortia always beneficial for plants? Exploring synergies between rhizobial and non-rhizobial bacteria and their effects on agro-economically valuable crops. Life 2020, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Niu, B.; Wang, W.; Yuan, Z.; Sederoff, R.R.; Sederoff, H.; Chiang, V.L.; Borriss, R. Microbial interactions within multiple-strain biological control agents impact soil-borne plant disease. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 585404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Riesenfeld, C.S.; Schloss, P.D.; Handelsman, J. Metagenomics: Genomic analysis of microbial communities. Annu. Rev. Genet 2004, 38, 525–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ortiz-Estrada, Á.M.; Gollas-Galván, T.; Martínez-Córdova, L.R.; Martínez-Porchas, M. Predictive functional profiles using metagenomic 16S rRNA data: A novel approach to understanding the microbial ecology of aquaculture systems. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 11, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Haggag, W.M.; Abouziena, H.F.; Abd-El-Kreem, F.; El Habbasha, S. Agriculture biotechnology for management of multiple biotic and abiotic environmental stress in crops. J. Chem. Pharm. Res 2015, 7, 882–889. [Google Scholar]
  126. Nichio, B.T.D.L.; Chaves, R.B.R.; Pedrosa, F.D.O.; Raittz, R.T. Exploring diazotrophic diversity: Unveiling Nif core distribution and evolutionary patterns in nitrogen-fixing organisms. BMC Genom. 2025, 26, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Samantaray, A.; Chattaraj, S.; Mitra, D.; Ganguly, A.; Kumar, R.; Gaur, A.; Thatoi, H. Advances in microbial based bio-inoculum for amelioration of soil health and sustainable crop production. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2024, 7, 100251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Sharma, N.K.; Rai, A.K.; Stal, L.J. Cyanobacteria: An Economic Perspective; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  129. Fani, R.; Gallo, R.; Liò, P. Molecular evolution of nitrogen fixation: The evolutionary history of the nifD, nifK, nifE, and nifN genes. J. Mol. Evol. 2000, 51, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Koirala, A.; Brözel, V.S. Phylogeny of nitrogenase structural and assembly components reveals new insights into the origin and distribution of nitrogen fixation across bacteria and archaea. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Addo, M.A.; Dos Santos, P.C. Distribution of nitrogen-fixation genes in prokaryotes containing alternative nitrogenases. ChemBioChem 2020, 21, 1749–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Naorem, A.; Tilgam, J.; Priyadarshini, P.; Tak, Y.; Bharati, A.; Patel, A. Nitrogenase Enzyme Complex: Functions, Regulation, and Biotechnological Applications. In Advances in Plant Nitrogen Metabolism; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 142–154. [Google Scholar]
  133. Li, Q.; Chen, S. Transfer of nitrogen fixation (nif) genes to non-diazotrophic hosts. Chembiochem 2020, 21, 1717–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zhang, W.; Chen, Y.; Huang, K.; Wang, F.; Mei, Z. Molecular mechanism and agricultural application of the NifA–NifL system for nitrogen fixation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wang, L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, D.; Liu, X.; Zhang, B.; Li, J. A minimal nitrogen fixation gene cluster from Paenibacillus sp. WLY78 enables expression of active nitrogenase in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9, e1003865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Wongdee, J.; Boonkerd, N.; Teaumroong, N.; Tittabutr, P.; Giraud, E. Regulation of nitrogen fixation in Bradyrhizobium sp. strain DOA9 involves two distinct NifA regulatory proteins that are functionally redundant during symbiosis but not during free-living growth. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Schmitz, R.A.; Klopprogge, K.; Grabbe, R. Regulation of nitrogen fixation in Klebsiella pneumoniae and Azotobacter vinelandii: NifL, transducing two environmental signals to the nif transcriptional activator NifA. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2002, 4, 235–242. [Google Scholar]
  138. Rasul, M.; Yasmin, S.; Suleman, M.; Zaheer, A.; Reitz, T.; Tarkka, M.T.; Mirza, M.S. Glucose dehydrogenase gene containing phosphobacteria for biofortification of Phosphorus with growth promotion of rice. Microbiol. Res. 2019, 223, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Gong, Z.; Xu, W.; Mou, Z. Gcd gene diversity of quinoprotein glucose dehydrogenase in the sediment of Sancha lake and its response to the environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Zhao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Cui, Z.; Peng, L.; Cao, C. Dynamics of phoD-and gcd-harboring microbial communities across an age sequence of biological soil crusts under sand-fixation plantation. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 831888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Wang, Y.; Ye, X.; Ding, G.; Xu, F. Overexpression of phyA and appA genes improves soil organic phosphorus utilisation and seed phytase activity in Brassica napus. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Kumar, A.; Chanderman, A.; Makolomakwa, M.; Perumal, K.; Singh, S. Microbial production of phytases for combating environmental phosphate pollution and other diverse applications. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46, 556–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Negi, Y.K.; Pant, C.; Prabha, D.; Garg, S.K. Solubilization of Soil Insoluble Phosphate by Bacteria: Molecular Mechanism and Phosphorus Use Efficiency in Crop Plant. In Soil Bacteria: Biofertilization and Soil Health; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 179–205. [Google Scholar]
  144. Lin, W.; Zhao, D.; Luo, J. Distribution of alkaline phosphatase genes in cyanobacteria and the role of alkaline phosphatase on the acquisition of phosphorus from dissolved organic phosphorus for cyanobacterial growth. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Wang, M.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Tang, Z.; Zhang, J. Long-term fertilization lowers the alkaline phosphatase activity by impacting the phoD-harboring bacterial community in rice-winter wheat rotation system. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 821, 153406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Lu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Ji, B.; Yan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yang, M.; Yang, X. PhoD harboring microbial community and alkaline phosphatase as affected by long term fertilization regimes on a calcareous soil. Agronomy 2023, 13, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Chen, X.; Jiang, N.; Condron, L.M.; Dunfield, K.E.; Chen, Z.; Wang, J.; Chen, L. Soil alkaline phosphatase activity and bacterial phoD gene abundance and diversity under long-term nitrogen and manure inputs. Geoderma 2019, 349, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Wang, Y.; Huang, R.; Xu, G.; Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Ci, E.; Gao, M. Soil alkaline phosphatase activity and bacterial phoD gene abundance and diversity under regimes of inorganic fertilizer reduction with straw. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 388–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Fan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lv, G. Effects of Biochar on Soil Inorganic Phosphorus Components, Available Phosphorus, Enzyme Activities Related to Phosphorus Cycle, Microbial Functional Genes, and Seedling Growth of Populus euphratica under Different Water Conditions. Forests 2024, 15, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Shah, G.; Fiaz, S.; Attia, K.A.; Khan, N.; Jamil, M.; Abbas, A.; Jumin, T. Indole pyruvate decarboxylase gene regulates the auxin synthesis pathway in rice by interacting with the indole-3-acetic acid–amido synthetase gene, promoting root hair development under cadmium stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1023723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ryu, R.J.; Patten, C.L. Aromatic amino acid-dependent expression of indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase is regulated by TyrR in Enterobacter cloacae UW5. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 7200–7208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Shao, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, N.; Cui, X.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, R. Analysis and cloning of the synthetic pathway of the phytohormone indole-3-acetic acid in the plant-beneficial Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9. Microb. Cell Factories 2015, 14, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Zhang, P.; Jin, T.; Kumar Sahu, S.; Xu, J.; Shi, Q.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y. The distribution of tryptophan-dependent indole-3-acetic acid synthesis pathways in bacteria unraveled by large-scale genomic analysis. Molecules 2019, 24, 1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Tang, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Mu, J.; Jiang, Y.; Fu, H.; Ye, Z. Biosynthetic pathways and functions of indole-3-acetic acid in microorganisms. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Liu, W.H.; Chen, F.F.; Wang, C.E.; Fu, H.H.; Fang, X.Q.; Ye, J.R.; Shi, J.Y. Indole-3-acetic acid in Burkholderia pyrrocinia JK-SH007: Enzymatic identification of the indole-3-acetamide synthesis pathway. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Gao, Y.; Dai, X.; Aoi, Y.; Takebayashi, Y.; Yang, L.; Guo, X.; Zhao, Y. Two homologous INDOLE-3-ACETAMIDE (IAM) HYDROLASE genes are required for the auxin effects of IAM in Arabidopsis. J. Genet. Genom. 2020, 47, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Laird, T.S.; Flores, N.; Leveau, J.H. Bacterial catabolism of indole-3-acetic acid. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 9535–9550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Abu-Zaitoon, Y.M.; Abu-Zaiton, A.; Tawaha, A.R.A.; Fandi, K.G.; Alnaimat, S.M.; Pati, S.; Almomani, F.A. Evidence from co-expression analysis for the involvement of amidase and INS in the tryptophan-independent pathway of IAA synthesis in Arabidopsis. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2022, 194, 4673–4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Mano, Y.; Nemoto, K.; Suzuki, M.; Seki, H.; Fujii, I.; Muranaka, T. The AMI1 gene family: Indole-3-acetamide hydrolase functions in auxin biosynthesis in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Xu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xiao, Z.; Jiao, J.; Zhang, H.; Xu, L. Auxin signaling related to H+-ATPase synthesis and antioxidant enzyme activities regulates fluoranthene uptake by ryegrass roots. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 291, 117840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Duan, X.; Chen, L.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H.; Wang, F.; Hu, Y. Integrated physicochemical, hormonal, and transcriptomic analysis reveals the underlying mechanism of callus formation in Pinellia ternata hydroponic cuttings. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1189499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Yadav, P.; Yadav, S.K.; Singh, M.; Singh, M.P.; Chinnusamy, V. Genome wide identification and characterization of Isopentenyl transferase (IPT) gene family associated with cytokinin synthesis in rice. Plant Physiol. Rep. 2024, 29, 207–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Wei, X.; Moreno-Hagelsieb, G.; Glick, B.R.; Doxey, A.C. Comparative analysis of adenylate isopentenyl transferase genes in plant growth-promoting bacteria and plant pathogenic bacteria. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Nguyen, H.N.; Lai, N.; Kisiala, A.B.; Emery, R.N. Isopentenyltransferases as master regulators of crop performance: Their function, manipulation, and genetic potential for stress adaptation and yield improvement. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2021, 19, 1297–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Yang, M.; Liu, G.; Yamamura, Y.; Chen, F.; Fu, J. Divergent evolution of the diterpene biosynthesis pathway in tea plants (Camellia sinensis) caused by single amino acid variation of ent-kaurene synthase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 9930–9939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zheng, Z.; Li, W.; Ding, Y.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Wang, Y. Integrative transcriptome analysis uncovers common components containing CPS2 regulated by maize lncRNA GARR2 in gibberellin response. Planta 2024, 259, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Bajguz, A.; Piotrowska-Niczyporuk, A. Biosynthetic pathways of hormones in plants. Metabolites 2023, 13, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Su, P.; Tong, Y.; Cheng, Q.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yang, J.; Huang, L. Functional characterization of ent-copalyl diphosphate synthase, kaurene synthase and kaurene oxidase in the Salvia miltiorrhiza gibberellin biosynthetic pathway. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. He, H.; Liang, G.; Lu, S.; Wang, P.; Liu, T.; Ma, Z.; Mao, J. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of GA2ox, GA3ox, and GA20ox are related to gibberellin oxidase genes in grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Genes 2019, 10, 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Yuan, Y.; Zhou, N.; Bai, S.; Zeng, F.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Gai, W. Evolutionary and integrative analysis of the gibberellin 20-oxidase, 3-oxidase, and 2-oxidase gene family in Paeonia ostii: Insight into their roles in flower senescence. Agronomy 2024, 14, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Wu, W.; Zhu, L.; Wang, P.; Liao, Y.; Duan, L.; Lin, K.; Ni, J. Transcriptome-based construction of the gibberellin metabolism and signaling pathways in Eucalyptus grandis × E. urophylla, and functional characterization of GA20ox and GA2ox in regulating plant development and abiotic stress adaptations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 7051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Gamalero, E.; Lingua, G.; Glick, B.R. Ethylene, ACC, and the plant growth-promoting enzyme ACC deaminase. Biology 2023, 12, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Naing, A.H.; Jeong, H.Y.; Jung, S.K.; Kim, C.K. Overexpression of 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid Deaminase (acdS) gene in Petunia hybrida improves tolerance to abiotic stresses. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 737490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Bomle, D.V.; Kiran, A.; Kumar, J.K.; Nagaraj, L.S.; Pradeep, C.K.; Ansari, M.A.; Niranjana, S.R. Plants saline environment in perception with rhizosphere bacteria containing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Rawal, H.; Nautiyal, Y.; Sharma, B.; Tiwari, S. Microbial Inoculants and Their Role in Abiotic Stress Management. In Microbial Inoculants: Applications for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 163–201. [Google Scholar]
  176. Xavier, G.R.; Jesus, E.D.; Dias, A.; Coelho, M.R.; Molina, Y.C.; Rumjanek, N.G. Contribution of biofertilizers to pulse crops: From single-strain inoculants to new technologies based on microbiomes strategies. Plants 2023, 12, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Bilal, M.; Munir, H.; Khan, M.I.; Khurshid, M.; Rasheed, T.; Rizwan, K.; Franco, M.; Iqbal, H.M. Gums-based engineered bio-nanostructures for greening the 21st-century biotechnological settings. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 3913–3929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Hariharan, G.; Prasannath, K. Recent advances in molecular diagnostics of fungal plant pathogens: A mini review. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 10, 600234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Bhaduri, D.; Sihi, D.; Bhowmik, A.; Verma, B.C.; Munda, S.; Dari, B. A review on effective soil health bio-indicators for ecosystem restoration and sustainability. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 938481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Djemiel, C.; Dequiedt, S.; Karimi, B.; Cottin, A.; Horrigue, W.; Bailly, A.; Boutaleb, A.; Sadet-Bourgeteau, S.; Maron, P.A.; Chemidlin Prévost-Bouré, N.; et al. Potential of meta-omics to provide modern microbial indicators for monitoring soil quality and securing food production. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 889788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Yu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Tan, W.; Zhang, Z. Microplastics as an emerging environmental pollutant in agricultural soils: Effects on ecosystems and human health. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 855292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Fadiji, A.E.; Xiong, C.; Egidi, E.; Singh, B.K. Formulation challenges associated with microbial biofertilizers in sustainable agriculture and paths forward. J. Sustain. Agric. Environ. 2024, 3, e70006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Rogers, P.M.; Fridahl, M.; Yanda, P.; Hansson, A.; Pauline, N.; Haikola, S. Socio-economic determinants for biochar deployment in the southern highlands of Tanzania. Energies 2021, 15, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Kumawat, K.C.; Nagpal, S.; Sharma, P. Present scenario of bio-fertilizer production and marketing around the globe. In Biofertilizers; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 389–413. [Google Scholar]
  185. Kour, D.; Rana, K.L.; Yadav, A.N.; Yadav, N.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, A.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Hesham, A.E.; Dhaliwal, H.S.; Saxena, A.K. Drought-tolerant phosphorus-solubilizing microbes: Biodiversity and biotechnological applications for alleviation of drought stress in plants. In Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Stress Management: Rhizobacteria in Abiotic Stress Management; Springer: Singapore, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 255–308. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Heavy metal detoxification mechanisms by a bacterial cell (Supplementary Table S2).
Figure 1. Heavy metal detoxification mechanisms by a bacterial cell (Supplementary Table S2).
Bacteria 04 00028 g001
Table 1. Microbial inoculants’ impact on agriculture, including their effects on nutrient availability, plant growth, disease suppression, and soil health.
Table 1. Microbial inoculants’ impact on agriculture, including their effects on nutrient availability, plant growth, disease suppression, and soil health.
Microbial InoculumEffectDetails of EffectsReferences
Rhizobium
Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria
Nitrogen fixation in legumesIncrease nitrogen fixation and crop yields[64]
Azospirillum
Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria
Nitrogen fixation and plant growthIncrease nitrogen uptake and enhance root biomass [65]
Pseudomonas (PGPB)Phosphorus solubilization and plant growthIncrease phosphorus availability and yield[66]
Bacillus (PGPB)Phytohormone production and growth promotionIncrease root biomass and improve nutrient uptake[67]
Trichoderma
Fungal Inoculant
Disease suppression and growth promotionReduce root rot and other diseases by enhancing growth in stress conditions[68]
Mycorrhizal fungi
(AMF)
Phosphorus uptake and soil structureIncrease phosphorus uptake and improve soil aggregation [69]
Bacillus (PGPB)Disease suppression via ISRReduce disease severity and enhance resistance to fungal and bacterial diseases[70]
Cellulolytic BacteriaOrganic matter decompositionAccelerate decomposition and improve nutrient cycling and soil fertility[71]
Potassium-Solubilizing MicrobesPotassium mobilizationIncrease potassium uptake in potassium-deficient soils[72]
Cellulolytic BacteriaOrganic matter decompositionAccelerate decomposition and improve nutrient cycling and soil fertility[71]
Potassium-Solubilizing MicrobesPotassium mobilizationIncrease potassium uptake in potassium-deficient soils[72]
Table 2. Microbiomes and their functions and details.
Table 2. Microbiomes and their functions and details.
MicrobiomesFunctions/DetailsReferences
Microbial BiomassSoil contains between 107 and 109 microbial cells per gram of soil.[86]
Bacterial BiomassBacteria make up most of the total microbial biomass in the soil.[87]
Fungal BiomassMicrobial biomass.[88]
Bacterial PhylaProteobacteria: Dominant in nutrient cycling and organic matter degradation.
Firmicutes: Important for breaking down complex organic molecules.
Actinobacteria: Significant in organic matter decomposition and antibiotic production.
Acidobacteria: Key players in acidic soil environment and nutrient cycling.
Bacteroidetes: Degrade complex organic compounds.
[89]
Fungal PhylaAscomycota: Important in decomposing plant material.
Basidiomycota: Key in forming mycorrhizal associations and decaying complex materials.
Zygomycota: Important for nutrient cycling and plant symbiosis.
[90]
Archaea Archaea represent a smaller portion but are critical in methanogenesis and ammonia oxidation.[91]
Viruses in SoilViruses can outnumber bacteria by a ratio of 10:1 and regulate microbial diversity.[92]
Protozoa and NematodesProtozoa and nematodes are important predators of soil bacteria and fungi.[93]
Microbial Contributions to Soil Health and Nutrient Cycling
Microbial Role in Nitrogen FixationNitrogen fixation bacteria, e.g., Rhizobium, Frankia, contribute most of total nitrogen input.[94]
Organic Matter Decomposition RateMicrobial decomposition rates in temperate soils. [95]
Soil Carbon StorageTotal soil organic carbon.[96]
Phosphorus CyclingPhosphorus-solubilizing bacteria, e.g., Pseudomonas, help convert insoluble phosphorus into bioavailable forms.[97]
Soil Aggregate FormationFungi produce extracellular polysaccharides to bind soil particles, improving soil aggregation.[98]
Soil Disease SuppressionBeneficial microbes can produce antibiotics or enzymes that suppress soil-borne pathogens.[99]
Plant Growth PromotionPlant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) produce phytochromes, e.g., auxins, cytokinins, that enhance root growth.[100]
Table 3. Genes involved in nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, and plant hormone production.
Table 3. Genes involved in nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, and plant hormone production.
GeneFull NameFunctionNotesReferences
Nitrogen fixation genes
nifHNitrogenase iron protein geneEncodes dinitrogenase reductase, essential for nitrogen fixationCommon marker gene for diazotrophs (N2-fixing bacteria); widely used in metagenomic studies[126,127,128]
nifDNitrogenase alpha subunit geneEncodes one of the catalytic components of nitrogenaseWorks with nifK to form dinitrogenase[129,130,131]
nifKNitrogenase beta subunit geneEncodes another catalytic subunit of nitrogenaseRequired for the full nitrogenase complex function[130,132,133]
nifANitrogen fixation regulatory protein AActivates transcription of nitrogen fixation genesRegulates nif gene cluster expression under low nitrogen[134,135,136]
nifLNitrogen fixation regulatory protein LActs as a negative regulator of nif genes in the presence of oxygen or ammoniaBalances nitrogen fixation activity with environmental conditions[134,137]
Phosphate solubilization genes
gcdGlucose dehydrogenase geneOxidizes glucose to gluconic acidGluconic acid solubilizes insoluble phosphates in the soil[138,139,140]
phyA/appAPhytase genesHydrolyze phytic acid to release inorganic phosphateImportant in mobilizing organic phosphorus[141,142,143]
phoAAlkaline phosphatase geneHydrolyzes organic phosphates under alkaline conditionsEnhances phosphate availability[144,145,146]
phoDAlkaline phosphatase D geneAnother alkaline phosphatase with high activity in soilsFrequently found in plant rhizospheres; good marker for phosphorus cycling potential[147,148,149]
Hormone production genes
ipdCIndole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase geneCatalyzes conversion of indole-3-pyruvate to indole-3-acetaldehyde in IAA biosynthesisKey gene in the tryptophan-dependent IAA pathway in PGPR[150,151,152]
iaaMTryptophan monooxygenase geneConverts tryptophan to indole-3-acetamidePart of the IAM (indole-3-acetamide) pathway in IAA synthesis[153,154,155]
iaaHIndole-3-acetamide hydrolase geneConverts indole-3-acetamide to IAAWorks in tandem with iaaM[153,156,157]
amiEAmidase geneInvolved in auxin (IAA) biosynthesisAssociated with tryptophan metabolism[158,159,160,161]
IptIsopentenyl transferase geneInvolved in cytokinin biosynthesisCatalyzes the first step in cytokinin formation; often found in endophytes[162,163,164]
cpsCopalyl diphosphate synthase geneInvolved in gibberellin biosynthesisKey enzyme in diterpenoid hormone production like GA[165,166,167]
ksent-Kaurene synthase geneConverts CPP to ent-kaurene, a GA precursorWorks with cps in GA biosynthetic pathway[165,168]
ga20oxGibberellin 20-oxidase geneCatalyzes formation of bioactive gibberellinsImportant for growth regulation[169,170,171]
acdS1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase geneBreaks down ACC, a precursor to ethyleneReduces stress ethylene in plants, promoting root elongation and stress tolerance[172,173,174]
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

Kumar, R.; Farda, B.; Mignini, A.; Djebaili, R.; Koolman, L.; Paul, A.; Mondal, S.; Joel, J.M.; Pandit, A.; Panneerselvam, P.; et al. Microbial Solutions in Agriculture: Enhancing Soil Health and Resilience Through Bio-Inoculants and Bioremediation. Bacteria 2025, 4, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4030028

AMA Style

Kumar R, Farda B, Mignini A, Djebaili R, Koolman L, Paul A, Mondal S, Joel JM, Pandit A, Panneerselvam P, et al. Microbial Solutions in Agriculture: Enhancing Soil Health and Resilience Through Bio-Inoculants and Bioremediation. Bacteria. 2025; 4(3):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4030028

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumar, Rahul, Beatrice Farda, Amedeo Mignini, Rihab Djebaili, Leonard Koolman, Alivia Paul, Subhankar Mondal, Joy M. Joel, Aditi Pandit, Periyasamy Panneerselvam, and et al. 2025. "Microbial Solutions in Agriculture: Enhancing Soil Health and Resilience Through Bio-Inoculants and Bioremediation" Bacteria 4, no. 3: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4030028

APA Style

Kumar, R., Farda, B., Mignini, A., Djebaili, R., Koolman, L., Paul, A., Mondal, S., Joel, J. M., Pandit, A., Panneerselvam, P., Pellegrini, M., & Mitra, D. (2025). Microbial Solutions in Agriculture: Enhancing Soil Health and Resilience Through Bio-Inoculants and Bioremediation. Bacteria, 4(3), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4030028

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop