Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Xanthobacter autotrophicus an Endophytic Beneficial Bacterium for Wheat and Other Plants: A Short Review

Written By

Juan Manuel Sánchez-Yañez

Submitted: October 7th, 2021 Reviewed: December 17th, 2021 Published: March 23rd, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102066

Chapter metrics overview

38 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The endophytic genus plant growth promoting bacteria (EPGPB) known as Xanthobacter autrotrophicus is one of the most interesting option to apply on the production of wheat (Triticum aestivum), and other domestic crops lettuce (Lactuca sativa), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) rice (Oriza sativa) maize (Zea mays): under all types of agriculture systems: open field, protecting one or either organic sustainable type. The aims of this review is to analyze the qualities of X. autotrophicus as useful EPGPB for sustainable production of wheat and other crops regarding its capacity as able to fix molecular nitrogen (N2) as well as by transforming plant metabolic compounds in phytohormons, including phosphatase enzyme for solubilizing phosphate to solve different soil problems related with its fertility also some phytopathological like to stop of growing weed as Arabidopsis thaliana which are competing with health growth of domestic plants. Beside the potencial of X. autotrophicus for bioremediation of environmental polluted by chemicals.

Keywords

  • soil proprieties
  • cereals
  • vegetables and green nitrogen fertilizer
  • endophytic plant growth promoting bacteria
  • health

1. Introduction

The well know endophytic plant growth promoting bacterium Xanthobacter autotrophicus, was described as Corynebacterium autotrophicusdue its specific genetic qualities to grow under chemolithoautotrophically and for being able to fix molecular nitrogen (N2) as nitrogen source [1]: X. autotrophicusare rods, according to growth condition show pleomorphism depends on the species and the carbon and nitrogen source on which they are grown. X. autotrophicusis a Gram-type negative rods with high concentrations of polyphosphate granule belongs phylogenetically to the family Hyphomicrobiaceae in the class Alphaproteobacterial, grow heterotrophically under aerobic or microaerophilic conditions with acids, alcohols, and selectively with some carbohydrates as energy and carbon source like: fructose, galactose, mannose and sucrose [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

The endophyte plant growth promoting bacteria: X. autotrophicuscan fix dinitrogen under heterotrophic and thioautotrophic conditions is able to grow with H2 plus O2 or H2 + Na2S2O3 as energy source and with CO2 as only inorganic carbon source [8, 9, 10] at reduced O2 tension [11, 12] in the absence of organic or inorganic nitrogen (N) compounds as aminoamides, peptides, proteins, nucleotides, well known sources as NH4+ (ammonia) or NO3 (nitrate) at the soil [13] and culture artificial media [14]. On the basis of their numbers, X. autotrophicusshould be regarded as an associative symbiosis diazotroph due although entering roots of wheat (Triticum aestivum), bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), root beet (Beta vulgaris), rice (Oriza sativa) [15] tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), lettuce (Lactuca sativa) [16, 17] does not form nodules the way do symbiotic N2-fixing bacteria in legume as Bradyrhizobium japonicumdoes. The special position of X. autotrophicusamong the chemolithoautotrophic and other the N2-fixing aerobic bacteria [1, 11], X. autotrophicusis able to grow with H2/CO2/O2 or to have high hydrogenase activity [10, 18], beside reaction of nitrogenase as the other well-known genera: Azotobacter, Derxia, Bradyrhizobiumand Rhizobium[19, 20]. Originally, one key taxonomic property for discriminating X. autotrophicusfrom other genera yellow pigmented zeaxanthin dirhamnoside bacteria, including diazotrophs [2]. Xanthobacterstrains can be isolated easily if certain conditions are applied: no other or very limiting sources of nitrogen other than N2 or H2/CO2/O2/N2 [9, 11] as gas phase providing an electron donor, a carbon source, electron acceptors, in liquid media; yellow colonies are showed on nutrient agar plates [1, 6]. Because its metabolic diversity Xanthobacterspecies are widespread in natural habitats [21] as is showed in Table 1.

Biochemical characteristics1.2.3.
Cell morphology: rods
Morphology as rod on free carbon and nitrogen media+++
Slime production+++
Zeaxanthine dirhamnoside (yellow)+++
Zeaxanthine (orange, pinkish)
Motility under autotrophic growth conditionsddd
Vitamins required for growth+++
Sensitivity to chloramphenicol
Under autotrophic growth at 35°C+++
Utilization of hexoses+++
Growth on nutrient broth+++
Growth on glutamine as carbon source+++
Growth on citrate+++
Degradation of aromatic compounds+++
Degradation of cyclohexene (and derivatives)+++
Utilization of methanol+++
Utilization of hydrocarbons+++

Table 1.

Main biochemical characteristics among some species of the genus Xanthobacter.a

1 = X. autotrophicusin the reference; 2 = X. autotrophicus; 3 = X. autotrophicusrepetitions.


Lime production in glucose.


Pale yellow indicating low concentration [6, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].


Symbols and abbreviations: +, positive; (+), positive except for some unusual strains; −, negative; (−), negative except for some unusual strains; +/− not determined; TCA = tricarboxylic acid.

Advertisement

2. Phylogeny and taxonomy of Xanthobacterspp

The phylogenetic position of Xanthobacter based on 16S rRNA sequence analysis published in Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, showed that genus Xanthobacter is part of phylum Proteobacteria, class Alpha proteobacteria order Rhizobiales family Xanthobacteraceae. However, using phylogenetic trees constructed on the basis of 16S rRNA sequence comparisons, the type strains of Aquabacter spiritensisand Azorhizobium caulinodansare intermingled with the otherwise well-defined genus cluster Xanthobacter, Aquabacterand Azorhizobium(both single species genera are recognized as separate genera V and VI within the same family Hyphomicrobiaceae, some of the key properties described for the type species X. autotrophicusit is suggested to keep the separate genera names despite the 16S rRNA sequence similarity [22]. The 16S rRNA sequence is more than 98% similar to those of X. flavusand X. autotrophicusstrains as is showed in Figure 1 [26, 8, 23, 27]. The morphology and some of the physiological proprieties are different to separate species, supported by the low below 50% DNA-DNA hybridization data as well as tricarboxylic acid or TCA cycle intermediate; (1) synthesis of the water insoluble zeaxanthin dirhamnoside, showed by the yellow colonies; (2) normally to grow chemolithoautotrophically; and (3) able to fix dinitrogen under microaerophilic chemolithoautotrophic or heterotrophic conditions [1, 28]. Other characteristics are given in Table 1, Xanthobacteris free-living in soil and water as well as root-associated but never noduling, exhibits acetylene reduction as an indirect technique for nitrogen fixing capacity. Other features of Xanthobactera are the h i g h G+C related with some flavobacteria and Cytophaga spp: (1) antibiotic pattern sensitivity [17] (2) positive reaction for catalase, oxidase and phosphatase acid and alkaline types; (3) negative reaction for methyl red, gas from carbohydrates, and the Voges-Proskauer test; and (4) containing ubiquinones Q10 and Q8 like is in Beijerinckia, and Azotobacter, are important for truly identification of these species, demonstration of the pigment zeaxanthin dirhamnoside and acquisition of the 16S rDNA sequence are important [2, 6, 21].

Figure 1.

Photographs ofX. autotrophicus(a) macroscopic morphology in a mineral medium without sucrose either ammonium nitrate (MMWSA) under autotrophic conditions after 30 h incubation at 35°C, (b) and (c) microscopic morphology ofX. autotrophicusaccording at Gram negative in MMWSA under the same incubation condition (photos from Environmental Laboratory-UMSNH, Sánchez-Yañez et al., 2020).

Advertisement

3. Taxonomy

The most identifications of environmental isolates are done by 16S rRNA sequence analysis, in a first common identification step, diagnostic taxonomic properties are: (1) yellow, “fried egg” shaped colonies with several amounts of slime production under cultivation media specific conditions; (2) rods, some species have strong polymorphic, branched, twisted cell morphology growing on nutrient agar with larger amounts of polyphosphate granula, can lead to the false impression of a Gram-positive staining reaction; however all Xanthobacterstain are truly Gram negative when is using a counterstain in polyphosphate-free cells of X. autotrophicus[2, 22, 24].

Advertisement

4. Isolation cultivation and axenic culture

Selective enrichment cultures. For isolation purposes, the use of free carbon and nitrogen agar medium as a selective medium is recommended for recovering Xanthobacterfrom; soil, upper layers of marine or freshwater sediments, lake water, steam and root of aal types of plants. Because of slime formation by X. autotrophicusof agar plates free carbon and nitrogen source. Frequently, other oligotrophic organisms grow as contaminants in the slimy colonies of Xanthobactereasy to separate in nutrient agar the following basal medium can be used for autotrophic as well as heterotrophic growth except when urea is used as nitrogen source. No vitamins or additions of yeast extract as growth factor are required for most X. autotrophicus, enrichment 100 mg of yeast extract per liter to the mineral medium can reduce an extended lag time for autotrophic growth under free carbon and nitrogen-fixing. In order to demostrate its capacity for fixing N2 is important not to add any inorganic or organic nitrogen source. During isolation, a vitamin solution any mixture containing biotin can enrichment to stimulate is growth, absence of ammonium, or amino acids, peptide, protein as any organic nitrogen source [29, 30]. For heterotrophic growth, common carbon sources are used: 0.5% sugars, 0.3% (v/v) alcohols or 0.4–0.8% organic acids. For growth under non-N2-fixing conditions, 0.1% of ammonium chloride or sulfate is common. The exact composition of this medium is not critical, and good results have been obtained with free sucrose and nitrogen agar medium, for storge sterile soil is one the easy and best one to preserve viability for relative long period of time. X. autotrophicus, studied in more detail, most of the strains tested grow at pH 5.0–8.5 while pH recommend is about 6.8–7.2 and its temperature 30–37°C. The morphological features of Xanthobactercan be used initially for identification. Colony morphology depends on the type of carbon and nitrogen source and growth conditions. On most carbohydrates, the colonies of main species are large from 1 to 5 mm in diameter, smooth, convex, circular, filiform, opaque, and typically egg-yolk yellow color due to zeaxanthin dirhamnoside (see Figure 2a). The colonies become less yellow and less opaque as the amount of slime increases. The production of slime on nutrient agar plates frequently results in colonies resembling fried eggs [15]. Zeaxanthin dirhamnoside is water-insoluble, in contrast to the reddish/pinkish/brown pigment or to the yellow-green diffusing pigments with fluorescence of Beijerinckiaand Derxiathe other yellowish diazotroph isolated with well-known methods. The latter fact also makes it easy to distinguish Xanthobacterfrom Derxiacolonies, which turn brown with age besides other morphological and biochemistry characteristics [5, 31]. Xanthobacterstrains are sensitive to wide range of antibiotics, but the response depends on the method applied broth cultures or the use of Difco (Dispense-O-Disk minifilters). X. autotrophicuswas sensitive to ampicillin, penicillin, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, novobiocin, and polymyxin B, but they were resistant to erythromycin and bacitracin. Few strains can grow on violet red-bile medium (Oxoid), deoxycholate medium (Oxoid), tellurate agar (Difco), and mineral medium supplemented with crystal violet red colonies [6, 32, 33].

Figure 2.

Phylogeny and taxonomy ofXanthobacterspp.

4.1 Methods of storage

Xanthobactercultures are grown on chemolithoautotrophic agar slants stored 1.5 years at 4°C after sealing the tubes tightly with parafilm. Also, liquid cultures grown under chemolithoautotrophic conditions mineral medium with 0.02% (w/v) yeast extract have been kept for more than 15 months at 4°C and, of course if glycerol is used as suspended solution at 40–60% (v/v) final, at –20°C and –75°C for more than 8 years. For long-term storage, cultures should be lyophilized on skim milk at 10% now sterile soil is an easy and safe technique [34, 35].

Advertisement

5. Autotrophy and nitrogen fixation capability

X. autotrophicuscan use H2 from thiosulfate as source of energy for CO2 fixation, when grown heterotrophically in the presence of gas mixture, Xanthobacterspecies fix CO2 mainly via the ribulose-biphosphate pathway but phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity also has been reported. Have shown that the fixation of CO2 plays an important role in the degradation of aliphatic epoxides and ketones by novel carboxylases [5, 8, 10, 24]. X. autotrophicusfixes N2 under heterotrophic growth conditions with sucrose as a carbon source; however, N2 fixation was showed for several strains of X. autotrophicuswith 15N2 incorporation into cell protein [12, 18]. The biochemical studies on the enzyme and its relationship to oxygen have been restricted to X. autotrophicus. The nitrogenase in these two strains is similar to that in other aerobic diazotrophs [2, 6, 36, 37]. There is strong variation among the strains in respect to the optimal O2 concentration for growth under N2-fixing conditions, for X. autotrophicus. The optimal partial pressures of O2 for acetylene reduction are 5 and 2.5 kPa to 0.36 kPa. However, the alternative vanadium nitrogenase system could not yet be shown through substantial ethane synthesis or improving its growth when vanadium is added to molybdenum deprived medium [1, 14, 38].

Advertisement

6. Natural habitats

The known habitats of Xanthobacterare depending on its physiological properties, underline its catabolic versatility [39]. The sources for isolated strains include oil-contaminated soil and sludge from Japan [5], marine sediments, water and sediment samples from fresh- water lakes, soil of flooded rice fields, rhizosphere of wetland street ditches and wet meadow soil and garden soil from Europe, South Africa, North America, and Asia, sewage samples [3, 13, 40] and tree leaves [2041]. Xanthobacteris ubiquitous in microaerophilic environments with decaying organic material or matter [19] containing sufficient concentrations of H2 and CO2 and other metabolic compounds products of anaerobic microbial activity, such as organic acids and alcohols. Xanthobacterspecies are important in the microaerophilic interface between the anaerobic and aerobic habitats. Therefore, it is very likely that Xanthobacter, and possibly also other N2-fixing Knallgas bacteria, can be found in habitats other not yet known [42, 43]. According to literature, no thermophilic, psychrophilic, or halophilic strains have been isolated [44]. Furthermore, it is not clear whether Xanthobactercontributes significantly as an associative bacterium to the nitrogen cycle in agriculture issues, even though in greenhouse experiments [17, 45, 46], X. autotrophicusstrains isolated from several environmental samples have been shown to stimulate and growth yields of rice, tomato and lettuce at reduced dose of nitrogen or phosphate fertilizer [1, 17, 38, 47].

6.1 Ecological interactions with other domestic plants

In Japan was reported a survey of N2-fixing bacteria from roots of rice, with strains called group 2 were X. autotrophicusand other isolated Xanthobacter-like of group 5, which could be a new genus [22, 31, 48, 49]. Some of these isolations were identified as a X. flavuson the basis of morphological and physiological properties. Up to 25% of the nitrogen fixed by soil bacteria was incorporated into rice plants and other reported. In one soil like soils of Kasakh, Armenia Xanthobacterwas up 40–70% were N2-fixing population they may contribute to N balance in the soil of paddy rice. Also was demonstrated that strains close to X. autotrophicuscould be found in the sediment of patty rice fields in Arkansas, United States, with more than 105 cells per g dry weight of roots in the rhizosphere of rice clearly as an endophyte [50]. A positive interaction among Xanthobacter and some domestic crops due to enhance biomass of plant as well as nitrogen content compared to those crops without Xanthobacter at limited dose of nitrogen fertilizer [17, 40]. Therefore, Xanthobactercan be classified as an associative diazotroph [19, 38, 44, 51, 52]. The possible role of Xanthobacteras a contributor of fixed N2, a growth factor stimulant on bean [45] lettuce, tomato, rice, rootbeet, wheat, plants, and an associative N2 fixer through either the phyllosphere or even stems nodules if in the future Azorhizobiumis incorporated into the genus Xanthobacterneeds to be investigate [20, 41, 53]. These studies should examine: (1) the role of the slime produced by Xanthobacterin its adherence to the rhizosphere and phyllosphere an involvement of slime in adherence processes was shown for various anaerobic bacteria; (2) the possible role of the polyglutamine polymer produced under high-nitrogen conditions directly after nitrogen fertilization [7, 38, 54] and (3) the role of plant growth stimulant formation by root and stem-associated Xanthobactercells [13, 28, 55, 56, 57]. It has been reported than cultures of X. autotrophicusare producing indoleacetic acid when grown in medium with tryptophan [3]. Until now there are no reports about Xanthobacterisolated associated with any plant disease [18].

6.2 Biofertilizer application of endophytic plant growth promoting bacteria in modern sustainable agriculture

Biofertilizer is key action of organic farming and a main element for the economy in general modern agricultural production on a world scale [55, 56, 58, 59]. The biofertilizers play an important role in improving the fertility of the soil [60, 61]. In addition, their application in soil improves the structure of the soil minimizes the sole application of chemical fertilizer. Grain yield and harvest index also increase with use of biofertilizers. Inoculation with Azotobacter+ Rhizobium+ mycorrhizae gave the highest increase in straw and grain yield of wheat plants with rock phosphate as a P fertilizer. Azollais inexpensive, economical, friendly, which provide benefit in terms of carbon and nitrogen enrichment of soil [62]. Some commercially available biofertilizers are also used for the crop. Raj [63] recorded that microorganism: B. subtilis, Thiobacillus thioxidans, and Saccharomyces) can be used as bio-fertilizers for solubilization of fixed micronutrients like Zn (zinc). As well for biological control, a modern approach of disease management a key role in sustainable agriculture [64, 65, 66]. Biofertilizers can be defined as carriers that contain living endophytic plant growth promoting bacteria (EPGPB) and/or microorganisms (EPGPM); when they are applied to seeds, plant surfaces, to soil, or to hydroponic agricultural system, they colonize the root system or interior of the plant, and to stimulate plant growth by increasing the demanding or availability of macro or micro minerals: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), cupper (Cu), iron (Fe), etc., to the host plant [67, 68]. According to Mishra et al. [69], biofertilizer could be mixture of active or latent microbial cell for several important mechanisms to improve plant growth and yield as the well-known: nitrogen fixing, phosphate solubilizing, or cellulolytic microorganisms for applications to soil, seed, roots, or composting involving any microbial process with the aims for enhancing plant growth, augment the availability of nutrients that can then be easily absorbed by the plants, as well as for biological control of plant pathogenic agents. Malusá and Vassilev [70] proposed that a biofertilizer is the formulated product containing one or more microorganisms that enhance the mineral availability for health growth and yield profitable performance of the plants by either replacing soil nutrients and/or by making nutrients more available to plants and/or by increasing plant availability to basic minerals [66, 71].

Biofertilizer products are usually based on the EPGPB or PGPM can be classified into three main types of microorganisms: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi or AMF [72], plant growth promoting rhizobacteria or PGPR [73], and nitrogen fixing rhizobia and free nitrogen fixing bacteria for non-leguminous plant [74, 75] which are applied and approved as beneficial for domestic crops growth based in mineral nutritional, underline reported that PGPR are recommend worldwide as biofertilizers, contributing to maintain profitable yield without soil deterioration and preventing environmental pollution. Hence, with the potential contribution of the PGPR, to sustainable agriculture and forestry when pandemic condition of COVID 19 caused economic world depress [76, 77]. Sufficient densities of PGPR and/or EPGPB like X. autotrophicusin biofertilizer provide a beneficial role in creating a proper rhizosphere for plant growth and converting nutritionally important elements through biological process, for example increasing the availability of N, P, K, as well as inhibiting pathogens growth [67, 71].

The increasing availability of N, P, and K is enhancing soil fertility, to improve antagonistic capacity of PGPR or EPGPB to biocontrol of plant pathogens agents [58] as well as the survival time in all types of soil [78]. Previous studies show that a biofertilizer prepared by mixing all types of PGPR with composts or carriers could enhance growth- promoting effects and biocontrol of plants [79]. Bacillusspp [80] and Pseudomonasspp [81] are two PGPR that have been reported to effective biocontrol agents. Among these bacteria species, Bacillus subtilis, B. amyloliquefacients, and B. cereusare the most effective species for controlling plant diseases in domestic crops by several mechanisms [82]. Due endospores of the genus and species of Bacillusare tolerant to adverse environmental conditions allows PGPR, to survive and even to grow in a wide range of soils, thus facilitating the effective formulation of biofertilizer [83]. Based in this biochemicals qualities as well as the biorestauration of hyper fertilized or deteriorated soil [43, 74, 84, 85]. However, X. autotrophicushas many biological mechanisms to avoid environmental stress without any specific resistance structure a quality of this genus and specie [3, 21, 35] that has been useful to treat environments contaminated by chemical agents [86].

6.2.1 Biofertilizer (X. autotrophicus) for bioremediation of environment polluted by chemical agents

In that sense EPGPB (likes PGPM or/and PGPR can be classified as biofertilizers when they sustainable options to plant nourishment and enrichment source that would useful for bioremediation and/or phytoremediation (double actions plants and biofertilizer) for soil contaminated by chemical agents [87, 88]. There for X. autotrophicusis has been applied in bioaugmentation trials for cleaning up any environmental impacted by chemical agents [86] which due to powerful genetic capacity is able to degradate a wide range of chemical agents under several environmental conditions either soil and or water in that sense it been reported that X. autotrophicusis able to biodegradate of 1,2- dichloroethane (DCE) one of the largest chlorinated industrial chemical, most of it being used for synthesis of vinyl chloride and smaller amounts for ethylene diamine and other chemicals. It was also used as a solvent. Groundwater contamination is mainly due to leakages and improper waste disposal. X. autotrophicuscan attack DCE by using some specific enzimes under oxic conditions was investigated in the 1980s [89, 90] required for prolonged groundwater bioremediation polluted by DCE. Such systems are operated under non-sterile conditions, and long-term survival of enzymes would require separate enzyme production and a process allowing for physical separation of the biocatalyst from groundwater. There may be attractive application opportunities if biotransformation of synthetic chemicals in waste streams leads to products that can be recycled, e.g., when a wastewater product can cleaning up. This issue that received attention during the development of strains of X. autotrophicusgrowing on 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) and another xenobiotic compound that polluted wastewater [86, 90, 91, 92].

A bioformulation is not effective until it does not have an impact in field conditions, market existence and reliability and cost effectiveness [93]. Production of bioformulation is not only dependent on the detailed knowledge of microbial as well as plant physiology, but a number of technological challenges are also involved such as fermentation process, formulation type, population of microbe, and delivery systems [94]. Barea [59] has published that in order to get better bioformulation for any domestic crops is important to understand the interaction among EPGPB or PGPM. To reproduce those microorganisms is important the chemical composition of broth media as well as the main and best conditions for each microorganisms need to get enough amount of them for bioformulation applying in open agriculture [95]. Including legal and ecological permission for safe crops production. A key quality of any bioformulation has to be water soluble to make sure a positive effect on any domestic crop Himel et al. [96] and Bateman [97] underline for those bioformulation which are applying in in aerosol based on a droplet size that is sufficient to inoculate seeds and plants with excellent results. For bioformulations applied foliarly, it is important to consider all environmental factors: solar radiation, high temperatures, ultraviolet light, etc. that limit the survival of beneficial plant microorganisms [98]. In this sense, the type of bioformulations must be appropriate to the form and vehicle that transport the beneficial plant microorganisms according to the recommended application directly to the soil, to the seeds or plants so that the forecast of the result favors agricultural production or control of some disease or pest [99]. Therefore, it is important research for the innovation of bioformulation suitable for agricultural crops [58] that comply with the quality and legality standards to satisfy the world market demand for safe food without risk of environmental damage [100]. A fundamental aspect for the world market of biological inoculants has been the necessary implementation of microbiological quality controls with reliable protocols that are endorsed by laws in the world that protect those farmers who, when applying them, have the confidence that they will have positive results in production. agriculture, due in part to the unfortunate experience of bioformulations without microbiological or legal quality that have caused a rejection of some sectors involved in sustainable agricultural production, an aspect that has not yet been resolved in the world [68]. In an integral sense that the biotechnology of the formulation of inoculants requires solid research for the best selection of microorganisms that promote plant growth, as well as the protocols of legal and ethical microbiological quality in the generation of bioformulations that give confidence to be used in the world for a sustainable and harmless agricultural production in harmony with the environment [85].

Advertisement

7. Effect of Xanthobacter autotrophicuson the growth of Triticum aestivumand other domestic plants

Triticum aestivumis the main cereal consumed by the human population of the world, around 51% of human demand intake of calories and proteins. The annual production of this crop is ~630 million tons, being the major grown cereal worldwide with ~740 million ha harvested annually [101]. It is reported that the dynamics of colonization of endophytic genus plant growth promoting bacteria (EPGPB) like X. autotrophicuson the sphermosphere/rhizosphere in gramineae is reported, based in other genera and species different than Xanthobacter[49, 102, 103]. In that sense the response of domestic plants to X. autotrophicusis scarce [18] so research in progress indicates [16, 17, 45, 46] that it may be an excellent option for the sustainable production of domestic crops [67, 104, 105, 106] however it is believed that it may be similar to other genera and species of EPGB, of the known like Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacilluswhich are able to move from outside to into the root system [18, 107]. In the case of T. aestivumhas a positive response to X. autotrophicussince can invade the interior of the root system where it transforms organic compounds derived from photosynthesis into phytohormons, to optimize the reduced dose of nitrogen fertilizer [46]. It has been showed that can invade the root of T. aestivumincluding other types of domestic crops [17, 45, 60]. This biochemical characteristic of X. autotrophicuswas confirmed by its growth dependent on the nutritional richness of the rhizosphere of T. aestivum, attributable to certain organic acids, amino acids including other organic compounds from the photosynthesis in gramineae [42, 108]. Hence, the importance of the chemical composition of root, sphermosphere and rhizosphere, as inducers of colonization by X. autotrophycusin gramineae, is key for other EPGPB to be closely associated with its root, sphermosphere, rhizosphere system [60, 105, 109]; in part this also explains the nutritional requirement of X. autotrophicusfor wheat as a distinctive characteristic of this species, which is not reported in X. autotrophicusthis was verified when was inoculated in the soil without roots, this coupled with the competition and predation of the native soil microorganisms, antagonistic to the species of Xanthobacter, which prevented its persistence in that environment [20, 47]. In the literature it is reported that the positive response of T. aestivumto inoculation with X. autotrophicusand fed with NH4NO3 depends on fast they colonized exclusively the germination zone of the seed, as well as to invade inside the roots when they have developed [41, 109, 110]. This explains why, in the case of the test described, X. autotrophicuswas detected during seed germination, in the period of root development, and even inside mature roots of wheat. This suggests that X. autotrophicuswas not dependent on wheat’s sphermosphere/rhizosphere [17, 108, 109], it is reported that slowly used its energy reserve to prolong its persistence in unsterilized soil, a physiological characteristic in X. autotrophicus[111, 112]. These results support that T. aestivumwere attractive for X. autotrophicusused according to the type of root growth observed with T. aestivum, compared to the appearance of the root system in the coronary part and by the density of secondary roots detected uninoculated wheat [37, 46, 47, 113, 114].

Related to phosphorus a key mineral for plant nutrition as phosphates normally applied to soil as fertilizer it is reported that concentration in average soils is about 0.05% (w/w) of which only 0.1% is available to plants [115]. There is evidence that the phosphate fertilizer applied as phosphate has a limited impact on plant nutrition, especially because, due to the solubilization constant (Ksp), of this phosphate anion is generally little available for plant roots [116]. It is calculated in the soil the concentration of phosphorus as phosphates is equal to or less than 0.02ppm, which drastically limits plant growth [117, 118]. In nature, the strategy that plants use for the absorption of the forms of phosphates necessary for plant metabolism are the solubilization actions of phosphates by genera and species of microorganisms that promote plant growth, such as mycorrhizae and bacteria that also mineralize organic compounds containing phosphates [119, 120]. In the last few years, the development of microbial inoculum containing phosphate-solubilizing microbes (PSM) gained attention of agriculturists [17].

Figure 3 shows the positive response of T. aestivumto X. autotrophicusfed at 50% of NH4NO3 and 100% phosphate fertilizer. Figure 3c shows that T. aestivumreached a greater number of leaves and a dense root system, as well as T. aestivumwith X. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 50% phosphate fertilizer (Figure 3d) and T. aestivumwith X. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 3e), compared to T. aestivumnot inoculated irrigated with water (Figure 3a) and T. aestivumnot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 3b). These facts indicates that X. autotrophicustransformed the organic compounds from photosynthesis of T. aestivuminto root system to improve root absorption and optimize the reduced dose of nitrogen fertilizer without risk to plant health growth [17, 18, 38, 42, 43, 121, 122]. At the same time the synthesis of acid and mainly alkaline phosphatases improved the solubilization and absorption of soil phosphates and phosphate fertilizer apply [17, 123, 124] to enhance growth plant (data not showed). In Figure 1 it was evident that X. autotrophicusis an excellent option for the sustainable production of T. aestivumsince it is not only capable of optimizing nitrogen fertilizer to avoid soil deterioration and environmental contamination due to nitrogen hyperfertilization [36, 54, 121, 125, 126]. While T. aestivuminoculated with X. autotrophicussimultaneously absorbs the immobilized phosphate from the soil and optimizes the effective application from the inside of its roots by avoiding competition with the native microorganisms [13, 40, 53] with a high prognosis of achieving healthy growth and profitable yield [43, 122]. In that sense Khalid et al. [127] reported that seed inoculation with 30 bacterial strains isolated from rhizospheric soils of wheat plants cultivated at different sites significantly increased length and weight of wheat roots and shoots. Linear positive correlation between in vitro auxin production by these bacteria and increases in the measured growth parameters was observed. Abd El-Azeem et al. [128] reported a highly significant positive linear correlation between the in vitro auxin production by the tested PGPR strains and each of grain yield, straw and total yield (grain plus straw) as well as the number of tillers of wheat plants. Auxin or indole acetic acid (IAA) production is considered a way in which X. autotrophicuspromotes plant growth by stimulating enzymological reactions [125, 129]. IAA influences plant processes, such as initiation of cell division and promotes vascular differentiation [130, 131]. Besides its hormonal functions, IAA is involved in the stimulation of ethylene synthesis, which is produced, by plants and microorganisms [47]. Ethylene plays several active roles in plants including germination of root and shoot and the response of plants to stress [43]. There is an evidence that X. autotrophicusthat solubilize phosphate in soil and promote its uptake by plants are referred as phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) or phosphobacteria and are included within EPGPB [132]. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria increase the efficiency of fertilizers while reducing nitrogen loss. Their counts in the rhizosphere comprise a considerable share of the rhizospheric microorganisms and vary depending on the soil location and type as well as the cultivated plants [133]. Inoculating the soil or seeds with PSB individually or in combination with other microorganisms, especially the nitrogen-fixing bacteria increased the availability of P, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu for plants and consequently increased crop yield [114, 134, 135].

Figure 3.

Response ofTriticum aestivumtoXanthobacter autotrophicusat different levels of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer at seedling stage 30 days after sowing. (a) Absolute control:T. aestivumnot inoculated irrigated only with water; (b) relative control:T. aestivumnot inoculated fed at 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (c)T. aestivumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% of nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer; (d)T. aestivumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 50% phosphate fertilizer; (e)T. aestivumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer.

Figure 4 shows the positive response of Z. maysto X. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer (Figure 4c), had the highest number of leaves, plant height and the highest root density, as well as Z. mayswith X. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 50% phosphate fertilizer (Figure 4d) and Z. mayswith X. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 4e), compared to Z. maysnot inoculated irrigated only with water (Figure 4a) and Z. maysnot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 4b). Figure 2 shows the effect of X. autotrophicuson the healthy growth of Z. maysat different doses of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer, supporting that X. autotrophicusfrom the interior of the root system of Z. mayshad the ability to convert compounds generated from photosynthesis in phytohormones for the optimization of the fertilizer reduced to 50%, simultaneously with an increase in the acid and alkaline phosphatase activity for the solubilization of the immobile phosphates of the soil and the optimization of the phosphate fertilizer also reduced 50% [17, 44, 45, 47, 106, 131] compared to the limited growth of Z. mayswithout inoculation with X. autotrophicuswhere the absence of this endophytic bacterium that promotes plant growth shows that Z. maysthat none of these fertilizers is efficiently absorbed, causing loss of soil fertility and a possible environmental contamination [43].

Figure 4.

Response ofZea maystoXanthobacter autotrophicusat different levels of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer at seedling stage 15 days after sowing. (a) absolute control:Z. maysnot inoculated irrigated with water; (b) relative control:Z. maysnot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (c)Z. mayswithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer; (d)Z. mayswithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 50% phosphate fertilizer; (e)Z. mayswithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer.

In Figure 5, showed the response of O. sativato X. autotrophicusby the root length and plant height of O. sativaat 50% nitrogen fertilizer as NH4NO3 and 100% phosphorous fertilizer as K2HPO4/KH2PO4 (Figure 5c), in comparation to O. sativawith the maximum dose of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer but without X. autotrophicus(Figure 5b), as well as O. sativawith X. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 5e). This support that X. autotrophicush is able to transform organic compounds from photosynthesis into phytohormons like auxins to increase root soil exploration for optimizing uptake of nitrogen fertilizer reduced to 50% [18, 45, 46, 106]. There is evidence that to support that X. autotrophicusin wheat, as well as in, oats, corn, sorghum, and other types of plants the way do other genus and species of growth plant promoting bacteria. While inside the roots of O. sativa; X. autotrophicussynthesizes acid and alkaline phosphatases for the solubilization and absorption of insoluble phosphate from the soil, as well as optimizing the phosphate fertilizer applied to the soil at a reduced dose without affecting the healthy growth of O. sativacompared to the response of O. sativawithout inoculating with X. autotrophicusfed with the recommended dose of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer, which shows that without the help of X. autotrophicus, O. sativahas growth limitations, therefore it is advisable to apply it to the sowing of the seed [119, 120, 123, 124, 126]. While inside the roots of O. sativa; X. autotrophicussynthesizes acid and alkaline phosphatases for the solubilization and absorption of insoluble phosphate from the soil, as well as optimizing the phosphate fertilizer applied to the soil at a reduced dose without affecting the healthy growth of O. sativacompared to the response of O. sativawithout inoculating with X. autotrophicusfed with the recommended dose of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer, which shows that without the help of X. autotrophicus; O. sativahas growth limitations, therefore it is advisable to apply it to the sowing of the seed [46, 106, 136].

Figure 5.

Positive response ofOryza sativatoXanthobacter autotrophicusat different levels of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer at seedling stage 15 days after sowing. (a) Absolute control:O. sativanot inoculated irrigated with water; (b) relative control:O. sativanot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (c)O. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer; (d)O. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 50% phosphate fertilizer; (e)O. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer.

In Figure 6, L. sativainoculated with X. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 6e), as well as L. sativawith X. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer (Figure 6d), had the highest number of leaves, plant height and the highest root density, compared with L. sativanot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 6b). It is reported that X. autotrophicusstimulated the proliferation of root hairs in wheat, as has been observed in other plants [17, 41, 44, 137, 138] and this increased the area of exploration of the root to capture the nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer [42], as reported in other works on X. autotrophycusinoculation: in corn [46, 106], in wheat and in rice [43, 139].

Figure 6.

Response ofLactuca sativatoXanthobacter autotrophicusat different levels of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer at flowering stage 120 days after sowing. (a) Absolute control:L. sativanot inoculated irrigated with water; (b) relative control:L. sativanot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (c)L. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 25% phosphate fertilizer; (d)L. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer; (e)L. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (f)L. sativawithX. autotrophicusfed with 0% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer.

Figure 6 shows the effect of X. autotrophicuson the growth of L. sativaat different doses of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer, where it was evident that X. autotrophicuscan optimize the reduced dose of both fertilizers, in relation to nitrogen fertilizer by means of a conversion of metabolites released during photosynthesis [10, 17, 138], that reach the root to maximize the absorption of NH4NO3 while X. autotrophicusfrom inside the roots generates acid and especially alkaline phosphatases to solubilize the immobile phosphate of the soil, as well as optimize phosphate applied during the growth of L. sativa[140], in this trial it was demonstrated that these were the main mechanisms of X. autotrophicuswhen both fertilizers were applied in variable doses or in similar concentration, but not when in the absence of both [18, 120, 123, 124].

The possible synthesis of phytohormons by X. autotrophicuswas supported by the test shown in Figure 7, in which it is evidenced by inoculation of S. lycopersicumwith X. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 7e), had the highest number of leaves, fruits, plant height and the highest root density, compared to S. lycopersicumnot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer (Figure 7b). The positive growth of S. lycopersicumwas due to the fact that X. autotrophicushad a growth promoter effect, which was detected from the beginning of wheat germination from its seed, reported to be maintained in the early stages of wheat root development [20, 41, 50], as observed in this experiment and which was similar to what was observed in root system when X. autotrophicusit colonizes and influences the growth of roots of beans [45, 54]. In that sense Figure 7 shows the effect of X. autotrophicuson S. lycopersicumat different doses of nitrogen (NH4NO3) and phosphate (KH2PO4/K2HPO4) fertilizer, the growth of S. lycopersicumshows that the ability of X. autotrophicusto invade the interior of the radical system to transform compounds derived from photosynthesis into phytohormons improves the absorption and optimization of the reduced doses of NH4NO3 [13, 14, 15, 126] as well as of phosphorous fertilizer, and even when none of them were applied to the crop is reported that N demand was supplied by biological N2 fixation due to X. autotrophicus[18, 36, 52] it was also detected that it synthesized acid and alkaline phosphatase to solubilize the immobile of the soil, so that S. lycopersicumhad a healthy growth with early formation of fruits [16, 17, 120, 135, 140] compared to S. lycopersicumwithout inoculating fed with the recommended doses both fertilizer.

Figure 7.

Response ofSolanum lycopersicumtoXanthobacter autotrophicusat different levels of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer at maturity stage 180 days after sowing. (a) Absolute control:S. lycopersicumnot inoculated irrigated with water; (b) Relative control:S. lycopersicumnot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (c)S. lycopersicumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 25% phosphate fertilizer; (d)S. lycopersicumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen fertilizer and 100% phosphate fertilizer; (e)S. lycopersicumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 25% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (f)S. lycopersicumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 0% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer.

Table 2 shows the acid and alkaline phosphatase activity of X. autotrophicus, measured indirectly by the amount of p-nitrophenol generated when measured in the stem and roots of S. lycopersicum(as it is a genus and endophytic growth plant promoting species) with nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers at 25%, of the recommended dose, there it is observed that the values of the higher and lower acid phosphatase of the alkaline support that the healthy growth of the vegetable was due to the activity of the phosphatases synthesized by X. autotrophicusnot only the interior of the stem and better in the root, also when this strain of X. autotrophicusrecovered from the stem as well as from the root results suggest the importance of soil phosphorus availability in altering the interactions between leading to soil invasion by S. lycopersicumby X. autotrophicus. Overall, applying high amounts of available nutrients may reduce and increase the abundance plant-beneficial microbes and pathobiome in soil, respectively, which in return, could affect soil and plant health. This work greatly advances the mechanistic understanding why X. autotrophicusis a genus with high competitive capacity within the broad group of growth-promoting endophytes that synthesize acid and/or alkaline phosphatases in the absence of available phosphates and even when soluble phosphates fertilizer is applied to soil in agricultural production [141], that issue could be important for researchers working in the field of environmental microbiology, microbial ecology, plant-microbe interactions, soil health, and plant protection [16, 17, 18, 123, 142] in comparison with the activity of both phosphatases of S. lycopersicumwithout inoculation with X. autotrophicus, where the poor activity of both phosphatases explains that the growth of this vegetable was not as vigorous as observed in S. lycopersicuminoculated with X. autotrophicus[120, 136]. Similar results of a high acid and alkaline phosphatase activity of X. autotrophciusinside the roots: Beta vulgaris, Hordeum vulgare, Pinus leiophylla, T. aestivum, Sorhgum bicolor. Z. mays, grown in soil with insoluble phosphate problems [124, 135, 137, 143] or precipitation of the phosphate fertilizer at a lower dose than recommended (data no shown).

S. lycopersicum(tomato)*p-nitrophenol released (μg/ mL)
Saline solution (absolute control)Acid
Alkaline
Without inoculating stemAcid0.45f**
Alkaline0.13f
Without inoculating rootAcid1.49e
Alkaline0.16f
X. autotrophicuson the stemAcid140.22c
Alkaline102.66d
X. autotrophicuson the rootAcid222.48a
Alkaline170.52b
X. autotrophicusisolated from the stemAcid139.77c
Alkaline102.53d

Table 2.

Activity of acid and alkaline phosphatases of Solanum lycopersicumat flowering stage 120 days after sowing at 25% of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer with and without inoculating with Xanthobacter autotrophicus.

n = 3.


Values with different letter are stadistically distint according to ANOVA-Tukey (P < 0.05).


Figure 8 shows that fruit of S. lycopersicumwith X. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 25% phosphate fertilizer had the largest size and red coloration (Figure 8) while S. lycopersicumnot inoculated irrigated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer had a smaller size, in addition to a green coloration which means that vegetative life cycle was shorter than the fruit from not inoculate S. lycopersicum(Figure 8a). These results demonstrate the importance of X. autotrophicusfor healthy growing plants, with a reduced dose of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer [54, 120, 144, 145]. Figure 8 shows the effect of X. autotrophicuson the fruit of S. lycopersicumat a recommended dose of nitrogen fertilizer such as NH4NO3 with 25% of the phosphate fertilizer, in that sense X. autotrophicusis able to solubilize phosphate in soil and promote its uptake by plants are referred as phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) or phosphobacteria and are included within PGPR [143]. Their counts in the rhizosphere comprise a considerable share of the rhizospheric microorganisms and vary depending on the soil location and type as well as the cultivated plants [133, 142, 146]. The results support that X. autotrophicustransformed organic compounds derived from photosynthesis in the inside the roots of S. lycopersicumin phytohormons for an efficient absorption of NH4NO3 while to optimize the phosphate fertilizer, X. autotrophicusby means of acid phosphatases, mainly alkaline phosphates solubilized the soil phosphates [123, 124, 142, 143, 145] and quickly absorbed the one applied consequently the fruit of the S. lycopersicumreached a larger size and ripened earlier in comparison with the size of the S. lycopersicumwithout inoculation fed with the recommended dose of both fertilizers [14, 16, 17, 38, 43, 50, 144].

Figure 8.

Fruit ofSolanum lycopersicumwithXanthobacter autotrophicusat different levels of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer at maturity stage 180 days after sowing. (a) Relative control:S. lycopersicumnot inoculated fed with 100% nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer; (b)S. lycopersicumwithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% nitrogen fertilizer and 25% phosphate fertilizer.

Figure 9 shows that A. thalianawith X. autotrophicusfed with 100% NH4NO3 (Figure 9d), as well as A. thalianawith X. autotrophicusfed with 50% NH4NO3, (Figure 9h) and A. thalianawith X. autotrophicusirrigated with only water (Figure 9l) had root growth inhibition, its suggested due over synthesis of phytohormons not depending of NH4NO3 concentration [20, 79, 99, 131, 147] compared to A. thalianawith B. vietnamiensis2 fed with 100% NH4NO3 (Figure 9c), as well as A. thaliananot inoculated fed with 50% NH4NO3 (Figure 9e) and A. thaliananot inoculated irrigated with water (Figure 9i).

Figure 9.

Response ofArabidopsis thalianatoBurkholderia vietnamiensisandXanthobacter autotrophicuson the germination of seed and first step of growth at seedlings stage at different dose of NH4NO3 under artificial culture media. (a)A. thaliananot inoculated fed with 100% NH4NO3; (b)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis1 fed with 100% NH4NO3; (c)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis2 fed with 100% NH4NO3; (d)A. thalianawithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% NH4NO3; (e)A. thaliananot inoculated fed with 50% NH4NO3; (f)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis1 fed with 50% NH4NO3; (g)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis2 fed with 50% NH4NO3; (h)A. thalianawithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% NH4NO3; (i)A. thaliananot inoculated irrigated with water; (j)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis1 irrigated with only water; (k)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis2 irrigated with water; (l)A. thalianawithX. autotrophicusirrigated with only water.

Figure 10 shows that A. thalianawith X. autotrophicusfed with 100% NH4NO3 (Figure 10d), as well as A. thalianawith X. autotrophicusfed with50% NH4NO3, (Figure 8h) and A. thalianawith X. autotrophicusirrigated with water (Figure 10l) had root growth inhibition, compared to A. thalianawith B. vietnamiensis1 fed with 100% NH4NO3 (Figure 10b), as well as A. thalianawith B. vietnamiensis1 fed with 50% NH4NO3 (Figure 10f) and A. thalianawith B. vietnamiensis1 irrigated with water (Figure 10j). Figures 9 and 10 show the response of the seed and stem primordia and root of A. thalinainoculated with B. vietnamiensiscompared to X. autotrophicusat doses 100, 50 and 0% of the nitrogen fertilizer as NH4NO3 where it was evident that while a positive effect of B. vietnamiensisstrains on A. thalianawas dependent on the concentration of NH4NO3, [41, 110, 129, 148] X. autotrophicusinhibited seed germination and practically stem and root primordium, both effects were positive by B. vietnamiensiswell-known plant beneficial bacteria for a domestic vegetal [149]. In opposite way X. autotrophicuscan distinguish between a domestic plant and a weed planted in agricultural soil by stimulating the growth of the former and inhibiting the germination and growth of the latter [150]. A genetic capacity that few genera and species such as X. autotrophicusof growth-promoting endophytic bacteria possess and can be used to improve the growth of domestic plants and prevent the germination of weeds underline when they are dependent on the synthesis of phytohormons from compounds releasing of the seed and roots of A. thaliana[46, 47, 59, 79, 131, 147].

Figure 10.

Effect ofBurkholderia vietnamiensisandXanthobacter autotrophicuson the germination of seed and first step of growth ofArabidopsis thalianaseeds directly sown in inoculated in artificial culture media at different dose of nitrogen fertilizer as NH4NO3. (a)A. thaliananot inoculated fed with 100% NH4NO3; (b)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis1 fed with 100% NH4NO3; (c)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis2 fed with 100% NH4NO3; (d)A. thalianawithX. autotrophicusfed with 100% NH4NO3; (e)A. thaliananot inoculated fed with 50% NH4NO3; (f)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis1 fed with 50% NH4NO3; (g)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis2 fed with 50% NH4NO3; (h)A. thalianawithX. autotrophicusfed with 50% NH4NO3; (i)A. thaliananot inoculated irrigated with water; (j)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis1 irrigated with water; (k)A. thalianawithB. vietnamiensis2 irrigated with water; (l)A. thalianawithX. autotrophicusirrigated with water.

Advertisement

8. Conclusions

The plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria well known as X. autotrophicusis an exceptional genus and species of procaryote due to the ability it has to simultaneously fix CO2 and N2, it can exist in water, soil and in association with a wide variety of plant species, specifically because by invading the root tissue it influences positively in the absorbing both nitrogen and phosphorous regulated forms of fertilization by the synthesis of acid and alkaline phosphatases in soil with phosphate availability problems or where the application of the phosphate fertilizer precipitates. Whereas by converting seed exudates and derivates and photosynthesis inside the root’s plants in phytohormons have an interesting potential as a biofertilizer. As well as for the biological control of weeds that compete with the cultivation of domestic plants, it can contribute to sustainable agricultural production that reduces the effects of contamination by unregulated fertilization and application of chemical herbicides. Besides that X. autotrophicusis has been reported as useful biological tool for bioremediation of water and soil polluted by chemical agents. Easy to growth in simple culture media low cost to reproduce to industrial level, a friendly genus and bacterial species for humans, animals, plants and the environment.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The support of project 2.7 (2021-2022) of the Coordination of Scientific Research of the UMSNH, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico is appreciated. As well as the project: “Field Test of a Living Biofertilizer for Crop Growth in Mexico” from Harvard University, Cambridge, Ma, USA with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation (2019–2022). To Jeaneth Caicedo Rengifo for her help working in this project. To Juan Luis Ignacio de la Cruz, MSc Blanca Celeste Saucedo Martinez and J Alberto Castro-Villaseñor for their technical support.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Hoffman BM, Lukoyanov D, Yang ZY, Dean DR, Seefeldt LC. Mechanism of nitrogen fixation by nitrogenase: The next stage. Chemical Reviews. 2014;114:4041-4062. DOI: 10.1021/cr400641x
  2. 2. Willems A, Busse J, Goor M, Pot B, Falsen E, Jantzen E, et al. Hydrogenophaga, a new genus of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria that includes Hydrogenophaga flava comb. nov.(formerlyPseudomonas flava), Hydrogenophaga palleronii (formerlyPseudomonas palleronii), Hydrogenophaga pseudoflava (formerlyPseudomonas pseudoflavaand “Pseudomonas carboxydoflava”), and Hydrogenophaga taeniospiralis (formerlyPseudomonas taeniospiralis). International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 1989;2961694-1697. DOI: 10.1099/00207712-39-3-319
  3. 3. Doronina NV, Trotsenko YA. Reclassification of “Blastobacter viscosus” 7d and Blastobacter aminooxidans14a asXanthobacter viscosussp. nov. andXanthobacter aminoxidanssp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2003;53:179-182. DOI: 10.1099/ijs0.02231-0
  4. 4. Euzéby JP. List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature [Online]. 2004. Available from:http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/search.html[list updated frequently]
  5. 5. Hirano SI, Kitauchi F, Haruki M, Imanaka T, Morikawa M, Kanaya S. Isolation and characterization ofXanthobacter polyaromaticivoranssp nov 127W that degrades polycyclic and heterocyclic aromatic compounds under extremely low oxygen conditions. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. 2004;68:557-564
  6. 6. Wiegel J. The GenusXanthobacter. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. In: The Proteobacteria. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag; 2004. DOI: 10.1007/0-387-30745-1_16
  7. 7. Kramer C, Gleixner G. Variable use of plant- and soil-derived carbon by microorganisms in agricultural soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2006;38:3267-3278. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.04.006
  8. 8. Meijer WG, Arnberg AC, Enequist HG, Terpstra P, Lidstrom M, Dijkhuizen L. Identification and organization of carbon dioxide fixation genes inXanthobacter flavusH4-14. Molecular and General Genetics. 1991;225:320-330
  9. 9. Sluis MK, Ensign SA. Purification and characterization of acetone carboxylase fromXanthobacterstrain Py2. PNAS. 1997;94:8456-8461. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.94.16.8456
  10. 10. Liu C, Colón BC, Ziesack M, Silver PA, Nocera DG. Water splitting-biosynthetic system with CO2 reduction efficiencies exceeding photosynthesis. Science. 2016;352:1210-1213. DOI: 10.11/science.aaf5039
  11. 11. Ooyama J. Simultaneous fixation of CO2 and N2 in the presence of H2 and O2 by a bacterium. Report of the Fermentation Research Institute. 1971;39:41-44
  12. 12. Nakamura Y, Yamanobe T, Ooyama J. Identification of nitrogen-fixing hydrogen bacterium strain N34 and its oxygen-resistant segregant strain, Y38. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry. 1985;49:1703-1709. DOI: 10.1080/00021369.1985.10866980
  13. 13. Mäder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science. 2002;296:1694-1697. DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
  14. 14. Murrell JC, Lidstrom ME. Nitrogen assimilation inXanthobacterH4-14. Archives of Microbiology. 1983;136:219-221
  15. 15. Oyaizu-Masuchi Y, Komagata K. Isolation of free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria from the rhizosphere of rice. The Journal of General and Applied Microbiology. 1988;34:127-164. DOI: 10.2323/jgam.34.127
  16. 16. González Naranjo GO, Marquez-Benavides L, Sánchez-Yáñez JM. Respuesta deSolanum lycopersicumaXanthobacter autotrophicusa diferentes niveles de fertilizantes nitrogenado y fosforado. In: 15 congreso Nacional de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovacion; 30 de octubre de 2020; Morelia, Michoacán, México (memoria in extenso) (in Spanish)
  17. 17. Sanchez-Yañez JM, Castro VJA, Nocera D, Dogutan D, López Ortiz N. The México Innovation Fund (MIF). Progress Report Year 2. 2020. Field Test a Living Biofertilizer for Crop Growth in México (unpublished data)
  18. 18. Liu C, Sakimoto KK, Colon BC, Silver PA, Nocera DG. Ambient nitrogen reduction cycle using a hybrid inorganic-biological system. PNAS. 2017;114(25):6450-6455. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1706371114
  19. 19. Chelius MK, Triplett EW. Prokaryotic nitrogen fixation: Model system for the analysis of a biological process. Wyndham, UK: Horizon Scientific Press; 2000. pp. 1-20
  20. 20. Carvalho TLG, Balsemão-Pires E, Saraiva RM, Ferreira PCG, Hemerly AS. Nitrogen signalling in plant interactions with associative and endophytic diazotrophic bacteria. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2014;65:5631-5642. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eru319
  21. 21. Wiegel J, Schlegel HG. Enrichment and isolation of nitrogen fixing hydrogen bacteria. Archives of Microbiology. 1976;107:139-142. DOI: 10.1007/BF00446833
  22. 22. Rainey FA, Wiegel J. 16S rDNA sequence analysis confirms the close relationship between the generaXanthobacter, Azorhizobium,andAquabacterand reveals a lack of phylogenetic coherence among the species of the genusXanthobacter. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1996;46:607-610. DOI: 10.1099/00207713-46-2-607
  23. 23. Thompson JP, Skerman VBD. Azotobacteriaceae: The Taxonomy and Ecology of the Aerobic Nitrogen-fixing Bacteria. London, UK: Academic Press; 1979
  24. 24. Urakami T, Araki H, Komagata K. Characteristics of newly isolatedXanthobacterstrains and fatty acid compositions and quinone systems in yellow-pigmented hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1995;45:863-867. DOI: 10.1099/00207713-45-4-863
  25. 25. Reding HK, Croes GLM, Dijkhuizen L, Wiegel J. Emendation ofXanthobacter flavusas a motile species. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1992;42:309-311. DOI: 10.1099/00207713-42-2-309
  26. 26. Reding HK, Wiegel J. Motility and chemotaxis of aXanthobacter rice isolate. Journal of General Microbiology. 1993;139:815-820. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-139-4-815
  27. 27. Müller A, Schneider K, Erfkamp J, Wittneben V, Diemann E, Eaton AN. Vanadium-Akkumulationbeim Stickstoff-fixierenden WasserstoffbakteriumXanthobacter autotrophicus. Naturwissenschaften. 1988;75:625-627
  28. 28. Schneider K, Müller A, Krahn E, Hagen WR, Wassink H, Knüttel KH. The molybdenum nitrogenase from wild-typeXanthobacter autotrophicusexhibits properties reminiscent of alternative nitrogenases. European Journal of Biochemistry. 1995;230:666-675. DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1995.0666h.x
  29. 29. Shanmugam KT, Valentine RC. Microbial production of ammonium ion from nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1975;72:136-139. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.72.1.136
  30. 30. Ortiz-Márquez JCF, Do Nascimento M, Curatti L. Metabolic engineering of ammonium release for nitrogen-fixing multispecies microbial cell-factories. Metabolic Engineering. 2014;23:154-164. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymben.2014.03.002
  31. 31. Reding HK. Ecological, Physiological, and Taxonomical Studies of Xanthobacter Strains Isolated from the Roots of Wetland Rice [PhD dissertation]. USA: University of Georgia; 1991
  32. 32. Wiegel J. Distinction between the Gram reaction and the Gram type of bacteria. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1981;31:88. DOI: 10.1007/BF00446833
  33. 33. Trower MK, Buckland RM, Higgins R, Griffin M. Isolation and characterization of a cyclohexane- metabolizingXanthobactersp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1985;49:1282-1289. DOI: 10.1128/am.49.5.1289.1985
  34. 34. Malik KA. A new freeze-drying method for the preservation of nitrogen-fixing and other fragile bacteria. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 1988;8:259-271. DOI: 10.1016/0167-7012(88)90008-5
  35. 35. Malik KA. A simplified liquid-drying method for the preservation of microorganisms sensitive to freezing and freeze-drying. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 1990;12:125-132. DOI: 10.1016/0167-7012(90)90022-X
  36. 36. Dixon R, Kahn D. Genetic regulation of biological nitrogen fixation. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2004;2:621-662
  37. 37. Pankievicz VC, do Amaral FP, Santos KFDN, Agtuca B, Schueller YMJ, Arisi ACM, et al. Robust biological nitrogen fixation in a model grass-bacterial association. The Plant Journal. 2015;81:907-919. DOI: 10.1111/tpj.12777
  38. 38. Dashti N, Prithiviraj B, Hynes RK, Smith DL. Root and rhizosphere colonization of soybean (Glycine maxL. Merr.) by plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria at low root zone temperatures and under short-season conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2000;185:15-22. DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-037X.2000.00394.x
  39. 39. Geisen S, Mitchell EAD, Adl S, Bonkowski M, Dunthorn M, Ekelund F, et al. Soil protists: A fertile frontier in soil biology research. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2018;42:293-323. DOI: 10.1093/femsre/fuy006
  40. 40. Samanta R, Sen SP. Further observations on the utility of N2-fixing microorganisms in the phyllosphere of cereals. Journal of Agriculture Science (Cambridge). 1986;107:673-680. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859600069823
  41. 41. Bent E, Tuzun S, Chanway CP, Enebak S. Alterations in plant growth and in root hormone levels of lodgepole pines inoculated with rhizobacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2001;47:793-800. DOI: 10.1139/w01-080
  42. 42. Christiansen-Weniger C, Groneman AF, Van Veen JA. Associative N2 fixation and root exudation of organic acids from wheat cultivars of different aluminum tolerance. Plant and Soil. 1992;139:167-174
  43. 43. Chaparro JM, Sheflin AM, Manter DK, Vivanco JM. Manipulating the soil microbiome to increase soil health and plant fertility. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2012;48:489-499. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-012-0691-4
  44. 44. Chanway CP, Shishido M, Nairn J, Jungwirth S, Markham J, Xiao G, et al. Endophytic colonization and field responses of hybrid spruce seedling after inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Forest Ecology and Management. 2000;133:81-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00300-X
  45. 45. Flores MJA, Ocampo J, Castro-Villaseñor JA, Sánchez-Yañez JM. Respuesta dePhaseolus vulgarisaXanthobacter autotrophicusyRhizobium phaseoli. In: 14 Congreso Estatal de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovacion del Estado de Michoacán. Morelia, Michoacán, 3 de octubre de 2019, México (memoria in extenso) (in Spanish)
  46. 46. Sanchez-Yañez JM, Ocampo J, Nocera D, Dogutan D, López Ortiz N. The México Innovation Fund (MIF). Progress Report Year 1. 2019. Field Test a Living Biofertilizer for Crop Growth in México (unpublished data)
  47. 47. Benizri E, Baudion E, Guckert A. Root colonization by inoculated plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2001;11:557-574. DOI: 10.1080/09583150120076120
  48. 48. Padden AN, Rainey FA, Kelly DP, Wood AP.Xanthobacter tagetidissp. nov., an organism associated with Tagetes species and able to grow on substituted thiophenes. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 1997;47:394-401. DOI: 10.1099/00207713-47-2-394
  49. 49. Wieland G, Neumann R, Backhaus H. Variation of microbial communities in soil, rhizosphere, and rhizoplane in response to crop species, soil type, and crop development. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:5849-5854. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.6712.58.49-5854.2001
  50. 50. Rudrappa T, Czymmek KJ, Paré PW, Bais HP. Root secreted malic acid recruits beneficial soil bacteria. Plant Physiology. 2008;148:1547-1556. DOI: 10.1104/pp.108.127613
  51. 51. Brown GD, Rovira AD. The rhizosphere and its management to improve plant growth. Advances in Agronomy. 1999;66:1-102. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60425-3
  52. 52. James EK. Nitrogen fixation in endophytic and associative symbiosis. Field Crops Research. 2000;65:197-209. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4290(99)00087-8
  53. 53. Samanta R, Dutta AK, Sen SP. The utilization of leaf wax by N2-fixing microorganisms on the leaf surface. Journal of Agriculture Science (Cambridge). 1986;107:681-685. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859600069835
  54. 54. Wubs ERJ, van der Putten WH, Bosch M, Bezemer TM. Soil inoculation steers restoration of terrestrial ecosystems. Nature Plants. 2016;2:1026. DOI: 10.1038/NPLANTS2016107
  55. 55. Kent AD, Triplett EW. Microbial communities and their interactions in soil and rhizosphere ecosystems. Annual Review of Microbiology. 2002;56:211-236. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.161120
  56. 56. Boraste A. Biofertilizers: A novel tool for agriculture. International Journal of Microbiology Research. 2009;1:23-31
  57. 57. Ljung K. Auxin metabolism and homeostasis during plant development. Development. 2013;140:943-1016. DOI: 10.1242/dev.086363
  58. 58. Hynes RK, Boyetchko SM. Research initiatives in the art and science of biopesticide formulations. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2006;38:845-849. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.07.003
  59. 59. Barea JM. Future challenges and perspectives for applying microbial biotechnology in sustainable agriculture based on a better understanding of plant–microbiome interactions. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2015;15:261-282. DOI: doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162015005000021
  60. 60. Kachroo D, Razdan R. Growth, nutrient uptake and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) as influenced by biofertilizers and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2006;51(1):37-39
  61. 61. Son TN, Thu VV, Duong VC, Hiraoka H. Effect of Organic and Biofertilizers on Soybean and Rice Cropping System. Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan: Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences; 2007
  62. 62. Kaushik BD, Prassana R. Status of biological nitrogen fixation by cianobacteria and Azolla. In: Dadarwal KR, Yadav KS, editors. Biological Nitrogen Fixation Research Status in India: 1889-1989. New Delhi: Society of Plant Physiologist and Biochemists; 1989. pp. 141-208
  63. 63. Raj SA. Bio-fertilizers for micronutrients. Biofertilizer Newsletter. 2007:8-10
  64. 64. Hoffmann-Hergarten S, Gulati MK, Sikora RA. Yield response and biological control of Meloidogyne incognita on lettuce and tomato with rhizobacteria. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz. 1998;105(4):349-358
  65. 65. Senthilkumar T, Rajendran G. Biocontrol agents for the management of desease complex involving root-knot nematode,Meloidogyne incognitaandFusarium moniliformeon grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Indian Journal of Nematology. 2004;34(1):49-51
  66. 66. Bernal P, Eberl L, de Jonge R, Lepek VC, Malone JG. Understanding plant-microorganism interactions to envision a future of sustainable agriculture. Environmental Microbiology. 2021;23:1809-1811. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.15479
  67. 67. Vessey KJ. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant and Soil. 2003;255:571-586. DOI: 101023/A:1026037216893
  68. 68. Arora NK. Plant Microbe Symbiosis: Applied Facets. New Delhi, India: Springer; 2015. p. 383. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-2068-8
  69. 69. Mishra D, Rajvir S, Mishra U, Kumar SS. Role of bio-fertilizer in organic agriculture: A review. Research Journal of Recent Sciences. 2013;2:39-41
  70. 70. Malusá E, Vassilev N. A contribution to set a legal framework for biofertilisers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2014;98:6599-6607. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-014-5828-y
  71. 71. Waddington SR. Organic matter management: From science to practice. Soil Fertility. 1998;62:24-25
  72. 72. Jeffries P, Gianinazzi S, Perotto S, Turnau K, Barea JM. The contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in sustainable maintenance of plant health and soil fertility. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2003;37:1-16. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-002-0546-5
  73. 73. Podile AR, Kishore GK. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. In: Plant-Associated Bacteria. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2006. pp. 195-230. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4538-7_6
  74. 74. Chary SP, Schmid M, Hartmann A. Diversity of 16S- rRNA and nifH genes derived from rhizosphere soil and roots of an endemic drought tolerant grass,Lasiurus sindicus. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2009;45:114-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.06.005
  75. 75. Franche C, Lidstrom K, Elmerich C. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with leguminous and non-leguminous plants. Plant and Soil. 2009;321:35-59. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-008-9833-8
  76. 76. Khalid A, Arshad M, Shaharoona B, Mahmood T. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and sustainable agriculture. In: Microbial Strategies for Crop Improvement. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2009. pp. 133-160. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-01979-1_7
  77. 77. Thapa S, Sotang N, Adhilkari J, Ghimire A, Limbu AR, Joshi A, et al. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on Agriculture Education in Nepal: An online survey. Pedagogical Research. 2020;5:4. DOI: 10.29333/pr/8465
  78. 78. Yang X, Chen L, Yong X, Shen Q. Formulation can affect rhizosphere colonization and biocontrol efficiency ofTrichoderma harzianumSQR-T037 againstFusariumwilt of cucumbers. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2011;47:239-248. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-010-0527-z
  79. 79. Chen LH, Tang XM, Raze W, Li JH, Liu YX, Qiu MH, et al.Trichoderma harzianumSQR-T037 rapidly degrades allelochemicals in rhizospheres continuously cropped cucumbers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2011;89:1653-1663. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-010-2948-x
  80. 80. Gong M, Wang JD, Zhang J, Yang H. Study of the antifungal ability ofBacillus subtilisstrain PY-1 in vitro and identification of its antifungal substance (Iturin A). Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica. 2006;38:233-240. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7270.2006.00157.x
  81. 81. Leonardo D, Blanca LF, Landa B, Weller DM. Host crop effects rhizosphere colonization and competitiveness of 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producingPseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathology. 2006;96:751-762. DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-96-0751
  82. 82. Francis I, Holsters M, Vereecke D. The Gram-positive side of plant-microbe interaction. Environmental Microbiology. 2010;12:1-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01989.x
  83. 83. Perez-Garcia A, Romero D, de Vicente A. Plant protection and growth simulation by microorganism: Biotechnological applications ofBacillusin agriculture. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2011;22:187-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2010.12.003
  84. 84. Requena N, Pérez-Solis E, Azcón-Aguilar C, Jeffries P, Barea JM. Management of indigenous plant-microbe symbioses aids restoration of desertified ecosystems. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:495-498. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.2.495-498.2001
  85. 85. Mishra J, Arora NK. Bioformulations for plant growth promotion and combating phytopathogens: A sustainable approach. In: Bioformulations: For Sustainable Agriculture. India: Springer; 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-2779-3_1
  86. 86. Janssen DB, Stucki G. Perspectives of genetically engineered microbes for groundwater bioremediation. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts. 2020;22:487. DOI: 10.1039/C9EM00601J
  87. 87. Diab A. Phytoremediation of oil contaminated desert soil using the rhizosphere effects. Global Journal of Environmental Research. 2008;2(2):66-73
  88. 88. Abioye OP, Agamuthu P, Aziz AA. Phytotreatment of soil contaminated with used lubricating oil usingHibiscus cannabinus. Biodegradation. 2012;23(2):277-286. DOI: 10.1007/s10532-011-9506-9
  89. 89. Stucki G, Krebser U, Leisinger T. Bacterial growth on 1,2-dichloroethane. Experientia. 1983;39:1271-1273
  90. 90. Janssen DB, Scheper A, Dijkhuizen L, Witholt B. Degradation of halogenated aliphatic compounds byXanthobacter autotrophicusGJ10. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1985;49:673-677. DOI: 10.1128/aem.49.3.673-677.1985
  91. 91. Tardif G, Greer CW, Labbé D, Lau PC. Involvement of a large plasmid in the degradation of 1,2-dichloroethane byXanthobacter autotrophicus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1991;57:1853-1857. DOI: 10.1128/aem.57.6.1853-1857.1991
  92. 92. Stroo A, Leeson A, Ward CH. Bioaugmentation for Groundwater Remediation. New York, USA: Springer; 2013. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4115-1_4
  93. 93. Brar SK, Verma M, Tyagi RD, Valero JR. Recent advances in downstream processing and formulations ofBacillus thuringiensisbased biopesticides. Process Biochemistry. 2006;41:323-342. DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.07.015
  94. 94. Malusá E, Sas-Paszt L, Ciesielska J. Technologies for beneficial microorganisms inocula used as biofertilizers. Scientific World Journal. 2012;2012:491206. DOI: 10.1100/2012/491206
  95. 95. Montazeri M, Greaves MP. Effects of culture age, washing and storage conditions on desiccation tolerance ofColletotrichum truncatumConidia. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2002;12:95-105. DOI: 10.10.80/09583150120110680
  96. 96. Himel CM, Loats H, Bailey GW. Pesticide sources to the soil and principles of spray physics. Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts and Modeling. 1990;2:7-50
  97. 97. Bateman R. Simple, standardized methods for recording droplet measurements and estimation of deposits from controlled droplet applications. Crop Protection. 1993;12:201-206. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(93)90109-V
  98. 98. Bailey P, Baker G, Caon G. Field efficacy and persistence ofBacillus thuringiensisvar. kurstaki against Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: CAPS PRA: Epiphyas postvittana 7 Tortricidae) in relation to larval behaviour on grapevine leaves. Aust. Journal of Entomology. 1996;35:297-302. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.1996.tb01407.x
  99. 99. Peng G, Wolf TM. Synergy between synthetic and microbial herbicides for weed control. Pest Technology. 2011;5:18-27
  100. 100. Greaves J, Grant W. Under performing policy networks: The biopesticides network in the United Kingdom. British Politics. 2010;5:14-40
  101. 101. Shiferaw B, Smale M, Braun HS, Duveiller E, Reynolds M, Muricho G. Crops that feed the world 10: Past success and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Security. 2013;5:219-317. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-013-0263-y
  102. 102. Gray EJ, Smith DL. Intracellular and extracellular PGPR: Commonalities and distinctions in the plant-bacterium signaling processes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2005;37:395-412. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.030
  103. 103. Vejan P, Abdullah R, Khadiran T, Ismail S, Nasrulhaq Boyce A. Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural sustainability—A review. Molecules. 2016;21(5):573. DOI: 10.3390/molecules21050573
  104. 104. Nowak J. Review benefits of in vitro “bacterization” of plant tissue cultures with microbial inoculants. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology. Plant. 1998;34:122-130
  105. 105. Lucy M, Reed E, Glick BR. Applications of free-living plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2004;86:1-25
  106. 106. Castro-Villaseñor JA, Velázquez Medina A, González Naranjo GO, Sánchez-Yáñez JM.Xanthobacter autotrophicusenZea maysopción biológica para reducir fertilizante nitrogenado y fosforado. In: IV Coloquio de la Maestría en Ciencias en Ingeniería Ambiental. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo; 4 de diciembre de 2020; Morelia, Michoacán, México (memoria in extenso). In Spanish
  107. 107. Egamberdiyeva D, Hőflich G. Influence of growth-promoting bacteria on the growth of wheat in different soils and temperatures. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2003;35:973-978. DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00158-5
  108. 108. Amara MAT, Dahdoh MSA. Effect of inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield and uptake of nutrients by wheat grown on sandy soil. Egyptian Journal of Soil Science. 1997;37:467-484
  109. 109. Bashan Y, Levanony H. Interaction betweenAzospirillum brasilenseand wheat root cells during early stages of root colonization. In: Klingmuller W, editor.AzospirillumIV. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1998. p. 166-173. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-73072-6_21
  110. 110. Sarwar M, Arshad M, Martens DA, Frankenberger WT Jr. Tryptophan-dependent biosynthesis of auxins in soil. Plant and Soil. 1992;147:207-215
  111. 111. Raymond J, Siefert SL, Staples CR. The natural history of nitrogen fixation. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2004;21:541-559. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh047
  112. 112. Ravindra S, Deep CS, Santosh S, Reeta G. Exploration of nifH gene through soil metagenomes of the western Indian Himalayas. 3 Biotech. 2016;6:25. DOI: 10.1007/s13205-015-0324-3
  113. 113. Baldani VLD, Baldani JI, Döbereiner J. Inoculation of rice plants with the endophytic diazotrophs Herbaspirillum seropedicae andBurkholderiaspp. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2000;30:485-491. DOI: 10.1007/s003740050027
  114. 114. Zaidi A, Ahmad E, Khan MS, Saif S, Rizvi A. Role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in sustainable production of vegetables: Current perspective. Scientia Horticulturae. 2015;193(1):231-239. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.020
  115. 115. Achal V, Savant VV, Reddy MS. Phosphate solubilization by a wild type strain and UV-induced mutants ofAspergillus tubingensis. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2007;39(2):695-699. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.09.003
  116. 116. Holford ICR. Soil phosphorus: Its measurement, and its uptake by plants. Australian Journal of Soil Research. 1997;35:227-239. DOI: 10.1071/S96047
  117. 117. Batjes NH. A world data set of derived soil properties by FAO–UNESCO soil unit for global modelling. Soil Use and Management. 1997;13:9-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.1997.tb00550.x
  118. 118. Vassilev SV, Vassileva CG. A new approach for the classification of coal fly ashes based on their origin, composition, properties, and behavior. Fuel. 2006;86:1490-1512. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2006.11.020
  119. 119. Fankem H, Nwaga A, Dueubel A, Dieng L, Merbach W, Etoa FX. Occurrence and functioning of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms from oil palm tree (Elaeis guineensis) rhizosphere in Cameroon. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2006;5:2450-2460
  120. 120. Khan MS, Zaidi A, Wani PA. Role of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms in sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2007;27:29-43. DOI: 10.1051/agro:2006011
  121. 121. Glick BR. The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 1995;41:109-101. DOI: 10.1139/m95-015
  122. 122. Barazani O, Friedman J. Is IAA the major root growth factor secreted from plant-growth-mediating bacteria? Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1999;25:2397-2406. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020890311499
  123. 123. Richardson AI. Prospects for using microorganisms to improve the acquisition of phosphorus y plants. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2001;28:817-906. DOI: 10.1071/PP01093
  124. 124. Richardson AE, Barea JM, McNeil AM, Prigent-Combart C. Acquisition of phosphorus and nitrogen in the rhizosphere and plant promoting by microorganisms. Plant and Soil. 2009;321:305-339. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-009-9895-2
  125. 125. Khalid A, Arshad M, Zahir ZA, Khaliq A. Potential of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for enhancing wheat yield. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 1997;7:53-56
  126. 126. Dos Reis FB Jr, Reis VM, Urquiaga S, Döbereiner J. Influence of nitrogen fertilization on the population of diazotrophic bacteria Herbaspirillum spp. andAcetobacter diazotrophicusin sugar cane (Saccharumspp.). Plant and Soil. 2000;219:153-159
  127. 127. Khalid A, Arshad M, Zahir ZA. Screening plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for improving growth and yield of wheat. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2004;96:473-480. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02161.x
  128. 128. Abd El-Azeem SAM, Mehana TA, Shabayek AA. Some plant growth promoting traits of rhizobacteria isolated from Suez Canal region, Egypt. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings. 2007;8:1517-1525
  129. 129. Kravchenko LV, Borovkov AV, Pshikvil Z. The possibility of auxin biosynthesis in wheat rhizosphere by associated nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Mikrobiologiya. 1991;60:927-931
  130. 130. Martens DA, Frankenberger WT Jr. Assimilation of exogenous 2-14C-indole acetic acid and 3-14C-tryptophan exposed to the roots of three wheat varieties. Plant and Soil. 1994;166281-290
  131. 131. Asghar H, Zahir Z, Arshad M, Khaliq A. Relationship between in vitro production of auxins by rhizobacteria and their growth-promoting activities inBrassica junceaL. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2002;35(4):231-237.DOI: 10.1007/s00374-002-0462-8
  132. 132. Paungfoo-Lonhiennea C, Reddingb M, Prattc C, Wang W. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria increase the efficiency of fertilizers while reducing nitrogen loss. Journal of Environmental Management. 2019;233:337-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.052
  133. 133. Abd El-Azeem SAM. Influence of phosphate solubilizing bacteria in soil and rhizosphere on phosphorus availability [thesis]. Ismailia, Egypt: Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University; 1998
  134. 134. Ibrahim AN, Mahmoud AHH, El-Katkat MB. In vivo, study the effect of phosphate solubilizing bacteria and superphosphate on the productivity of broad bean and wheat plants. Menofiya Journal of Agriculture Research. 1995;20:2361-2377. DOI: 10.1071/S96047
  135. 135. Mehana TA, Farag FM. Influence of phosphate-dissolving microorganisms and elemental sulphur on phosphorus and micronutrient availability in a calcareous soil treated with rock phosphate. Mansoura University, Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2000;25:2983-2993
  136. 136. Berendsen RL, Pieterse CMJ, Bakker PAHM. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends in Plant Science. 2012;17:478-486. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001
  137. 137. Gyaneshwar P, Kumar GN, Parekh LJ, Poole PS. Role of soil microorganisms in improving P nutrition of plants. Plant and Soil. 2002;245:83-93
  138. 138. González Naranjo GO, Márquez-Benavides L, Sánchez-Yáñez JM. Efecto positivo deXanthobacter autotrophicusenLactuca sativaa dosis reducida de fertilizante nitrogenado. In: IV Coloquio de la Maestría en Ciencias en Ingenieria Ambiental. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, 4 de diciembre 2020b, Morelia, Michoacán, México (memoria in extenso). In Spanish
  139. 139. Reding HK, Hartel PG, Wiegel J. Effect ofXanthobacter, isolated and characterized from rice roots on growth of Wetland rice. Plant and Soil. 1991;138:221-229
  140. 140. Arun KS. Bio-fertilizers for sustainable agriculture. Mechanism of P Solubilization. 6th ed. Jodhpur, India: Agribios publishers; 2007. pp. 196-197
  141. 141. Pengfa L, Ming L, Guilong L, Kai L, Tianshun L, Meng W, et al. Phosphorus availability increases pathobiome abundance and invasion of rhizosphere microbial networks by Ralstonia. Environmental Microbiology. 2021;23(8):5992-6003. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.15696
  142. 142. De Freitas JR, Banerjee MR, Germida JJ. Phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria enhance the growth and yield but not phosphorus uptake of canola (Brassica napusL.). Biology of Fertility Soils. 1997;24:358-364. DOI: 10.1099/ijs.02231-0
  143. 143. Gaind S, Gaur AC. Thermotolerant phosphate solubilizing microorganisms and their interaction with mungbean. Plant and Soil. 1991;133:141-149
  144. 144. Simon HM, Smith KP, Dodsworth JA, Guenthner B, Handelsman J, Goodman RM. Influence of tomato genotipe on growth of inoculated and indigenous bacteria in the spermosphere. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67:514-520. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.2.514-520.2001
  145. 145. Afzal AFTAB, Ashraf M, Asad SA, Farooq M. Effect of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms on phosphorus uptake, yield and yield traits of wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) in rainfed area. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2005;7(2):207-209
  146. 146. El-Azeem A, Mehana T, Shabayek A. Effect of seed inoculation with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) cultivated in a sandy soil. Catrina: The International Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2008;3(2):69-74
  147. 147. Guadarrama-Morales T, Mellado-Rojas ME, Carrillo-Flores E, Beltran-Peña E, Sanchez-Yañez JM. Effect of bacteria isolated from polluted soil by waste motor oil on root system architecture ofArabidopsis thaliana. In: XVIII National Congress of Biochemistry and Plant Molecular Biology XI Symposium, México, USA 1st ASPB. 2019
  148. 148. Sarwar M, Kremer RJ. Enhanced suppression of plant growth through production of L-tryptophan-derived compounds by deleterious rhizobacteria. Plant and Soil. 1995;172:261-269
  149. 149. De Sa OAAL, Ribeiro PRD, Rufini M, Cruvinel IAD, Casagrande DR, Moreira FMD. Microsymbionts of forage peanut under different soil and climate conditions belong to a specific group of Bradyrhizobium strains. Applied Soil Ecology. 2019;143:201-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.07.018
  150. 150. Schlatter D, Kinkel L, Thomashow L, Weller D, Paulitz T. Disease suppressive soils: New insights from the soil microbiome. Phytopathology. 2017;107:1284-1297. DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-03-17-0111-RVW

Written By

Juan Manuel Sánchez-Yañez

Submitted: October 7th, 2021 Reviewed: December 17th, 2021 Published: March 23rd, 2022