Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Review Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Microbial seed biopriming: A promising approach for enhancing crop performance under abiotic stress

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14903
Submitted
9 April 2026
Published
01-07-2026

Abstract

Abiotic stresses such as drought, salinity, heat and heavy metal toxicity are major constraints limiting global agricultural productivity and posing a serious threat to food security. Therefore, the development of sustainable and eco-friendly strategies to enhance crop resilience under adverse environmental conditions is imperative. Biopriming, a novel strategy for enhancing the physiological and biochemical activities of seeds through the use of beneficial microbes such as fungi, bacteria and yeast, has gained significant attention for its potential to improve plant tolerance under different abiotic stresses. This review explores the underlying mechanisms by which biopriming enhances stress resilience, including modulation of phytohormonal balance, activation of antioxidant defence systems, osmolyte accumulation and improved nutrient acquisition. In addition, the contributions of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), endophytes and fungal inoculants in inducing systemic stress tolerance are critically evaluated. Evidence from recent studies demonstrates that biopriming can improve seed germination by 10–15 %, seedling vigour by 10–20 %, root and shoot growth by 10–15 %, chlorophyll retention by 10–20 % and grain or biomass yield by 5–10 % under various stress conditions, depending on crop species, microbial strain and severity of stress. Thus, seed biopriming has the potential to bridge the gap between potential and actual yield and serves as a valuable approach to improve crop performance and productivity under adverse environments. By unlocking the potential of bioinoculants, agricultural production systems can become more resilient to climate change.

References

  1. 1. Raut MK. Global age-specific denominator estimation for monitoring of health and nutrition SDGs and indicators based on population projections of the UN world population prospects, 2017 revision, for the year 2018. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2019;6(1):177. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20185240
  2. 2. Desoky ESM, Saad AM, El-Saadony MT, Merwad ARM, Rady MM. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: potential improvement in antioxidant defense system and suppression of oxidative stress for alleviating salinity stress in Triticum aestivum L. plants. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2020;30:101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101878
  3. 3. Bukhari SAH, Peerzada AM, Javed MH, Dawood M, Hussain N, Ahmad S. Growth and development dynamics in agronomic crops under environmental stress. In: Agronomic Crops: Volume 1: Production Technologies. Springer; 2019. p. 83–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9151-5_6
  4. 4. Battaglia M, Lee C, Thomason W, Fike J, Sadeghpour A. Hail damage impacts on corn productivity: a review. Crop Sci. 2019;59(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.04.0285
  5. 5. Fahad S, Bajwa AA, Nazir U, Anjum SA, Farooq A, Zohaib A, et al. Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01147
  6. 6. Zlatev Z, Lidon FC. An overview on drought induced changes in plant growth, water relations and photosynthesis. Emir J Food Agric. 2012;24(1). https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v24i1.10599
  7. 7. Edmondson JL, Davies ZG, Gaston KJ, Leake JR. Urban cultivation in allotments maintains soil qualities adversely affected by conventional agriculture. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51(4):880–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12254
  8. 8. Muniyappan VK, Sundaralingam K, Sivakumar U, Geetha VV, Jerlin R, Shobana N. Enhancing plant resilience and drought stress in green gram through seed priming with nodule-associated plant probiotics. Plant Sci Today. 2024;11(4). https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4603
  9. 9. Geetha VV, Muniyappan VK, Sundaralingam K, Hemavathy AT, Sivakumar U, Vanitha C. Probiotic assisted drought tolerance in green gram: a novel strategy for sustainable agriculture. HORIZON. 2025;12(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6497
  10. 10. Kopecká R, Kameniarová M, Černý M, Brzobohatý B, Novák J. Abiotic stress in crop production. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(7):6603. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076603
  11. 11. Zhang H, Zhu J, Gong Z, Zhu JK. Abiotic stress responses in plants. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23(2):104–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00413-0
  12. 12. Zhang Y, Xu J, Li R, Ge Y, Li Y, Li R. Plants' response to abiotic stress: mechanisms and strategies. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(13):10915. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241310915
  13. 13. Gechev T, Petrov V. Reactive oxygen species and abiotic stress in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(20):7433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21207433
  14. 14. Dos Santos TB, Ribas AF, de Souza SGH, Budzinski IGF, Domingues DS. Physiological responses to drought, salinity and heat stress in plants: a review. Stresses. 2022;2(1):113–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2010009
  15. 15. Berauer BJ, Steppuhn A, Schweiger AH. The multidimensionality of plant drought stress: the relative importance of edaphic and atmospheric drought. Plant Cell Environ. 2024;47(9):3528–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.15012
  16. 16. Qiao M, Hong C, Jiao Y, Hou S, Gao H. Impacts of drought on photosynthesis in major food crops and the related mechanisms of plant responses to drought. Plants. 2024;13(13):1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13131808
  17. 17. Sachdev S, Ansari SA, Ansari MI, Fujita M, Hasanuzzaman M. Abiotic stress and reactive oxygen species: generation, signaling and defense mechanisms. Antioxidants. 2021;10(2):277. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10020277
  18. 18. Asargew MF, Masutomi Y, Kobayashi K, Aono M. Water stress changes the relationship between photosynthesis and stomatal conductance. Sci Total Environ. 2024;907:167886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167886
  19. 19. Al-Khayri JM, Rashmi R, Surya Ulhas R, Sudheer WN, Banadka A, Nagella P, et al. The role of nanoparticles in response of plants to abiotic stress at physiological, biochemical and molecular levels. Plants. 2023;12(2):292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12020292
  20. 20. Zhao C, Zhang H, Song C, Zhu JK, Shabala S. Mechanisms of plant responses and adaptation to soil salinity. The Innovation. 2020;1(1):100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100017
  21. 21. Balasubramaniam T, Shen G, Esmaeili N, Zhang H. Plant responses mechanisms to salinity stress. Plants. 2023;12(12):2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122253
  22. 22. Acosta-Motos JR, Ortuño MF, Bernal-Vicente A, Diaz-Vivancos P, Sanchez-Blanco MJ, Hernandez JA. Plant responses to salt stress: adaptive mechanisms. Agronomy. 2017;7(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010018
  23. 23. Gupta B, Huang B. Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: physiological, biochemical and molecular characterization. Int J Genomics. 2014;2014:701596. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/701596
  24. 24. Dramalis C, Katsantonis D, Koutroubas SD. Rice growth, assimilate translocation and grain quality in response to salinity under Mediterranean conditions. AIMS Agric Food. 2021;6(1). https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2021017
  25. 25. Voothuluru P, Wu Y, Sharp RE. Not so hidden anymore: advances and challenges in understanding root growth under water deficits. Plant Cell. 2024;36(5):1377–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koae055
  26. 26. Hnilickova H, Kraus K, Vachova P, Hnilicka F. Salinity stress affects photosynthesis, malondialdehyde formation and proline content in Portulaca oleracea L. Plants. 2021;10(5):845. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050845
  27. 27. Zahra N, Hafeez MB, Ghaffar A, Kausar A, Al Zeidi M, Siddique KH, et al. Plant photosynthesis under heat stress: effects and management. Environ Exp Bot. 2023;206:105178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.105178
  28. 28. Samat AT, Soltabayeva A, Bekturova A, Zhanassova K, Auganova D, Masalimov Z, et al. Plant responses to heat stress and advances in mitigation strategies. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1638213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1638213
  29. 29. Swetha M, Rajavel M, Senthil A, Djanaguiraman M, Anitha K, Karthikeyan R. High temperature stress-physiological mechanism in crop plants. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8598
  30. 30. Rashid MA, Hanifah NAS, Abdullah NH, Aris NM, Rahman MHA, Suptian MFM. Heat stress effects on leaf physiological performances, vegetative growth and grain yield of grain corn (Zea mays L.). ARJA. 2023;16(3):51–63. https://doi.org/10.9734/arja/2023/v16i3392
  31. 31. Akter N, Islam MR. Heat stress effects and management in wheat: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2017;37(5):37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0443-9
  32. 32. Kaushal N, Bhandari K, Siddique KH, Nayyar H. Food crops face rising temperatures: an overview of responses, adaptive mechanisms and approaches to improve heat tolerance. Cogent Food Agric. 2016;2(1):1134380. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1134380
  33. 33. Lal MK, Tiwari RK, Gahlaut V, Mangal V, Kumar A, Singh MP. Physiological and molecular insights on wheat responses to heat stress. Plant Cell Rep. 2022;41(3):501–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-021-02784-4
  34. 34. Kumar A, Muthuramalingam P, Kumar R, Tiwari S, Verma L, Park S. Adapting crops to rising temperatures: understanding heat stress and plant resilience mechanisms. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(21):10426. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262110426
  35. 35. Ali B, Gill RA. Heavy metal toxicity in plants: recent insights on physiological and molecular aspects, volume II. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:1016257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1016257
  36. 36. Bazzaz F, Carlson RW, Rolfe G. The effect of heavy metals on plants: part I. inhibition of gas exchange in sunflower by Pb, Cd, Ni and Tl. Environ Pollut. 1974;7(4):241–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-9327(74)90032-9
  37. 37. Broos K, Mertens J, Smolders E. Toxicity of heavy metals in soil assessed with various soil microbial and plant growth assays: a comparative study. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2005;24(3):634–40. https://doi.org/10.1897/04-346R.1
  38. 38. Vasilachi IC, Stoleru V, Gavrilescu M. Analysis of heavy metal impacts on cereal crop growth and development in contaminated soils. Agriculture. 2023;13(10):1983. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13101983
  39. 39. Thallapally S, Thirunahari U. Physiological and morphological response of heavy metal stress in Vigna mungo L. Hepper. Int J Cur Res Rev. 2024;16(15):7. https://doi.org/10.7324/IJCRR.2024.1615
  40. 40. Rashid A, Schutte BJ, Ulery A, Deyholos MK, Sanogo S, Lehnhoff EA. Heavy metal contamination in agricultural soil: environmental pollutants affecting crop health. Agronomy. 2023;13(6):1521. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061521
  41. 41. Li Y, Rahman SU, Qiu Z, Shahzad SM, Nawaz MF, Huang J. Toxic effects of cadmium on the physiological and biochemical attributes of plants and phytoremediation strategies: a review. Environ Pollut. 2023;325:121433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121433
  42. 42. Ananthi M, Selvaraju P, Sundaralingam K. Effect of bio-priming using bio-control agents on seed germination and seedling vigour in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) ‘PKM 1.’ J Hortic Sci Biotechnol. 2014;89(5):564–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2014.11613124
  43. 43. Devika OS, Singh S, Sarkar D, Barnwal P, Suman J, Rakshit A. Seed priming: a potential supplement in integrated resource management under fragile intensive ecosystems. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2021;5:654001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.654001
  44. 44. Singh RP, Jha PN. The PGPR Stenotrophomonas maltophilia SBP-9 augments resistance against biotic and abiotic stress in wheat plants. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01945
  45. 45. Vurukonda SSKP, Vardharajula S, Shrivastava M, SkZ A. Enhancement of drought stress tolerance in crops by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Microbiol Res. 2016;184:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2015.12.003
  46. 46. Sarkar D, Rakshit A. Safeguarding the fragile rice–wheat ecosystem of the Indo-Gangetic Plains through bio-priming and bioaugmentation interventions. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2020;96(12):fiaa221. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa221
  47. 47. Chandra Nayaka S, Niranjana S, Uday Shankar A, Niranjan Raj S, Reddy M, Prakash H. Seed biopriming with novel strain of Trichoderma harzianum for the control of toxigenic Fusarium verticillioides and fumonisins in maize. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot. 2010;43(3):264–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235400802688715
  48. 48. Sarkar D, Rakshit A. Bio-priming in combination with mineral fertilizer improves nutritional quality and yield of red cabbage under Middle Gangetic Plains, India. Sci Hortic. 2021;283:110075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110075
  49. 49. Geetha VV, Muniyappan VK, Sundaralingam K, Hemavathy AT, Sivakumar U, Vanitha C. Probiotic assisted drought tolerance in Vigna radiata L.: a novel strategy for sustainable agriculture. HORIZON. 2025;12(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6497
  50. 50. Palani-Vasantha S, Shanmugam K, Ranganathan U, Venkatachalam R, Doraiswamy U, Kulandaivel M, et al. A new dawn for coriander seeds: overcoming dormancy through innovative and comprehensive enhancement techniques. 2024.
  51. 51. Aizaz M, Ahmad W, Asaf S, Khan I, Saad Jan S, Salim Alamri S, et al. Characterization of the seed biopriming, plant growth-promoting and salinity-ameliorating potential of halophilic fungi isolated from hypersaline habitats. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(5):4904. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24054904
  52. 52. Muniyappan VK, Sundaralingam K, Sivakumar U, Geetha VV, Murugeshwari T. Plant probiotics modulate physio-biochemical characteristics of Vigna radiata cultivars under polyethylene glycol induced drought stress. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2026;1–14.
  53. 53. Jatana BS, Grover S, Ram H, Baath GS. Seed priming: molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying biotic and abiotic stress tolerance. Agronomy. 2024;14(12):2901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14122901
  54. 54. Ben-Jabeur M, Kthiri Z, Djébali N, Karmous C, Hamada W. A case study of seed biopriming and chemical priming: seed coating with two types of bioactive compounds improves the physiological state of germinating seeds in durum wheat. Cereal Res Commun. 2023;51(1):125–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-022-00205-0
  55. 55. Forni C, Borromeo I. The utilization of seed priming as a tool to overcome salt and drought stresses: is still a long way to go? Seeds. 2023;2(4):406–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/seeds2040030
  56. 56. Mellidou I, Karamanoli K. Unlocking PGPR-mediated abiotic stress tolerance: what lies beneath. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2022;6:832896. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.832896
  57. 57. Pulivathi J, Masih SA, Maxton A. Priming techniques for sustainable agro-ecological system and abiotic stress mollification: a review. Environ Conserv J. 2024;25(3):913–20. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.2024.25327
  58. 58. Sukanya V, Patel R, Suthar K, Singh D. An overview: mechanism involved in biopriming mediated plant growth promotion. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2018;6(5):771–83. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.6533
  59. 59. Glick BR. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: mechanisms and applications. Scientifica. 2012;2012:963401. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/963401
  60. 60. Kavino M, Harish S, Kumar N, Saravanakumar D, Samiyappan R. Effect of chitinolytic PGPR on growth, yield and physiological attributes of banana (Musa spp.) under field conditions. Appl Soil Ecol. 2010;45(2):71–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.03.003
  61. 61. Forti C, Shankar A, Singh A, Balestrazzi A, Prasad V, Macovei A. Hydropriming and biopriming improve Medicago truncatula seed germination and upregulate DNA repair and antioxidant genes. Genes. 2020;11(3):242. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11030242
  62. 62. Singh S, Singh UB, Trivdi M, Malviya D, Sahu PK, Roy M, et al. Restructuring the cellular responses: connecting microbial intervention with ecological fitness and adaptiveness to the maize (Zea mays L.) grown in saline–sodic soil. Front Microbiol. 2021;11:568325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.568325
  63. 63. Mellidou I, Ainalidou A, Papadopoulou A, Leontidou K, Genitsaris S, Karagiannis E. Comparative transcriptomics and metabolomics reveal an intricate priming mechanism involved in PGPR-mediated salt tolerance in tomato. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:713984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.713984
  64. 64. Fiodor A, Ajijah N, Dziewit L, Pranaw K. Biopriming of seed with plant growth-promoting bacteria for improved germination and seedling growth. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1142966. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1142966
  65. 65. Mitra D, Mondal R, Khoshru B, Shadangi S, Mohapatra PKD, Panneerselvam P. Rhizobacteria mediated seed bio-priming triggers resistance and plant growth for sustainable crop production. Curr Res Microb Sci. 2021;2:100071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100071
  66. 66. Singh P, Vaishnav A, Liu H, Xiong C, Singh HB, Singh BK. Seed biopriming for sustainable agriculture and ecosystem restoration. Microb Biotechnol. 2023;16(12):2212–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14230
  67. 67. Jiang M, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Yuan MM, Ding J, Yergeau E, Zhou J. Home-based microbial solution to boost crop growth in low-fertility soil. New Phytol. 2023;239(2):752–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18945
  68. 68. Bradáčová K, Florea AS, Bar-Tal A, Minz D, Yermiyahu U, Shawahna R. Microbial consortia versus single-strain inoculants: an advantage in PGPM-assisted tomato production? Agronomy. 2019;9(2):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020105
  69. 69. Ajinde AO, Ogunnusi TO, Iyanda OJ, Akpor OB. Evaluation of germination and seedling growth of plant seeds primed with cultures of Providencia sp. and Bacillus cereus under varying conditions. Open Agric J. 2023;17(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/18743315-v17-e230914-2023-03
  70. 70. Bueno CB, Dos Santos RM, de Souza Buzo F, de Andrade da Silva MSR, Rigobelo EC. Effects of chemical fertilization and microbial inoculum on Bacillus subtilis colonization in soybean and maize plants. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:901157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.901157
  71. 71. Badal R, Mehta N, Saini R. Standardization of biophysical factors affecting the seed biopriming and its influence on the growth and yield of garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Agric Polnohospodárstvo. 2025;71(1):12–25. https://doi.org/10.2478/agri-2025-0002
  72. 72. Miljaković D, Marinković J, Tamindžić G, Đorđević V, Tintor B, Milošević D. Bio-priming of soybean with Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Bacillus megaterium: strategy to improve seed germination and the initial seedling growth. Plants. 2022;11(15):1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11151927
  73. 73. Makhaye G, Aremu AO, Gerrano AS, Tesfay S, Du Plooy CP, Amoo SO. Biopriming with seaweed extract and microbial-based commercial biostimulants influences seed germination of five Abelmoschus esculentus genotypes. Plants. 2021;10(7):1327. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071327
  74. 74. Alameda-Martín A, Chamizo S, Rodríguez-Caballero E, Muñoz-Rojas M, Cantón Y. The potential of biocrust-forming cyanobacteria to enhance seedling growth of native semi-arid plants through seed biopriming. J Plant Growth Regul. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-025-01123-4
  75. 75. Stoll A, Salvatierra-Martínez R, González M, Cisternas J, Rodríguez Á, Vega-Gálvez A, et al. Importance of crop phenological stages for the efficient use of PGPR inoculants. Sci Rep. 2021;11:19548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99010-2
  76. 76. Andreozzi A, Prieto P, Mercado-Blanco J, Monaco S, Zampieri E, Romano S. Efficient colonization of the endophytes Herbaspirillum huttiense RCA24 and Enterobacter cloacae RCA25 influences the physiological parameters of Oryza sativa L. cv. Baldo rice. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21(9):3489–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14679
  77. 77. O’Callaghan M, Ballard RA, Wright D. Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: limitations and opportunities. Soil Use Manag. 2022;38(3):1340–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12745
  78. 78. Bradáčová K, Florea AS, Bar-Tal A, Minz D, Yermiyahu U, Shawahna R. Microbial consortia versus single-strain inoculants: an advantage in PGPM-assisted tomato production? Agronomy. 2019;9(2):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9020105
  79. 79. Bueno CB, Dos Santos RM, de Souza Buzo F, de Andrade da Silva MSR, Rigobelo EC. Effects of chemical fertilization and microbial inoculum on Bacillus subtilis colonization in soybean and maize plants. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:901157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.901157
  80. 80. Stoll A, Salvatierra-Martínez R, González M, Cisternas J, Rodríguez Á, Vega-Gálvez A, et al. Importance of crop phenological stages for the efficient use of PGPR inoculants. Sci Rep. 2021;11:19548. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99010-2
  81. 81. Bouremani N, Cherif-Silini H, Silini A, Bouket AC, Luptakova L, Alenezi FN. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): a rampart against the adverse effects of drought stress. Water. 2023;15(3):418. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030418
  82. 82. Alonazi MA, Alwathnani HA, Al-Barakah FN, Alotaibi F. Native plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria containing ACC deaminase promote plant growth and alleviate salinity and heat stress in maize (Zea mays L.) plants in Saudi Arabia. Plants. 2025;14(7):1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14071107
  83. 83. Sahoo A, Yadav G, Mehta T, Meena M, Swapnil P. Omics-driven insights into plant growth-promoting microorganisms for sustainable agriculture. Discover Sustain. 2025;6:659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-00659-1
  84. 84. Dagher D, Taskos D, Mourouzidou S, Monokrousos N. Microbial-enhanced abiotic stress tolerance in grapevines: molecular mechanisms and synergistic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and endophytes. Horticulturae. 2025;11(6):592. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11060592
  85. 85. Wahab A, Muhammad M, Munir A, Abdi G, Zaman W, Ayaz A. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in regulating growth, enhancing productivity and potentially influencing ecosystems under abiotic and biotic stresses. Plants. 2023;12(17):3102. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12173102
  86. 86. Al-Hawamdeh F, Ayad JY, Alananbeh KM, Akash MW. Bacterial endophytes and their contributions to alleviating drought and salinity stresses in wheat: a systematic review of physiological mechanisms. Agriculture. 2024;14(5):769. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14050769
  87. 87. Pérez-Moncada UA, Santander C, Ruiz A, Vidal C, Santos C, Cornejo P. Design of microbial consortia based on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, yeasts and bacteria to improve strawberry plants under water deficit. Plants. 2024;13(11):1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111556
  88. 88. Tahiri A ilah, Meddich A, Raklami A, Alahmad A, Bechtaoui N, Anli M. Assessing the potential role of compost, PGPR and AMF in improving tomato plant growth, yield, fruit quality and water stress tolerance. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2022;22(1):743–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-022-00849-3
  89. 89. Shaffique S, Imran M, Injamum-Ul-Hoque M, Zainurin N, Peter O, Alomrani SO. Unraveling the new member Bacillus pumilus SH-9 of Bacillaceae family and its potential role in seed biopriming to mitigate drought stress in Oryza sativa. Plant Stress. 2024;11:100318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2024.100318
  90. 90. Piri R, Moradi A, Balouchi H, Salehi A. Improvement of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) seed performance under drought stress by seed coating and biopriming. Sci Hortic. 2019;257:108667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108667
  91. 91. Figueiredo MV, Burity HA, Martínez CR, Chanway CP. Alleviation of drought stress in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by co-inoculation with Paenibacillus polymyxa and Rhizobium tropici. Appl SoilEcol. 2008;40(1):182–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.02.004
  92. 92. Kang SM, Radhakrishnan R, Khan AL, Kim MJ, Park JM, Kim BR. Gibberellin secreting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida H-2-3 modulates hormonal and stress physiology of soybean under salinity and drought. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2014;84:115–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2014.09.006
  93. 93. Li H, Yue H, Li L, Liu Y, Zhang H, Wang J. Seed biostimulant Bacillus sp. MGW9 improves salt tolerance of maize during germination. AMB Express. 2021;11:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-021-01237-8
  94. 94. Issa A, Esmaeel Q, Sanchez L, Courteaux B, Guise JF, Gibon Y, et al. Impacts of Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN on tomato under high temperature. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01397
  95. 95. El-Ballat EM, Elsilk SE, Ali HM, Ali HE, Hano C, El-Esawi MA. Metal-resistant PGPR strain Azospirillum brasilense EMCC1454 enhances growth and chromium stress tolerance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plants. 2023;12(11):2110. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12112110
  96. 96. Li H, Yue H, Li L, Liu Y, Zhang H, Wang J. Seed biostimulant Bacillus sp. MGW9 improves salt tolerance of maize during germination. AMB Express. 2021;11:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-021-01237-8
  97. 97. Issa A, Esmaeel Q, Sanchez L, Courteaux B, Guise JF, Gibon Y, et al. Impacts of Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN on tomato under high temperature. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01397
  98. 98. El-Ballat EM, Elsilk SE, Ali HM, Ali HE, Hano C, El-Esawi MA. Metal-resistant PGPR strain Azospirillum brasilense EMCC1454 enhances growth and chromium stress tolerance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plants. 2023;12(11):2110. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12112110

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.