Search
2025 Volume 5
Article Contents
REVIEW   Open Access    

Microbial partnerships in agriculture: boosting crop health and productivity

More Information
  • Plants and microbial organisms develop close symbioses that have a significant influence on agricultural productivity and plant health. These 'agricultural engines' have continuously supported balancing global food security from historical times. Against the backdrop of the global challenges faced by modern agriculture, including soil degradation and over-reliance on synthetic inputs, this review examines the intricate relationships within the soil microbiome, and their impact on sustainable crop production. It further investigates the pivotal functions of these partnerships in nutrient cycling, biotic stress suppression, hormone modulation, and stimulating and enhancing the flourishing growth of crops. Highlighting the importance of plant-microbe relationships, this study explores the potential of biological nitrification inhibitors, biocontrol agents, and biofertilizers, specifically, nitrogen-fixing bacteria and phosphorus-solubilizing microbes, to optimize nutrient use efficiency, suppress biotic stress, enhance nutrient availability for crops, and mitigate climate change. Furthermore, challenges related to environmental factors and the commercial adoption of microbial products are also scrutinized. The review concludes by outlining future research directions and envisioning the integration of microbial partnerships into sustainable climate resilience agricultural practices, thereby offering a holistic approach to address current agricultural challenges and pave the way for a more resilient and environmentally friendly food production system. This will help guide cutting-edge microbiome-based solutions, to improve global food production and agricultural resource use efficiency in the years to come.
  • 加载中
  • [1] Nuwarapaksha TD, Udumann SS, Dissanayaka NS, Dilshan RMN, Atapattu AJ. 2025. Revolutionizing agriculture by advanced water and irrigation management technologies. In Emerging Trends and Technologies in Water Management and Conservation, eds Mohamed Moussaoui M, Rachid A. US: IGI Global Scientific Publishing. pp. 285−18 doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-6920-3.ch009
    [2] Nachshon U. 2020. Soil degradation processes: it's time to take our head out of the sand. Geosciences 11(1):2 doi: 10.3390/geosciences11010002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3] U. N. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In A New Era in Global Health. New York, NY: Springer. pp. 529−67 doi: 10.1891/9780826190123.ap02
    [4] Shinwari ZK, Tanveer F, Iqrar I. 2019. Role of microbes in plant health, disease management, and abiotic stress management. In Microbiome in Plant Health and Disease, eds Kumar V, Prasad R, Kumar M, Choudhary D. Singapore: Springer. pp. 231−50 doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-8495-0_11
    [5] Tripathi S, Srivastava P, Devi RS, Bhadouria R. 2020. Influence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides on soil health and soil microbiology. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation, ed. Prasad MNV. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 25−54 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-103017-2.00002-7
    [6] Walia SS, Babu S, Gill RS, Kaur T, Kohima N, et al. 2022. Designing resource-efficient and environmentally safe cropping systems for sustainable energy use and economic returns in Indo-Gangetic Plains, India. Sustainability 14(21):14636 doi: 10.3390/su142114636

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7] Shah KK, Tripathi S, Tiwari I, Shrestha J, Modi B, et al. 2021. Role of soil microbes in sustainable crop production and soil health: a review. Agricultural Science and Technology 13(2):109−18 doi: 10.15547/ast.2021.02.019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8] Seneviratne G, Zavahir JS. 2021. Role of microbial communities for sustainability. Singapore: Springer Singapore. Volume 29. pp. 1−379 doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-9912-5
    [9] Shamseldin A, Abdelkhalek A, Sadowsky MJ. 2017. Recent changes to the classification of symbiotic, nitrogen-fixing, legume-associating bacteria: a review. Symbiosis 71(2):91−09 doi: 10.1007/s13199-016-0462-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10] Spaepen S. 2014. Plant hormones produced by microbes. In Principles of Plant-Microbe Interactions, ed. Lugtenberg B. Cham: Springer. pp. 247–56 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08575-3_26
    [11] Naik K, Mishra S, Srichandan H, Singh PK, Sarangi PK. 2019. Plant growth promoting microbes: potential link to sustainable agriculture and environment. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 21:101326 doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2019.101326

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12] Iqbal B, Li G, Alabbosh KF, Hussain H, Khan I, et al. 2023. Advancing environmental sustainability through microbial reprogramming in growth improvement, stress alleviation, and phytoremediation. Plant Stress 10:100283 doi: 10.1016/j.stress.2023.100283

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13] Dini-Andreote F, van Elsas JD. 2019. The soil microbiome—an overview. In Modern Soil Microbiology, eds van Elsas JD Trevors JT, Soares Rosado A, Nannipieri P. 3rd Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 37−48 doi: 10.1201/9780429059186-3
    [14] Chandra D, Srivastava R, Sharma AK. 2015. Environment-friendly phosphorus biofertilizer as an alternative to chemical fertilizers. In Recent Trends in Biofertilizers, eds. Pati BR, Mandai SM. New Delhi: IK International Publishing House. pp. 43−71
    [15] Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y. 2013. Active microorganisms in soil: critical review of estimation criteria and approaches. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 67:192−211 doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.08.024

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16] Mendes LW, Tsai SM, Navarrete AA, de Hollander M, van Veen JA, et al. 2015. Soil-borne microbiome: Linking diversity to function. Microbial Ecology 70(1):255−65 doi: 10.1007/s00248-014-0559-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17] Giri B, Giang PH, Kumari R, Prasad R, Varma A. 2005. Microbial diversity in soils. In Microorganisms in Soils: Roles in Genesis and Functions, eds Varma A, Buscot F, Berlin. Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 19–55 doi: 10.1007/3-540-26609-7_2
    [18] Bickel S, Or D. 2020. Soil bacterial diversity mediated by microscale aqueous-phase processes across biomes. Nature Communications 11(2):116 doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13966-w

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19] Symochko L. 2020. Soil microbiome: diversity, activity, functional and structural successions. International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Science (IJEES) 10(2):277−84 doi: 10.31407/ijees

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20] Borozan AB, Bordean DM, Poiana MA, Alexa E, Caba IL, et al. 2021. Soil pollution with heavy metals and bioremediation methods. AgroLife Scientific Journal 10(1):AGL202115 doi: 10.17930/AGL202115

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21] Tshikhudo PP, Ntushelo K, Mudau FN. 2023. Sustainable applications of endophytic bacteria and their physiological/biochemical roles on medicinal and herbal plants: review. Microorganisms 11(2):453 doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11020453

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22] Wu X, Yang J, Ruan H, Wang S, Yang Y, et al. 2021. The diversity and co-occurrence network of soil bacterial and fungal communities and their implications for a new indicator of grassland degradation. Ecological Indicators 129:107989 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107989

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23] Aparici-Carratalá D, Esclapez J, Bautista V, Bonete MJ, Camacho M. 2023. Archaea: current and potential biotechnological applications. Research in Microbiology 174:104080 doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2023.104080

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24] Whitman WB. 2009. The modern concept of the procaryote. Journal of Bacteriology 191:2000−5 doi: 10.1128/JB.00962-08

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25] Milgroom MG. 2023. Protozoa. In Biology of Infectious Disease: from Molecules to Ecosystems, ed. Milgroom MG. Cham: Springer. pp. 71–87 doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38941-2_6
    [26] Islam W, Noman A, Naveed H, Huang Z, Chen HYH. 2020. Role of environmental factors in shaping the soil microbiome. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:41225−47 doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10471-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27] Blackwell M. 2011. The fungi: 1, 2, 3 … 5.1 million species? American Journal of Botany 98(3):426−38 doi: 10.3732/ajb.1000298

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28] Offre P, Spang A, Schleper C. 2013. Archaea in biogeochemical cycles. Annual Review of Microbiology 67(1):437−57 doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-092412-155614

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29] Jung J, Kim JS, Taffner J, Berg G, Ryu CM. 2020. Archaea, tiny helpers of land plants. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 18:2494−500 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.09.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30] Alori ET, Emmanuel OC, Glick BR, Babalola OO. 2020. Plant–Archaea relationships: a potential means to improve crop production in arid and semi-arid regions. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 36(9):133 doi: 10.1007/s11274-020-02910-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31] Geisen S, Mitchell EAD, Adl S, Bonkowski M, Dunthorn M, et al. 2018. Soil protists: a fertile frontier in soil biology research. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 42(3):293−323 doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuy006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32] Hoorman JJ. 2011. The role of soil protozoa and nematodes. Fact sheet: agriculture and natural resources. The Ohio State University Extension, Colombus, OH. pp. 1−5
    [33] Reiss J. 2021. The role of protozoans and microscopically small metazoans in aquatic plant litter decomposition. In The Ecology of Plant Litter Decomposition in Stream Ecosystems, eds Swan CM, Boyero L, Canhoto C. Cham: Springer. pp. 217–33 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-72854-0_11
    [34] Kang E, Li Y, Zhang X, Yan Z, Wu H, et al. 2021. Soil pH and nutrients shape the vertical distribution of microbial communities in an alpine wetland. Science of The Total Environment 774:145780 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145780

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35] Borowik A, Wyszkowska J. 2016. Soil moisture as a factor affecting the microbiological and biochemical activity of soil. Plant, Soil, and Environment 62(6):250−55 doi: 10.17221/158/2016-PSE

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36] Eckert EM, Di Cesare A, Kettner MT, Arias-Andres M, Fontaneto D, et al. 2018. Microplastics increase impact of treated wastewater on freshwater microbial community. Environmental Pollution 234:495−502 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.070

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37] Swamy MK, Akhtar MohdS, Sinniah UR. 2016. Root exudates and their molecular interactions with rhizospheric microbes. In Plant, Soil and Microbes, eds Hakeem K, Akhtar M. Cham: Springer. pp. 59–77 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29573-2_4
    [38] Akinnawo SO. 2023. Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, physical, chemical, and biological techniques for mitigation strategies. Environmental Challenges 12:100733 doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2023.100733

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39] Shah AN, Tanveer M, Shahzad B, Yang G, Fahad S, et al. 2017. Soil compaction effects on soil health and crop productivity: an overview. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24:10056−67 doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8421-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40] Banach JL, Van Der Fels-Klerx HJ. 2020. Microbiological reduction strategies of irrigation water for fresh produce. Journal of Food Protection 83(6):1072−87 doi: 10.4315/JFP-19-466

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41] Chen H, Jia Y, Xu H, Wang Y, Zhou Y, et al. 2020. Ammonium nutrition inhibits plant growth and nitrogen uptake in citrus seedlings. Scientia Horticulturae 272:109526 doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109526

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42] Pal A, Adhikary R, Barman S, Maitra S. 2020. Nitrogen transformation and losses in soil: a cost-effective review study for farmer. International Journal of Chemical Studies 8(3):2623−26 doi: 10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i3al.9609

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43] Javed A, Ali E, Binte Afzal K, Osman A, Riaz S. 2022. Soil fertility: factors affecting soil fertility, and biodiversity responsible for soil fertility. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences 12(1):21−33 doi: 10.26502/ijpaes.202129

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44] Sabry KH. 2015. Synthetic fertilizers: role and hazards. Fertilizer Technology 1:110−33

    Google Scholar

    [45] Flora Y, Rabha P, Shinde A, Jha P, Jobby R. 2021. Non-symbiotic bacteria for soil nitrogen fortification. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 52, ed. Lichtfouse E. Cham: Springer. Vol 52. pp. 417–35 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73245-5_13
    [46] Fisher K, Newton WE. 2002. Nitrogen fixation – a general overview. In Nitrogen Fixation at the Millennium, ed. Leigh GJ. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 1–34 doi: 10.1016/B978-044450965-9/50001-X
    [47] Mus F, Crook MB, Garcia K, Garcia Costas A, Geddes BA, et al. 2016. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and the challenges to its extension to nonlegumes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 82(13):3698−710 doi: 10.1128/AEM.01055-16

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48] Einsle O, Rees DC. 2020. Structural enzymology of nitrogenase enzymes. Chemical Reviews 120(12):4969−5004 doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00067

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49] Schwember AR, Schulze J, del Pozo A, Cabeza RA. 2019. Regulation of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legume root nodules. Plants 8(9):333 doi: 10.3390/plants8090333

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50] Jaiswal SK, Dakora FD. 2025. Maximizing photosynthesis and plant growth in African legumes through rhizobial partnerships: the road behind and ahead. Microorganisms 13(3):581 doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13030581

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51] Lindström K, Mousavi SA. 2020. Effectiveness of nitrogen fixation in rhizobia. Microbial Biotechnology 13(5):1314−35 doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.13517

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52] Roper MM, Gupta VVSR. 2016. Enhancing non-symbiotic N2 fixation in agriculture. The Open Agriculture Journal 10(1):7−27 doi: 10.2174/1874331501610010007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53] Soumare A, Diedhiou AG, Thuita M, Hafidi M, Ouhdouch Y, et al. 2020. Exploiting biological nitrogen fixation: a route towards a sustainable agriculture. Plants 9(8):1011 doi: 10.3390/plants9081011

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54] Smercina DN, Evans SE, Friesen ML, Tiemann LK. 2019. To fix or not to fix: controls on free-living nitrogen fixation in the rhizosphere. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 85(6):e02546-18 doi: 10.1128/AEM.02546-18

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55] Ward BB. 2008. Nitrification in marine systems. In Nitrogen in the Marine Environment, eds Capone DG, Bronk DA, Mulholland MR, Carpenter EJ. 2nd Edition. US: Academic Press. pp. 199−261 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-372522-6.00005-0
    [56] Subbarao GV, Sahrawat KL, Nakahara K, Ishikawa T, Kishii M, et al. 2012. Biological nitrification inhibition—a novel strategy to regulate nitrification in agricultural systems. Advances in Agronomy 114:249−302 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394275-3.00001-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57] Subbarao GV, Nakahara K, Ishikawa T, Ono H, Yoshida M, et al. 2013. Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) activity in sorghum and its characterization. Plant and Soil 366(1−2):243−59 doi: 10.1007/s11104-012-1419-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58] Wendeborn S. 2020. The chemistry, biology, and modulation of ammonium nitrification in soil. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 59(6):2182−202 doi: 10.1002/anie.201903014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59] Gaye B, Nagel B, Dähnke K, Rixen T, Emeis KC. 2013. Evidence of parallel denitrification and nitrite oxidation in the ODZ of the Arabian Sea from paired stable isotopes of nitrate and nitrite. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 27(4):1059−71 doi: 10.1002/2011GB004115

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60] Stieglmeier M, Wirth R, Kminek G, Moissl-Eichinger C. 2009. Cultivation of anaerobic and facultatively anaerobic bacteria from spacecraft-associated clean rooms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75(11):3484−91 doi: 10.1128/AEM.02565-08

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61] Klanjšček J, Geček S, Legović T. 2012. Influence of fish feed composition on oxygen utilization during decomposition of aquaculture effluents. Aquaculture Research 43(12):1845−60 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.02994.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [62] Rana A, Pandey RK, Ramakrishnan B. 2019. Enzymology of the nitrogen cycle and bioremediation of toxic nitrogenous compounds. In Smart Bioremediation Technologies, ed. Bhatt P. US: Academic Press. pp. 45−61 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818307-6.00003-2
    [63] Meng X, Chen WW, Wang YY, Huang ZR, Ye X, et al. 2021. Effects of phosphorus deficiency on the absorption of mineral nutrients, photosynthetic system performance and antioxidant metabolism in Citrus grandis. PLoS One 16(2):e0246944 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246944

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64] Goswami SP, Maurya BR, Dubey AN, Singh NK. 2019. Role of phosphorus solubilizing microorganisms and dissolution of insoluble phosphorus in soil. International Journal of Chemical Studies 7(3):3905−13

    Google Scholar

    [65] Chen YP, Rekha PD, Arun AB, Shen FT, Lai WA, et al. 2006. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing abilities. Applied Soil Ecology 34(1):33−41 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.12.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66] Ameen F, AlYahya SA, AlNadhari S, Alasmari H, Alhoshani F, et al. 2019. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and fungi in desert soils: species, limitations and mechanisms. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 65(10):1446−59 doi: 10.1080/03650340.2019.1566713

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67] Wang C, Jiang HL. 2016. Chemicals used for in situ immobilization to reduce the internal phosphorus loading from lake sediments for eutrophication control. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 46(10):947−97 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2016.1200330

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68] Kirui CK, Njeru EM, Runo S. 2022. Diversity and phosphate solubilization efficiency of phosphate solubilizing bacteria isolated from semi-arid agroecosystems of eastern Kenya. Microbiology Insights 15:11786361221088991 doi: 10.1177/11786361221088991

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69] Rawat P, Das S, Shankhdhar D, Shankhdhar SC. 2021. Phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms: mechanism and their role in phosphate solubilization and uptake. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 21(1):49−68 doi: 10.1007/s42729-020-00342-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70] Wahid F, Sharif M, Fahad S, Ali A, Adnan M, et al. 2022. Mycorrhiza and phosphate solubilizing bacteria: potential bioagents for sustainable phosphorus management in agriculture. Phyton 91(2):257−78 doi: 10.32604/phyton.2022.016512

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71] Bago B, Pfeffer PE, Shachar-Hill Y. 2000. Carbon metabolism and transport in arbuscular mycorrhizas. Plant Physiology 124:949−58 doi: 10.1104/pp.124.3.949

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72] Etesami H, Jeong BR, Glick BR. 2021. Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, and silicon to P uptake by plant. Frontiers in Plant Science 12:699618 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.699618

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [73] Redecker D, Schüßler A, Stockinger H, Stürmer SL, Morton JB, et al. 2013. An evidence-based consensus for the classification of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomeromycota). Mycorrhiza 23(7):515−31 doi: 10.1007/s00572-013-0486-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [74] Spatafora JW, Chang Y, Benny GL, Lazarus K, Smith ME, et al. 2016. A phylum-level phylogenetic classification of zygomycete fungi based on genome-scale data. Mycologia 108(5):1028−46 doi: 10.3852/16-042

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [75] Marian M, Shimizu M. 2019. Improving performance of microbial biocontrol agents against plant diseases. Journal of General Plant Pathology 85(5):329−36 doi: 10.1007/s10327-019-00866-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [76] Shafi J, Tian H, Ji M. 2017. Bacillus species as versatile weapons for plant pathogens: a review. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 31(3):446−59 doi: 10.1080/13102818.2017.1286950

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [77] Miljaković D, Marinković J, Balešević-Tubić S. 2020. The significance of Bacillus spp. in disease suppression and growth promotion of field and vegetable crops. Microorganisms 8(7):1037 doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8071037

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [78] Suhana S, Nutan Y, Anoop RM. 2020. Interactive potential of Pseudomonas species with plants. Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology 8(6):101−11 doi: 10.7324/JABB.2020.80616

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [79] Sasirekha B, Srividya S. 2016. Siderophore production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa FP6, a biocontrol strain for Rhizoctonia solani and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides causing diseases in chilli. Agriculture and Natural Resources 50(4):250−56 doi: 10.1016/j.anres.2016.02.003

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [80] Fourati-Ben Fguira L, Fotso S, Ben Ameur-Mehdi R, Mellouli L, Laatsch H. 2005. Purification and structure elucidation of antifungal and antibacterial activities of newly isolated Streptomyces sp. strain US80. Research in Microbiology 156(3):341−47 doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2004.10.006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [81] Jaroszewicz W, Bielańska P, Lubomska D, Kosznik-Kwaśnicka K, Golec P, et al. 2021. Antibacterial, antifungal and anticancer activities of compounds produced by newly isolated streptomyces strains from the szczelina chochołowska cave (Tatra Mountains, Poland). Antibiotics 10(10):1212 doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10101212

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [82] Ruangwong OU, Kunasakdakul K, Chankaew S, Pitija K, Sunpapao A. 2022. A Rhizobacterium, Streptomyces albulus Z1-04-02, displays antifungal activity against Sclerotium Rot in mungbean. Plants 11(19):2607 doi: 10.3390/plants11192607

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [83] Rashad YM, Moussa TAA. 2020. Biocontrol agents for fungal plant diseases management. In Cottage Industry of Biocontrol Agents and Their Applications, eds El-Wakeli N, Saleh M, Abu-hashim M. Cham: Springer. pp. 337–63 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-33161-0_11
    [84] Mukherjee PK, Mendoza-Mendoza A, Zeilinger S, Horwitz BA. 2022. Mycoparasitism as a mechanism of Trichoderma-mediated suppression of plant diseases. Fungal Biology Reviews 39:15−33 doi: 10.1016/j.fbr.2021.11.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [85] Kiss L, Pintye A, Zséli G, Jankovics T, Szentiványi O, et al. 2010. Microcyclic conidiogenesis in powdery mildews and its association with intracellular parasitism by Ampelomyces. European Journal of Plant Pathology 126(4):445−51 doi: 10.1007/s10658-009-9558-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [86] Bozoudi D, Tsaltas D. 2018. The multiple and versatile roles of Aureobasidium pullulans in the vitivinicultural sector. Fermentation 4(4):85 doi: 10.3390/fermentation4040085

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [87] Valicente FH. 2019. Entomopathogenic viruses. In Natural Enemies of Insect Pests in Neotropical Agroecosystems, eds Souza B, Vazquez L, Marucci R. Cham: Springer. pp. 137–50 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24733-1_12
    [88] Poveda J, González-Andrés F. 2021. Bacillus as a source of phytohormones for use in agriculture. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 105:8629−45 doi: 10.1007/s00253-021-11492-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [89] Iqbal N, Khan NA, Ferrante A, Trivellini A, Francini A, et al. 2017. Ethylene role in plant growth, development and senescence: Interaction with other phytohormones. Frontiers in Plant Science 8:235913 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00475

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [90] Moon YS, Ali S. 2022. Possible mechanisms for the equilibrium of ACC and role of ACC deaminase-producing bacteria. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 106(3):877−87 doi: 10.1007/s00253-022-11772-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [91] Inbaraj MP. 2021. Plant-microbe interactions in alleviating abiotic stress—a mini review. Frontiers in Agronomy 3:667903 doi: 10.3389/fagro.2021.667903

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [92] Donoso R, Leiva-Novoa P, Zúñiga A, Timmermann T, Recabarren-Gajardo G, et al. 2017. Biochemical and genetic bases of indole-3-acetic acid (auxin phytohormone) degradation by the plant-growth-promoting Rhizobacterium Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 83(1):e01991-16 doi: 10.1128/AEM.01991-16

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [93] Chaudhry S, Sidhu GPS. 2022. Climate change regulated abiotic stress mechanisms in plants: a comprehensive review. Plant Cell Reports 41(1):1−31 doi: 10.1007/s00299-021-02759-5

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [94] Sharma A, Shahzad B, Kumar V, Kohli SK, Sidhu GPS, et al. 2019. Phytohormones regulate accumulation of osmolytes under abiotic stress. Biomolecules 9(7):285 doi: 10.3390/biom9070285

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [95] Ngumbi E, Kloepper J. 2016. Bacterial-mediated drought tolerance: Current and future prospects. Applied Soil Ecology 105:109−25 doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.04.009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [96] Bruno LB, Karthik C, Ma Y, Kadirvelu K, Freitas H, et al. 2020. Amelioration of chromium and heat stresses in Sorghum bicolor by Cr6+ reducing-thermotolerant plant growth promoting bacteria. Chemosphere 244:125521 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125521

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [97] Mukhtar T, ur Rehman S, Smith D, Sultan T, Seleiman MF, et al. 2020. Mitigation of heat stress in Solanum lycopersicum L. by ACC-deaminase and exopolysaccharide producing Bacillus cereus: effects on biochemical profiling. Sustainability 12(6):2159 doi: 10.3390/su12062159

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [98] Liu Y, Xun W, Chen L, Xu Z, Zhang N, et al. 2022. Rhizosphere microbes enhance plant salt tolerance: toward crop production in saline soil. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 20:6543−51 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.11.046

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [99] Egamberdieva D, Wirth S, Bellingrath-Kimura SD, Mishra J, Arora NK. 2019. Salt-tolerant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for enhancing crop productivity of saline soils. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:2791 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02791

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [100] Kumar A, Verma JP. 2018. Does plant—microbe interaction confer stress tolerance in plants: a review? Microbiological Research 207:41−52 doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2017.11.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [101] Rudrappa T, Biedrzycki ML, Bais HP. 2008. Causes and consequences of plant-associated biofilms. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 64(2):153−66 doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00465.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [102] Costa OYA, Raaijmakers JM, Kuramae EE. 2018. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: ecological function and impact on soil aggregation. Frontiers in Microbiology 9:1636 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01636

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [103] Shahid MJ, Arslan M, Ali S, Siddique M, Afzal M. 2018. Floating wetlands: a sustainable tool for wastewater treatment. CLEAN – Soil, Air, Water 46(10):1800120 doi: 10.1002/clen.201800120

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [104] Alengebawy A, Abdelkhalek ST, Qureshi SR, Wang MQ. 2021. Heavy metals and pesticides toxicity in agricultural soil and plants: ecological risks and human health implications. Toxics 9:42 doi: 10.3390/toxics9030042

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [105] Medfu Tarekegn M, Zewdu Salilih F, Ishetu AI. 2020. Microbes used as a tool for bioremediation of heavy metal from the environment. Cogent Food and Agriculture 6(1):1783174 doi: 10.1080/23311932.2020.1783174

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [106] Saravanan A, Kumar PS, Vo DV, Jeevanantham S, Karishma S, et al. 2021. A review on catalytic-enzyme degradation of toxic environmental pollutants: microbial enzymes. Journal of Hazardous Materials 419:126451 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126451

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [107] Priya AK, Gnanasekaran L, Dutta K, Rajendran S, Balakrishnan D, et al. 2022. Biosorption of heavy metals by microorganisms: evaluation of different underlying mechanisms. Chemosphere 307:135957 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135957

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [108] Ayangbenro A, Babalola O. 2017. A new strategy for heavy metal polluted environments: a review of microbial biosorbents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(1):94 doi: 10.3390/ijerph14010094

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [109] Tyagi M, da Fonseca MMR, de Carvalho CCCR. 2011. Bioaugmentation and biostimulation strategies to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation processes. Biodegradation 22(2):231−41 doi: 10.1007/s10532-010-9394-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [110] Dissanayaka DMNS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2024. Harnessing the potential of Mucuna cover cropping: a comprehensive review of its agronomic and environmental benefits. Circular Agricultural Systems 4:e003 doi: 10.48130/cas-0024-0001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [111] Dissanayaka DMNS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Udumann SS, Dissanayake DKRPL, Atapattu AJ. 2022. A sustainable way of increasing productivity of coconut cultivation using cover crops: a review. Circular Agricultural Systems 2:7 doi: 10.48130/CAS-2022-0007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [112] Nuwarapaksha TD, Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS, Atapattu AJ. 2023. Gliricidia as a beneficial crop in resource-limiting agroforestry systems in Sri Lanka. Indian Journal of Agroforestry 25(1):12−18

    Google Scholar

    [113] Dissanayaka DMNS, Udumann SS, Atapattu AJ. 2024. Synergies between tree crops and ecosystems in tropical agroforestry. In Agroforestry, eds Raj A, Jhariya MK, Banerjee A, Jha RK, Singh KP. US: Scrivener Publishing. pp. 49–87 doi: 10.1002/9781394231164.ch3
    [114] Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2023. Agroforestry: an avenue for resilient and productive farming through integrated crops and livestock production. In Transitioning to Zero Hunger, ed. Kiba DI. Basel, Switzerland: MDPI. pp. 115–36 doi: 10.3390/books978-3-03897-863-3-5
    [115] Dissanayaka DMNS, Dissanayake DKRPL, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2023. Agroforestry - a key tool in the climate-smart agriculture context: a review on coconut cultivation in Sri Lanka. Frontiers in Agronomy 5:1162750 doi: 10.3389/fagro.2023.1162750

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [116] Li X, Li B, Chen L, Liang J, Huang R, et al. 2022. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer over seven years increases yields and restores soil bacterial community diversity in wheat–rice rotation. European Journal of Agronomy 133:126445 doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2021.126445

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [117] Barakat M, Cheviron B, Angulo-Jaramillo R. 2016. Influence of the irrigation technique and strategies on the nitrogen cycle and budget: a review. Agricultural Water Management 178:225−38 doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.09.027

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [118] Dissanayaka NS, Rajaratnam K, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Shamila SK, et al. 2025. Evaluation of the nutritional composition of king coconut husk waste biochar and ash soil conditioners: a comprehensive analysis. Technology in Agronomy 5:e003 doi: 10.48130/tia-0024-0034

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [119] Ekanayaka EMGN, Dissanayake DKRPL, Udumann SS, Dissanayaka DMNS, Nuwarapaksha TD, et al. 2023. Sustainable utilization of king coconut husk as a feedstock in biochar production with the highest conversion efficiency and desirable properties. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1235(1):012009 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1235/1/012009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [120] Dissanayake DKRPL, Dissanayaka DMNS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2023. Is biochar a promising soil amendment to enhance perennial crop yield and soil quality in the tropics? Technology in Agronomy 3:4 doi: 10.48130/TIA-2023-0004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [121] Wang Y, Li C, Tu C, Hoyt GD, DeForest JL, et al. 2017. Long-term no-tillage and organic input management enhanced the diversity and stability of the soil microbial community. Science of The Total Environment 609:341−47 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.053

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [122] Kalayu G. 2019. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms: promising approach as biofertilizers. International Journal of Agronomy 2019(1):4917256 doi: 10.1155/2019/4917256

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [123] Liu X, Cao A, Yan D, Ouyang C, Wang Q, Li Y. 2021. Overview of mechanisms and uses of biopesticides. International Journal of Pest Management 67(1):65−72 doi: 10.1080/09670874.2019.1664789

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [124] Hassa J, Maus I, Off S, Pühler A, Scherer P, et al. 2018. Metagenome, metatranscriptome, and metaproteome approaches unraveled compositions and functional relationships of microbial communities residing in biogas plants. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 102:5045−63 doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-8976-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [125] Fadiji AE, Babalola OO. 2020. Metagenomics methods for the study of plant-associated microbial communities: a review. Journal of Microbiological Methods 170:105860 doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105860

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [126] Jain A, Chakraborty J, Das S. 2020. Underlying mechanism of plant–microbe crosstalk in shaping microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 42:8 doi: 10.1007/s11738-019-3000-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [127] Corbin KR, Bolt B, Rodríguez López CM. 2020. Breeding for beneficial microbial communities using epigenomics. Frontiers in Microbiology 11:937 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00937

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [128] Cho S, Shin J, Cho BK. 2018. Applications of CRISPR/Cas system to bacterial metabolic engineering. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19(4):1089 doi: 10.3390/ijms19041089

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [129] Fedorec AJH, Karkaria BD, Sulu M, Barnes CP. 2021. Single strain control of microbial consortia. Nature Communications 12(1):1977 doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22240-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [130] Yang T, Siddique KHM, Liu K. 2020. Cropping systems in agriculture and their impact on soil health-a review. Global Ecology and Conservation 23:e01118 doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01118

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [131] Qiu Z, Egidi E, Liu H, Kaur S, Singh BK. 2019. New frontiers in agriculture productivity: optimised microbial inoculants and in situ microbiome engineering. Biotechnology Advances 37(6):107371 doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.03.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [132] Reid G, Younes JA, Van der Mei HC, Gloor GB, Knight R, et al. 2011. Microbiota restoration: natural and supplemented recovery of human microbial communities. Nature Reviews Microbiology 9(1):27−38 doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2473

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [133] Baloch N. 2025. Microbial contributions to maize crop production: a comprehensive review of challenges and future perspectives. Discover Agriculture 3(1):10 doi: 10.1007/s44279-025-00164-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [134] Anas M, Khalid A, Saleem MH, Ali Khan K, Ahmed Khattak W, et al. 2025. Symbiotic synergy: unveiling plant-microbe interactions in stress adaptation. Journal of Crop Health 77(1):18 doi: 10.1007/s10343-024-01070-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2025. Microbial partnerships in agriculture: boosting crop health and productivity. Circular Agricultural Systems 5: e013 doi: 10.48130/cas-0025-0011
    Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2025. Microbial partnerships in agriculture: boosting crop health and productivity. Circular Agricultural Systems 5: e013 doi: 10.48130/cas-0025-0011

Figures(4)  /  Tables(4)

Article Metrics

Article views(510) PDF downloads(184)

REVIEW   Open Access    

Microbial partnerships in agriculture: boosting crop health and productivity

Circular Agricultural Systems  5 Article number: e013  (2025)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Plants and microbial organisms develop close symbioses that have a significant influence on agricultural productivity and plant health. These 'agricultural engines' have continuously supported balancing global food security from historical times. Against the backdrop of the global challenges faced by modern agriculture, including soil degradation and over-reliance on synthetic inputs, this review examines the intricate relationships within the soil microbiome, and their impact on sustainable crop production. It further investigates the pivotal functions of these partnerships in nutrient cycling, biotic stress suppression, hormone modulation, and stimulating and enhancing the flourishing growth of crops. Highlighting the importance of plant-microbe relationships, this study explores the potential of biological nitrification inhibitors, biocontrol agents, and biofertilizers, specifically, nitrogen-fixing bacteria and phosphorus-solubilizing microbes, to optimize nutrient use efficiency, suppress biotic stress, enhance nutrient availability for crops, and mitigate climate change. Furthermore, challenges related to environmental factors and the commercial adoption of microbial products are also scrutinized. The review concludes by outlining future research directions and envisioning the integration of microbial partnerships into sustainable climate resilience agricultural practices, thereby offering a holistic approach to address current agricultural challenges and pave the way for a more resilient and environmentally friendly food production system. This will help guide cutting-edge microbiome-based solutions, to improve global food production and agricultural resource use efficiency in the years to come.

    • Agriculture is a cornerstone of human society, serving not only as the primary source of sustenance but also as a key driver of global food security, economic development, and community well-being. In the face of rapid population growth and the increasing demand for food, the importance of agriculture continues to grow. However, traditional agricultural practices, significantly shaped by the Green Revolution of the 20th century, have raised concerns about long-term sustainability. While the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties, synthetic chemicals, fertilizers, and improved irrigation systems boosted food production dramatically, these advances have also led to environmental degradation, including soil and water pollution, and the emergence of pesticide-resistant pests and pathogens[1].

      The world population will be around 10 billion people by 2025, which means that food production capacities must be enhanced by 60%[2,3]. This forecast puts a lot of expectation on the agricultural sector to feed the increasing number of people, given the constraints of soil and land degradation, climate change, limited arable land and water, and natural resources depletion[4]. Pesticide utilization also intensifies these challenges by depleting the basic vital input resources for agriculture, besides underlining its sustainability complications[2,5].

      Because of this, there is an increasing need for agriculture to embrace sustainable and environmentally friendly methods that not only enhance the quality of produce but also lessen its impact on the environment[6]. In this regard, microbial symbiosis needs to be considered. These microorganisms are involved in determining soil fertility, nutrient cycling, enhancing crop performances, and acting as biological control agents against crop diseases and environmental stresses[7]. The study of microbial synergies in agricultural fields has emerged as a promising path toward addressing the challenges of global food insecurity[8]. Over millions of years, these microbes have developed a mutual interaction with plants, where the plants cannot survive without these microbes, and vice versa. They are crucial in the maintenance of life and productivity of the terrestrial ecosystem[9].

      Due to the specific positive impacts of these microbes on farming, it is possible to build constructive, mutually beneficial symbiosis between crops and these microorganisms, which allows researchers and farmers to create sustainable and highly productive agricultural systems[10]. Microbial partnerships enhance soil health and improve plant growth and adaptability to stressors such as climate change, drought, and pests[10]. Such natural allies can reduce the requirement for synthetic chemical inputs, lowering the production cost and enhancing the profit margin of the farmers in the long run, as well as at the same time promoting sustainable environmental practices[11].

      Furthermore, microbial exploration is in accord with the principles of agroecology or regenerative agriculture, the strategies that look for ways to enhance the performance of the systems by mimicking the help of microorganisms. Exploiting the knowledge of such microbial interactions presents a way forward to the growing and immediate crises of food insecurity, environmental degradation, climate change impacts, and income diversification for farmers across the globe[12].

      This review delves into the complex and fascinating world of microbial partnerships in agriculture, exploring the latest research, innovative techniques, and practical applications that could revolutionize the agricultural sector to a sustainable and resilient future for global food production.

    • The soil microbiome is a complex and diverse ecosystem, hosting a vast array of microorganisms. This intricate network encompasses bacteria, fungi, archaea, protozoa, and viruses, each contributing to the complicated web of interactions that sustain soil fertility and productivity. To put the scale of this microscopic world into perspective, a single handful of soil contains over a billion microbial cells[13]. More specifically, Chandra et al. reported that in a typical agricultural soil sample of just 1 cm3, one can find approximately: 90,000,000 bacterial cells, 4,000,000 actinomycetes, 200,000 fungi, 30,000 algae, 5,000 protozoa, and 30 nematodes[14]. In this context, earthworms are present in numbers less than one per cubic centimeter. The microbial activity in soil is not constant. It fluctuates both temporally and spatially. Perhaps most surprisingly, despite the enormous numbers of microorganisms present, only a small fraction is actively engaged at any given time. Blagodatskaya & Kuzyakov estimate that approximately 95% of soil microbes remain in a dormant state[15].

      The most prevalent and varied microbial group is bacteria[16]. Despite the vast microbial diversity present in soil ecosystems, with an estimated 30,000 bacterial species inhabiting the soil, our current understanding and characterization encompass only a small fraction, approximately 3,000 of these species (Table 1)[17]. They exhibit an immense range of metabolic capabilities, enabling them to participate in nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and the formation of symbiotic associations with plants. The abundance of bacterial phylotypes in soil typically varies between 102 and 106 per gram[18]. It is similar to the diversity on Earth. Furthermore, they have found a decrease in soil bacteria carrying capacity with increasing soil depth, which is influenced by factors like organic carbon distribution and plant root distribution.

      Table 1.  Examples for major soil microbial groups.

      Major soil microbe group Examples Ref.
      Bacteria Common phyla: Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria [19]
      Common genus: Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Flavobacterium, Micromonospora, Nocardia, Pseudomonas, and Streptomyces [20,21]
      Fungi Common phyla: Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, Glomeromycota, and Zygomycota [22]
      Common genus: Aspergillus, Cryptococcus, Neurospora, Penicillium, Rhizopus, and Saccharomyces [17]
      Archaea Common superphyla: Euryarchaeota, TACK, DPANN, and Asgard [23]
      Common genus: Halovivax, Methanobrevibacter, Methanococcus, Pyrobaculum, Staphylothermus, Thermococcus, and Thermofilum [24,25]
      Protozoa Common species: Balantidium coli, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia duodenalis, Plasmodium falciparum, Toxoplasma gondii, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Trypanosoma brucei gambiense [25]

      Fungi are another important component of the soil microbiome, forming a vast and intricate network of mycelium that extends throughout the soil matrix. They possess remarkable adaptability to a variety of ecological conditions owing to their high plasticity and capacity and contribute to the decaying complex organic matter, biogeochemical cycling of elements, and the formation of beneficial relationships with plant parts, known as mycorrhizal associations[26]. While it is estimated that an astonishing 1,500,000 fungal species thrive in the soil ecosystem, our current knowledge and formal description have been limited to merely 69,000 of these species, representing only a small fraction of the immense fungal diversity present in the soil (Table 1)[17]. Prominent fungal phyla are particularly important for the formation of arbuscular mycorrhizal associations with the majority of terrestrial plants. As summarized, one gram of soil contains 200 m of fungal hyphae[27].

      Moreover, the soil microbiome also harbors a diverse community of archaea, which are found in agricultural soils and also in extreme environments like hot springs, hypersaline marshes, and acidic soils[28]. They are single-celled organisms, particularly abundant in nutrient-poor environments also. However, their abundance and prominence are much less than other soil microbial organisms[29]. Archaea form intricate interactions with other organisms in the ecosystem. These interactions can involve nutrient exchange, metabolic cooperation, or competitive relationships for resources and space[30]. Examples of this group are given in Table 1.

      Soil protozoa are highly diverse, encompassing various groups such as ciliates, flagellates, naked and testate amoebae, and parasitic Sporozoa (Table 1)[31]. Mainly, this group of micro-organisms works as predators of bacteria and fungi, serving as natural controllers of microbial community and nutrient cycling within the soil ecosystem[32]. Protozoa are part of the soil food web, serving as prey for higher-level consumers like nematodes, microarthropods, and other soil fauna[33].

      Not all microbes present in the soil are beneficial. These microorganisms can be broadly divided into several categories considering their main activities and their impact on plants and the soil ecosystem (Fig. 1). Some microbes can exhibit different roles or activities depending on the environmental conditions or their interactions with other microbes and plants.

      Figure 1. 

      Diversity and functional roles of natural soil microbial community.

    • The soil microbiome is a highly dynamic and responsive system, with its composition and diversity shaped by a multitude of parameters, together with soil physicochemical properties, the types of plant species present within a given environment, as well as the specific agricultural practices employed, which contribute further to the intricate tapestry of microbial life within the soil (Fig. 2).

      Figure 2. 

      Factors influencing the natural soil microbial community.

    • Soil microbes are known to be influenced by a broad range of environmental factors. Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia have been found to grow well in acidic soils, while Actinobacteria and Firmicutes are found to grow well in neutral to alkaline soils[34]. Soil moisture also influences microbial abundance; bacteria are more common in drier soils, whereas fungi thrive in wetter conditions. As reported in previous literature, organotrophic bacteria, Azotobacter, actinomycetes, and fungi show the highest abundance when soil moisture levels correspond to 20%, 20%–40%, 40%, and 60% of the soil's maximum water capacity, respectively[35]. Furthermore, aeration, water retention, and temperature, which are dependent on physical soil properties such as particle size and soil aggregation, influence microbial habitats[22]. The provision of nutrients also affects microbial communities by favoring the groups with certain metabolic requirements. In addition, microbes are also susceptible to toxic heavy metals and contaminants such as microplastics that hinder their growth[36].

    • Different plant species selectively recruit and support specific microbial communities through root exudates, mucilage, and signaling molecules[37]. It also varies with the development processes of plants to adapt to variations in root secretion and nutrient absorption. However, the interactions with other organisms, such as nematodes, arthropods, and protists, can affect the community structure and the manner of interaction between microorganisms, as well as the rest of the soil communities.

    • Tillage, mono-crop cultivation, and misuse of synthetic inputs erode the soil structure and reduce microbial richness and resistance, leaving only a few species resistant to the practices[5]. It causes acidification, an imbalance of nutrients, loss of organic materials, and water pollution from chemicals, affecting useful microorganisms in the soil. Nutrient pollution that triggers eutrophication can cause algal blooms, and a decrease in oxygen levels while affecting the species and microorganisms that live in the water[38]. Heavy machinery compacts soil around the root side, decreasing water and air availability for microbes and their activity[39]. The volume and quality of irrigation water, the timing, and frequency of watering can influence soil moisture conditions and nutrient availability, impacting microbial community composition[40]. Agricultural expansion often results in habitat conversion and fragmentation that can alter the ecosystems' structure and function, consequently reducing the above- and below-ground biotic diversity and microbes.

      Apart from these three main determinants, other environmental conditions such as rain, humidity, and light for the growth of natural microorganisms are crucial[26]. All of them interconnect in intricate manners to control the complex ecology of the soil microbiome. These dynamics are vital in formulating strategies that ensure the revelation of commensal microbes that foster sustainable agricultural production.

    • Nitrogen is a part of chlorophyll, enzymes, proteins, as well as nucleic acids in plant cells[41]. The nitrogen cycle is also accomplished by the microbes, where nitrogen is transmuted into other forms, such as nitrates and ammonium, that are easily absorbed by the plants[42]. These microbes promote plant growth and performance[43]. Decreasing synthetic fertilizers, which are used to supply nitrogen to plants, leads to reducing the harm of greenhouse gas emissions, pollutants affecting groundwater, and soil acidification[44].

    • Soil microbes play a pivotal role in the nitrogen cycle. It involves a series of transformations that convert nitrogen from one form to another, and microorganisms are the primary drivers of these transformations[45]. Certain bacteria, known as diazotrophs, can convert atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into ammonia (NH3), via nitrogen fixation[46]. It is an essential step, as most living organisms cannot directly utilize atmospheric nitrogen. There are two main methods of nitrogen fixation facilitated by microorganisms: symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) and a-symbiotic (free-living) nitrogen fixation (ASNF). SNF involves a mutualistic relationship between certain bacteria and leguminous plant species (family – Fabaceae)[9]. They are recognized as a subset of rhizobacteria that promote plant growth (e.g., Rhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, and Azorhizobium species)[47]. Rhizobia colonize the roots of the host plant and encourage the formation of root nodules. Inside these nodules, the bacteria live in organelle-like structures, which can convert N2 into NH3 using the nitrogenase enzyme complex[48,49]. This symbiosis can supply up to 80% of the nitrogen required by leguminous crops[50]. The NH3 synthesized by the bacteroid is assimilated by the host plant, providing it with a readily available source of nitrogen for plants. In exchange, the plant supplies food for bacteria with carbohydrates and a protected environment within the nodules[51]. ASNF is done by free-living (non-symbiotic) microorganisms that can fix atmospheric nitrogen without forming a direct association with plants. They form associations with decomposing plant residuals, soil aggregates, and termite habitats[52]. These microorganisms are found in soil, water bodies, and plant surfaces. They are represented by bacteria such as Azotobacter, Mycobacterium, Azospirillum, and Bacillus, Archaea including Methanococcales, Methanobacteriales, and Methanomicrobiales, and also Cyanobacteria like Anabaena, Nostoc, Anabaenopsis, and Tolypothrix[53]. Comparison between these two groups is shown in Table 2.

      Table 2.  Key contrasts between symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) and a-symbiotic (free-living) nitrogen fixation (ASNF)[54].

      Symbiotic nitrogen fixation A-symbiotic (free-living) nitrogen fixation
      Represented by only a few specialized bacterial types Represented by a diverse community of different nitrogen-fixing bacteria
      Need to receive a steady, direct supply of simple carbon compounds like succinate from their host plants Need to rely on variable and complex dissolved organic carbon from soil, which can be unpredictable in availability
      Benefited from carefully regulated, low-oxygen environments maintained by their host plants Experienced highly variable oxygen levels in the rhizosphere, influenced by soil properties and microbial/root respiration
      Need to get critical nutrients delivered directly by their host plants Must independently acquire essential nutrients from the soil environment
      Focus exclusively on nitrogen fixation, with all their fixed nitrogen being transferred to the host plant Able to access nitrogen from multiple sources (soil nitrogen plus their fixation), giving them flexibility
    • NH3 in the soil goes through a two-step process known as nitrification. In the initial process, NH3 is converted to nitrite (NO2) through the actions of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea. In the second step, NO2 is oxidized to nitrate (NO3) by the action of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria[55]. High levels of nitrification may result in loss of nitrogen in the form of leaching and denitrification, which are some of the main environmental concerns like water pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases. A process called 'biological nitrification inhibition' works by interfering with the metabolic processes of nitrifying bacteria and archaea, thereby slowing down or inhibiting the conversion of NH3 to NO3[56]. These inhibitors can act through various mechanisms: (1) directly inhibiting the activity of enzymes involved in the nitrification process, such as ammonia monooxygenase (AMO) and hydroxylamine oxidoreductase (HAO), which are key enzymes for the transformation of ammonia and nitrite, respectively[57]; (2) disrupting the cell membranes of nitrifying bacteria and archaea, affecting their permeability and nutrient uptake, ultimately inhibiting their growth and activity[58]; and (3) modifying soil conditions, such as pH or redox potential, creating an unfavorable environment for better function of nitrifying microorganisms.

    • Denitrification is the process by which nitrate (NO3) is converted back to gaseous forms of nitrogen as nitrous oxide (N2O) and N2, by denitrifying bacteria[59]. This process is important in anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) environments and helps complete the nitrogen cycle by turning nitrogen into gas. Facultative anaerobic bacteria like Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Clostridium are the dominant microbes in this step[60]. Ammonification is another important process where organic nitrogen compounds, like proteins and nucleic acids, are broken down by many heterotrophic bacteria and fungi, releasing NH3 as a byproduct[61]. This process is critical for recycling organic nitrogen back into the soil[62].

      The efficacy of nitrogen-fixing microbes is often constrained by abiotic stresses, competition with native microbes, and formulation instability. The specificity of symbiotic relationships limits their universal application across cropping systems. Moreover, inconsistent field performance of biological nitrification inhibitors remains a challenge. Future work should focus on developing microbial consortia combining N-fixers and nitrification inhibitors, understanding plant genotype × microbe interactions, and enhancing microbial persistence through advanced delivery systems.

    • Phosphorus is essential for energy transfer, photosynthesis, and metabolic processes in plants, but most soil phosphorus is in forms that plants cannot absorb[63]. Normally, only 0.1% of total soil phosphorus is in H2PO4 and HPO42– which are plant-available forms[64]. Phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms, including certain bacteria (approximately 1%–50% of the overall microbial biomass) and fungi (approximately 0.1%–0.5% of the overall microbial biomass), convert these insoluble forms into plant-available ones, improving phosphorus availability, and promoting root development and plant growth[65,66]. This microbial activity reduces synthetic chemical usage, mitigates environmental risks like eutrophication, and supports sustainable farming practices by conserving natural resources[67].

    • Several bacterial genera, including Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Rhizobium, and Burkholderia, have been identified as efficient phosphate solubilizers. Other than that, Rhodococcus, Arthrobacter, Serratia, Chryseobacterium, Xanthomonas, Klebsiella, Agrobacterium, Azotobacter, Erwinia, Kushneria, and Pantoea have also been identified as potential bacteria for this purpose[68]. These bacteria can solubilize phosphorus through various mechanisms: (1) producing organic acids such as gluconic, citric, oxalic, and lactic acids, which can chelate and solubilize insoluble phosphorus compounds; (2) producing enzymes like phosphatases and phytases, which can hydrolyze organic phosphorus compounds and release inorganic phosphates; and (3) producing protons (H+) or CO2, to reduce the pH in the root zone, maximizing the solubility of phosphorus compounds[69].

    • Some of the fungi known to solubilize phosphorus are Aspergillus, Penicillium, Acremonium, Hymenella, Fusarium, and Neosartorya[69]. They can also solubilize phosphorus following the same mechanism as in phosphate-solubilizing bacteria.

    • AMFs form symbiotic associations with the roots of approximately 80% of plant species, facilitating the uptake of organic and inorganic phosphorus from the soil[70]. These fungi collaborate with PSBs in the rhizosphere, enhancing nutrient acquisition and improving soil structure by providing carbohydrates to the bacteria and allowing them to colonize the rhizosphere[71]. AMF also influence bacterial community composition, support nitrogen fixation, and reduce nutrient leaching[72]. Most AMF species belong to the sub-phylum Glomeromycotina within Mucoromycota, comprising four orders: Glomerales, Archaeosporales, Paraglomerales, and Diversisporales, which include 25 genera[73,74].

      Previous research had confirmed that combined inoculation with AMFs and PSBs can increase the availability of phosphorus from both organic and inorganic sources in soil, making it a promising sustainable approach for phosphorus management in wheat farming (Fig. 3)[70]. Phosphorus availability is hindered by fixation in soils, and many PSB/PSF strains fail to perform consistently under field conditions. The symbiotic establishment of AMF is slow and often varies across host species and soil types. There is also a gap in understanding the interaction dynamics among PSB, PSF, and AMF in mixed inocula. Future efforts should aim to design multi-functional consortia, optimize inoculant formulations, and develop predictive tools for matching microbial strains to soil-crop systems.

      Figure 3. 

      Effect of combined application of rock phosphate (RP), arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) on soil phosphorus concentration and plant phosphorus uptake in wheat. Bars represent mean values of soil P concentration (mg/kg) and plant P uptake (kg/ha) under different nutrient management treatments. Treatments with shared letters are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05. (RP: Rock Phosphate; AMF: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi; PSB: Phosphate-Solubilizing Bacteria; SSP: Single Super Phosphate).

    • Certain microorganisms, known as microbial biocontrol agents, can suppress plant pathogens, enhancing plant health and disease management in agriculture. These agents offer an environmentally friendly alternative to synthetic pesticides by providing effective, sustainable pest control solutions, aligning with integrated pest management (IPM) principles and promoting ecological farming (Table 3)[75]. Despite promising lab results, many biocontrol strains fail under real-world conditions due to environmental variability and poor rhizosphere persistence. Regulatory bottlenecks and a lack of farmer adoption further limit their commercial success. Innovations should prioritize microbial strain stabilization, compatibility testing in consortia, and improved delivery methods such as encapsulation or seed coating. Comparative field trials across diverse agroecologies are also urgently needed.

      Table 3.  Pathogen suppression mechanisms in soil microbes.

      Group of microbes Species Example Mechanism Ref.
      Bacterial biocontrol agents Bacillus species B. subtilis;
      B. amyloliquefaciens
      Release diverse antimicrobial compounds, including antibiotics, enzymes like cell wall hydrolases, and lipopeptides.
      Reduce the growth of plant pathogens, promote systemic resistance in plants, and plant growth.
      [76,77]
      Pseudomonas species P. fluorescens;
      P. aeruginosa
      Produce antibiotics like pyocyanin, pyrrolnitrin, and phenazine-1-carboxylic acid, siderophores (iron-chelating compounds), and other anti-microbial metabolites.
      Induce systemic resistance and encourage plant growth.
      [78,79]
      Streptomyces species Streptomyces roseoflavus Produce a variety of antifungal, antibacterial compounds, and cell wall degrading enzymes like chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase. [8082]
      Rhizobium species R. leguminosarum;
      R. phaseoli;
      R. trifolii; R. lentis
      Produce a variety of antifungal compounds such as hydrogen cyanide and antibacterial compounds like bacteriocins and trifolitoxin, lytic enzymes, and siderophores substances. [83]
      Fungal biocontrol agents Trichoderma species T. harzianum; T. viride Inhibit plant pathogens through mycoparasitism (directly parasitizing and feeding on other fungi), antibiosis (production of antimicrobial compounds.
      Being an active competitor for resources like nutrients and space.
      [84]
      Gliocladium species G. catenulatum;
      G. roseum
      Parasitize and inhibit the spread of plant pathogens, particularly fungi and nematodes, through the production of enzymes and other metabolites. [83]
      Ampelomyces species Ampelomyces quisqualis Parasitize and feed on the mycelium of the powdery mildew pathogens. [85]
      Yeast Aureobasidium pullulans Create competition for nutrients and space, as well as the releasing enzymes and antimicrobial compounds. [86]
      Viral biocontrol agents Baculoviruses
      Used as biocontrol agents against insect pests.
      Can cause lethal infections.
      [87]
    • Plant hormones play a crucial role in regulating various aspects of plant growth and development[10]. Certain bacteria, including Azospirillum, Pseudomonas, and Bacillus sp., as well as fungi like Fusarium and Trichoderma, produce phytohormones such as auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins[10]. For example, auxins like indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), produced by Azospirillum and Pseudomonas sp., stimulate root growth, leading to better nutrient and water uptake, and ultimately boosting crop yields. Cytokinin produced by Bacillus sp. enhances cell division and shoot growth, thereby increasing biomass and yield[88]. Ethylene, another key plant hormone, regulates processes like fruit ripening, senescence, and stress responses[89]. Some bacteria, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus, produce the enzyme ACC (1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid) deaminase, which lowers ethylene levels by breaking down its precursor (ACC). This reduction in ethylene delays fruit ripening, extends shelf life, and improves stress tolerance, enhancing crop quality and yields[90]. In addition to producing phytohormones, certain microbes can degrade or inactivate specific phytohormones, a process known as 'phytohormone degradation'. This ability allows them to regulate hormonal balances and influence plant growth patterns. Moreover, these microbes can produce antioxidants like SOD, POD, APX, CAT, and GR, which help mitigate abiotic stress conditions, further promoting desirable growth and enhancing crop productivity[91,92].

    • With the ongoing effects of climate change, plants face stresses like drought, heat waves, salinity, pests, and extreme weather, making stress tolerance vital for crop productivity and food security[93].

      Since drought conditions are becoming more severe worldwide, increasing plant tolerance to drought stress is crucial in managing plant stress. Specifically, glycine betaine compounds are beneficial to plants and soil microbes because they help maintain the water balance of plants, control the aperture of the stoma, and activate stress-responsive genes under drought conditions[94]. For instance, Bacillus and Pseudomonas that are resistant to drought have increased drought stress tolerance in crops like wheat, maize, and cotton[95].

      Increased temperatures can lead to more frequent heat waves, which in turn contribute to reduced crop harvests and other socioeconomic challenges. Some microbes synthesize heat-stabilizing antimicrobial compounds to support membrane stability, protein configuration, and disease prevention in plants under heat stress conditions[82]. For instance, inoculating drought-resistant Sorghum bicolor with thermotolerant, chromium-reducing plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) like Providencia rettgeri and Myroides odoratimimus has been shown to enhance plant growth, boost antioxidant enzyme activities, and reduce stress markers, thereby increasing the crop's heat resistance[96].

      Moreover, the microorganisms that affect plant hormones, including ethylene and auxins, can also cumulatively contribute to heat stress tolerance by altering root architecture and subsequent root growth to improve water and nutrient uptake. For instance, the use of heat-tolerant ACC deaminase-producing Bacillus cereus has been shown to enhance heat stress tolerance in tomato plants[97].

      Plants also need osmotic balance and reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging for survival under the influence of salts in the soil microbes. These can be helpful for coastal and river basins where salinity issues appear due to poor irrigation and rising sea levels[98]. Soaking crops like wheat, rice, and cotton seeds in halotolerant bacteria such as Bacillus and Arthrobacter species has revealed an improvement in salt tolerance[99].

      Overall, soil microbes can significantly promote root growth, nutrient acquisition, and stress tolerance, thereby enhancing plant resilience to extreme weather events, minimizing crop losses, and ensuring food security[100]. Many beneficial microbes also form biofilms on plant roots, facilitating colonization and ensuring proximity to the plant, which enables efficient nutrient exchange and hormone modulation[101]. Current microbial solutions for stress tolerance face scalability issues. The variability of stress conditions across regions requires location-specific microbial formulations. Moreover, the long-term ecological impacts of hormone-modulating microbes are not fully understood. Research must focus on the production of climate-resilient microbial strains, genomics-assisted selection of multi-trait strains, robust field validations, and co-development with local farming systems to ensure scalability.

    • Soil microbes improve soil structure by altering its physiochemical properties. Fungi and bacteria contribute to the formation and stabilization of soil aggregates. Fungal hyphae physically entangle soil particles, while fungi produce extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), such as glomalin, which act as a 'glue' binding particles together. Similarly, bacteria, cyanobacteria, and microalgae produce sticky compounds like extracellular polysaccharides and proteins that help cement soil particles, enhancing aggregate stability. For example, EPS produced by Sphingomonas paucimobilis and Caulobacter crescentus creates hydrophobic coatings on soil aggregates, making them more resistant to erosion[102]. Microbial activities, including enzymatic interactions, nutrient sharing, biofilm formation, and anaerobic–aerobic partnerships, facilitate the breakdown of complex organic matter and nutrient cycling, improving overall soil health and nutrient availability[103]. Environmental factors such as tillage, soil compaction, and chemical residues can disrupt these microbial networks. Research is needed to identify keystone species in soil aggregation and to quantify their contributions under different management systems. Incorporating soil structural metrics into soil health indices may better capture the impact of microbial interventions.

      Some microbes are capable of purifying soil by mitigating the impact of soil pollutants, especially heavy metals, through the following processes (Table 4). This environmental pollution is a major concern as it affects the yield and the quality of food produced due to the overuse of fertilizers, pesticides, and other agro-products like livestock manure[104]. Certain microorganisms are capable of adsorbing and concentrating these toxic elements on the outer surfaces of their cells, thus sequestering them[105]. Some can synthesize enzymes that can convert heavy metals into forms that are less toxic or even non-soluble, thus decreasing their bio accessibility and translocation[106]. Some microbes can synthesize chelating agents or organic acids that sequester the heavy metals and form complexes or precipitates that are insoluble[107]. Some species can even transform certain heavy metals into volatile compounds, thus eliminating them from the soil[108]. The collective behavior of diverse microorganisms is often more efficient than that of individuals because of additive and mutually dependent metabolic processes. Techniques such as bio stimulation and bioaugmentation, where the addition of organic amendments or introduction of certain microbial strains help in increasing indigenous soil microbial activity in degrading or immobilizing the heavy metals[109].

      Table 4.  Microbes involved in bioremediation[105].

      Heavy metal Micro-organism Average sorption efficiency (%)
      Chromium (Cr) Bacteria Acinetobacter sp. 87
      Sporosarcina saromensis 82.5
      Bacillus circulans 96
      Bacillus cereus 78
      Bacillus subtilis 99.6
      Pseudomonas aeruginosa 72
      Fungi Aspergillus sp. 92
      Saccharomyces cerevisiae 95
      Lead (Pb) Bacteria Cellulosimicrobium sp. 99.3–84.6
      Methylobacterium organophilum 62.28
      Bacillus firmus 98.3
      Staphylococcus sp. 82.6
      Cobalt (Co) Bacteria Vibrio fluvialis
      Mercery (Hg) Bacteria Enterobacter cloacae 28.6
      Klebsiella pneumoniae 29.8
      Pseudomonas aeruginosa 90
      Bacillus licheniformis 70
      Fungi Candida parapsilosis 80
      Nikel (Ni) Bacteria Desulfovibrio desulfuricans 97.4–78.2
      Flavobacterium sp. 25
      Pseudomonas sp. 53
      Fungi Aspergillus versicolor 30.5
      Aspergillus niger 58
      Copper (Cu) Bacteria Micrococcus sp. 55
      Desulfovibrio desulfuricans 90.3–90.1
      Bacillus firmus 74.9

      Other than heavy metals, soils' natural microbial communities are engaged with removing or degrading various other pollutants such as hydrocarbons and petroleum products, chlorinated organic compounds, pesticides and herbicides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dyes and textile effluents, plastics, and microplastics[106]. But the potential capacity and rate depends on microbial species, the nature and concentration of the pollutant, and the environmental conditions. A summary of the benefits of the soil's natural microbial community on sustainable agriculture is shown in Fig. 4.

      Figure 4. 

      Benefits of soil natural microbial community on sustainable agriculture.

    • To increase microbial content and promote beneficial microbial partnerships in agricultural fields, several cost-effective actions can be implemented. First, maximizing soil health and quality is essential, followed by avoiding practices that hinder microbial multiplication.

      Incorporating organic matter sources such as compost, manure, or green manures into the soil provides essential nutrients and energy for microbial growth[110]. Organic matter also enhances soil structure, aeration, and water-holding capacity, creating a favorable environment for microbial communities. Implementing diverse crop rotations and cover crops ensures a continuous supply of organic matter and root exudates[111,112]. Integrating trees, shrubs, and crops in agroforestry systems or practicing intercropping increases plant diversity, creating beneficial micro-climatic zones that foster microbial growth[113,114]. Maintaining soil coverage with mulch, cover crops, or crop residues helps retain soil moisture and regulate temperature, which are ideal conditions for microbial communities[115].

      If purely organic farming is not feasible, integrated nutrient management can be adopted, combining organic and inorganic fertilizers to provide a balanced nutrient supply[116]. Proper irrigation scheduling, such as drip irrigation or deficit irrigation, helps maintain suitable soil moisture levels, avoiding anaerobic conditions or microbial dormancy due to drought[117]. Additionally, soil fertility can be improved with biochar and ash-like amendments[118120].

      Adopting reduced tillage or no-till farming preserves soil structure and minimizes disruption to microbial habitats[121]. The excessive use of chemical inputs, like synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and agrochemicals, can disrupt beneficial microbial communities and damage soil ecosystems[116]. It suppresses their growth and creates imbalances in soil pH and nutrient levels.

      Growers can periodically apply biofertilizers containing beneficial microorganisms, such as rhizobia, azotobacter, and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, which aid in nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, and plant growth promotion[122]. Similarly, microbial-based biopesticides can replace chemical pesticides, supporting a healthier soil ecosystem[123]. Additionally, different plant species can selectively recruit and support specific microbial communities, fostering a diverse and balanced soil microbiome.

    • While considerable progress has been made in characterizing the roles of soil microbes in agriculture, significant gaps remain. Many microbial inoculants perform inconsistently due to environmental variability, soil type incompatibility, or microbial competition. Moreover, the specificity of plant-microbe interactions challenges the development of universal solutions. Conflicting reports about the efficacy of certain microbial strains under abiotic stress, and limited understanding of their long-term ecological impacts, further complicate adoption. There is also debate over the effectiveness of single-strain vs consortia-based approaches. Addressing these gaps requires interdisciplinary research, open-access microbial databases, and harmonized testing protocols across agroecological zones.

    • Identifying the full potential of each microbe in agriculture can be used to develop targeted microbial applications. Functional genomics enables the study of genes and active pathways in microbial communities through techniques such as metagenomics and metatranscriptomics[124]. Meta-genomics is the analysis of microbial communities directly from environmental samples, without the usual lab culturing[125]. This technology provides complete information about the diversity and functional potential of soil microbiomes. Such a study could reveal which microbes play key roles in essential functions like nutrient cycling, pathogen suppression, stress management, and growth promotion. Moreover, the molecular plant-microbe interactions studies help explain how plants recruit specific microbes through root exudates, and how such microbes impact plant physiology and development[126]. Understanding microbial networking, how microbes form complex networks and communicate through signaling molecules, can also help identify keystone species or functional groups that significantly impact soil health and plant productivity. By deciphering these microbial functions, scientists can design inoculants tailored to specific agricultural needs, such as promoting growth under drought conditions or enhancing resistance to pests.

    • Microbial breeding is a novel strategy described in choosing and optimizing persuasive characteristics of microbial strains for a beneficial impact on the agricultural system[127]. As in plant or animal breeding, microbial breeding begins with selection through cultivation, with researchers looking for strains with an inherent ability to perform specific functions such as nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, or suppression of specific pests and diseases. These strains may be cultured and isolated so that their quantity and potential can be enhanced. For example, beneficial mutations can be induced through chemical mutagens or the modern and more precise CRISPR, gifted gene manipulation to the microbial genome to produce strains with better characteristics, such as higher tolerance to stress or higher production of bacterial growth hormone[128]. Yet, the focus of the traditional approaches tends to be single-strain application, whereas microbial consortia design entails the development of microbial communities comprising multiple species that jointly provide improved value to plants and soil[129]. These consortia are comparatively better and have the potential to exhibit better results under different environmental conditions of environment than single strains. Microbial consortia can be tailored to specific crops and climate conditions, making them a powerful tool for climate-resilient and sustainable farming. By enhancing these microbial communities, farmers can improve crop yields and soil quality while reducing their dependence on chemical inputs[130]. By developing customized microbial products that are better suited to specific crops, soil types, or climates, microbial breeding can reduce the reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

    • This approach can be identified as a way to implement the principles of sustainable agriculture by using microbes that are native to the given soil type and climate[131]. While the introduced microbes could fix nitrogen and solubilize phosphorus, indigenous microbes are more efficient than the introduced microbes since they are accustomed to the local stresses, including drought, salinity, or fluctuations in the pH of the soil[132]. Another advantage involves the use of native microbial communities in farming, which can also help in minimizing the use of chemicals and can be used as organic replacements for chemical fertilizers[133]. Promoting the use of local microbes might contribute to the rejuvenation and improvement of the soil's beneficial microbiome state, which would improve agricultural soil efficiency. Furthermore, the innovation based just on local microbial communities enables achieving regional microbial solutions, for instance, necessary in the area with a specific climate or soil that does not respond to the already existing microbial products.

      By focusing on synthetic biology and microbial engineering, microbiome editing, machine learning, and AI in plant science, future microbial research can significantly advance sustainable agriculture[134]. These approaches offer innovative solutions to enhance crop health and yield while reducing their negative effects on the environment.

      Integrating microbial solutions with modern technology not only enhances the efficacy of microbial applications but also aligns with sustainable agricultural practices. Monitoring and managing soil microbiomes are necessary for sustainable agriculture. As a summary, it includes: (1) sustainable agricultural practices like reduced tillage, cover cropping, and organic amendments; (2) uses of advanced sensor technology and data analytics, which allow for real-time monitoring of soil microbiomes; and (3) implementing practices such as crop rotation, reduced chemical input, and organic farming, which can sustain beneficial microbial communities.

    • The world faces immense challenges in achieving global food security while preserving the integrity of natural ecosystems. Conventional agricultural practices have contributed to soil degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss, necessitating a shift towards more sustainable and regenerative approaches. In this context, harnessing the power of microbial partnerships emerges as an important solution to address these challenges. Natural microbial community plays vital roles in nutrient cycling, pathogen suppression, stress tolerance enhancement, and overall plant growth promotion. Fostering symbiotic relationships between plants and beneficial microorganisms would unlock the potential for yield-enhancing and climate-resilient agricultural practices. From nitrogen-fixing bacteria to phosphate-solubilizing fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal associations, these microbial partnerships offer a nature-based solution to minimize the dependency on synthetic inputs and suppress environmental impact. However, identifying true microbial partnerships requires a multifaceted approach. Continued research efforts are needed to identify new microbes and their synergistic interactions, design optimized microbial consortia tailored to specific crop types and environmental conditions, and develop effective delivery and monitoring systems for these beneficial microbes. Additionally, integrating microbial partnerships with precision agriculture techniques can enhance the efficiency and targeted application of these microbial inoculants. Interdisciplinary collaborations among microbiologists, plant scientists, agronomists, and climatologists will be crucial to accelerate the translation of these microbial solutions into practical agricultural applications. As the world strives to meet the growing global demand for food while mitigating the impact of climate change, embracing microbial partnerships contributes to a sustainable and nature-based approach to agriculture.

      • Not applicable.

      • The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Dissanayaka NS, Atapattu AJ; data collection: Dissanayaka NS; analysis and interpretation of results: Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD; draft manuscript preparation: Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

      • Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

      • We would like to express our appreciation to the technical staff of the Agronomy Division of the Coconut Research Institute. We would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive evaluation.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2025 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (4)  Table (4) References (134)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2025. Microbial partnerships in agriculture: boosting crop health and productivity. Circular Agricultural Systems 5: e013 doi: 10.48130/cas-0025-0011
    Dissanayaka NS, Udumann SS, Nuwarapaksha TD, Atapattu AJ. 2025. Microbial partnerships in agriculture: boosting crop health and productivity. Circular Agricultural Systems 5: e013 doi: 10.48130/cas-0025-0011

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return