Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
DOI 10.1007/s11157-013-9317-z
REVIEW PAPER
Rhizosphere: its structure, bacterial diversity
and significance
Pratibha Prashar • Neera Kapoor •
Sarita Sachdeva
! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Sustainable agricultural practices are the
answer to multifaceted problems that have resulted due
to prolonged and indiscriminate use of chemical based
agronomic tools to improve crop productions for the
last many decades. The hunt for suitable ecofriendly
options to replace the chemical fertilizers and pesti-
cides has thus been aggravated. Owing to their versatile
and unmatchable capacities microbial agents offer an
attractive and feasible option to develop the biological
tools to replace/supplement the chemicals. Exploring
the microorganisms that reside in close proximity to
the plant is thus a justified move in the direction to
achieve this target. One of the most lucrative options is
to look into the rhizosphere. Rhizosphere may be
defined as the narrow zone of soil that surrounds and
get influenced by the roots of the plants. It is rich in
nutrients compared to the bulk soil and hence exhibit
intense biological and chemical activities. A wide
range of macro and microorganisms including bacte-
ria, fungi, virus, protozoa, algae, nematodes and
microarthropods co-exist in rhizosphere and show a
P. Prashar ! N. Kapoor
School of Sciences, IGNOU, New Delhi, India
e-mail: neerakapoor@ignou.ac.in
P. Prashar (&) ! S. Sachdeva
Department of Biotechnology, FET, MRIU, Sector 43,
Aravalli Hills, Faridabad, India
e-mail: pprashar@gmail.com; pprashar.fet@mriu.edu.in
S. Sachdeva
e-mail: sarita.fet@mriu.edu.in
variety of interactions between themselves as well as
with the plant. Plant friendly bacteria residing in
rhizosphere which exert beneficial affect on it are
called as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
(PGPR). Here we review the structure and bacterial
diversity of the rhizosphere. The major points dis-
cussed here are: (1) structure and composition of the
rhizosphere (2) range of bacteria found in rhizosphere
and their interactions with the plant with a particular
emphasis on PGPR (3) mechanisms of plant growth
promotion by the PGPR (4) rhizosphere competence.
Keywords Sustainable agriculture ! Rhizosphere !
Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria ! Plant–microbe
interactions
1 Introduction
Though microbial diversity constitutes most extraor-
dinary and ubiquitous life on earth still they are not
uniformly distributed in various habitats across the
planet. Majority of the microbial populations are
concentrated in nutrient rich niches like the rhizo-
sphere that have a constant supply of easily utilizable
nutrients. Rhizosphere has an enormous pool of soil
microorganisms and is considered as the ‘hot spot’ for
microbial colonization and activity. It is the largest
ecosystem on earth with huge energy flux (Barriuso
123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

et al. 2008). Generally regarded as a thin zone

(1–2 mm thick), it holds a large volume of soil in it,
which varies greatly with the plant, soil, root structure
and most importantly the method used to determine it
because it does not have a well defined boundary
(Hinsinger et al. 2005). Due to their close proximity
and/or continuous association with the plant, the
diverse forms of microorganisms found in the rhizo-
sphere influence the host plant in a variety of ways.
These may be broadly classified as beneficial effects
leading to improvement of plant health and growth or
harmful effects, i.e. the pathogenic activities. Thus, it
is very important to understand the composition,
ecology, dynamics and activities of rhizospheric
microbial communities, before we can exploit the
rhizosphere microflora as a tool for developing
sustainable agricultural practices.

2 Rhizosphere Fig. 1 A simplistic diagram of rhizosphere

The term ‘‘rhizosphere’’ has been derived from the
Greek word ‘rhiza’, meaning root, and ‘sphere’,
meaning field of influence. It was first defined by
German scientist Hiltner (1904) as ‘‘the zone of soil
immediately adjacent to legume roots that supports
high levels of bacterial activity’’. However, over the
period of time, it has been redefined many times to
include the volume of soil influenced by the root and
parts of root tissues as well as the soil surrounding the
root in which physical, chemical and biological
properties have been changed by root growth and
activity (Pinton et al. 2001). Rhizosphere has been
broadly subdivided into the following three zones
(Clark 1949; Lynch 1987; Pinton et al. 2001) (Fig. 1):
1. Endorhizosphere: that consists of the root tissue
including the endodermis and cortical layers.
2. Rhizoplane: is the root surface where soil particles
and microbes adhere. It consists of epidermis,
cortex and mucilaginous polysaccharide layer.
3. Ectorhizosphere: that consists of soil immediately
adjacent to the root.
Apart from these three basic zones, certain other
layers may be defined in some cases e.g. in plants with
mycorrhizal association, there is a zone termed as the
mycorrhizosphere (Linderman 1988) while in some
other plants another, strongly adhering dense layer
termed as ‘‘rhizosheath’’, is found. It consists of root
hairs, mucoid material, microbes and soil particles
(Curl and Truelove 1986). The root itself is a part of
the rhizosphere as endophytic microorganisms colo-
nize the inner root tissues as well (Bowen and Rovira
1999). The volume of the soil which is not a part of the
rhizosphere, i.e. which is not influenced by the root is
known as bulk soil (Gobat et al. 2004). The dead root
is transformed into soil by rhizospheric activity but it
is different from the bulk soil. Thus, rhizosphere may
be considered as a unique region distinct from the bulk
soil.
2.1 Rhizosphere effect
In the due course of its growth and development, plant
passes through the early stages of seed germination
and seedling growth. During this process a variety of
organic compounds are released from the roots by
exudation, secretion and deposition (Curl and True-
love 1986) making the rhizosphere rich in nutrients as
compared to the bulk soil. This acts as a driving force
for the set up of active and enhanced microbial
populations in root zone, much higher as compared to
the bulk soil (Grayston et al. 1996). This phenomenon
of establishment of rich microflora in the rhizosphere
under the influence of root-secreted nutrients is
referred as the rhizosphere effect or plant effect
(Morgan and Whipps 2001; Antoun and Prevost

123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
2005). It is calculated in terms of rhizosphere ratio, i.e.
R: S by dividing the total number of microorganisms
in the rhizosphere (R) by the corresponding number in
the bulk soil (S) (Aneja 2003). Rhizosphere effect is
reflected by the noticeable difference in the structure
of microbial populations of uncultivated and culti-
vated soils (Antoun and Prevost 2005) and the
variations in bacterial and fungal community struc-
tures with rhizosphere related factors such as the crop
variety (Berg et al. 2006), plant growth developmental
stages (Gomes et al. 2003) and soil characteristics (Nie
et al. 2009).
Though greater rhizosphere effect has been
reported for bacteria that show R: S values ranging
between 10 and 100 or even more (Katznelson et al.
1948) than with fungi (Buyer et al. 2002) however
recent studies utilizing cultivation-independent anal-
ysis of soil microflora have revealed significant
rhizosphere effect for soil fungi as well (Gomes
et al. 2003; Berg et al. 2005). For certain classes of soil
bacteria like ammonifying and denitrifying bacteria
(Rouatt et al. 1960) an even more pronounced
rhizosphere effect has been observed whereas it is
almost negligible for algae (Aneja 2003). Though
some reports have been obtained on stimulating
effects of root exudates of plants like tea and pea on
algal populations under controlled conditions (Had-
field 1960; Cullimore and Woodbine 1963) such
effects have not been found very significant in natural
soil habitats and higher algal populations are generally
recorded in the bulk soils. Soil protozoa form an
important part of the plant–bacteria–protozoa interac-
tions which are critical in nutrient recycling and
selective set-up of beneficial bacterial populations in
the rhizosphere (Kreuzer et al. 2006). Due to the effect
of root derived carbon and large bacterial populations
in the rhizosphere, protozoan population may increase
as much as 35-fold (Zwart et al. 1994) in this zone.
Hence, it may be concluded that owing to the nutrient
richness of rhizosphere and excellent substrate utili-
zation capacities of bacteria, larger bacterial popula-
tions can be encountered in rhizosphere as compared
to other forms of soil microbes.
2.2 Rhizodeposition
The term rhizodeposition was first defined by Whipps
and Lynch (1985) as ‘‘the material lost from plant
roots, including water-soluble exudates, secretions of
insoluble materials, lysates, dead fine roots and gases
like CO2 and ethylene’’. In simple terms it is defined as
‘‘the organic compounds released by living plant roots
into their surrounding environment’’ (Whipps 1990;
Nguyen 2003) and may also include the inorganic ions
(Uren 2001). It is equivalent to almost 15–60 % of the
total photosynthetic production of the plant and leads
to the accumulation of substantial carbon and energy
reserves in the rhizosphere for the microflora (Curl and
Truelove 1986; Lynch and Whipps 1990). The plant-
derived carbon allocated belowground via roots,
consists of three main components (Cheng and
Gershenson 2007):
1. Roots mass: that may be living or dead.
2. Rhizodeposit: materials of plant origin localized
in the rhizosphere or the surrounding soil which
are utilized and transformed by rhizosphere biota
and mixed with soil organic materials.
3. Carbon dioxide: released as a result of respiration
of roots and root symbionts or microbial
respiration.
Rhizodeposition is a significant process in terms of
studying the carbon fluxes in the rhizosphere. Rhizo-
deposit is subdivided into various parts, i.e. root cap
cells and root tissues (sloughed root hairs and epider-
mal cells) (Rovira 1956), mucilage and root exudates
(Nguyen 2003) (Fig. 2). Root exudates are the most
important part of the rhizodeposit and are classified
into two types depending on their molecular weight.
First class comprises of the low molecular weight
components like water soluble compounds including
simple carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids,
plant hormones, vitamins, phenolics, sugar phosphate
esters, ions and many other carbon-containing sec-
ondary metabolites (Uren 2001; Farrar et al. 2003;
Bais et al. 2006; Cheng and Gershenson 2007). High
molecular weight exudates form the second class and
these are generally enzymes, proteins and mucilage
(polysaccharides). High molecular weight exudates
are more significant in terms of total mass of the root
exudates but have comparatively lesser variety than
the first class (Bais et al. 2006).
Exudates may also be classified as active and
passive exudates on the basis of their role and mode of
secretion from the roots (Rougier and Chaboud 1989;
Bais et al. 2006). Passive exudates have unknown
functions and are diffused from the roots as basal
exudation (output of waste materials) depending on
123

Fig. 2 Rhizodeposit. It consists of material of plant origin that is released by the roots and is localized in the rhizosphere. It contributes
significantly towards the total plant-derived carbon in soil as well as developing rich microbial diversity in the rhizosphere
the gradient (Bais et al. 2006). They constitute about
3–5 % of the total carbon fixed during photosynthesis
(Pinton et al. 2001). The active exudates are secreted
through open membrane pores of the plants and have a
specific function such as lubrication and defense
(Jones et al. 2004; Bais et al. 2006).
Another classification of the exudates can be made
on the basis of their biological activity and accordingly
they may be the signaling molecules, phytoalexins,
phytohormones, enzymes or allelochemicals (Nanni-
pieri et al. 2007).
Chemical composition of the rhizodeposit is an
important determinant of the functions and ecological
consequences of rhizodeposition (Cheng and Ger-
shenson 2007). The composition, rate and extent of
exudations depend on genetic factors and vary widely
among plant species and environmental conditions
(Kochian et al. 2005). Persistence of root exudates in
the rhizosphere is governed by their chemical prop-
erties, their stability and the soil volume through
which they diffuse. They may loose their properties
and hence get inactivated as a result of processes like
adsorption, biodegradation, volatilization, chemical
degradation, etc. (Nannipieri et al. 2007).
Exudation provides various kinds of physical and
chemical benefits to the plant like reduction of friction
between root tips and soil, reduction in root desicca-
tion process and improving the structural stability of
soil (Rougier and Chaboud 1989). Rhizodeposition is
expressed in terms of C release by the roots (CdfR) by
measuring the production of labeled CO2 in the
rhizosphere of 14C-labelled plants (Nguyen 2003).
However, apart from carbon compounds, various
kinds of nitrogen containing substances are also
released by the plant roots like nitrates (Wacquant
et al. 1989), ammonium ions (Brophy and Heichel
1989) and amino acids (Rovira 1956; Phillips et al.
2004, 2006).
123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
Rhizodeposition is affected qualitatively as well as
quantitatively by a number of biotic and abiotic factors
associated with plant and soil (Rovira 1956; Lynch
and Whipps 1990; Nguyen 2003; Jones et al. 2004) as
summarized in the Table 1.
Exudation and plant health are mutually related.
The quality and quantity of exudates affects the
microbial diversity including the beneficial and dele-
terious microorganisms as well as the related ecolog-
ical processes in the rhizosphere (Bolton et al. 1993;
Jaeger et al. 1999; Paterson et al. 2007) which in turn
influence the plant processes like the rooting patterns,
nutrient availability and pathogen persistence in the
rhizosphere (Bolton et al. 1993; Bowen and Rovira
1999; Barea 2000). At the same time microbial
activities in the rhizosphere modify the root exudation
process and pattern. Thus, it may be said that
rhizodeposition strongly influence the structural and
functional aspects of microbial communities in the
rhizosphere.
3 Rhizosphere bacterial diversity
Though majority of the soil microorganisms (approx-
imately 99 %) are not culturable, recent advances in
biochemical and molecular genetics techniques for
isolation of unculturable bacterial strains has enabled
the scientists to generate vital information pertaining
to the rhizosphere bacterial communities. Most com-
monly used tools for studying the diversity of uncul-
trable microbes include phospholipid fatty acid
analysis (PLFA), nucleic acid extraction and hybrid-
ization, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based
methods, rRNA sequencing, G ? C percentages and
DNA re-association between bacteria in the commu-
nity, restriction fragment length polymorphism
(RFLP), amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Table 1 Biotic and abiotic factors affecting rhizodeposition

Soil Plant
Biotic Abiotic Biotic Abiotic

Microbial community structure Soil type Plant species Temperature

Microbial community type Soil texture Photosynthesis Moisture
Microbial community activity pH Development stage Humidity
Phytohormone production Impedance Root age Elevated CO2
Toxin production Salinity Root architecture Light intensity
Quorum sensing Water availability Nutrition deficiency Pesticides
Biocontrol agents Organic matter Nodulation Irrigation
Pathogen Redox potential Membrane permeability Ozone
Release of root signal molecules Metal ion content Release of microbial signals Wind speed
Mycorrhiza Compaction Cytosolic concentration Fire
Rooting depth Allelochemical release Available space
Density Latitude, Altitude
Drainage and aeration Erosion
The range and amount of organic and inorganic compounds released by plant roots into the surrounding soil depends on all the listed
soil and plant associated factors

(ARDRA), cloning and sequencing techniques and
microarrays (Smalla et al. 2001; Butler et al. 2003;
Teixeira et al. 2010). However, the volume of
literature on the diversity studies of fungal communi-
ties found in rhizosphere is much less than that for
bacterial diversity because similar molecular tools for
isolation and characterization of fungi have been
developed much later.
As described above, rhizosphere has very high
concentrations of easily degradable carbon sources
due to rhizodeposition. This triggers an inflated rate of
microbial activity in this soil zone that may be up to 50
times higher than in the bulk soil. Thus, complex food
webs develop in the rhizosphere linking both macro
and microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, nematodes,
protozoa, algae and microarthropods (Jeffery et al.
2010). Rhizophere thus harbors an extremely complex
microbial community qualitatively as well as quanti-
tatively and it includes saprophytes, epiphytes, endo-
phytes, pathogens as well as many advantageous
microorganisms (Avis et al. 2008). Rhizospheric
microbial load ranges from 1010 to 1012 per gram of
soil while it is generally less than 108 in the bulk soil
(Foster 1988).
Bacteria are the most abundant microbes in the
rhizosphere and hence they are bound to influence the
plant in a significant manner. Up to 15 % of the total
root surface may be covered by a variety of bacterial
strains (van Loon 2007). The most common genera of
bacteria that have been reported in the rhizosphere are
Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Rhizobia,
Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azotobacter, Mycobac-
terium, Flavobacter, Cellulomonas and Micrococcus.
Predominant bacterial strains in the rhizosphere
includes gram-negative, rod shaped, non-sporulating
bacteria belonging to the groups proteobacteria and
actinobacteria (Atlas and Bartha 1993; Teixeira et al.
2010) of which Pseudomonas are the most abundant.
This may be attributed to the efficiency of gram-
negative bacteria to utilize the root exudates and hence
they are stimulated by rhizodeposition while the gram-
positive bacteria are rather inhibited (Steer and Harris
2000). The aerobic bacteria are relatively lesser
because of the reduced oxygen levels in the rhizo-
sphere owing to root respiration (Garbeva et al. 2004).
Gram-positive, rods or cocci and aerobic spore
forming strains like Bacillus and Clostridium are
comparatively lesser but various strains of Bacillus
constitutes the chief gram-positive inhabitants of
rhizosphere (up to 95 % of total gram-positive soil
bacilli) followed by Arthrobacter and Frankia (Bar-
riuso et al. 2008). However, some recent studies have
reported gram-positive bacterial strains, Bacillus in
particular, to be more numerous than the gram-
negative bacteria in crops like strawberry, oilseed
rape, potato (Smalla et al. 2001), wheat (Joshi and

123

Bhatt 2010; Rawat et al. 2011) and rice (Joshi et al.
2011), etc. This may be attributed to the ability of
Bacillus to form endospores and produce antimicro-
bial substances that inhibit other competitors. Distri-
bution of microflora among the different layers of
rhizosphere has been described in terms of root
colonization which includes microbial growth in the
rhizoplane and/or root tissues and rhizosphere coloni-
zation which includes microbial growth in the adjoin-
ing layers of soil which are under the influence of the
root (Kloepper et al. 1991; Kloepper 1994). Thus, it
may be summarized that rhizosphere is one of the
richest ecological zones of soil in terms bacterial
diversity.
3.1 Factors affecting rhizosphere bacterial
diversity
The bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere
is influenced by a variety of biotic and abiotic factors.
Plant itself is the most crucial factor in determining the
predominant bacterial strains in the rhizosphere due to
the significant role of the root exudates in set-up of
bacterial populations. Plant-related features such as
the cultivars, age of plant and root characteristics have
been found to govern the bacterial diversity and the
predominant species in the rhizosphere (Smalla et al.
2001; MacDonald et al. 2004). Age and developmen-
tal stage of the plant plays a critical role in deciding the
rhizosphere community structure of bacteria. The
rhizosphere of a young plant is chiefly inhabited by
r-strategy organisms, i.e. bacterial species which have
fast growth rates and utilize simple substrates pro-
vided by rhizodeposition (Brimecombe et al. 2001).
However, as the aging process continue the dominance
shifts to bacterial communities with relatively slow
growth rates and the capacity to degrade more
complex substrates (k-strategists).
Since soil is the medium for growth and survival of
plant as well as the microbes it is bound to affect the
bacterial populations through direct effects on the
microbial growth and/or indirectly by influencing the
host plant. Various physical and chemical character-
istics of soil influence parameters such as nutrient
availability, suitable niches for the bacteria, morpho-
logical and physiological aspects of the bacteria and
many other critical features. Thus, soil pH, salinity,
texture, organic matter content, concentration of
nutrient elements, seasonal effects as well as the
123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
management practices like irrigation, tillage, crop-
ping, fertilizer and pesticide application, residue
incorporation, etc. have been reported as the major
factors affecting the bacterial composition of the
rhizosphere (Grayston et al. 1998; MacDonald et al.
2004; Fang et al. 2005; Ibekwe et al. 2010).
Predominant bacterial strains in the rhizosphere are
those which are the most efficient root colonizers as
satisfactory establishment of the bacteria at suitable
sites inside the rhizosphere is a prerequisite for
maintenance of predominant populations. Further,
the metabolic versatility or the functional diversity
of established bacterial populations in the rhizosphere
is governed by the variety of genetic factors carried by
them and the interactions with other prokaryotic and
eukaryotic organisms including the plant itself (Bar-
riuso et al. 2008). Such interactions in the rhizosphere
are different from those in bulk soil and those that are
not affected by living roots (Garland 1996). Hence, it
may be said that bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere
is derived by many interrelated biotic and abiotic
factors.
3.2 Plant–microbe interactions in the rhizosphere
Rhizosphere is the major soil ecological environment
wherein different kinds of plant–microbe interactions
can be observed. As a result of microbial colonization
in and around the growing plant roots various kinds of
relationships such as associative, symbiotic, neutral-
istic or parasitic, may develop, depending upon factors
like nutrient status of the soil, overall soil environ-
ment, plant defense mechanism and certainly the
proliferating microorganism itself (Parmar and Duf-
resne 2011). Plant–microbe communication is medi-
ated by the root exudates through chemotactic
response of the microorganism towards exudates like
sugars, organic acids and amino acids leading to root
colonization (Bais et al. 2004). Plant roots are also
known to produce some kind of electric signals which
direct the movement of microorganism particularly for
the zoospores of oomycetes (Gow et al. 1999).
Interactions between plants, pathogenic microorgan-
isms and antagonistic rhizobacteria and fungi are
another key feature observed here (Trevors and van
Elas 1997). Rhizosphere microflora provides an
important link between the plant and soil acting as
an intermediate between the two. It tend to affect the
plant in a variety of ways ranging from the affect on
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
plant growth and nutrition, its susceptibility to disease
and development of phytopathogens (Glick 1995) to
resistance to heavy metals (Shetty et al. 1994;
Weishuang et al. 2009) and the degradation of
xenobiotics (Greenberg et al. 2008).
Rhizobacteria are a subset of total rhizosphere
bacteria which have the capacity, upon re-introduc-
tion to seeds or vegetative plant parts (such as
potato seed pieces), to colonize the developing root
system in the presence of competing soil microflora
(Kloepper et al. 1999). Those which affect the plant
in negative manner are termed as deleterious
rhizobacteria while those influencing it in a positive
way are called as plant growth promoting rhizobac-
teria (PGPR).
The most important pathogen groups in the soil that
adversely affect plant growth and health are fungi and
nematodes while bacterial and viral pathogens are
lesser known to cause root infections as they cannot
infect the intact root tissue and require an opening to
penetrate into the plant (Lynch 1990). Moreover, non-
spore forming bacteria are unable to survive in the soil
for longer periods. Deleterious rhizosphere bacteria
may produce various kinds of phytotoxins and also
present competition for nutrients and inhibition of
mycorrhizal fungi (Morgan et al. 2005).
Plant friendly or the beneficial microorganisms
include nitrogen-fixing bacteria, endo and ectomycor-
rhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
and fungi. In the subsequent sections plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria are discussed in detail.
4 Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)
About 2–5 % of the rhizosphere bacteria are PGPR
(Antoun and Prevost 2005). The term PGPR was
coined by Joe Kloepper in late 1970s and was defined
by Kloepper and Schroth (1978) as ‘‘the soil bacteria
that colonize the roots of plants by following inocu-
lation on to seed and that enhance plant growth’’. On
the basis of their location in rhizosphere PGPR can be
classified as extracellular PGPR (ePGPR) found in the
rhizosphere, on the rhizoplane or in the spaces
between the cells of the root cortex and intracellular
PGPR (iPGPR) which exist inside the root cells,
generally in specialized nodular structures (Gray and
Smith 2005). The number of bacterial species identi-
fied as PGPR has increased substantially in the last few
decades as a result of the numerous studies on a vast
range of plants in hunt of sustainable agriculture tools
as well as the advancements in molecular genetics
techniques leading to up gradation of bacterial taxon-
omy. The range of bacteria being reported to enhance
the plant growth and control plant pathogens includes
various species of Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Azospiril-
lum, Azotobacter, Streptomyces, Klebsiella, Entero-
bacter, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Flavobacterium,
Burkholderia, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Rho-
dococcus and Serratia, etc. (Berg 2000; Berg et al.
2002; Sobral et al. 2004; Sessitsch et al. 2005; Chen
et al. 2006; Fischer et al. 2006; Fernandez et al. 2007;
Naik et al. 2008; Ahmad et al. 2008; Soltani et al.
2010). However, the predominant bacterial species in
the PGPR community which have emerged as the most
widely studied and potent candidates for improvement
of plant growth and health are Pseudomonas and
Bacillus. The range of their favorable activities
include phosphate solubilization (Chen et al. 2006;
Velineni and Brahmaprakash 2011), production and
release of phytohormones like indole acetic acid and
gibberellins (Jeon et al. 2003; Bottini et al. 2004;
Jangu and Sindhu 2011) and biocontrol of soil borne
phytopathogens (Couillerot et al. 2009; Cawoy et al.
2011). In the last few decades a large body of literature
reporting the activities of these two bacterial species,
pertaining to plant growth promotion and biocontrol of
phytopathogens has been generated that reflects the
potential of these PGPR strains to be developed as
alternative/supplementary agrochemicals.
4.1 Mechanisms of plant growth promotion
by PGPR
PGPR promote plant growth and health by a variety of
direct and indirect mechanisms in a wide range of
plants. Direct plant growth promotion is based on
either stipulation of the plants with favorable bacterial
compounds or improving the nutrient uptake by the
plant from the soil (Glick 1995). It is accomplished
through processes like atmospheric nitrogen fixation,
siderophore production and release, phosphate solu-
bilization, synthesis and release of phytohormones,
etc. The indirect promotion of plant growth is
primarily based on the reduction or prevention of the
deleterious affects of phytopathogens, usually the
fungi and the nematodes, thereby controlling the
diseases. Pathogen suppression may be achieved
123

through a variety of mechanisms like production and
release of cyanide, antibiotics or extracellular lytic
enzymes including chitinases; proteases; b-1, 3 glu-
canases; cellulases and laminarinases, competition for
nutrients and niches in the rhizosphere, parasitism and
predation.
In addition to this, PGPR enhance the tolerance
capacity of the plant to a variety of environmental
stresses through production of phytohormones and
ACC deaminase. Depending upon the likely mecha-
nisms underlying their favorable effects and contri-
butions towards plant growth promotion, PGPR
generally fall into at least one of the following
categories (Viveros et al. 2010):
I. Bioprotectants: It includes PGPR strains that
suppress the pathogens and hence control plant
diseases. An important mechanism adopted for the
same involves enhancing plant resistance to fungal
(Cameron et al. 1994), bacterial (Wei et al. 1996;
Hu et al. 2009) and viral diseases (Maurhofer et al.
1998; Murphy and Zehnder 2000), insects (Zehn-
der et al. 1997) and nematodes (Cadena et al.
2008). Production and release of metabolites
which reduce the population or activities of
pathogens or deleterious rhizosphere microflora
is another chiefly found mode of action in many
PGPR strains (Kloepper 1994). For example, the
production of siderophores which bind ferric ions
making them unavailable or scarcely available to
the native pathogenic microflora (Haas and Def-
ago 2005), lytic enzymes, diffusible antibiotics,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxins and
biosurfactants (Berg 2009), etc. Competition of
PGPR strains with the pathogens for the limited
nutrients and suitable sites in the rhizosphere is
also a common approach to check the growth of
undesirable organisms in the rhizosphere (Elad
and Chet 1987).
II. Biofertilizers: These are the PGPR strains which
improve the nutrient uptake of the plant thus
resulting in enhanced seed germination and
seedling emergence thereby improving the crop
yield (Glick 1995; Berg 2009). Various mecha-
nisms involved for the same are N2 fixation (Tilak
et al. 2005), improving the phosphorous avail-
ability to plants by solubilization of inorganic
phosphate and mineralization of organic phos-
phate (Rodriguez and Fraga 1999) and release of
123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
organic acids, which help to make the available
forms of nutrients like zinc and others.
III. Biostimulants: PGPR involved in phytohormone
production, i.e. production of secondary metab-
olites such as auxins, indole acetic acid (IAA),
cytokinins, riboflavin and vitamins (Frankenber-
ger and Arshad 1995; Costacurta and Vander-
leyden 1995) are termed as biostimulants.
Another beneficial trait that has been recognized for
PGPR is their capability to counteract the phytotox-
icity of chemical pesticides. For example, P. aerugin-
osa PS1 reduced the toxic effects of herbicides like
quizalafop-p-ethyl and clodinafop in legumes (Ahe-
mad and Khan 2010a) and produced plant growth
promoting substances even in the presence of the
insecticides fipronil and pyriproxyfen in green gram
(Ahemad and Khan 2011). Similarly, another strain E.
asburiae PS2 showed plant growth promoting activ-
ities like phosphate solubilization, production and
release of siderophores, indole acetic acid, exopoly-
saccharides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in the
presence of herbicides such as quizalafop-p-ethyl,
clodinafop, metribuzin and glyphosate (Ahemad and
Khan 2010b), a strain of Rhizobium, i.e. MRL3
exhibited plant growth promotion in the soil treated
with insecticides fipronil and pyriproxyfen in lentil
plants (Ahemad and Khan 2010c). Thus, it can be said
that PGPR strains may be used to improve plant
growth even in stressed soils that have been treated for
long times with various kinds of chemical agents.
This suggests that plant friendly rhizosphere micro-
flora may be grouped as either plant growth promoting
microorganisms (PGPM) which directly enhance the
plant growth or as biological control agents (BCA)
that effect the plant health by suppressing plant
pathogens thus indirectly affecting its growth (Avis
et al. 2008). Various direct and indirect, plant growth
promoting properties of the PGPR are summarized in
Table 2.
Hence, it may be concluded that plant nutrition and
health is favorably influenced by PGPR through an
extensive range of direct and indirect mechanisms.
5 Rhizosphere competence
In order to exhibit their plant growth-promotion and
protection capabilities, the foremost requirement for
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Table 2 Plant growth promoting mechanisms of PGPR

Plant growth promoting trait Beneficial effect for plant PGPR involved References

Biological nitrogen fixation:
symbiotic, associative or free
living nitrogen fixers
Phytohormone production
Siderophore production
Phosphate solubilization
Antagonistic behavior:
antibiotic production (like
phenazines, 2,4-
diacetylphloroglucinol,
pyoluteorin, pyrrolnitrin,
lipopeptides, etc.)
Antagonistic behavior:
extracellular lytic enzymes
like chitinases, b-1, 3
glucanases, proteases,
cellulases and laminarinase
ACC deaminase
Salicylic acid and other elicitors
Production of organic acids
Metal resistance
A variety of direct and indirect mechanisms are involved in beneficial impacts of different strains of PGPR that range from enhanced
nutrient availability for the plant to suppression of pathogens
PGPR Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, ACC 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid
Enhancement in the nitrogen
content of soil and hence
improvement in plant growth
and yield
Favorable influence on
physiological plant
processes leading to plant
growth promotion
Enhancement in solubilization
of ferric ions and hence
improvement in iron
availability for plants. Also
contribute towards
phytopathogen inhibition
Conversion of insoluble forms
of phosphorus to plant
accessible form, making it
available to the plants.
Inhibition of soil borne
phytopathogens thus leading
to suppression of the
diseases.
Cell lysis of soil borne fungal
pathogens of plants.
Hydrolysis of ACC, reduction
in ethylene production and
plant growth promotion.
Induced systemic resistance
(ISR) in plants against
pathogens
Solubilization of mineral
nutrients for plant uptake.
Effective metal sequestering
Enterobacter, Erwinia,
Flavobacterium, Frankia,
Klebsiella, Pseudomonas,
Rhizobium, Azospirillum,
Alcaligenes, Azotobacter,
Acetobacter, Bacillus,
Burkholderia
Rhizobium, Pseudomonas,
Azotobacter, Bacillus,
Enterobacter, Alcaligenes
Bradyrhizobium,
Xanthomonas
Pseudomonas, Bacillus,
Serratia, Rhodococcus,
Acinetobacter
Bacillus, Pseudomonas,
Rhizobium, Serratia,
Kushneria, Rhodococcus,
Arthrobacter
Pseudomonas, Bacillus,
Serratia, Streptomyces
Pseudomonas, Bacillus,
Serratia
Pseudomonas, Bacillus
Pseudomonas, Bacillus,
Serratia
Pseudomonas, Bacillus,
Rhizobium
Pseudomonas
Gillis et al. (1989), Biswas
et al. (2000), Gholami et al.
(2009), Akhtar and Siddiqui
(2009)
Frankenberger and Arshad
(1995), Costacurta and
Vanderleyden (1995),
Ahmad et al. (2008)
Chaiharn et al. (2009), Koo
and Cho (2009),
Rokhbakhsh-Zamin et al.
(2011), Sahu and Sindhu
(2011)
Igual et al. (2001), Chen et al.
(2006), Zhu et al. (2011)
Thomashow and Weller
(1988), Hwang et al. (1994),
Maurhofer et al. (1994),
Kamensky et al. (2003),
Kim et al. (2004),
Jayaprakashvel et al. (2010)
Fridlender et al. (1993),
Huang et al. (2005),
Nandakumar et al. (2007)
Belimov et al. (2001)
de Meyer and Hofte (1997),
Bargabus-Larson and
Jacobsen (2007)
Belimov et al. (1995), Noel
et al. (1996)
Rajkumar and Freitas (2008)

the PGPR is to colonize the suitable sites in the
rhizosphere. The effectiveness of PGPR mediated
processes is strongly influenced by factors such as the
competence and persistence of the particular strain in
the rhizosphere, its root colonizing capacity, synthesis
and release of various metabolites, plant species and
plant genotypes within a species and the competing
microflora in the rhizosphere (Nowak 1998). If the
conditions in the root zone are not favorable for PGPR
establishment the synthesis of biologically active
substances, influencing plant health and growth may
either stop or get significantly reduced thus resulting in

123

the failure of the introduced PGPR strain to promote
plant growth (Chanway and Holl 1992).
Owing to their similar requirements for water,
nutrients and space a stiff competition is generally
observed between the introduced PGPR strain and the
native inhabitants in the rhizosphere. An introduced
bacterium will be defined as an effective root colonizer
if it is able to propagate and survive in the rhizosphere
for several weeks and thus outcompetes the indigenous
microflora (Weller 1988). If the introduced strain is
equipped with certain discriminating feature(s) over
the indigenous microflora that confers it the capacity
to compete for restricted space and nutrients, the strain
succeeds in colonizing the rhizosphere. Characteris-
tics that offer selective advantage to the introduced
strain in the rhizosphere include the flagellar motility
(de Weger et al. 1987), ability to utilize root exudates
and adherence to root surfaces mediated by aggluti-
nation (Slusarenko et al. 1983) or with the help of
surface structures like pili (Vesper 1987); fimbriae
(Vesper and Bauer 1986); exopolysaccharides like
cellulose fibrils (Smit et al. 1986) and O-antigens
chains of liposachharides (de Weger et al. 1989), etc.
Possession of these feature(s) thus improves the
probability of successful colonization by manifolds.
Ability of the introduced strain to generate phenotyp-
ically diverse population with the help of site-specific
recombinases (Granero et al. 2005) and to produce
antibiotics (Mazzola et al. 1992) also influence the
ecological competence. Thus, it may be said that it is
only after the successful establishment of the PGPR
inoculants in the rhizosphere that they may exercise
their effect on the plant.
6 Conclusion
Rhizosphere is a unique ecological zone of soil that is
heavily loaded with nutrients obtained from plant
roots via rhizodeposition. It has a rich pool of potential
bacterial sources equipped with versatile capabilities
to favorably influence the host plant. Bacteria are the
most abundant organisms that reside in rhizosphere
and a special class of bacteria called as plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria influence the plant growth by
a variety of direct and indirect mechanisms in a wide
range of crops. They must be therefore; exploited to
develop eco-friendly and safe replacement for chem-
ical based fertilizers and pesticides. However, the
123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
success in developing PGPR mediated tools is greatly
dependent on the development of efficient and sensi-
tive molecular genetics techniques like microarrays
and effective culturing methodologies to provide a
better insight of the structural and functional diversity
of the rhizosphere. Though PGPR have environmental
advantages and are favorably supported by legislative
guidelines as well, their commercial success is highly
dependent on economic factors. Design of economi-
cally feasible large scale production methodologies is
thus another critical requirement. So, deep rooted
research in this area is highly needed. Further Pseu-
domonas and Bacillus have been the most vastly
studied PGPR genera, so far, due to the combined
effects of their functional properties and their pre-
dominance in the rhizosphere. However, a diverse
range of microbial groups must be explored in order to
enhance the working options available so that the use
of chemical based agronomic products can be checked
to a significant level.
References
Ahemad M, Khan MS (2010a) Phosphate-solubilizing and
plant-growth-promoting Pseudomonas aeruginosa PS1
improves green gram performance in quizalafop-p-ethyl
and clodinafop amended soil. Arch Environ Contam Tox-
icol 58:361–372
Ahemad M, Khan MS (2010b) Influence of selective herbicides
on plant growth promoting traits of phosphate solubilizing
Enterobacter asburiae strain PS2. Res J Microbiol
5:849–857
Ahemad M, Khan MS (2010c) Insecticide-tolerant and plant-
growth-promoting Rhizobium improves the growth of lentil
(Lens esculentus) in insecticide-stressed soils. Pest Manag
Sci 67:423–429
Ahemad M, Khan MS (2011) Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain
PS1 enhances growth parameters of green gram [Vigna
radiata (L.) Wilczek] in insecticide-stressed soils. J Pest Sci
84:123–131
Ahmad F, Ahmad I, Khan MS (2008) Screening of free-living
rhizospheric bacteria for their multiple plant growth pro-
moting activities. Microbiol Res 168:173–181
Akhtar MS, Siddiqui ZA (2009) Use of plant growth-promoting
rhizobacteria for the biocontrol of root-rot disease complex
of chickpea. Australas Plant Pathol 38:44–50
Aneja KR (2003) Experiments in microbiology, plant pathology
and biotechnology. Age International (P) Limited Pub-
lishers, New Delhi
Antoun H, Prevost D (2005) Ecology of plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria. In: Siddiqui ZA (ed) PGPR: biocontrol and
biofertilization. Springer, Netherlands, pp 1–38
Atlas RM, Bartha R (1993) Microbial ecology: fundamentals
and applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
Avis TJ, Gravel V, Antoun H, Tweddell RJ (2008) Multifaceted
beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant
health and productivity. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1733–1740
Bais HP, Park SW, Weir TL, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2004)
How plants communicate using the underground infor-
mation superhighway. Trends Plant Sci 9:26–32
Bais HP, Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM (2006) The
role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants
and other organisms. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:233–266
Barea JM (2000) Rhizosphere and mycorrhiza of field crops. In:
Balazs E, Galante E, Lynch JM, Schepers JS, Toutant JP,
Werner D, Werry PJ (eds) Biological resource manage-
ment: connecting science and policy. Springer, New York,
pp 110–125
Bargabus-Larson RL, Jacobsen BJ (2007) Biocontrol elicited
systemic resistance in sugar beet is salicylic acid inde-
pendent and NPR1 dependent. J Sugar Beet Res 44:17–33
Barriuso J, Solano BR, Lucas JA, Lobo AP, Villaraco AG,
Manero FJG (2008) Ecology, genetic diversity and
screening strategies of plant growth promoting rhizobac-
teria (PGPR). In: Ahmad I, Pichtel J, Hayat S (eds) Plant–
bacteria interactions: strategies and techniques to promote
plant growth. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA,
Weinheim, pp 1–17
Belimov AA, Kojemiakov AP, Chuvarliyeva CV (1995) Inter-
action between barley and mixed cultures of nitrogen fixing
and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Plant Soil 173:29–37
Belimov AA, Safronova VI, Sergeyeva TA, Egorova TN, Mat-
veyeva VA, Tsyganov VE, Borisov AY, Tikhonovich IA,
Kluge C, Preisfeld A, Dietz K, Stepanok VV (2001) Charac-
terization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated
from polluted soils and containing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-
carboxylate deaminase. Can J Microbiol 47:642–652
Berg G (2000) Diversity of antifungal and plant-associated
Serratia plymuthica strains. J Appl Microbiol 88:952–960
Berg G (2009) Plant–microbe interactions promoting plant
growth and health: perspectives for controlled use of
microorganisms in agriculture. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
84:11–18
Berg G, Roskot N, Steidle A, Eberl L, Zock A, Smalla K (2002)
Plant-dependent genotypic and phenotypic diversity of
antagonistic rhizobacteria isolated from different Verticil-
lium host plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3328–3338
Berg G, Zachow C, Lottmann J, Gotz M, Costa R, Smalla K
(2005) Impact of plant species and site on rhizosphere-
associated fungi antagonistic to Verticillium dahliae Kleb.
Appl Environ Microbiol 71:4203–4213
Berg G, Opelt K, Zachow C, Lottmann J, Gotz M, Costa R,
Smalla K (2006) The rhizosphere effect on bacteria
antagonistic towards the pathogenic fungus Verticillium
differs depending on plant species and site. FEMS Micro-
biol Ecol 56:250–261
Biswas JC, Ladha JK, Dazzo FB (2000) Rhizobia inoculation
improves nutrient uptake and growth of lowland rice. Soil
Sci Soc Am J 64:1644–1650
Bolton HJ, Fredrickson JK, Elliott LF (1993) Microbial ecology
of the rhizosphere. In: Metting FBJ (ed) Soil microbial
ecology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 27–63
Bottini R, Cassan F, Piccoli P (2004) Gibberellin production by
bacteria and its involvement in plant growth promotion and
yield increase. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 65:497–503
Bowen G, Rovira A (1999) The rhizosphere and its management
to improve plant growth. Adv Agron 66:1–102
Brimecombe MJ, de Leij FA, Lynch JM (2001) The effect of
root exudates on rhizosphere microbial populations. In:
Pinto R, Varanini Z, Nannipierei P (eds) The rhizosphere.
Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 95–141
Brophy LS, Heichel GH (1989) Nitrogen release from roots of
alfalfa and soybean grown in sand culture. Plant Soil
116:77–84
Butler JL, Williams MA, Bottomley PJ, Myrold DD (2003)
Microbial community dynamics associated with rhizo-
sphere carbon flow. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:
6793–6800
Buyer JS, Roberts DP, Russek-Cohen E (2002) Soil and plant
effects on microbial community structure. Can J Microbiol
48:955–964
Cadena MB, Burelle NK, Lawrence KS, van Santen E, Kloepper
JW (2008) Suppressiveness of root-knot nematodes med-
iated by rhizobacteria. Biol Control 47:55–59
Cameron RK, Dixon R, Lamb C (1994) Biologically induced
systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant
J 5:715–725
Cawoy H, Bettiol W, Fickers P, Ongena M (2011) Bacillus
based biological control of plant diseases. In: Stoytcheva M
(ed) Pesticides in the modern world—pesticides use and
management. InTech, Rijeka, pp 273–302
Chaiharn M, Chunhaleuchanon S, Lumyong S (2009) Screening
siderophore producing bacteria as potential biological
control agent for fungal rice pathogens in Thailand. World
J Microbiol Biotechnol 25:1919–1928
Chanway CP, Holl FB (1992) Influence of soil biota on Douglas
fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedling growth: the role of
rhizosphere bacteria. Can J Bot 70:1025–1031
Chen YP, Rekha PD, Arun AB, Shen FT, Lai WA, Young CC
(2006) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from subtropical
soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing abilities.
Appl Soil Ecol 34:33–41
Cheng W, Gershenson A (2007) Carbon fluxes in the rhizo-
sphere. In: Cardon ZG, Whitbeck JL (eds) The rhizo-
sphere—an ecological perspective. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA, pp 31–56
Clark FE (1949) Soil microorganisms and plant roots. Adv
Agron 1:241–288
Costacurta A, Vanderleyden J (1995) Synthesis of phytohor-
mones by plant-associated bacteria. Critical Rev Microbiol
21:1–18
Couillerot O, Prigent-Combaret C, Caballero-Mellado J, Mo-
enne-Loccoz Y (2009) Pseudomonas fluorescens and clo-
sely-related fluorescent pseudomonads as biocontrol
agents of soil-borne phytopathogens. Lett Appl Microbiol
48:505–512
Cullimore DR, Woodbine M (1963) Rhizosphere effect of the
pea root on soil algae. Nature 198:304–305
Curl EA, Truelove B (1986) The rhizosphere. Springer, Berlin
de Meyer G, Hofte M (1997) Salicylic acid produced by the
rhizobacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa 7NSK2 induces
resistance to leaf infection by Botrytis cinerea on bean.
Phytopathology 87:588–593
de Weger LA, van der Vlugt CIM, Wijfjes AHM, Bakker
PAHM, Schippers B, Lugtenberg BJJ (1987) Flagella of a
plant-growth-stimulating Pseudomonas fluorescens strain
123

are required for colonization of potato roots. J Bacteriol
169:2769–2773
de Weger LA, Bakker PAHM, Schippers B, van Loosdrecht
MCM, Lugtenberg BJJ (1989) Pseudomonas spp. with
mutational changes in the O-antigenic side chain of their
lipopolysaccharide are affected in their ability to colonize
potato roots. In: Lugtenberg BJJ (ed) Signal molecules in
plants and plant–microbe interactions. Springer, Berlin,
pp 197–202
Elad Y, Chet I (1987) Possible role of competition for nutrients
in biocontrol of Pythium damping off by bacteria. Phyto-
pathology 77:90–195
Fang M, Kremer RJ, Motavalli PP, Davis G (2005) Bacterial
diversity of rhizospheres of non-transgenic and transgenic
corn. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:4132–4136
Farrar J, Hawes M, Jones D et al (2003) How roots control the
flux of carbon to the rhizosphere. Ecology 84:827–837
Fernandez LA, Zalba P, Gomez MA, Sagardoy MA (2007)
Phosphate-solubilization activity of bacterial strains in soil
and their effect on soybean growth under green house
conditions. Biol Fertil Soils 43:803–805
Fischer SE, Fischer SI, Magris S, Mori GB (2006) Isolation and
characterization of bacteria from the rhizosphere of wheat.
World J Microbiol Biotechnol 23:895–903
Foster RC (1988) Microenvironments of soil microorganisms.
Biol Fertil Soils 6:189–203
Frankenberger WTJ, Arshad M (1995) Phytohormones in soil:
microbial production and function. Dekker, New York
Fridlender M, Inbar J, Chet I (1993) Biological control of soil-
borne plant pathogens by a b-1, 3 glucanase-producing
Pseudomonas cepacia. Soil Biol Biochem 25:1211–1221
Garbeva P, van Veen JA, van Elsas JD (2004) Microbial
diversity in soil: selection of microbial populations by plant
and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness.
Annu Rev Phytopathol 42:243–270
Garland JL (1996) Patterns of potential C source utilization by
rhizosphere communities. Soil Biol Biochem 36:489–498
Gholami A, Shahsavani S, Nezarat S (2009) The effect of plant
growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on germination,
seedling growth and yield of maize. Int J Biol Life Sci
1:35–40
Gillis M, Kersters K, Hoste B, Janssens D, Kroppenstedt RM,
Stephan MP, Teixeira KRS, Dobereiner J, de Ley J (1989)
Acetobacter diazotrophicus sp. nov., a nitrogen fixing
acetic acid bacterium associated with sugarcane. Int J Syst
Bacteriol 39:361–364
Glick BR (1995) The enhancement of plant growth promotion
by free living bacterial. Can J Microbiol 41:109–117
Gobat JM, Aragno M, Matthey W (2004) The living soil: fun-
damentals of soil science and soil biology. Science Pub-
lishers, USA
Gomes NCM, Fagbola O, Costa R, Rumjanek NG, Buchner A,
Mendona-Hagler L, Smalla K (2003) Dynamics of fungal
communities in bulk and maize rhizosphere soil in the
tropics. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:3758–3766
Gow NAR, Campbell TA, Morris BM, Osborne MC, Reid B,
Shepherd SJ, van West P (1999) Signals and interaction
between phytopathogenic zoospores and plant roots. In:
England R, Hobbs G, Bainton N, Roberts DMCL (eds)
Microbial signaling and communication. University Press,
Cambridge, pp 285–305
123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
Granero FM, Capdevila S, Contreras MS, Martyn M, Rivilla R
(2005) Two site-specific recombinases are implicated in
phenotypic variation and competitive rhizosphere coloni-
zation in Pseudomonas fluorescens. Microbiol 151:
975–983
Gray EJ, Smith DL (2005) Intracellular and extracellular PGPR:
commonalities and distinctions in the plant–bacterium
signaling processes. Soil Biol Biochem 37:395–412
Grayston SJ, Vaughan D, Jones D (1996) Rhizosphere carbon
flow in trees, in comparison with annual plants: the
importance of root exudation and its impact on microbial
activity and nutrient availability. Appl Soil Ecol 5:29–56
Grayston SJ, Wang SQ, Campbell CD, Edwards AC (1998)
Selective influence of plant species on microbial diversity
in the rhizosphere. Soil Biol Biochem 30:369–378
Greenberg BM, Huang XD, Gerwing P, Yu XM, Chang P, Wu
SS, Gerhardt K, Nykamp J, Lu X, Glick B (2008) Phyto-
remediation of salt impacted soils: greenhouse and the field
trials of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) to
improve plant growth and salt phytoaccumulation. In:
Proceeding of the 33rd AMOP technical seminar on envi-
ronmental contamination and response. Environment
Canada, Ottawa, ON, pp 627–637
Hadfield W (1960) Rhizosphere effect on soil algae. Nature
185:179–180
Haas D, Defago G (2005) Biological control of soil-borne
pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads. Nat Rev Micro-
biol 3:307–319
Hiltner L (1904) About new experiences and problems in the
field of Bodenbakteriologie. Works Ger Agric Soc 98:
59–78
Hinsinger P, Gobran GR, Gregory PJ, Wenzel WW (2005)
Rhizosphere geometry and heterogeneity arising from root-
mediated physical and chemical processes. New Phytol
168:293–303
Hu X, Li W, Chen Q, Yang Y (2009) Early signal transduction
linking the synthesis of jasmonic acid in plant. Plant Signal
Behav 4:696–697
Huang CJ, Wang TK, Chung SC, Chen CY (2005) Identification
of an antifungal chitinase from a potential biocontrol agent,
Bacillus cereus 28-9. J Biochem Mol Biol 38:82–88
Hwang BK, Ahn SJ, Moon SS (1994) Production, purification
and antifungal activity of the antibiotic nucleoside, tub-
ercidin, produced by Streptomyces violaceoniger. Can J
Bot 72:480–485
Ibekwe AM, Poss JA, Grattan SR, Grieve CM, Suarez D (2010)
Bacterial diversity in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rhizo-
sphere in response to salinity, soil pH, and boron. Soil Biol
Biochem 42:567–575
Igual JM, Valverde A, Cervantes E, Velazquez E (2001) Phos-
phate-solubilizing bacteria as inoculants for agriculture:
use of updated molecular techniques in their study.
Agronomie 21:561–568
Jaeger JH, Lindow SE, Miller S, Clark E, Firestone MK (1999)
Mapping of sugar and amino acid availability in soil around
roots with bacterial sensors of sucrose and tryptophan.
Appl Environ Microbiol 65:2685–2690
Jangu OP, Sindhu SS (2011) Differential response of inocula-
tion with indole acetic acid producing Pseudomonas sp. in
green gram (Vigna radiata L.) and black gram (Vigna
mungo L.). Microbiol J 1:159–173
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
Jayaprakashvel M, Muthezhilan R, Srinivasan R, Hussain JA,
Gobalakrishnan S, Bhagat J, Kaarthikeyan C, Muth-
ulakshmi R (2010) Hydrogen cyanide mediated biocontrol
potential of Pseudomonas sp. AMET1055 isolated from
the rhizosphere of coastal sand dune vegetation. Adv
Biotech 9:39–42
Jeffery S, Gardi C, Jones A, Montanarella L, Marmo L, Miko L,
Ritz K, Peres G, Roombke J, van der Putten WH (eds)
(2010) The soil environment. In: European atlas of soil
biodiversity, European Commission, Publications office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 17–48
Jeon JS, Lee SS, Kim HY, Ahn TS, Song HG (2003) Plant
growth promotion in soil by some inoculated microor-
ganisms. J Microbiol 41:271–276
Jones DL, Hodge A, Kuzyakov Y (2004) Plant and mycorrhizal
regulation of rhizodeposition. New Phytol 163:459–480
Joshi P, Bhatt AB (2010) Diversity and function of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria associated with wheat rhizosphere
in north Himalayan region. Int J Environ Sci 1:1135–1144
Joshi P, Tyagi V, Bhatt AB (2011) Characterization of rhizo-
bacteria diversity isolated from Oryza sativa cultivated at
different altitude in north Himalaya. Adv Appl Sci Res
2:208–216
Kamensky M, Ovadis M, Chet I, Chernin L (2003) Soil-borne
strain IC14 of Serratia plymuthica with multiple mecha-
nisms of antifungal activity provides biocontrol of Botrytis
cinerea and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum diseases. Soil Biol
Biochem 35:323–331
Katznelson H, Lochhead AG, Timonin MI (1948) Soil micro-
organisms and the rhizosphere. Botan Rev 14:543–587
Kim PI, Bai H, Bai D, Chae H, Chung S, Kim Y, Park R, Chi YT
(2004) Purification and characterization of a lipopeptide
produced by Bacillus thuringiensis CMB26. J Appl
Microbiol 97:942–949
Kloepper JW (1994) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
(other systems). In: Okon Y (ed) Azospirillum/plant asso-
ciations. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 111–118
Kloepper JW, Schroth MN (1978) Plant growth-promoting
rhizobacteria on radishes. In: Gilbert C (ed) Proceedings
4th international conference on plant pathogenic bacteria,
Tours, France, pp 879–882
Kloepper JW, Zablotowick RM, Tipping EM, Lifshitz R (1991)
Plant growth promotion mediated by bacterial rhizosphere
colonizers. In: Keister DL, Cregan PB (eds) The rhizo-
sphere and plant growth. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 315–326
Kloepper JW, Ubana RR, Zehnder GW, Murphy JF, Sikora E,
Fernandez C (1999) Plant root-bacterial interactions in
biological control of soilborne diseases and potential
extension to systemic and foliar diseases. Aust Plant Pathol
28:21–26
Kochian L, Pineros M, Hoekenga O (2005) The physiology,
genetics and molecular biology of plant aluminum resis-
tance and toxicity. Plant Soil 274:175–195
Koo SY, Cho KS (2009) Isolation and characterization of a plant
growth-promoting rhizobacterium, Serratia sp. SY5.
J Microbiol Biotechnol 19:1431–1438
Kreuzer K, Adamczyk J, Iijima M, Wagner M, Scheu S, Bon-
kowski M (2006) Grazing of a common species of soil
protozoa (Acanthamoeba castellanii) affects rhizosphere
bacterial community composition and root architecture of
rice (Oryza sativa L.). Soil Biol Biochem 38:1665–1672
Linderman RG (1988) Mycorrhizal interactions with the rhi-
zosphere microflora: the mycorrhizosphere effect. Phyto-
pathology 78:366–371
Lynch JM (1987) The rhizosphere. Wiley Interscience,
Chichester
Lynch JM (1990) Some consequences of microbial rhizosphere
competence for plant and soil. In: Lynch JM (ed) The
rhizosphere. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 1–10
Lynch JM, Whipps JM (1990) Substrate flow in the rhizosphere.
Plant Soil 129:1–10
MacDonald LM, Paterson E, Dawson LA, McDonald AJS
(2004) Short-term effects of defoliation on the soil
microbial community associated with two contrasting Lo-
lium perenne cultivars. Soil Biol Biochem 36:489–498
Maurhofer M, Keel C, Haas D, Defago G (1994) Pyoluteorin
production by Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CHA0 is
involved in the suppression of Pythium damping-off of
cress but not of cucumber. Eur J Plant Pathol 100:221–232
Maurhofer M, Reimann C, Sacherer SP, Heebs S, Haas D,
Defago G (1998) Salicylic acid biosynthetic genes
expressed in Pseudomonas fluorescens strain P3 improve
the induction of systemic resistance in tobacco against
necrosis virus. Phytopathology 88:678–684
Mazzola M, Cook RJ, Thomashow LS, Weller DM, Pierson LS
(1992) Contribution of phenazine antibiotic biosynthesis to
the ecological competence of fluorescent Pseudomonads in
soil habitats. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:2616–2624
Morgan JAW, Whipps JM (2001) Methodological approaches to
the study of rhizosphere carbon flow and microbial popu-
lation dynamics. In: Pinton A, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P
(eds) The rhizosphere: biochemistry and organic sub-
stances at the soil-plant interface. Marcel Dekker, New
York, pp 373–409
Morgan JAW, Bending GD, White PJ (2005) Biological costs
and benefits to plant–microbe interactions in the rhizo-
sphere. J Exp Bot 56:1729–1739
Murphy JF, Zehnder GW (2000) Plant growth-promoting rhi-
zobacterial mediated protection in tomato against tomato
mottle virus. Plant Dis 84:779–784
Naik PR, Raman G, Narayanan KB, Sakthivel N (2008)
Assessment of genetic and functional diversity of phos-
phate solubilizing fluorescent pseudomonads isolated from
rhizospheric soil. BMC Microbiol 8:230–243
Nandakumar R, Babu S, Raguchander T, Samiyappan R (2007)
Chitinolytic activity of native Pseudomonas fluorescens
strains. J Agri Sci Technol 9:61–68
Nannipieri P, Ascher J, Ceccherini MT, Landi L, Pietramellara
G, Renella G, Valori F (2007) Microbial diversity and
microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Ciencia del Suelo
(Argentina) 25:89–97
Nguyen C (2003) Rhizodeposition of organic C by plants:
mechanisms and controls. Agronomie 23:375–396
Nie M, Zhang XD, Wang JQ et al (2009) Rhizosphere effects on
soil bacterial abundance and diversity in the Yellow river
deltaic ecosystem as influenced by petroleum contamina-
tion and soil salinization. Soil Biol Biochem 41:2535–2542
Noel TC, Sheng C, Yost CK, Pharis RP, Hynes MF (1996)
Rhizobium leguminosarum as a plant growth promoting
123

rhizobacterium: direct growth promotion of canola and
lettuce. Can J Microbiol 42:279–293
Nowak J (1998) Benefits of in vitro ‘‘biotization’’ of plant tissue
cultures with microbial inoculants. In vitro Cell Dev Biol
Plant 34:122–130
Parmar N, Dufresne J (2011) Beneficial interactions of plant
growth promoting rhizosphere microorganisms. In: Singh
A et al (eds) Bioaugmentation, biostimulation and bio-
control, soil biology, vol 28. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–42
Paterson E, Gebbing T, Abel C, Sim A, Telfer G (2007) Rhi-
zodeposition shapes rhizosphere microbial community
structure in organic soil. New Phytol 173:600–610
Phillips DA, Fox TC, King MD, Bhuvaneswar TV, Teuber LR
(2004) Microbial products trigger amino acids exudation
from plant roots. Plant Physiol 136:2887–2894
Phillips DA, Fox TC, Six J (2006) Root exudation (net efflux of
amino acids) may increase rhizodeposition under elevated
CO2. Global Change Biol 12:561–567
Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (2001) The rhizosphere as a
site of biochemical interactions among soil components,
plants and microorganisms. In: Pinton R, Varanini Z,
Nannipieri P (eds) The rhizosphere: biochemistry and
organic substances at the soil-plant interface. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp 1–17
Rajkumar M, Freitas H (2008) Influence of metal resistant-plant
growth-promoting bacteria on the growth of Ricinus com-
munis in soil contaminated with heavy metals. Chemo-
sphere 71:834–842
Rawat S, Izhari A, Khan A (2011) Bacterial diversity in wheat
rhizosphere and their characterization. Adv Appl Sci Res
2:351–356
Rodriguez H, Fraga R (1999) Phosphate solubilizing bacteria
and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol Adv
17:319–339
Rokhbakhsh-Zamin F, Sachdev D, Kazemi-Pour N, Engineer A,
Pardesi KR, Zinjarde S, Dhakephalkar PK, Chopade BA
(2011) Characterization of plant-growth-promoting traits
of Acinetobacter species isolated from rhizosphere of
Pennisetum glaucum. J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:556–566
Rouatt JW, Katznelson H, Payne TMB (1960) Statistical eval-
uation of the rhizosphere effect. Soil Sci Soc Amer Proc
24:271–273
Rougier M, Chaboud A (1989) Biological functions of muci-
lages secreted by roots. Symp Soc Exp Biol 43:449–454
Rovira AD (1956) Plant root excretions in relation to the rhi-
zosphere effect I. Plant Soil 7:178–194
Sahu GK, Sindhu SS (2011) Disease control and plant growth
promotion of green gram by siderophore producing Pseu-
domonas sp. Res J Microbiol 6:735–749
Sessitsch A, Coenye T, Sturz AV, Vandamme P, Barka EA,
Salles JF, van Elsas D, Faure JD, Reiter B, Glick BR,
Pruski GW, Nowak J (2005) Burkholderia phytofirmans sp.
nov., a novel plant-associated bacterium with plant-bene-
ficial properties. Int J Sys Evol Microbiol 55:1187–1192
Shetty KG, Hetrick BAD, Figge DAH, Schwab AP (1994)
Effects of mycorrhizae and other soil microbes on reveg-
etation of heavy metal contaminated mine spoil. Environ
Poll 86:181–188
Slusarenko AJ, Epperlein M, Wood RKS (1983) Agglutination
of plant pathogenic and certain other bacteria by pectic
123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
polysaccharides from various plant species. Phytopathol-
ogy 106:337–343
Smalla K, Wieland G, Buchner A, Zock A, Parzy J, Kaiser S,
Roskot N, Heuer H, Berg G (2001) Bulk and rhizosphere soil
bacterial communities studied by denaturing gradient gel
electrophoresis: plant-dependent enrichment and seasonal
shifts revealed. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4742–4751
Smit G, Kijne JW, Lugtenberg BJJ (1986) Correlation between
extracellular fibrils and attachment of Rhizobium legu-
minosarum to pea root hair tips. J Bacteriol 168:821–827
Sobral JK, Araujo WL, Mendes R, Geraldi IO, Kleiner AAP,
Azevedo JL (2004) Isolation and characterization of soy-
bean-associated bacteria and their potential for plant
growth promotion. Environ Microbiol 6:1244–1251
Soltani AA, Khavazi K, Rahmani HA, Omidvari M, Dahaji PA,
Mirhoseyni H (2010) Plant growth promoting character-
istics in some Flavobacterium spp. isolated from soils of
Iran. J Agri Sci 2:106–115
Steer J, Harris JA (2000) Shifts in the microbial community in
rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils during the growth of
Agrostis stolonifera. Soil Biol Biochem 32:869–878
Teixeira LCRS, Peixoto RS, Cury JC, Sul WJ, Pellizari VH,
Tiedje J, Rosado AS (2010) Bacterial diversity in rhizo-
sphere soil from Antarctic vascular plants of Admiralty
Bay, maritime Antarctica. ISME J 4:989–1001
Thomashow LS, Weller DM (1988) Role of a phenazine anti-
biotic from Pseudomonas fluorescens in biological control
of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. J Bacteriol
170:3499–3508
Tilak KVBR, Ranganayaki N, Pal KK, De R, Saxena AK,
Nautiyal CS, Mittal S, Tripathi AK, Johri BN (2005)
Diversity of plant growth and soil health supporting bac-
teria. Curr Sci 89:136–150
Trevors JT, van Elas JD (1997) Microbial interaction in soil. In:
van Elas JD, Trevars JT, Wellington EMH (eds) Modern
soil microbiology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 215–243
Uren NC (2001) Types, amounts and possible functions of
compounds released into the rhizosphere by soil-grown
plants. In: Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P (eds) The
rhizosphere biochemistry and organic substances at the
soil-plant interface. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 19–40
van Loon LC (2007) Plant responses to plant growth promoting
bacteria. Eur J Plant Pathol 119:243–254
Velineni S, Brahmaprakash GP (2011) Survival and phosphate
solubilizing ability of Bacillus megaterium in liquid inoc-
ulants under high temperature and desiccation stress. J Agr
Sci Tech 13:795–802
Vesper SJ (1987) Production of pili (fimbriae) by Pseudomonas
fluorescens and correlation with attachment to corn roots.
Appl Environ Microbiol 53:1397–1405
Vesper SJ, Bauer WD (1986) Role of pili (fimbriae) in attach-
ment of Bradyrhizobium japonicum to soybean roots. Appl
Environ Microbiol 52:134–141
Viveros OM, Jorquera MA, Crowley DE, Gajardo G, Mora ML
(2010) Mechanisms and practical considerations involved
in plant growth promotion by rhizobacteria. J Soil Sci Plant
Nutr 10:293–319
Wacquant JP, Ouknider M, Jacquard P (1989) Evidence for a
periodic excretion of nitrogen by roots of grass-legume
associations. Plant Soil 116:57–68
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
Wei G, Kloepper JW, Tuzun S (1996) Induced systemic resis-
tance to cucumber diseases and increased plant growth by
plant growth promoting rhizobacteria under field condi-
tions. Phytopathology 86:221–224
Weishuang Z, Yingheng FEI, Yi H (2009) Soluble protein and
acid phosphatase exuded by ectomycorrhizal fungi and
seedlings in response to excessive Cu and Cd. J Environ Sci
21:1667–1672
Weller DM (1988) Biological control of soilborne plant patho-
gens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopa-
thol 26:379–407
Whipps JM (1990) Carbon economy. In: Lynch JM (ed) The
rhizosphere. Wiley and Son, Chichester, UK, pp 59–87
Whipps JM, Lynch JM (1985) Energy losses by the plant in rhi-
zodeposition. Ann Proceedings Phytochem J Eur 26:59–71
Zehnder G, Kloepper JW, Yao C, Wei G (1997) Induction of
systemic resistance in cucumber against cucumber beetles
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by plant growth-promoting
rhizobacteria. J Econ Entomol 90:391–396
Zhu F, Qu L, Hong X, Sun X (2011) Isolation and character-
ization of a phosphate-solubilizing halophilic bacterium
Kushneria sp. YCWA18 from Daqiao Saltern on the coast
of yellow sea of China. J Evid Based Complement Altern
2011:1–6
Zwart KB, Kuikman PJ, van Veen JA (1994) Rhizosphere
protozoa: their significance in nutrient dynamics. In: Dar-
byshire JF (ed) Soil protozoa. CAB International, Wal-
lingford, pp 93–122
123