Next Article in Journal
Trichoderma Biological Control to Protect Sensitive Maize Hybrids against Late Wilt Disease in the Field
Next Article in Special Issue
The Pacific Tree-Parasitic Fungus Cyclocybe parasitica Exhibits Monokaryotic Fruiting, Showing Phenotypes Known from Bracket Fungi and from Cyclocybe aegerita
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Sex Differences in Murine Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Neutropenic Models of Invasive Mucormycosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comprehensive Assessment of Ameliorative Effects of AMF in Alleviating Abiotic Stress in Tomato Plants
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bioprospecting of Rhizosphere-Resident Fungi: Their Role and Importance in Sustainable Agriculture

by
Mahadevamurthy Murali
1,
Banu Naziya
1,
Mohammad Azam Ansari
2,
Mohammad N. Alomary
3,
Sami AlYahya
3,
Ahmad Almatroudi
4,*,
M. C. Thriveni
5,
Hittanahallikoppal Gajendramurthy Gowtham
6,
Sudarshana Brijesh Singh
6,
Mohammed Aiyaz
6,
Nataraj Kalegowda
1,
Nanjaiah Lakshmidevi
7 and
Kestur Nagaraj Amruthesh
1,*
1
Applied Plant Pathology Laboratory, Department of Studies in Botany, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysuru 570006, Karnataka, India
2
Department of Epidemic Disease Research, Institutes for Research and Medical Consultations (IRMC), Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
3
National Center for Biotechnology, Life Science and Environmental Research Institute, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh P.O. Box 6086, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Medical Laboratories, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Qassim University, Qassim 51431, Saudi Arabia
5
Central Sericultural Germplasm Resources Centre, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles, Thally Road, TVS Nagar, Hosur 635109, Tamil Nadu, India
6
Department of Studies in Biotechnology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysuru 570006, Karnataka, India
7
Department of Studies in Microbiology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysuru 570006, Karnataka, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 10 February 2021 / Revised: 9 April 2021 / Accepted: 14 April 2021 / Published: 18 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant and Fungal Interactions)

Abstract

:
Rhizosphere-resident fungi that are helpful to plants are generally termed as ‘plant growth promoting fungi’ (PGPF). These fungi are one of the chief sources of the biotic inducers known to give their host plants numerous advantages, and they play a vital role in sustainable agriculture. Today’s biggest challenge is to satisfy the rising demand for crop protection and crop yield without harming the natural ecosystem. Nowadays, PGPF has become an eco-friendly way to improve crop yield by enhancing seed germination, shoot and root growth, chlorophyll production, and fruit yield, etc., either directly or indirectly. The mode of action of these PGPF includes the solubilization and mineralization of the essential micro- and macronutrients needed by plants to regulate the balance for various plant processes. PGPF produce defense-related enzymes, defensive/volatile compounds, and phytohormones that control pathogenic microbes’ growth, thereby assisting the plants in facing various biotic and abiotic stresses. Therefore, this review presents a holistic view of PGPF as efficient natural biofertilizers to improve crop plants’ growth and resistance.

1. Introduction

The global human population is predicted to increase from the current day situation and is estimated to reach approximately 9.7 billion (i.e., a 24% increase) by the year 2050 [1]. Accordingly, food production should increase by above 70% of the current levels to feed the vast population. In order to supply food for the increasing population, pre- and post-harvest diseases must be controlled in order to secure food security. Apart from pathogens, the contamination caused by unnecessary agrochemicals and their misuse has also contributed to reduced production [2]. The findings have also prompted researchers to develop new approaches to the management of diseases caused by various agents, including pests. Rhizosphere-resident plant growth promoting fungi (PGPF) are one of the effective eco-friendly management strategies of plant diseases, and they may also serve as an alternative tactic to boost the growth and defense mechanism in plants. The application of PGPF will reduce the use of chemical control to a minimum, and it protects plants against various biotic and abiotic stresses. Many PGPF species (Trichoderma, Talaromyces, Fusarium, Phytophthora, Penicillium, Rhizoctonia, Gliocladium, Phoma, etc.) have been reported to date to boost plants’ growth, and to enhance their innate immunity and other important secondary metabolites in plants [3,4,5,6,7]. The above beneficial aspects rendered by PGPF are due to root colonization, the production of growth hormones, the solubilization of essential minerals, antagonistic properties, mycoparasitic and saprophytic resistance, and competition for space and nutrients, in addition to the induction of systemic resistance (ISR) in plants [8,9,10]. Apart from these, PGPF prevents pathogen infection in plants, improves soil nutrient availability, and reduces ethylene in the native host via the production of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase and phytohormones [7,11]. The overview of the beneficial importance of PGPF in the promotion of plant growth and resistance is represented in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
During ISR activation, PGPF treatment regulates the levels of defense signaling hormones such as jasmonic acid (JA) and/or ethylene (ET), along with the accumulation of certain proteins (thaumatin), and stimulates the production of defense-linked enzymes—chiefly GLU (glucanases) and CHI (chitinases)—that prevent the growth and proliferation of pathogens either directly or indirectly [12,13]. Before regulating defense signaling pathways, PGPF triggers the increased synthesis of secondary compounds (lignin, callose), along with the production of antioxidant enzymes that protect plants from various biotic and abiotic stresses [14,15]. Apart from the above-mentioned factors, the need for superior PGPF to reduce toxic chemical fertilizers has been highlighted as one of the key moves towards organic farming practices. Therefore, the review sheds light on the recent findings related to the application of rhizosphere-resident PGPF in improving plant growth, the elicitation of resistance, co-operation with the host, root colonization, and commercial formulation of byproducts (Figure 3). The information produced from this review could be of great benefit to those looking for an organic method of farming primarily to achieve sustainability of crop production.

2. Beneficial Aspects of Rhizosphere-Resident PGPF

2.1. Production of Phytohormones

Phytohormones play a crucial role in regulating plant growth and defense. Indole 3-acetic acid (IAA) is one of the most widespread natural auxins, which chiefly improve plants’ root growth and morphology [4,16]. Treatment with sterile PGPF—Penicillium janczewskiy—was reported to elicit IAA production, and it induced resistance against stem rot caused by R. solani by altering the root growth of melon plants. The involvement of auxin precursors in these phenomena has not been determined, but the improved root development is consistent with the observed effects of fungal-based auxin production [16]. Various species of Trichoderma, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Fusarium, Talaromyces and Mortierella isolated from the rhizosphere soils are reported to stimulate IAA production in host plants (chickpea, rice and wheat), which facilitated increased growth and yield [17,18,19]. Apart from IAA, gibberellic acid (GA), also known as diterpenoid acid, is a phytohormone that regulates seed germination, and the development of roots and shoots [20]. Similarly, the treatment with Cladosporium sp. of wheat and cucumber plants enhanced their growth due to induced GA production [21], and it has been suggested that GA production plays a crucial role in the host colonization of pea plants [22]. In addition, Piriformospora spp., Phoma spp., and Trichoderma spp. treatment elicited cytokinin (predominantly zeatin) production which promoted growth in Arabidopsis and melon [23,24]. It has also been well observed that certain PGPF (Phoma spp.) produce abscisic acid and increase plants’ growth, preferably under stress situations [8].

2.2. Plant Growth Promotion

Different groups of rhizosphere-resident fungi (Trichoderma, Talaromyces, Rhizoctonia, Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, etc.) tend to have a positive effect on augmenting the growth of various crop plants [8,10,25,26]. In contradiction to this, Penicillium spp. (P. janthinellim, P. citreonigrum and P. citrinum) residing in the native rhizosphere hampered the growth of native zinnia and tomato plants [8]. Shivanna et al. [10] reported that PGPF, such as sterile fungi, Trichoderma sp. and Penicillium sp., isolated from zoysiagrass specifically enhanced the growth of wheat plants of two different varieties. Thus, the reports suggested that rhizosphere-resident fungi exhibit unique specificity between host plants related to plant growth enhancement. Furthermore, non-sporulating fungi (SBF (sterile black fungus), SRF (sterile red fungus), and SDF (sterile dark fungus)) residing in the native rhizosphere soil of plants improved the growth and yield of corn, wheat, barley, chickpea, bromegrass, lupine, pea, clover, and ryegrass [26,27]. It has been noted that the time taken by PGPF is one of the crucial characteristics in improving plant growth and yield, and this statement was validated by the study of Muslim et al. [28], wherein PGPF (sterile fungi, Trichoderma sp. and Penicillium sp.) was reported to augment the growth of wheat plants in less than four weeks. However, in some plants, it has been stated that PGPF can take an even greater time to elicit plant growth.
PGPF treatments on plants have been well registered to enhance plant growth under greenhouse and field conditions [29,30,31,32,33,34]. Seed treatment with a conidial suspension of Aspergillus niger, T. harzianum and Penicillium citrinum has been reported to improve chickpea’s growth [17]. Furthermore, Talaromyces spp., Chaetomium spp., and Exophiala sp. maximized the growth of cucumber, chilli and brassica plants [22,23,24]. Furthermore, Penicillium sp. augmented chilli, tomato and sesame plants growth [35,36]. PGPF like T. koningi elicited not only growth but also the production of phytoalexin, and were successful in establishing root colonization in the case of Lotus japonicus. Apart from the above, the rate of photosynthetic activity increased in various crop plants upon PGPF treatments (T. longipile, T. tomentosum, Aspergillus sp., Fusarium sp., and Penicillium sp.) with increase in the total chlorophyll content, which is directly co-related to enhanced plant growth [30,35,36,37].
The root colonization ability of PGPF has resulted in increased root surface, lateral root numbers and root length, thereby enhancing plants growth [38,39,40,41,42]. In contrast to this statement, there are also reports stating that a few PGPF (sterile fungi) are not capable of colonizing plant roots to augment plant growth and improve crop yield [9,10]. If colonization is established, the fungus’ efficiency appears to be more in the upper part of the root region than the middle or lower regions [9,10]. Thus, the phenomenon of PGPF root colonization is suggested not to be a necessary criterion for the enhancement of plant growth specifically in the case of sterile fungi, and hence it has been stated to be a non-homogenous phenomenon. It may also be noted that the increased plant growth might be due to different chemical factors involved in the increase of plant growth treated with sterile fungi. The studies of Zavala-Gonzalez et al. [43] suggested that treatment with A. ustus promoted secondary root development by altering A. thaliana and potato plants’ root structure. It has been recently reported that treatment with PGPF (Trichoderma sp.) positively influences the enhancement of roots in pine plants [38]. In the studies conducted by Naziya et al. [7], seed treatment with PGPF caused increased in seed and vegetative growth parameters in chilli—apart from chlorophyll content—upon root colonization. Besides this, the PGPF treatment time for the induction of flowers plays a crucial role in the early fruit setting of agricultural and ornamental plants [44]. Treatment with T. harzianum, P. chrysogenum, and P. simplicissimum had an immediate action on early flower induction, and increased flower size and flower number in tomato and Arabidopsis plants [32,45]. The Phoma sp. treatment prominently increased plant height, leaf and fruit number in cucumber when tested under greenhouse conditions [28]. Besides this, Rhizoctonia sp., Phoma sp., T. longibrachiatum, R. delemar and non-sporulating fungus increased the yield of different crop plants [9,30,46,47,48,49].
Apart from the above, the elicitors extracted from the PGPF have been employed to elicit plants’ growth and resistance upon pathogen attack [50]. The elicitors include crude oligosaccharides, proteins, and sphingolipids, etc., which positively affect plant growth parameters. It has been noted that crude proteins extracted from PGPF improved the seed quality parameters predominantly in pearl millet and muskmelon plants compared to the control [6,29]. Similarly, volatile compounds produced by PGPF played a crucial role in promoting plant growth and development [29]. Treatment with terpenoids—such as the volatile compounds produced by T. wortmannii and Phoma sp.—elicited turnip and tomato plants’ growth, respectively [51,52]. The reports suggested that the volatile compounds produced by PGPF increased the lateral root development and the overall biomass of the plant, and induced early flowering in addition to maximizing the chlorophyll content [51,53].
Furthermore, different carrier materials have been examined in order to check the PGPF population and their effect on promoting plants’ growth. A study showed that treatment with T. harzianum talc-based bioformulation retains a good number of conidial suspensions compared to charcoal, sawdust, or cow dung, and vermiculite formulation with an extended shelf life and seed priming with the same prominently increased the root length, fresh weight, and overall biomass of chickpea and rice plants [54,55]. Besides this, a T. harzianum bioformulation prepared from the hydrolytic amino acids of pig corpses retained high PGPF conidial efficiency and significantly enhanced the chlorophyll content, shoot length, dry weight of shoots, and roots of cucumber, pepper and tomato plants. Different PGPF treatments and their effect on plant growth promotion have been listed in the Table 1.

2.3. Mineralization of Soil Nutrients

The mineralization and solubilization of complex organic phosphorous into their simple forms are known to be catalyzed by PGPF-produced enzymes, such as phytase, phosphatases, inorganic acids (HCl, nitric, sulphuric acids) and organic acids (α-keto-butyric, malic, glyoxylic, succinic, oxalic, fumaric, gluconic, tartaric, citric, 2-ketogluconic acids) [89,90,91,92,93,94]. The nutrient mineralization of soil mediated by PGPF plays a crucial role in promoting plant growth. It brings down the substrate’s degradation into a more soluble form for plants’ easy uptake [5,10,95]. Phosphate (P) is a vital nutrient that is well known to enhance plant growth. The fungi—namely A. niger, A. tubingensis, P. bilaiae and P. oxalicum—isolated from the rhizosphere soil, were successfully capable of solubilizing rock phosphates through the action of organic acid and phytase [63,80,96,97]. Besides this, Penicillium sp., isolated from the Indian Himalayan regions, also solubilized the complex phosphate [92]. Furthermore, T. viride has been reported to increase the organic soil carbon content in addition to high N, P, and K contents [70]. Treatment with Penicillium sp. and Phoma sp. enormously increased the absorption of N, P, and K in zoysiagrass and muskmelon plants [10,33]. Within PGPF, Trichoderma sp. has been exploited more to enhance nutrients and mineral absorption, chiefly Fe, N, P and K [8,10,98,99]. Different T. harzianum strains increased the accessibility of ammonium, nitrogen, zinc, copper, iron and manganese [5,100,101]. PGPF such as Trichosporonbeigelii, C. albidus var. aurius, Phichia norvegensis isolated from teff fields have been reported to solubilize phosphate, thereby positively enhancing the seed germination rate and vigour of faba bean [102].
According to a recent study, it has been stated that hydrogen cyanide (HCN) does not act as a biocontrol agent, but rather is associated with metal chelation, which in turn increases phosphate accessibility [103]. This PGPF competes for nutrients by decreasing Fe’s availability, and by limiting the growth of harmful microbes by producing low molecular weight compounds named siderophores, which create a race within soil microbes to acquire ferric ion, thereby acting as antagonists against harmful pathogens [11,104]. Plants take up iron through the chelation released by PGPF, and the released iron (siderophore-Fe complexes) is taken up instantly by plants through ligand exchange reactions [105]. Wolfgang et al. [106] reported a siderophore mixture of two PGPF (P. chrysogenum and R. arrhizus) upgraded Fe content, which prominently promoted growth in cucumber, maize and tomato plants, and increased the chlorophyll content with an increase in the supply of Fe EDTA. Machuca et al. [107] stated that pH and Fe concentration (III) play a crucial role in developing siderophores. The study proposed that the optimal pH range for siderophore production is between 6 to 8, and the ideal Fe (III) concentration ranges between 1.5 to 21 μM. It has been suggested that the increase in mungbean plant growth is due to the production of siderophore by PGPF—A. parasiticus and A. niger—at pH 7 [108]. Various PGPFs—namely Absidia spp., Aspergillus sp., Thermoascus aurantiacus, Aspergillus flavus, A. niger, A. tamarii, A. nidulans, Fusarium sp., Paecilomyces varioti, Cunninghamella sp., Penicillium spinolosum, P. indofıtico, P. oxalicum, P. chrysogenum, Rhizopus sp., Trichoderma sp., Beauveria spp., and Metarhiziumspp., etc.—have been reported to produce siderophores which have been reported to efficiently augment the growth of plants, and to effectively hinder the growth of pathogens [41,109,110,111,112].
Apart from the above, cyanide is also one of the crucial secondary metabolites produced during the early stationary stage of plant growth [113], in which amino acids (methionine, glutamate, glycine) serve as predecessors in the oxidative decarboxylation process [114]. Aspergillus niger and Penicillium spp., isolated from the native rhizosphere soils, are reported to produce HCN and ammonia, which positively impacts the enhancement of rice plant growth [115]. It has been reported that Trichoderma possesses the capability to hydrolyze ACC into ammonia, a major N (nitrogen) source for plant growth and development [116]. The ammonia and HCN produced by various Trichoderma isolates have documented plant growth promotion activity through the production of HCN [41,84,117].

2.4. Resistance against Stressors

2.4.1. Antagonism

Antagonism is one mechanism wherein rhizospheric fungi tend to antagonize pathogens’ growth and development in plants. The antagonistic property of PGPF is suggested to be due to microbial predation, competition for nutrients, and antibiotic production, etc. [118]. The antagonism is suggested to be due to the production of lytic enzymes such as protease, chitinase and β- 1,3 glucanase [119]. Various PGPF—namely T. harzianum, Phoma sp., F. equiseti and P. simplicissimum—have been reported to be antagonistic against R. solani, P. irregulare, S. rolfsii, F. oxysporum, P. syringae and C. orbiculare [8]. Microbial predation mediated by PGPF involves the activation of the chitinase gene, which inhibits the growth of pathogens in an indirect manner [118]. PGPF such as Gliocladium virens produce an antibiotic called Gliovirin, which has restricted the growth of Pythium ultimum [120]. It has been suggested in the report of Kaur et al. [121] that F. oxysporum (non-pathogenic strains) isolated from rhizospheric soil inhibited the growth of pathogenic Fusarium strains via competition for nutrients, the reduction of chlamydospore germination, and competition to colonize infection sites (roots). Furthermore, T. harzianum suppressed the growth of Pythium sp., R. solani and F. oxysporum, thereby suggesting its antagonistic property towards many pathogens [5,122]. Similarly, Aspergillus fischeri displayed potent antifungal activity against Botrytis cineria [123]. To date, many fungi isolated from the rhizosphere have shown antagonistic responses towards pathogen growth [124,125,126]. However, reports state that antagonism need not be a specific criterion for the induction of resistance, as different rhizospheric fungi which are not antagonistic have also induced resistance in plants against various pathogenic infections [4]. This is because various other factors apart from antagonism may also play their part in the resistance to pathogen attack [4,7].

2.4.2. Induction of Resistance

Induced resistance (IR) is generally demarcated as a phenomenon or a method of improving the plant’s inherent immune system. It is elicited upon treatment with an inducer or elicitor which is active against biotic stresses imposed by bacteria, fungi, viruses, parasites, and nematodes [127,128]. There are two forms of IR—namely induced systemic resistance (ISR) and systemic acquired resistance (SAR)—which are classified according to the basic nature of the inducer and the controlling defense signaling pathways [129]. ISR is an optimistic method to bring down the infection level in plants caused by deleterious pathogens, and the activation of ISR in plants upon pathogen infection is systemically expressed in the plant part that is spatially separated from the inducing area [130,131]. For example, the priming of plant roots with PGPFs can systemically induce resistance in leaf and shoots areas, and the activation of the same upon PGPF treatment is considered one of the safest and most cost-effective means of improving the crop plant’s growth and productivity [12,121,124].
Plant treatment with Phoma spp., Penicillium spp., F. equisti, Trichoderma spp. and other non-sporulating fungi induced systemic resistance by suppressing the growth of some soil-borne and airborne pathogens in different crops [5,40,128]. The treatment of different PGPFs and a non-pathogenic F. oxysporum strain (Fo47) induced systemic resistance to the invading pathogens in the case of cucumber plants [120,131]. Dong et al. [132] reported induced resistance against Verticillium wilt in upland cotton and sea-island cotton upon P. chrysogenum treatment. P. simplicissimum was reported to induce ISR responses in cucumber and A. thaliana plants [64]. PGPF (A. ustus) application triggered resistance against B. cinerea in A. thaliana and S. tuberosum [43]. Trichoderma sp. has been documented to induce ISR upon subsequent pathogen attack in different crop plants [13,133,134,135]. Likewise, treatment with T. harzianum reported induced systemic resistance against downy mildew pathogen in grapevine [136] and T. asperellum treatment improved resistance against P. syringae pv. tomato in the case of Arabidopsis [137]. Volatile compounds produced by three PGPF (Cladosporium sp., Phoma sp. and Ampelomyces sp.) induced subsequent systemic resistance in Arabidopsis plants upon infection with Pst (P. syringae pv. tomato) pathogen [51]. Trichoderma harzianum, T. asperellum, and Talaromyces flavus induced resistance and successfully controlled sugar beet damping-off disease [138]. Trichoderma, along with other chemical treatments, showed successful control of head rot and root-knot diseases in the case of cabbage plants [139]. T. asperellum (T4 and T8) treatments showed a decrease in bacterial wilt disease incidence, along with an increase in tomato fruit yield. Besides this, the treatments also increased PAL, PPO, GLU enzyme activities through the activation of ISR upon infection with bacterial wilt pathogen in tomato plants [140]. Different PGPF—namely Trichoderma sp., Aspergillus spp., Talaromyces spp. and Penicillium spp.—showed the successful inhibition of anthracnose pathogen (C. capsici) in chilli. Furthermore, the tested PGPF—upon treatment—caused a reduction in anthracnose disease severity by ISR in chilli [7]. Thus, the PGPF-mediated protection in plants via ISR activation displays a high resistance towards pathogenic microbes in distant portions of the crop plants [77,99,141].
Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) refers to a distinct signal transduction pathway which includes the production of pathogenesis-related proteins and plays a crucial role in improving plant defense against pathogens [142,143]. In tobacco, the activation of SAR significantly reduced the occurrence of disease symptoms caused by various pathogenic microbes, namely Phytophthora parasifica, Cercospora nicotianae, and Peronospora tabacina, tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), tobacco necrosis virus (TNV), P. syringae pv. tabaci and Erwinia carotovora [144]. Treatment with Trichoderma harzianum induced PR protein production upon Phytophthora capsici infection in pepper plants [145]. A Trichoderma isolate (BHUF4) employed the SAR pathway and reduced the anthracnose infection caused by C. truncatum in chilli [146]; Trichoderma asperelloides enhances the SAR response under low nitrate nutrition in Arabidopsis [147]. Thus, PGPF-mediated SAR activation elicits a broad spectrum of systemic resistance in plants chiefly through PR protein production against disease-causing microbes [148,149].
The metabolites extracted from various fungi cause a great impression of imparting resistance in plants. The expression of elicitor-inducible PR proteins has been well correlated in imparting disease resistance [150]. Numerous glycoprotein elicitors have been extracted from P. cinnamomic [151], Cladosporium fulvum [152], C. lindemuthianum [153] and R. solani [154], which have been shown to induce resistance in plants. A protein elicitor (elicitin) (10 kDa) isolated from Phytopthora sp. was reported to trigger defense reactions in tobacco plants [155], along with a proteinaceous non-enzymatic elicitor from T. virens named Sm1, which efficiently elicited plant defense responses and induced systemic resistance against foliar pathogens [156,157,158]. Oligosaccharides extracted from PGPF are documented as strong elicitors in triggering defense reactions in crop plants against pathogenic microbes, and the underlying mechanism in the induction of resistance is reported to be reserved [159]. Cerebrosides, chiefly glycosphingolipids extracted from the Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici (wilt-causing fungus) have been reported to elicit resistance against wilt disease in tomato plants. Cerebroside treatment was reported to reduce the anthracnose infection level in chilli plants in greenhouse conditions. The bio-preparation of fungal elicitors has been used efficiently to elicit plant resistance, including improving crop growth, crop yield and crop quality [29].
Bioformulations of Trichoderma harzianum, T. asperellum, Talaromyces flavus successfully controlled sugar beet damping-off disease [138]. A combination of Trichoderma and a chitin-based bioformulation has been reported to successfully control the head rot and root-knot diseases of cabbage [139]. T. asperellum (T4 and T8) talc-based bioformulations showed a decrease in bacterial wilt disease incidence, along with an increase in tomato fruit yield. Besides this, bioformulations have been recorded to cause increases in PAL, PPO, GLU enzyme activities by ISR induction in the case of tomato against bacterial wilt [140]. The bioformulation of T. harzianum decreased the Fusarium wilt disease incidence in pumpkin plants [160]. Five PGPF, belonging to the genera of Trichoderma sp., Aspergillus spp., Talaromyces spp. and Penicillium spp. showed the successful inhibition of anthracnose pathogen (C. capsici) in chilli. Furthermore, the tested PGPFs have been documented to reduce anthracnose disease severity by ISR in chilli [4].

2.4.3. Morphological and Histochemical Defense

The plant cell wall is the most crucial barrier for the pathogen to cross in order to gain access to the host plant. PGPF treatments strengthen the host plants’ cell wall by increasing the deposition of defensive wall materials, chiefly phenol, lignin, and callose [4,6]. One of the most vital challenges faced by plants is the attack of deleterious microbes; in response to this attack, plants trigger different mechanisms to confer resistance. The resistance mechanism includes the activation of a hypersensitive reaction (HR) and the biosynthesis of antibiotics, including phytoalexins that impart resistance in plants [161]. The HR is the localized necrosis (cell death) of plant cells, which chiefly occurs at the infection site and is supposed to limit the spread of invading pathogens [162]. It occurs during resistance interactions between pathogens and host plants; during the process, brown necrotic spots can be seen at the site of the pathogen infection [132]. The primary event of HR includes the rapid production of ROS compounds, leading to the production of ROS like hydroxyl radicals, superoxide, and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [163].
The deposition of H2O2 in cell membranes is caused by the production of ROS at the site of infection, thereby inhibiting the growth and development of the pathogen [164]. The ROS production is toxic, and it has a lethal effect on microorganisms and the plant’s own cells (in higher concentrations). Still, this effect is further effectively induced by various antioxidant enzymes, of which the activity is elevated upon PGPF treatment under biotic and abiotic stress [14]. Different reports have been documented, stating that callose deposition occurs during resistance interactions upon pathogen infection, and it can also occur during pre-treatment with some chemical or biotic inducers, which elicits the innate protective resistance mechanism in plants [165,166]. Yedidia et al. [167] reported that T. harzianum T-203 enhanced callose deposition in cucumber seedlings. Similarly, callose deposition in the roots of A. thaliana seedlings was promoted by T. harzianum [168]. Pearl millet seedlings treated with T. hamatum showed high lignification and callose deposition upon infection with a downy mildew pathogen [169]. Furthermore, the T. atroviride TRS25 strain maximized the callose deposition in cucumber plants upon Rhizoctonia solani infection [15], and the treatment with Talaromyces funiculosus increased the deposition of callose in the epidermal walls of chilli seedlings upon C. capsici infection [4].
Lignin is a secondary metabolite produced in plant cells by the phenylalanine/tyrosine metabolic pathway, which acts as a potential barrier against deleterious pathogens. It triggers defense in plants upon pathogen entry by depositing lignin across the entire cell wall or on a set of cells, or only at the site of pathogen infection [170]. Lignification was induced in cucumber seedling hypocotyls with different PGPF culture filtrates [131]. Cucumber plants treated with Penicillium simplicissimum GP17-2 showed enhanced lignin formation [171]. Triple combinations of Pseudomonas-PHU094, Trichoderma-THU0816 and Rhizobium-RL091 showed an increase in the deposition of lignin in the case of chickpea plants which were previously infected with S. rolfsii. The deposition was high in the interfascicular cells of cambium, particularly in the sclerenchyma cells of phloem. Thus, PGPF, when employed individually, enhanced physical strength and cell wall durability against phytopathogens, but the effect can be elevated when it is applied in a synergistic consortium [54,172,173].

2.4.4. Biochemical Defense

The plant’s innate immunity to pathogen attack is also associated with defense-related biochemical mechanisms other than morphological and histological modifications, as various biochemical changes occur during the process. Interactions between the pathogen and the host plant encourage changes in cell metabolism and enzyme activities, such as phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL), peroxidase (POX), lipoxygenase (LOX), superoxide dismutase (SOD), β-1,3 glucanase, and polyphenol oxidase (PPO), etc. [127,174]. Seed treatment with specific PGPF types, such as Rhizoctonia spp., Fusarium sp., Aspergillus spp., Phoma spp., Talaromyces spp., Trichoderma spp., Pythium spp., Penicillium spp., and non-sporulating fungus increased the rates of POX occurrence in cucumber, pearl millet, and chilli [4,98,172,175]. Inoculation with Trichoderma spp. increased the peroxidase and chitinase activities in the roots and leaves of cucumber plants [167]. The high PPO level is evidenced by beneficial fungi in banana when their roots were treated with F. oxysporum [176]. Phoma spp. and non-sporulating [GU21-2] fungus have been shown to maximize the PPO activity in cucumber plants upon treatment [172]. Similarly, the Trichoderma strain elevated PPO enzyme activity in chilli, pigeon pea, and moong bean upon challenge inoculation with C. capsici, F. oxysporum and Alternaria alternata [175,177].
PGPF, like Trichoderma sp., elevated the expression of LOX activity in the case of pearl millet [169], and root colonization by Trichoderma isolates has been reported to elevate the levels of peroxidases, chitinases, and β-1-3-glucanases [167]. A significant elevation in the mRNA levels of Chit1, the β-1,3-glucanase gene and the peroxidase gene was observed in the leaves of Trichoderma-induced plants at 48 h post-challenge inoculation with P. syringae pv. lachrymans [12]. A rise in chitinase activity was instigated in the presence of PGPF, i.e., U. atrum, which showed biocontrol properties [178]. T. harzianumTr6 isolated from the cucumber rhizosphere were examined as both single and combination treatments, which induced resistance in cucumber plants against F. oxysporum f. sp. radices cucumerinum infection. This induced resistance is reported to be accompanied by a primed expression of the defense-related genes (CHIT1, β-1,3-Glucanase, PAL1 and LOX1) upon challenge inoculation with Fusarium [179]. Phoma spp. [GS8-1] and nonsporulating [GU21-2] fungus increased the chitinase activity in cucumber upon inoculation with Colletotrichum orbiculare [180]. Trichoderma elicited a high level of β-1,3 glucanase and chitinase enzyme activities, which induced resistance in Capsicum and French bean plants [41]. PGPF (Phoma sp.) and non-sporulating fungus GU21-2 treatment caused high glucanase activity in cucumber [172]. Seeds primed with Penicillium sp. have induced increased chitinase activity in the case of pearl millet upon pathogen inoculation [99]. Trichoderma atroviride treatment on cucumber plants increased PPO enzyme activity upon challenge inoculation with Rhizoctonia solani [13]. The application of crude metabolites isolated from various fungi stimulated plant defense responses by the induction of defense-related enzymes, chiefly PAL, POX, PPO and LOX [181]. Cycloproteins were reported to induce systemic resistance in Nicotiana benthamiana, and reduced P. nicotianae and TMV infection [182].

2.4.5. Defense Signaling

During local and systemic defense responses, a large set of defense enzymes, PR proteins, and signal molecules are manufactured in plants in order to elicit a wide range of antimicrobial activity [183]. The transcript accumulation pattern of defense enzymes during PGPF-mediated induced resistance is explored less and has received less attention. Defense responses triggered by beneficial and parasitic microorganisms regulate defense signaling networks, wherein the plant hormones SA, JA, and ET play the chief role [184]. There is ample evidence that displays the cross-communication between SA, JA and ET pathways to fine-tune the plant defense responses based on the invader encountered [185]. Cucumber plants pretreated with T. asperellum T203 were reported to activate JA/ET-systemic resistance linked with potential PR gene expression in response to pathogen infection [12].
A few reports have stated the involvement of SA-dependent signaling upon Trichoderma sp. treatment [186,187]. Tomato plants pretreated with Trichoderma were reported to elevate the expression of JA-responsive genes, which triggered systemic resistance against B. cinerea [12]. Different studies have suggested that ISR activation by Trichoderma sp. is involved in JA and ET signaling [11,188]. Moreover, the activation of both SA and JA pathways has also been documented for a few Trichoderma strains [43,137]. Many Trichoderma sp. have been stated to break down the cellulosic plant biomass with the cellulase enzyme’s action [189], which instigate ISR responses in plants such as tobacco, lime, bean, corn and cucumber by eliciting the ET or JA defense pathway [190,191,192]. Similar effects have been observed upon treatment with protein LSP1 and polysaccharide extracted from M. guilliermondii, wherein the treatments stimulated mitogen-activated protein kinases, defense-related gene expression, and defense signaling accompanied by glycyrrhizic acid biosynthesis [193]. Different effects of PGPF treatments in elicitation of resistance towards deleterious pathogens have been represented in the Table 2.

2.4.6. PGPF in Abiotic Stress Improvement

Crop plants encounter different abiotic stress challenges—including excessive temperature, drought, salinity, floods, and heavy metal accumulation—which exclusively affect crop plant growth and yield [201,202]. Most cultivated lands face one or more of the above-listed stresses, which decrease crop plants’ yields by up to 70% [203]. Climate change threatens the future loss of crop plant productivity, predominantly cereal crop plants, greatly impacting food security [204]. Most agricultural lands showed a high saline content (up to 37%) from 1990 to 2013 [205]. PGPF-mediated growth promotion in plants under stress or pressure conditions is reported to be due to the root construction changes, mineral solubilization from the dead organic substances, and (secondary) metabolite production [10]. PGPF that is naturally harbored in the soil system possesses the capacity to strengthen the plant’s immune system and improve plant growth under stressful conditions [5]. T. harzianum-treated tomato plants offered early seed germination and seedling vigor with an increased shoot and root length, and shoot fresh weight under biotic, abiotic and physiological pressures [206]. Trichoderma asperellum (siderophore producing strain) promoted cucumber plants’ growth under salt stress [207]. Penicillium sp., isolated from the rhizosphere soil of peanut, improved the saline tolerance ability in sesame plants [208]. Trichoderma spp. elicited abiotic stress tolerance ability against biotic pressure imposed by phytopathogens [209]. T. atroviride treatment improved the drought tolerance ability of maize plants with increased antioxidant enzyme machinery [210]. T. hamatum treatment triggered growth and the drought tolerant capacity in Theobroma cacao. T. harzianum treatment mitigated the salt (NaCl) tolerance capacity in Indian mustard plants with maximized antioxidant enzyme defense machinery [211].
Different groups of PGPF—such as Microsphaeropsis, Mucor, Steganosporium, Phoma, Aspergillus, Alternaria and Peyronellaea were—have been reported to protect Arabidopsis plants from heavy metal accumulation [212]. T. harzianum improved salt, osmotic, heat and oxidative stress conditions in A. thaliana plants with an increase in heat shock protein, and APX and SOS transcript activities [213]. T. virens improved the cadmium tolerance ability in N. tabacum plants with a reduction in lipid peroxidation and increased antioxidant enzyme activity [214]. T. harzianum treatment increased the drought tolerance ability in N. tabacum plants with an increase in their relative water content, along with a decline in their transpiration rate [215]. Furthermore, it elicits antibiotic production, mycoparasitism, opposition, and ISR activation [216]. PGPF strengthens the cell wall of plants and prevents solute loss during abiotic pressure [217]. During stress conditions, callose accumulation increases the plugging of the sieve pores and improves plasma membrane deposition and cell wall apposition [218]. Lignin is involved in the plant defense against varied sets of causative agents, including pests, and its effect is elevated in plants when inducing tolerance to different stressful situations (heavy metals, salinity, high or low temperature, drought and other pressures) [219]. Saline tolerance by PGPF is brought about by improving the sterol content for fatty acid enzyme modification [220,221]. PGPF are both salt-loving and salt-tolerant due to their inherent osmotic conditions [222]. PGPF interaction was affected by atmospheric and host factors, wherein the fungal population was found to be associated with the salinity rates [223]. Different fungi have been isolated in varied saline conditions, indicating their survival potential [224]. A sodium chloride concentration of ≥20% is tolerated by Penicillium and Aspergillus spp., and this PGPF resilience to adverse environment pressures is due to the production of osmotic substances [225].
Heat tolerance ability has been imparted by C. protuberata in Dichanthelium lanuginosum, but both the fungus and the plant showed no survival ability above 38 °C [226]. Different strains of Penicillium sp. were reported to boost plant immunity in sesame plants upon Fusarium infection under salt stress conditions [208]. Heavy toxic metals bring out cytoplasmic enzyme inactivation and cause injury to the cell membrane, resulting in low plant growth [227]. Penicillium resedanum induced GA production, which promoted chilli plants’ growth under abiotic pressures [35]. Trichoderma sp. has been reported to possess a tolerance ability toward heavy metals, chiefly zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and so on [228,229]. The instant build-up in the betaine, glycerol, and proline content chiefly in intracellular spaces has shown resistance to high salinity [222]. PGPF also elicits tolerance to varied abiotic pressures due to increased proline content and other enzyme (PPO, catalase, SOD, APX, etc.) activities [42,211]. A common mechanism through which PGPF improved the level of tolerance under abiotic pressures could be the amelioration of destruction triggered by ROS (reactive oxygen species) accrual in the case of stressed plants [206]. T. harzianum elicited ROS production via ISR activation by Thph 1 and 2 proteins in the case of maize [191]. Therefore, the ROS effect can be combated upon PGPF treatment, which has ROS scavenging capability to recycle ascorbate and glutathione products under abiotic pressures by the activation of antioxidant defense enzyme machinery [210,211]. Proline content is reported to efficiently cause an increase to the induced tolerance to various pressures in plants. Different enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant machineries have been reported to enhance PGPF treatment, strengthening the phytoconstituent composition and protecting the plants from the extra damage under abiotic pressures [211,230]. PGPF treatment was reported to limit the ethylene (ET) concentration by increasing ACC deaminase activity, which transformed ET into NH4 and α-keto- butyrate upon root colonization in plants [231]. Different reports have stated that PGPF colonization elevated ACC deaminase levels and augmented crop plants’ growth under stress situations. For example, Trichoderma spp. produced ACC-deaminase, which regulates the endogenous ACC level, thereby eliciting root elongation and improving plants’ inherent resistance capacity against abiotic pressures [42]. According to a recent report, T. longibrachiatum (T6) enhanced wheat plant growth and increased the capacity level to tolerate NaCl pressure by increasing ACC-deaminase enzyme activity (lowering ethylene) and IAA gene expression. This alleviated the effect caused Na+ damage and enhanced Na+ or H+ (antiporter gene) in wheat plants [232]. The tolerance effect of PGPF against various abiotic stresses in different plants has been listed in the Table 3.

2.5. PGPF as a Source of Alternatives

The disease is not the only outcome of plant-microbe interactions. Plants do have defense mechanisms that they utilize themselves, both locally and systemically. Several mutually beneficial relationships between plants and microbes affect agricultural productivity and plants’ health in general. These systems have also been the foci of intensive studies. In symbiotic relationships, the microbe assists the plant with nutrient absorption, or contributes biochemical and molecular activities that the plant lacks [98]. The plant, in turn, contributes photosynthate, to the competitive advantage of the corresponding microbial symbiont in the rhizosphere. By altering the balance of microflora in the rhizosphere, symbiotic associations may also help protect plants from disease-causing microbes [7]. The exploitation of other beneficial, non- symbiotic rhizosphere organisms for the biological control of plant diseases is also an important discipline which relies upon detailed knowledge of specific plant–microbe interactions and the general ecology of interacting microbes in the soil.
Presently, most of the research studies are focused on combating plant diseases through chemical insecticides or pesticides and fungicides, which are lethal to beneficial soil microflora and are also not safe for human consumption. Moreover, many chemical fertilizers, chiefly N, P, and K, have been applied to improve various crop plants’ growth, which causes soil pollution [240]. Therefore, different eco-friendly strategies have been put forth by research communities in the last decade to minimize the use of chemical-based fertilizers in crop improvement and management studies. As biocontrol agents, endophytes, Arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) fungi, plant extracts, and PGPR have been explored widely as substitutes for controlling plant diseases caused by deleterious microbes [3,4,34,241,242]. PGPF is the least-explored emerging eco-friendly source for combating different bacterial and fungal diseases in plants, in place of other biocontrol agents. PGPF is highly significant in enhancing plant growth, fruit yield and nutrient composition, and boosting plants’ immunity by increasing their defense machinery, which regulates pathogen infections [4,5,6,7,34,44]. This efficiency of PGPF can be attributed to its efficient radical colonization capability, mineral solubilization (PGP traits), activation of antioxidant and defense-related enzymes, and production of antibiotics, phytohormones and volatile compounds under various biotic and abiotic stresses. However, the selection of the potential PGPF is vital, as the plant responses to environmental conditions vary based on different aspects, e.g., plant genotype, the site of evaluation, and seasons, etc. To date, the exploitation of PGPFs has been regarded as a promising substitute for the present-day practices, and it needs to be further exploited for sustainable agriculture.

3. Conclusions

PGPF applications are highly efficient in enhancing crop yield, crop quality, and the sustainable management of plant diseases. The treatment with PGPF will reduce the cost and pollution effect caused by chemical fertilizers. PGPF can be used as a substitute to reduce the use of agrochemicals in plant disease management. The use of PGPF improves plant performance and crop yield in agricultural fields. Information about PGPF and host plant interactions with the pathogen infection helps us understand the signaling mechanism involved in plant growth and resistance. The induction of resistance mediated by PGPF is linked with the production of phytohormones, defense-related enzymes, antibiotics and other signaling hormones, which play a crucial role in offering long-time protection and resistance during biotic and abiotic pressures. Thus, the treatment of PGPF increased crop yield production and reduced the disease-causing effect of pathogens in agricultural crop fields.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.; B.N. and K.N.A.; methodology, M.M.; B.N.; M.A.A., M.N.A. and S.A.; software, H.G.G. and S.B.S.; validation, M.A., A.A., M.C.T. and K.N.A.; formal analysis, M.M., H.G.G. and M.A.; investigation, M.A. and B.N.; resources, M.A.A., A.A., N.L. and K.N.A. data curation, M.C.T. and N.K.; writing—original draft preparation, All the authors; writing—review and editing, All the authors; visualization, M.M. and H.G.G.; supervision, A.A. and K.N.A.; project administration, K.N.A. and A.A.; funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors M. Murali and B. Naziya would like to acknowledge the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, India, for providing financial support by awarding a Post-Doctoral Fellowship (No. F/PDFSS-2015-17-KAR-11846) and the Maulana Azad National Fellowship (MANF) (No. F1/17.1/2013-14/MANF-2013-14-MUS-KAR-30721), respectively. The authors are also thankful to the Department of studies in Botany, University of Mysore, for supplying the necessary facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

PGPFPlant Growth Promoting Fungi
ISRInduction of Systemic Resistance
SARSystemic Acquired Resistance
JAJasmonic acid
ETEthylene
GLUGlucanase
CHIChitinase
IAAIndole acetic acid
GAGibberellic acid
TCPTri-calcium phosphate
ROSReactive oxygen species
H2O2Hydrogen peroxide
PALPhenylalanine ammonia lyase
PPOPolyphenol oxidase
PODPeroxidase
CATCatalase
SODSuperoxide Dismutase
APXAscorbate Peroxidase
POXPeroxidase
LOXLipoxygenase
SASalicylic acid
GABGibberellin related molecule
RNOReactive Nitrogen Species
HRHypersensitive Reaction

References

  1. Desa, U.N. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights; United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wimalawansa, S.A.; Wimalawansa, S.J. Agrochemical-related environmental pollution: Effects on human health. GJBAHS 2014, 3, 72–83. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hyakumachi, M. Plant-growth-promoting fungi from turfgrass rhizosphere with potential for disease suppression. Soil Microorg. 1994, 44, 53–68. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hyakumachi, M.; Kubota, M. Fungi as plant growth promoter and disease suppressor. Fungal Biotechnol. Agric. Food Environ. Appl. 2004, 21, 101–110. [Google Scholar]
  5. Murali, M.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Sudisha, J.; Niranjana, S.R.; Shetty, H.S. Screening for plant growth promoting fungi and their ability for growth promotion and induction of resistance in pearl millet against downy mildew disease. J. Phytol. 2012, 4, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hossain, M.M.; Sultana, F.; Islam, S. Plant growth-promoting fungi (PGPF): Phytostimulation and induced systemic resistance. In Plant-Microbe Interactions in Agro-Ecological Perspectives; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 135–191. [Google Scholar]
  7. Naziya, B.; Murali, M.; Amruthesh, K.N. Plant Growth-Promoting Fungi (PGPF) Instigate Plant Growth and Induce Disease Resistance in Capsicum annuum L. upon Infection with Colletotrichum capsici (Syd.). Butl. Bisby Biomol. 2020, 10, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Meera, M.S.; Shivanna, M.B.; Kageyama, K.; Hyakumachi, M. Plant growth promoting fungi from zoysiagrass rhizosphere as potential inducers of systemic resistance in cucumbers. Phytopathology 1994, 84, 1399–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Whipps, J.M. Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere. J. Exp. Bot. 2001, 52, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shivanna, M.B.; Meera, M.S.; Kubota, M.; Hyakumachi, M. Promotion of growth and yield in cucumber by zoysia grass rhizosphere fungi. Microbes Environ. 2005, 20, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Shoresh, M.; Yedidia, I.; Chet, I. Involvement of jasmonic acid/ethylene signalling pathway in the systemic resistance induced in cucumber by Trichoderma asperellum T203. Phytopathology 2005, 95, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Tucci, M.; Ruocco, M.; De Masi, L.; De Palma, M.; Lorito, M. The beneficial effect of Trichoderma spp. on tomato is modulated by plant genotype. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2011, 12, 341–354.sss. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nawrocka, J.; Małolepsza, U.; Szymczak, K.; Szczech, M. Involvement of metabolic components, volatile compounds, PR proteins, and mechanical strengthening in multilayer protection of cucumber plants against Rhizoctonia solani activated by Trichoderma atroviride TRS25. Protoplasma 2018, 255, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Madi, L.; Katan, J. Penicillium janczewskii and its metabolites, applied to leaves, elicit systemic acquired resistance to stem rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 1998, 53, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aamir, M.; Kashyap, S.P.; Singh, V.K.; Dubey, M.K.; Ansari, W.A.; Upadhyay, R.S.; Singh, S. Trichoderma erinaceum Bio-priming Modulates the WRKYs Defense Programming in tomato against the Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol) Challenged Condition. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Yadav, J.; Verma, J.P.; Tiwari, K.N. Plant growth promoting activities of fungi and their effect on chickpea plant growth. Asian J. Biol. Sci. 2011, 4, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Abri, T.K.; Sengin, E.L.; Sjahrir, R. Production of indole acetic acid (IAA) hormone from fungal isolates collected from rhizosphere of aromatic rice in Tana Toraja. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol. 2015, 2, 198–201. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar, N.V.; Rajam, K.S.; Rani, M.E. Plant growth promotion efficacy of indole acetic acid (IAA) produced by a mangrove associated fungi- Trichoderma viride VKF3. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 2692–2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ozimek, E.; Jaroszuk-Sciseł, J.; Bohacz, J.; Korniłłowicz-Kowalska, T.; Tyskiewicz, R.; Słomka, A.; Nowak, A.; Hanaka, A. Synthesis of indole acetic acid, gibberellic acid and ACC-deaminase by Mortierella strains promote winter wheat seedlings growth under different conditions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Gillespie-Sasse, L.; Alamassi, J.F.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Sivasithamparam, K. Use of clean seedling assay to test plant growth promotion by exudates from a sterile red fungus. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1991, 23, 95–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hamayun, M.; Khan, S.A.; Khan, A.L.; Rehman, G.; Kim, Y.H.; Iqbal, I.; Hussain, J.; Sohn, E.Y.; Lee, I.J. Gibberellin production and plant growth promotion from pure cultures of Cladosporium sp. MH-6 isolated from cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Mycologia 2010, 102, 989–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vadassery, J.; Ritter, C.; Venus, Y.; Camehl, I.; Varma, A.; Shahollari, B.; Novák, O.; Strnad, M.; Ludwig-Müller, J.; Oelmüller, R. The role of auxins and cytokinins in the mutualistic interaction between Arabidopsis and Piriformospora indica. Mol. Plant -Microbe Interact. 2008, 21, 1371–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Speakman, J.B.; Kruger, W. Control of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici by a sterile, black mycelial fungus. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 1984, 91, 391–395. [Google Scholar]
  24. Martinez-Medina, A.; Alguacil, M.D.M.; Pascual, J.A.; Van Wees, S.C. Phytohormone profiles induced by Trichoderma isolates correspond with their biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activity on melon plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 2014, 40, 804–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Murali, M.; Sudisha, J.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Shetty, H.S. Rhizosphere fungus Penicillium chrysogenum promotes growth and induces defence-related genes and downy mildew disease resistance in pearl millet. Plant Biol. 2013, 15, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dewan, M.; Sivasithamparam, K. Growth promotion of rotation crop species by sterile fungus from wheat and effect of soil temperature and water potential on its suppression of take-all. Mycol. Res. 1989, 93, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shivanna, M.B.; Meera, M.S.; Hyakumachi, M. Sterile fungi from zoysiagrass rhizosphere as plant growth promoters in spring wheat. Can. J. Microbiol. 1994, 40, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Muslim, A.; Horinouchi, H.; Hyakumachi, M. Biological control of Fusarium wilt of tomato with hypovirulent binucleate Rhizoctonia in greenhouse conditions. Mycoscience 2003, 44, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yamagiwa, Y.; Toyoda, K.; Inagaki, Y.; Ichinose, Y.; Hyakumachi, M.; Shiraishi, T. Talaromyces wortmannii FS2 emits β-caryophyllene, which promotes plant growth and induces resistance. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2011, 77, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mushtaq, S.; Nasim, G.; Khokhar, I.; Mukhtar, I. Effects of Penicillium extracts on germination vigour in subsequent seedling growth of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2012, 45, 932–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nagaraju, A.; Sudisha, J.; Mahadeva Murthy, S.; Ito, S.I. Seed priming with Trichoderma harzianum isolates enhances plant growth and induces resistance against Plasmopara halstedii, an incitant of sunflower downy mildew disease. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2012, 41, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jogaiah, S.; Abdelrahman, M.; Tran, L.S.P.; Shin-ichi, I. Characterization of rhizosphere fungi that mediate resistance in tomato against bacterial wilt disease. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 3829–3842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Sindhu, G.M.; Murali, M.; Thriveni, M.C.; Anupama, N.; Amruthesh, K.N. Growth promotion and disease resistance in muskmelon induced by crude proteins of Penicillium verruculosum against gummy stem blight disease. J. Crop. Sci. 2018, 10, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Basavaraj, G.L.; Murali, M.; Lavanya, S.N.; Amruthesh, K.N. Seed priming with biotic agents invokes defense response and enhances plant growth in pearl millet upon infection with Magnaporthe grisea. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 21, 101279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mastouri, F.; Björkman, T.; Harman, G.E. Seed treatment with Trichoderma harzianum alleviates biotic, abiotic, and physiological stresses in germinating seeds and seedlings. Phytopathology 2010, 100, 1213–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Hossain, M.M.; Sultana, F.; Miyazawa, M.; Hyakumachi, M. The plant growth-promoting fungus Penicillium spp. GP15-1 enhances growth and confers protection against damping-off and anthracnose in the cucumber. J. Oleo Sci. 2014, 63, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Islam, S.; Akanda, A.M.; Sultana, F.; Hossain, M.M. Chilli rhizosphere fungus Aspergillus spp. PPA1 promotes vegetative growth of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants upon root colonisation. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2014, 47, 1231–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khan, A.L.; Waqas, M.; Lee, I.J. Resilience of Penicillium resedanum LK6 and exogenous gibberellin in improving Capsicum annuum growth under abiotic stresses. J. Plant Res. 2015, 128, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shivanna, M.B.; Meera, M.S.; Hyakumachi, M. Role of root colonization ability of plant growth promoting fungi in the suppression of take-all and common root rot of wheat. Crop. Prot. 1996, 15, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rabeendran, N.; Moot, D.J.; Jones, E.E.; Stewart, A. Inconsistent growth promotion of cabbage and lettuce from Trichoderma isolates. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2000, 53, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Salas-Marina, M.A.; Silva-Flores, M.A.; Cervantes-Badillo, M.G.; Rosales-Saavedra, M.T.; Islas-Osuna, M.A.; Casas-Flores, S. The plant growth-promoting fungus Aspergillus ustus promotes growth and induces resistance against different lifestyle pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 21, 686–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Zhang, S.; Gan, Y.; Xu, B. Application of plant-growth-promoting fungi Trichoderma longibrachiatumT6 enhances tolerance of wheat to salt stress through improvement of antioxidative defense system and gene expression. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1405. [Google Scholar]
  43. Halifu, S.; Deng, X.; Song, X.; Song, R. Effects of two Trichoderma strains on plant growth, rhizosphere soil nutrients, and fungal community of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica annual seedlings. Forests 2019, 10, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Zavala-Gonzalez, E.A.; Rodríguez-Cazorla, E.; Escudero, N.; Aranda-Martinez, A.; Martinez-Laborda, A.; Ramírez-Lepe, M.; Vera, A.; Lopez-Llorca, L.V. Arabidopsis thaliana root colonization by the nematophagous fungus Pochoniachlamydosporia is modulated by jasmonate signaling and leads to accelerated flowering and improved yield. New Phytol. 2017, 213, 351–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Poveda, J.; Hermosa, R.; Monte, E.; Nicolas, C. Trichoderma harzianum favours the access of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to non-host Brassicaceae roots and increases plant productivity. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Pascual, C.B.; Raymundo, A.D.; Hayakumachi, M. Efficacy of hypovirulent binucleate Rhizoctonia sp. to control banded leaf and sheath blight in corn. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2000, 66, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Desender, S.; Andrivon, D.; Florence, V. Activation of defence reactions in Solanaceae: Where is the specificity? -Microreview. Cell. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Srivastava, P.K.; Shenoy, B.D.; Gupta, M.; Vaish, A.; Mannan, S.; Singh, N.; Tewari, S.K.; Tripathi, R.D. Stimulatory effects of arsenic-tolerant soil fungi on plant growth promotion and soil properties. Microbes Environ. 2012, 27, 477–482, ME11316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Akhter, W.; Bhuiyan, M.K.A.; Sultana, F.; Hossain, M.M. Integrated effect of microbial antagonist, organic amendment and fungicide in controlling seedling mortality (Rhizoctonia solani) and improving yield in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Comptes Rendus Biol. 2015, 338, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hammad, R.; Elbagory, M. Using plant growth-promoting fungi (PGPF), as a biofertilizer and biocontrol agents against Tetranychuscucurbitacearum on Nubian watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.). J. Adv. Microbiol. 2019, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kanchiswamy, C.N.; Malnoy, M.; Maffei, M.E. Chemical diversity of microbial volatiles and their potential for plant growth and productivity. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hung, R.; Lee, S.; Bennett, J.W. Arabidopsis thaliana as a model system for testing the effect of Trichoderma volatile organic compounds. Fungal Ecol. 2013, 6, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Naznin, H.A.; Kiyohara, D.; Kimura, M.; Miyazawa, M.; Shimizu, M.; Hyakumachi, M. Systemic resistance induced by volatile organic compounds emitted by plant growth-promoting fungi in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Singh, A.; Sarma, B.K.; Upadhyay, R.S.; Singh, H.B. Compatible rhizosphere microbes mediated alleviation of biotic stress in chickpea through enhanced antioxidant and phenylpropanoid activities. Microbiol. Res. 2013, 168, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Doni, F.; Anizan, I.; Radziah, C.C.; Salman, A.H.; Rodzihan, M.H.; Yusoff, W.M.W. Enhancement of rice seed germination and vigour by “Trichoderma” spp. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 7, 4547–4552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, F.; Huo, Y.; Cobb, A.B.; Luo, G.; Zhou, J.; Yang, G.; Wilson, G.W.; Zhang, Y. Trichoderma biofertilizer links to altered soil chemistry, altered microbial communities, and improved grassland biomass. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lindsey, D.L.; Baker, R. Effect of certain fungi on dwarf tomatoes grown under gnotobiotic conditions. Phytopathol. 1967, 57, 1262–1263. [Google Scholar]
  58. Windham, M.T.; Elad, Y.; Baker, R. A mechanism for increased plant induced by Trichoderma spp. Phytopathology 1986, 76, 518–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chang, Y.C.; Baker, R.; Kleifeld, O.; Chet, I. Increased growth of plants in the presence of the biological control agent Trichoderma harzianum. Plant Dis. 1986, 70, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Narita, Y.; Suzuki, T. Influence of a sterile dark mycelial fungus on take-all of wheat. Annu. Soc. Jpn. 1991, 57, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Harman, G.E.; Petzoldt, R.; Comis, A.; Chen, J. Interactions between Trichoderma harzianum strain T22 and maize inbred line Mo17 and effects of this interaction on diseases caused by Pythium ultimum and Colletotrichum graminicola. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Chuang, C.C.; Kuo, Y.L.; Chao, C.C.; Chao, W.L. Solubilization of inorganic phosphates and plant growth promotion by Aspergillus niger. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 2007, 43, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Wakelin, S.A.; Gupta, V.V.S.R.; Harvey, P.R.; Ryder, M.H. The effect of Penicillium fungi on plant growth and phosphorus mobilization in neutral to alkaline soils from southern Australia. Can. J. Microbiol. 2007, 53, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hossain, M.M.; Sultana, F.; Kubota, M.; Koyama, H.; Hyakumachi, M. The plant growth-promoting fungus Penicillium simplicissimum GP17-2 induces resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana by activation of multiple defense signals. Plant Cell Physiol. 2007, 48, 1724–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Horinouchi, H.; Katsuyama, N.; Taguchi, Y.; Hyakumachi, M. Control of Fusarium crown and root rot of tomato in a soil system by combination of a plant growth-promoting fungus, Fusarium equiseti, and biodegradable pots. Crop. Prot. 2008, 27, 859–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Khan, S.A.; Hamayun, M.; Yoon, H.; Kim, H.Y.; Suh, S.J.; Hwang, S.K.; Kim, J.M.; Lee, I.J.; Choo, Y.S.; Yoon, U.H.; et al. Plant growth promotion and Penicillium citrinum. BMC Microbiol. 2008, 8, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Contreras-Cornejo, H.A.; Macias-Rodriguez, L.I.; Cortes-Penagos, C.; Lopez-Bucio, J. Trichoderma virens, a plant beneficial fungus, enhances biomass production and promotes lateral root growth through an auxin dependent mechanism in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149, 1579–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Chandanie, W.A.; Kubota, M.; Hyakumachi, M. Interactions between the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae and plant growth promoting fungi and their significance for enhancing plant growth and suppressing damping-off of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Appl. Soil Ecol. 2009, 41, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hamayun, M.; Khan, S.A.; Khan, M.A.; Khan, A.L.; Kang, S.M.; Kim, S.K.; Joo, G.J.; Lee, I.J. Gibberellin production by pure cultures of a new strain of Aspergillus fumigates. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 25, 1785–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yadav, R.L.; Shukla, S.K.; Suman, A.; Singh, P.N. Trichoderma inoculation and trash management effects on soil microbial biomass, soil respiration, nutrient uptake and yield of ratoon sugarcane under subtropical conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2009, 45, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Horinouchi, H.; Muslim, A.; Hyakumachi, M. Biocontrol of Fusarium wilt of spinach by the plant growth promoting fungus Fusarium equiseti GF183. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 92, 249–254. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shanmugaiah, V.; Mathivanan, N.; Varghese, B. Purification, crystal structure and antimicrobial activity of phenazine-1-carboxamide produced by a growth-promoting biocontrol bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa MML2212. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Saldajeno, M.G.B.; Hyakumachi, M. The plant growth-promoting fungus Fusarium equiseti and the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae stimulate plant growth and reduce severity of anthracnose and damping off diseases in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) seedlings. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2011, 159, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kaveh, H.; Vatandoost, S.; Aroiee, H.; Mazhabi, M. Would Trichoderma affect seed germination and seedling quality of two muskmelon cultivars, Khatooni and Qasri and increase their transplanting success? J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2011, 5, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
  75. Minerdi, D.; Bossi, S.; Maffei, M.E.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. Fusarium oxysporum and its bacterial consortium promote lettuce growth and expansin A5 gene expression through microbial volatile organic compound (MVOC) emission. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 76, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Elsharkawy, M.M.; Shimizu, M.; Takahashi, H.; Hyakumachi, M. The plant growth-promoting fungus Fusarium equiseti and the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae induce systemic resistance against Cucumber mosaic virus in cucumber plants. Plant Soil 2012, 361, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fontenelle, A.D.B.; Guzzo, S.D.; Lucon, C.M.M.; Harakava, R. Growth promotion and induction of resistance in tomato plant against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria and Alternaria solani by Trichoderma spp. Crop. Prot. 2011, 30, 1492–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sofo, A.; Tataranni, G.; Xiloyannis, C.; Dichio, B.; Scopa, A. Direct effects of Trichoderma harzianum strain T-22 on micropropagated shoots of GiSeLa6® Prunus cerasus × Prunus canescens) rootstock. Environ. Exp Bot. 2012, 76, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vujanovic, V.; Goh, Y.K. qPCR quantification of Sphaerodesmycoparasitica biotrophic mycoparasite interaction with Fusarium graminearum: In vitro and in planta assays. Arch. Microbiol. 2012, 194, 707–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hossain, M.M.; Hossain, N.; Sultana, F.; Islam, S.M.N.; Islam, S.; Bhuiyan, M.K.A. Integrated management of Fusarium wilt of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) caused by Fusarium oxysporumf.sp. ciceris with microbial antagonist, botanical extract and fungicide. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12, 4699–4706. [Google Scholar]
  81. Zhou, Z.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, W.; Li, W.; Chu, L.; Yan, J.; Li, H. Diversity and plant growth-promoting ability of endophytic fungi from the five flower plant species collected from Yunnan, Southwest China. J. Plant Interact. 2014, 9, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dixit, R.; Bahadur Singh, R.; Bahadur Singh, H. Screening of antagonistic potential and plant growth promotion activities of Trichoderma spp. and fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. isolates against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum causing stem rot of French bean. Legume Res. 2015, 38, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, F.; Meng, X.; Feng, C.; Ran, W.; Yu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, Q. Hydrolytic amino acids employed as a novel organic nitrogen source for the preparation of PGPF-containing bio-organic fertilizer for plant growth promotion and characterization of substance transformation during BOF production. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0149447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Prasad, M.R.; Vidyasagar, B.; Umadevi, G.; Triveni, S.; Koteswar Rao, S.R.; Damodara Chari, S.R. Isolation and Screening of Bacterial and Fungal Isolates for Plant Growth Promoting Properties from Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Elsharkawy, M.M.; Abass, J.M.; Kamel, S.M.; Hyakumachi, M. The plant growth promoting fungus Penicillium sp. GP16-2 enhances the growth and confers protection against Cucumber mosaic virus in tobacco. Virol. Sci. 2017, 1, 145–154. [Google Scholar]
  86. Yoo, S.J.; Shin, D.J.; Won, H.Y.; Song, J.; Sang, M.K. Aspergillus terreus JF27 promotes the growth of tomato plants and induces resistance against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Mycobiology 2018, 46, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Zhou, L.S.; Tang, K.; Guo, S.X. The plant growth-promoting fungus (PGPF) Alternaria sp. A13 markedly enhances Salvia miltiorrhiza root growth and active ingredient accumulation under greenhouse and field conditions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Chowdappa, P.; Kumar, S.M.; Lakshmi, M.J.; Upreti, K.K. Growth stimulation and induction of systemic resistance in tomato against early and late blight by Bacillus subtilis OTPB1 or Trichoderma harzianum OTPB3. Biol. Control 2013, 65, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Elsharkawy, M.M.; El-Khateeb, N.M.M. Antifungal activity and resistance induction against Sclerotium cepivorum by plant growth-promoting fungi in onion plants. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Al-Ghazali, M.R.; Korshed, M.S.H.; Al-Azawi, S.K. Some observations on phosphorus solubilisation by aerobic microorganisms isolated from sediments of Al-Khair River, (Iraq). J. Biol. Sci. Res. 1986, 17, 157–171. [Google Scholar]
  91. Illmer, P.; Schinner, F. Solubilization of insoluble phosphates by microrganisms isolated from forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1992, 24, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Altomare, C.; Norvell, W.A.; Bjorkman, T.; Harman, G.E. Solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients by the plant-growth-promoting and biocontrol fungus Trichoderma harzianum Rifai 1295-22. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 2926–2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Pandey, A.; Das, N.; Kumar, B.; Rinu, K.; Trivedi, P. Phosphate solubilization by Penicillium spp. isolated from soil samples of Indian Himalayan region. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Murali, M.; Thriveni, M.C.; Manjula, S.; Mythrashree, S.R.; Amruthesh, K.N. Isolation of phosphate solubilizing fungi from rhizosphere soil and its effect on seed growth parameters of different crop plants. J Appl. Biol. Biotechnol. 2016, 4, 022–026. [Google Scholar]
  95. Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A.; Ahemad, M.; Oves, M.; Wani, P.A. Plant growth promotion by phosphate solubilizing fungi–current perspective. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2010, 56, 73–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shivanna, M.B.; Meera, M.S.; Kageyama, K.; Hyakumachi, M. Influence of zoysiagrass rhizosphere fungal isolates on growth and yield of soybean plants. Mycoscience 1995, 36, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Reddy, M.S.; Kumar, S.K.; Babita, M.S.R. Bio-solubilization of poorly soluble rock phosphates by Aspergillus tubingensis and Aspergillus niger. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 84, 187–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Li, Z.; Bai, T.; Dai, L.; Wang, F.; Tao, J.; Meng, S.; Hu, Y.; Wang, S.; Hu, S. A study of organic acid production in contrasts between two phosphate solubilizing fungi: Penicillium oxalicum and Aspergillus niger. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Murali, M.; Amruthesh, K.N. Plant Growth-promoting Fungus Penicillium oxalicum enhances plant growth and induces resistance in pearl millet against downy mildew disease. J. Phytopathol. 2015, 163, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Fiorentino, N.; Ventorino, V.; Woo, S.L.; Pepe, O.; De Rosa, A.; Gioia, L.; Romano, I.; Lombardi, N.; Napolitano, M.; Colla, G.; et al. Trichoderma-based biostimulants modulate rhizosphere microbial populations and improve N uptake efficiency, yield, and nutritional quality of leafy vegetables. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Yedidia, I.; Srivastva, A.K.; Kapulnik, Y.; Chet, I. Effect of Trichoderma harzianum on microelement concentrations and increased growth of cucumber plants. Plant Soil 2001, 235, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Singh, V.; Singh, P.N.; Yadav, R.L.; Awasthi, S.K.; Joshi, B.B.; Singh, R.K.; Lal, R.J.; Duttamajumder, S.K. Increasing the efficacy of Trichoderma harzianum for nutrient uptake and control of red rot in sugarcane. J. Hortic. For. 2010, 2, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  103. Gizaw, B.; Tsegay, Z.; Tefera, G.; Aynalem, E.; Abatneh, E. Bio-Priming effect of three phosphate solubilizing fungi on seed germination and seedling development of Faba Bean (Vicia faba). J. Pest Biofertil. 2018, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  104. Rijavec, T.; Lapanje, A. Hydrogen cyanide in the rhizosphere: Not suppressing plant pathogens, but rather regulating availability of phosphate. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Berg, G. Plant-microbe interactions promoting plant growth and health: Perspectives for controlled use of microorganisms in agriculture. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Crowley, D.E. Microbial siderophores in the plant rhizosphere. In Iron Nutrition in Plants and Rhizospheric Microorganisms; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 169–198. [Google Scholar]
  107. Wolfgang, H.; Volker, R.; Guenther, M. Fusarinines and dimerum acid, mono- and dihydroxamate siderophores from Penicillium chrysogenum, improve iron utilization by strategy I and strategy II plants. Biometals 2000, 13, 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  108. Machuca, A.; Milgres, A.M.F. Use of CAS agar plate modified to study the effects of different variables on the siderophore production by Aspergillus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 36, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Dhara, P.; Stuti, P.; Pooja, T.; Meenu, S. Siderophore producing Aspergillus spp. as bioinoculant for enhanced growth of Mung Bean. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 6, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  110. Mahmoud, A.; Abd-Alla, M. Siderophore production by some microorganisms and their effect on Bradyrhizobium-Mung Bean symbiosis. Int. J Agri. Biol. 2001, 3, 157–162. [Google Scholar]
  111. Nenwani, V.; Doshi, P.; Saha, T.; Rajkumar, S. Isolation and characterization of a fungal isolate for phosphate solubilization and plant growth promoting activity. J. Yeast Fungal Res. 2010, 1, 009–014. [Google Scholar]
  112. Ghosh, S.K.; Banerjee, S.; Sengupta, C. Bioassay, characterization and estimation of siderophores from some important antagonistic Fungi. J. Biofertil. Biopestic. 2017, 10, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  113. Pandya, N.D.; Desai, P.V.; Jadhav, H.P.; Sayyed, R.Z. Plant growth promoting potential of Aspergillus sp. NPF7, isolated from wheat rhizosphere in South Gujarat, India. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 1, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Knowles, C.J.; Bunch, A.W. Microbial cyanide metabolism. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 1986, 27, 73–111. [Google Scholar]
  115. Curl, E.A.; Truelove, B. The Rhizosphere; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  116. Samuel, S.; Muthukkaruppan, S.M. Characterization of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and fungi associated with rice, mangrove and effluent contaminated soil. Curr. Bot. 2011, 2, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  117. Contreras-Cornejo, H.A.; Macías-Rodríguez, L.; del-Val, E.; Larsen, J. Ecological functions of Trichoderma spp. and their secondary metabolites in the rhizosphere: Interactions with plants. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Mohiddin, F.A.; Bashir, I.; Padder, S.A.; Hamid, B. Evaluation of different substrates for mass multiplication of Trichoderma species. J. Pharm. Phytochem. 2017, 6, 563–569. [Google Scholar]
  119. Benhamou, N.; Chet, I. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms Involved in the Interaction between Trichoderma harzianum and Pythium ultimum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, 63, 2095–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Gajera, H.P.; Vakharia, D.N. Production of lytic enzymes by Trichoderma isolates during in vitro antagonism with Aspergillus niger, the causal agent of collar rot of peanut. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2012, 43, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Howell, C.R.; Stipanovic, R.D. Gliovirin, a new antibiotic from Gliocladium virens and its role in the biological control of Pythium ultimum. Can. J. Microbiol. 1983, 29, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kaur, R.; Kaur, J.; Singh, R.S. Non-pathogenic Fusarium as a biological control agent. Plant Pathol. J. 2011, 9, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Moreno, A.B.; Martinez del Pozo, A.; Borja, M.; Segundo, B.S. Activity of the antifungal protein from Aspergillus giganteus against Botrytis cinerea. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 1344–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Toth, L.; Varadi, G.; Boros, E.; Borics, A.; Ficze, H.; Nagy, I.; Toth, G.K.; Rakhely, G.; Marx, F.; Galgoczy, L. Biofungicidal potential of Neosartorya (Aspergillus) fischeri antifungal protein NFAP and novel synthetic γ-core peptides. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bhatia, P.; Harsh, N.S.K.; Dubey, R.C.; Kaushik, P.K. Antagonistic activity of rhizosphere fungi against Fusarium solani causing wilt in Dalbergia sissoo. J. Sci. Res. Adv. 2016, 3, 352–357. [Google Scholar]
  126. Vinale, F.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Ghisalberti, E.L.; Marra, R.; Barbetti, M.J.; Li, H.; Woo, S.L.; Lorito, M. A noel role for Trichoderma secondary metabolites in the interactions with plants. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2008, 72, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hammerschmidt, R.; Kuc, J. Induced Resistance to Disease in Plants; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; p. 182. [Google Scholar]
  128. Choudhary, D.K.; Prakash, A.; Johri, B.N. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants: Mechanism of action. Indian J. Microbiol. 2007, 47, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Sanchez-Montesinos, B.; Dianez, F.; Moreno-Gavira, A.; Gea, F.J.; Santos, M. Role of Trichoderma aggressivum f. europaeum as plant-growth promoter in horticulture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1004. [Google Scholar]
  130. Houssien, A.A.; Ahmed, S.M.; Ismail, A.A. Activation of tomato plant defense response against Fusarium wilt disease using Trichoderma harzianum and salicylic acid under greenhouse conditions. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2010, 6, 328–338. [Google Scholar]
  131. Heil, M. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) against pathogens- a promising field for ecological research. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. SysteYedidia 2001, 4, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Koike, N.; Hyakumachi, M.; Kageyama, K.; Doke, N. Induction of systemic resistance in cucumber against several diseases by plant growth promoting fungi: Lignifications and superoxide generation. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2001, 107, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Dong, H.Z.; Cohen, Y. Dry mycelium of Penicillium chrysogenum induces resistance against Verticillium wilt and enhances growth of cotton plants. Phytoparasitica 2002, 30, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Hanson, L.E.; Howell, C.R. Elicitors of plant defense responses from biocontrol strains of Trichoderma virens. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Segarra, G.; Casanova, E.; Bellido, D.; Odena, M.A.; Oliveira, E.; Trillas, I. Proteome, salicylic acid and jasmonic acid changes in cucumber plants inoculated with Trichoderma asperellum strain T34. Proteomics 2007, 7, 3943–3952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Reglinski, T.; Rodenburg, N.; Taylor, J.T.; Northcott, G.L.; Chee, A.A.; Spiers, T.M.; Hill, R.A. Trichoderma atroviride promotes growth and enhances systemic resistance to Diplodiapinea in radiata pine (Pinus radiata) seedlings. For. Pathol. 2012, 42, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Perazzolli, M.; Roatti, B.; Bozza, E.; Pertot, I. Trichoderma harzianum T39 induces resistance against downy mildew by priming for defense without costs for grapevine. Biol. Cont. 2011, 58, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Yoshioka, Y.; Ichikawa, H.; Naznin, H.A.; Kogure, A.; Hyakumachi, M. Systemic resistance induced in Arabidopsis thaliana by Trichoderma asperellum SKT-1, a microbial pesticide of seedborne diseases of rice. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 68, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kakvan, N.; Heydari, A.; Zamanizadeh, H.R.; Rezaee, S.; Naraghi, L. Development of new bioformulations using Trichoderma and Talaromyces fungal antagonists for biological control of sugar beet damping-off disease. Crop. Prot. 2013, 53, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Loganathan, M.; Sible, G.V.; Maruthasalam, S.; Saravanakumar, D.; Raguchander, T.; Sivakumar, M.; Samiyappan, R. Trichoderma and chitin mixture based bioformulation for the management of head rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) deBary)–root-knot (Meloidogyne incognitaKofoid and White; Chitwood) complex diseases of cabbage. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2010, 43, 1011–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Konappa, N.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Siddaiah, C.N.; Ramachandrappa, N.S.; Chowdappa, S. Evaluation of biological efficacy of Trichoderma asperellum against tomato bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Pieterse, C.M.; Zamioudis, C.; Berendsen, R.L.; Weller, D.M.; Van Wees, S.C.; Bakker, P.A. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 347–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Hunt, M.; Ryals, J. Systemic acquired resistance signal transduction. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1996, 15, 583–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Neuenschwander, U.; Friedrich, L.; Delaney, T.; Vernooij, B.; Kessmann, H.; Ryals, J. Activation of plant disease resistance. Asp. Appl. Biol. 1995, 42, 217–225. [Google Scholar]
  145. Vernooij, B.; Friedrich, L.; Morse, A.; Reist, R.; Kolditz-Jawhar, R.; Ward, E.; Uknes, S.; Kessmann, H.; Ryals, J. Salicylic acid is not the translocated signal responsible for inducing systemic acquired resistance but is required in signal transduction. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 959–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  146. Ezziyyani, M.; Hamdache, A.; Egea-Gilabert, C.; Requena, M.E.; Candela, M.E.; Mater, J. Production of Pathogenesis-Related proteins during the induction of resistance to Phytophthora capsici in pepper plants treated with Burkholderiacepacia and Trichoderma harzianum in combination compatible. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2017, 8, 4785–4795. [Google Scholar]
  147. Saxena, A.; Mishra, S.; Ray, S.; Raghuwanshi, R.; Singh, H.B. Differential reprogramming of defense network in Capsicum annum L. plants against Colletotrichum truncatum infection by phyllospheric and rhizosphericTrichoderma strains. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 39, 751–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Wany, A.; Pathak, P.K.; Fernie, A.R.; Gupta, K.J. Trichoderma asperelloidesenhances local (LAR) and systemic acquired resistance (SAR) response under low nitrate nutrition in Arabidopsis. bioRxiv 2020. bioRxiv:502492. [Google Scholar]
  149. Alkooranee, J.T.; Yin, Y.; Aledan, T.R.; Jiang, Y.; Lu, G.; Wu, J.; Li, M. Systemic resistance to powdery mildew in Brassica napus (AACC) and Raphanus alboglabra (RRCC) by Trichoderma harzianum TH12. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142177. [Google Scholar]
  150. Gomes, E.V.; Ulhoa, C.J.; Cardoza, R.E.; Silva, R.N.; Gutierrez, S. Involvement of Trichoderma harzianum Epl-1 protein in the regulation of Botrytis virulence-and tomato defense-related genes. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Patel, Z.M.; Mahapatra, R.; Jampala, S.S.M. Role of fungal elicitors in plant defense mechanism. In Molecular Aspects of Plant Beneficial Microbes in Agriculture; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 143–158. [Google Scholar]
  152. Bartnicki-Garcia, S. Chemistry of hyphal walls of Phytophthora. Microbiology 1966, 42, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. De Wit, P.J.G.M.; Hofman, A.E.; Velthuis, G.C.M.; Kuc, J.A. Isolation and characterization of an elicitor of necrosis isolated from intercellular fluids of compatible interactions of Cladosporium fulvum (syn. Fulvia fulva) and tomato. Plant Physiol. 1985, 77, 642–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  154. Coleman, M.J.; Mainzer, J.; Dickerson, A.G. Characterization of a fungal glycoprotein that elicits a defense response in French bean. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 1992, 40, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Velazhahan, R.; Samiyappan, R.; Vidhyasekaran, P. Purification of an elicitor-inducible antifungal chitinase from suspesion-cultured rice cells. Phytoparasitica 2000, 28, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Osman, H.; Vauthrin, S.; Mikes, V.; Milat, M.L.; Panabières, F.; Marais, A.; Brunie, S.; Maume, B.; Ponchet, M.; Blein, J.P. Mediation of elicitin activity on tobacco is assumed by elicitin-sterol complexes. Mol. Biol. Cell 2001, 12, 2825–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Djonovic, S.; Vargas, W.A.; Kolomiets, M.V.; Horndeski, M.; Wiest, A.; Kenerley, C.M.A. Proteinaceous elicitor Sm1 from the beneficial fungus Trichoderma virens is required for induced systemic resistance in maize. Plant Physiol. 2007, 145, 875–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  158. Zhang, P.; Wang, W.Q.; Zhang, G.L.; Kaminek, M.; Dobrev, P.; Xu, J.; Gruissem, W. Senescence-inducible expression of isopentenyl transferase extends leaf life, increases drought stress resistance and alters cytokinin metabolism in cassava. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2010, 52, 653–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Miao, F.; Yang, R.; Chen, D.; Wang, Y.; Qin, B.; Yang, X.; Zhou, L. Isolation, identification and antimicrobial activities of two secondary metabolites of Talaromycesverruculosus. Molecules 2012, 17, 14091–14098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  160. Kishimoto, K.; Kouzai, Y.; Kaku, H.; Shibuya, N.; Minami, E.; Nishizawa, Y. Perception of the chitin oligosaccharides contributes to disease resistance to blast fungus Magnaportheoryzae in rice. Plant J. 2010, 64, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Al-Waily, D.S.; Hassan, S.M. Effect of two bioformulation Trichoderma harzianum and Pseudomonas fluorescens with Manure in controlling Fusarium wilt disease in Pumpkin. J. Univ. Babylon Pure Appl. Sci. 2019, 27, 446–456. [Google Scholar]
  162. Darvill, A.G.; Albersheim, P. Phytoalexins and their elicitors: A defense against microbial infection in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1984, 35, 243–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Sequeira, L. Mechanisms of induced resistance in plants. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 1983, 37, 51–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Heath, M.C. Hypersensitive response-related death. Plant Mol. Biol. 2000, 44, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Lamb, C.; Dixon, R.A. The oxidative burst in plant disease resistance. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1997, 48, 251–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Kogel, K.H.; Beckhove, U.; Dreschers, J.; Munch, S.; Romme, Y. Acquired-resistance in barley- the resistance mechanism induced by 2,6-dichloroisonicotinic acid is a phenocopy of a genetically based mechanism governing race-specific powdery mildew resistance. Plant Physiol. 1994, 106, 1269–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Soylu, E.M.; Soylu, S.; Mansfield, J.W. Ultrastructural characterisation of pathogen development and host responses during compatible and incompatible interactions between Arabidopsis thaliana and Peronospora parasitica. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2004, 65, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Yedidia, I.; Benhamou, N.; Chet, I. Induction of defense responses in cucumber plants (Cucumis sativus L.) by the biocontrol agent Trichoderma harzianum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 1061–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Alonso-Ramirez, A.; Poveda, J.; Martin, I.; Hermosa, R.; Monte, E.; Nicolas, C. Trichoderma harzianum root colonization in Arabidopsis. Bio-Protocol 2015, 5, e1512. [Google Scholar]
  170. Siddaiah, C.N.; Satyanarayana, N.R.; Mudili, V.; Gupta, V.K.; Gurunathan, S.; Rangappa, S.; Huntrike, S.S.; Srivastava, R.K. Elicitation of resistance and associated defense responses in Trichoderma hamatum induced protection against pearl millet downy mildew pathogen. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 43991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Nicholson, R.L.; Hammerschmidt, R. Phenolic compounds and their role in disease resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1992, 30, 369–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Shimizu, K.; Hossain, M.M.; Kato, K.; Kubota, M.; Hyakumachi, M. Induction of defense responses in cucumber plants by using the cell-free filtrate of the plant growth-promoting fungus Penicillium simplicissimumGP17-2. J. Oleo Sci. 2013, 62, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Elsharkawy, M.M.; Shivanna, M.B.; Meera, M.S. and Hyakumachi, M. Mechanism of induced systemic resistance against anthracnose disease in cucumber by plant growth-promoting fungi. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci. 2015, 65, 287–299. [Google Scholar]
  174. Muslim, A.; Hyakumachi, M.; Kageyama, K.; Suwandi, S. Induction of systemic resistance in cucumber by hypovirulent binucleate Rhizoctonia against anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum orbiculare. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2019, 30, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Wojtaszek, P. Oxidative burst: An early plant response to pathogen infection. Biochem. J. 1997, 322, 681–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  176. Saxena, A.; Raghuwanshi, R.; Singh, H.B. Elevation of defense network in chilli against Colletotrichum capsici by phyllosphericTrichoderma strain. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2016, 35, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Thakker, J.N.; Patel, S.; Dhandhukia, P.C. Induction of Defense-Related Enzymes in Banana Plants: Effect of Live and Dead Pathogenic Strain of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Isrn Biotechnol. 2013, 2013, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  178. Rao, G.S.; Reddy, N.N.R.; Surekha, C. Induction of plant systemic resistance in Legumes Cajanus cajan, Vigna radiata, Vigna mungo against plant pathogens Fusarium oxysporum and Alternaria alternataTrichodermaviride mediated reprogramming of plant defense mechanism. Int. J. Recent Sci. Res. 2015, 6, 4270–4280. [Google Scholar]
  179. Ronseaux, S.; Clement, C.; Barka, E. Interaction of Ulocladiumatrum, a potential biological control agent with Botrytis cinerea and grapevine plantlets. Agron J. 2013, 3, 632–647. [Google Scholar]
  180. Alizadeh, H.; Behboudi, K.; Ahmadzadeh, M.; Javan-Nikkhah, M.; Zamioudis, C.; Pieterse, C.M.J.; Bakker, P.A.H.M. Induced systemic resistance in cucumber and Arabidopsis thaliana by the combination of Trichoderma harzianum Tr6 and Pseudomonas sp. Ps14. Biol. Control 2013, 65, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Hassan, N.; Elsharkawy, M.M.; Shivanna, M.B.; Meera, M.S.; Hyakumachi, M. Elevated expression of hydrolases, oxidase, and lyase in susceptible and resistant cucumber cultivars systemically induced with plant growth-promoting fungi against anthracnose. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci. 2014, 64, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Abhayashree, M.S.; Murali, M.; Thriveni, M.C.; Sindhu, G.M.; Amruthesh, K.N. Crude oligosaccharides mediated resistance and Histo- chemical changes in Capsicum annuum against anthracnose disease caused by Colletotrichum capsici. Plant Biosys. 2016, 151, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Wu, L.; Wu, H.; Chen, L.I.; Zhang, H.; Gao, X. Induction of systemic disease resistance in Nicotiana benthamiana by the cyclodipeptides cyclo (LPro- L-Pro) and cyclo (D-Pro-D-Pro). Mol. Plant Pathol. 2017, 18, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Bowles, D.J. Defense-related proteins in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1990, 59, 873–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Glazebrook, J. Contrasting mechanisms of defence against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2005, 43, 205–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Koorneef, A.; Pieterse, C.M.J. Cross talk in defense signaling. Plant Physiol. 2008, 146, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  187. Alfano, G.; Ivey, M.L.; Cakir, C.; Bos, J.I.; Miller, S.A.; Madden, L.V.; Kamoun, S.; Hoitink, H.A. Systemic modulation of gene expression in tomato by Trichoderma hamatum. Phytopathology 2007, 97, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Shoresh, M.; Harman, G.E. The molecular basis of maize responses to Trichoderma harzianum T22 inoculation: A proteomic approach. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 2147–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  189. Moreno, C.A.; Castillo, F.; Gonzalez, A.; Bernal, D.; Jaimes, Y.; Chaparro, M.; Gonzalez, C.; Rodriguez, F.; Restrepo, S.; Cotes, A.M. Biological and molecular characterization of the response of tomato plants treated with Trichoderma koningiopsis. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2009, 74, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Gusakov, A.V. Alternatives to Trichoderma reesei in biofuel production. Trends Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Hermosa, R.; Rubio, M.B.; Cardoza, R.E.; Nicolas, C.; Monte, E.; Gutierrez, S. The contribution of Trichoderma to balancing the costs of plant growth and defense. Int. Microbiol. 2013, 16, 69–80. [Google Scholar]
  192. Saravanakumar, K.; Fan, L.; Fu, K.; Yu, C.; Wang, M.; Xia, H.; Sun, J.; Li, Y.; Chen, J. Cellulase from Trichoderma harzianum interacts with roots and triggers induced systemic resistance to foliar disease in maize. Sci. Rep. 2016, 10, 35543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Al-Tuwaijri, M.M. Role of the biocontrol agents Trichoderma viride and Bacillus subtilis in elimination of the deteriorative effects of the root-rot pathogens Fusarium oxysporum and F. solani on some metabolic and enzyme activities of cucumber plants. Egypt J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 5, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  194. Wang, J.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Liu, S.; Gao, W. LSP1, a responsive protein from Meyerozymaguilliermondii, elicits defence response and improves glycyrrhizic acid biosynthesis in Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch adventitious roots. J. Cell Physiol. 2017, 232, 3510–3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Hammerschmidt, R. Rapid deposition of lignin in potato tuber tissue as a response to fungi non-pathogenic on potato. Physiol. Plant Pathol. 1984, 24, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Larkin, R.P.; Fravel, D.R. Mechanisms of action and dose-response relationships governing biological control of Fusarium wilt of tomato by non-pathogenic Fusarium spp. Phytopathology 1999, 89, 1152–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. He, C.Y.; Hsiang, T.; Wolyn, D.J. Induction of systemic disease resistance and pathogen defence responses in Asparagus officinalis inoculated with non-pathogenic strains of Fusarium oxysporum. Plant Pathol. 2002, 51, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  198. Kroner, A.; Hamelin, G.; Andrivon, D.; Val, F. Quantitative resistance of potato to Pectobacteriumatrosepticum and Phytophthora infestans: Integrating PAMP-triggered response and pathogen growth. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e23331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Mathys, J.; De Cremer, K.; Timmermans, P.; Van Kerkhove, S.; Lievens, B.; Vanhaecke, M.; Cammue, B.; De Coninck, B. Genome-wide characterization of ISR induced in Arabidopsis thaliana by Trichoderma hamatum T382 against Botrytis cinerea infection. Front. Plant Sci. 2012, 3, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  200. Roy, C.K.; Akter, N.; Sarkar, M.K.; Pk, M.U.; Begum, N.; Zenat, E.A.; Jahan, M.A. Control of early blight of tomato caused by and screening of tomato varieties against the pathogen. Open Microbiol. J. 2019, 13, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  201. Jin, N.; Liu, S.M.; Peng, H.; Huang, W.K.; Kong, L.A.; Wu, Y.H.; Chen, Y.P.; Ge, F.Y.; Jian, H.; Peng, D.L. Isolation and characterization of Aspergillus niger NBC001 underlying suppression against Heteroderaglycines. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  202. He, M.; He, C.Q.; Ding, N.Z. Abiotic stresses: General defenses of land plants and chances for engineering multi stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  203. Sanchez-Montesinos, B.; Dianez, F.; Moreno-Gavira, A.; Gea, F.J.; Santos, M. Plant growth promotion and biocontrol of Pythium ultimum by saline tolerant Trichoderma isolates under salinity stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Mantri, N.L.; Ford, R.; Coram, T.E.; Pang, E.C.K. Transcriptional profiling of chickpea genes differentially regulated in response to high-salinity, cold and drought. BMC Genom. 2007, 8, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  205. Tigchelaar, M.; Battisti, D.S.; Naylor, R.L.; Ray, D.K. Future warming increases probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 6644–6649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  206. Qadir, M.; Quillerou, E.; Nangia, V.; Murtaza, G.; Singh, M.; Thomas, R.J.; Drechsel, P.; Noble, A.D. Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration. Nat. Res. Forum. 2014, 38, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Radhakrishnan, R.; Kang, S.; Baek, I.; Lee, I. Characterization of plant growth promoting traits of Penicillium species against the effects of high soil salinity and root disease. J. Plant Interact. 2014, 9, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Qi, W.; Zhao, L. Study of the siderophore-producing Trichoderma asperellum Q1 on cucumber growth promotion under salt stress. J. Basic Microbiol. 2013, 53, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Masunaka, A.; Hyakumachi, M.; Takenaka, S. Plant growth-promoting fungus, Trichoderma koningi suppresses isoflavonoid phytoalexin vestitol production for colonization on/in the roots of Lotus japonicus. Microbes Environ. 2011, 26, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  210. Saxena, A.; Raghuwanshi, R.; Singh, H.B. Trichoderma species mediated differential tolerance against biotic stress of phytopathogens in Cicer arietinum L. J. Basic Microbiol. 2015, 55, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Guler, N.S.; Pehlivan, N.; Karaoglu, S.A.; Guzel, S.; Bozdeveci, A. Trichoderma atroviride ID20G inoculation ameliorates drought stress-induced damages by improving antioxidant defence in maize seedlings. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2016, 38, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Ahmad, P.; Hashem, A.; Abd-Allah, E.F.; Alqarawi, A.A.; John, R.; Egamberdieva, D.; Gucel, S. Role of Trichoderma harzianum in mitigating NaCl stress in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L) through antioxidative defense system. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  213. Li, B.; Li, Q.; Xiong, L.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Kramer, U.; Shi, W. Arabidopsis plastid AMOS1/EGY1 integrates abscisic acid signalling to regulate global gene expression response to ammonium stress. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160, 2040–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Montero-Barrientos, M.; Hermosa, R.; Cardoza, R.E.; Gutierrez, S.; Nicolas, C.; Monte, E. Transgenic expression of the Trichoderma harzianum hsp70 gene increases Arabidopsis resistance to heat and other abiotic stresses. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 659–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Dixit, P.; Mukherjee, P.K.; Ramachandran, V.; Eapen, S. Glutathione transferase from Trichoderma virens enhances cadmium tolerance without enhancing its accumulation in transgenic Nicotiana tabacum. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e16360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Vieira, P.M.; Santos, M.P.; Andrade, C.M.; Souza-Neto, O.A.; Ulhoa, C.J.; Aragao, F.J.L. Overexpression of an aquaglyceroporin gene from Trichoderma harzianum improves water-use efficiency and drought tolerance in Nicotiana tabacum. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 121, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Benitez, T.; Rincon, A.M.; Limon, M.C.; Codon, A.C. Biocontrol mechanisms of Trichoderma strains. Int. Microbiol. 2004, 7, 249–260. [Google Scholar]
  218. Plemenitas, A.; Vaupotic, T.; Lenassi, M.; Kogej, T.; Gunde-Cimerman, N. Adaptation of extremely halotolerant black yeast Hortaeawerneckii to increased osmolarity: A molecular perspective at a glance. Stud. Mycol. 2008, 61, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Nishimura, M.T.; Stein, M.; Hou, B.H.; Vogel, J.P.; Edwards, H.; Somerville, S.C. Loss of a callose synthase results in salicylic acid-dependent disease resistance. Science 2003, 301, 969–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Moura, J.C.M.S.; Bonine, C.A.V.; Viana, J.D.O.F.; Dornelas, M.C.; Mazzafera, P. Abiotic and biotic stresses and changes in the lignin content and composition in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2010, 52, 360–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Turk, M.; Mejanelle, L.; Sentjurc, M.; Grimalt, J.O.; Gunde-Cimerman, N.; Plemenitas, A. Salt-induced changes in lipid composition and membrane fluidity of halophilic yeast-like melanized fungi. Extremophiles 2004, 8, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Gostincar, C.; Turk, M.; Plemenitas, A.; Gunde-Cimerman, N. The expressions of Δ9-, Δ12-desaturases and an elongase by the extremely halotolerant black yeast Hortaeawerneckii are salt dependent. FEMS Yeast Res. 2009, 9, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  223. Ruppel, S.; Franken, P.; Witzel, K. Properties of the halophyte microbiome and their implications for plant salt tolerance. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40, 940–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  224. Macia-Vicente, J.G.; Ferraro, V.; Burruano, S.; Lopez-Llorca, L.V. Fungal assemblages associated with roots of halophytic and non-halophytic plant species vary differentially along a salinity gradient. Microb. Ecol. 2012, 64, 668–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  225. Gunde-Cimerman, N.; Zalar, P.; de Hoog, S.; Plemenitas, A. Hypersaline waters in salterns–natural ecological niches for halophilic black yeasts. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2000, 32, 235–240. [Google Scholar]
  226. Tresner, H.D.; Hayes, J.A. Sodium chloride tolerance of terrestrial fungi. Appl. Microbiol. 1971, 22, 210–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Rodriguez, R.; Redman, R. More than 400 million years of evolution and some plants still can’t make it on their own: Plant stress tolerance via fungal symbiosis. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 1109–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Chibuike, G.U.; Obiora, S.C. Heavy metal polluted soils: Effect on plants and bioremediation methods. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2014, 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  229. Kacprzak, M.J.; Rosikon, K.; Fijalkowski, K.; Grobelak, A. The effect of Trichoderma on heavy metal mobility and uptake by Miscanthus giganteus, Salix sp., Phalaris arundinacea, and Panicum virgatum. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2014, 2014, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  230. Ayad, F.; Matallah-Boutiba, A.; Rouane-Hacene, O.; Bouderbala, M.; Boutiba, Z. Tolerance of Trichoderma sp. to heavy metals and its antifungal activity in algerian marine environment. J. Mar. Biol. Oceanogr. 2018, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Rasool, S.; Ahmad, A.; Siddiqi, T.O.; Ahmad, P. Changes in growth, lipid peroxidation and some key antioxidant enzymes in chickpea genotypes under salt stress. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2013, 35, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Ortiz-Castro, R.; Martinez-Trujillo, M.; Lopez-Bucio, J. N-acyl-L-homoserine lactones: A class of bacterial quorum-sensing signals alter post-embryonic root development in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Environ. 2008, 31, 1497–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Zhang, S.W.; Gan, Y.T.; Xu, B.L. Mechanisms of the IAA and ACC deaminase producing strain of Trichoderma longibrachiatum T6 in enhancing wheat seedling tolerance to NaCl stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  234. Bjorkman, T.; Blanchard, L.M.; Harman, G.E. Growth enhancement of shrunken-2 (sh2) sweet corn by Trichoderma harzianum 1295-22: Effect of environmental stress. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1998, 123, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Khan, A.L.; Hamayun, M.; Kim, Y.H.; Kang, S.M.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, I.N. Gibberellins producing endophytic Aspergillus fumigatus sp. LH02 influenced endogenous phytohormonal levels, isoflavonoids production and plant growth in salinity stress. Process Biochem. 2011, 46, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Mastouri, F.; Bjorkman, T.; Harman, G.E. Trichoderma harzianum enhances antioxidant defense of tomato seedlings and resistance to water deficit. Mol. Plant Microbe 2012, 25, 1264–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  237. Gusain, Y.S.; Singh, U.S.; Sharma, A.K. Enhance activity of stress related enzymes in rice (Oryza sativa L.) induced by plant growth promoting fungi under drought stress. Afr. J. Agr. Res. 2014, 9, 1430–1434. [Google Scholar]
  238. Hashem, A.; Abd-Allah, E.F.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Al Huqail, A.A.; Egamberdieva, D. Alleviation of abiotic salt stress in Ochradenusbaccatus (Del.) by Trichoderma hamatum (Bonord.) Bainier. J. Plant Interact. 2014, 9, 857–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Chen, S.C.; Ren, J.J.; Zhao, H.J.; Wang, X.L.; Wang, T.H.; Jin, S.D.; Wang, Z.H.; Li, C.Y.; Liu, A.R.; Lin, X.M.; et al. Trichoderma harzianum improves defense against Fusarium oxysporum by Regulating ROS and RNS Metabolism, redox balance and energy flow in cucumber roots. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 972–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Pang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, P.; Yu, D. Microbial Diversity of Upland Rice Roots and Their Influence on Rice Growth and Drought Tolerance. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Savci, S. An agricultural pollutant: Chemical fertilizer. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2012, 3, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  242. Gowtham, H.G.; Singh, B.; Murali, M.; Shilpa, N.; Prasad, M.; Aiyaz, M.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Niranjana, S.R. Induction of drought tolerance in tomato upon the application of ACC deaminase producing plant growth promoting rhizobacterium Bacillus subtilis Rhizo SF 48. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 234, 126422. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Outlook on the beneficial characteristics of rhizosphere-resident plant growth promoting fungi (PGPF) for plant growth.
Figure 1. Outlook on the beneficial characteristics of rhizosphere-resident plant growth promoting fungi (PGPF) for plant growth.
Jof 07 00314 g001
Figure 2. Mechanism of resistance offered by PGPF against the invading pathogens.
Figure 2. Mechanism of resistance offered by PGPF against the invading pathogens.
Jof 07 00314 g002
Figure 3. Application of PGPF and its effect on the induced resistance in plants.
Figure 3. Application of PGPF and its effect on the induced resistance in plants.
Jof 07 00314 g003
Table 1. Mechanism of plant growth promotion mediated by PGPF in different crop plants.
Table 1. Mechanism of plant growth promotion mediated by PGPF in different crop plants.
PGPFPlantEffectReference
R. nigricans, F. roseumSolanum lycopersicumEnhanced shoot dry weight[56]
T. harzianum, T. koningiiSolanum lycopersicum and Nicotiana tabacumEnhanced dry weight and improved seed germination[57]
T. cirideSolanum lycopersicumMaximized plant height
T. harzianumVinca minorImproved flowering, weight and height of the plant[58]
Sterile dark fungus (SDF)T. aestivumIncreased shoot dry weight[59]
Penicillium simplicissimum (GP17-2)Cucumis sativusIncreased root and shoot growth[4]
T. harzianum (T22)Zea maysIncreased shoot growth, root area and root size[60]
A. nigerB. chinensisIncreased plant dry weight and N, P content[61]
Penicillium sp.Triticum aestivumSolubilized phosphate[62]
Penicillium janthinellum and Penicillium simplicissimumArabidopsis thalianaElevated shoot biomass and leaf number[63]
Fusarium equiseti (GF19-1)Lycopersicon lycopersicumIncreased plant biomass with more root and shoot growth[64]
Penicillium citrinumSuaeda japonicaIncreased root and shoot length[65]
Trichoderma virensArabidopsis thalianaImproved biomass and lateral roots development with the production of IAA[66]
Trichoderma harzianum (GT3-2)Cucumis sativusIncreased root and shoot growth[67]
Phoma herbarum and
Aspergillus fumigatus
Glycine maxIncreased plant height and plant biomass. Maximized shoot growth, leaf area and chlorophyll content[68]
Trichoderma virideSaccharum officinarumImproved crop yield[69]
Fusarium equisetiSpinacia oleraceaImproved overall plant biomass by maximizing root and shoot growth[70]
Trichoderma virideGossypium arboreumIncreased root, shoot length and plant dry weight[71]
Fusarium equiseti (GF19-1)Cucumis sativusIncreased root and shoot growth[72]
Trichoderma harzianumCucumis meloInduced early seed germination and increased seedling vigor[73]
Fusarium oxysporum(MSA-35)Lactuca sativusIncreased root and shoot growth with high chlorophyll content[74]
Penicillium simplicissimumA. thaliana and N. tabacumMaximized shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight and leaf number[75]
Trichoderma spp.Lycopersicon lycopersicumIncreased dry matter biomass and improved overall plant growth[76]
Trichoderma harzianum(T-22)Prunus cerasus × P. canescensIncreased root growth and development[77]
Sphaerodes mycoparasiticaTriticum aestivumIncreased seed germination and seedling vigour[78]
T. harzianum (T-75)Cicer arietinumIncreased crop yield[79]
Alternaria sp., Phomopsis sp., Cladosporium sp., Colletotrichum sp., Phoma sp., Aspergillus sp. andNicotiana tabacumImproved overall plant growth biomass by maximizing the root and shoot growth and high chlorophyll, soluble sugar content[80]
Trichoderma sp.Phaseolus vulgarisPositive for plant growth promoting traits, i.e., phosphate, siderophore, HCN and Ammonia[81]
Trichoderma longibrachiatumTriticum aestivumIncreased plant height, root length, shoot fresh and dry weights. Increased chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content.[82]
Trichoderma sp.Lycopersicon esculentumProduced IAA, siderophore, HCN, ammonia and solubilized phosphate[83]
Penicillium spp. GP16-2N. tabacumEnhanced shoot fresh, dry weight and increased the leaf number[84]
Aspergillus terreus JF27Lycopersicon esculentumEnhanced fresh weight and shoot length[85]
Alternaria sp.Salvia miltiorrhizaEnhanced fresh weight and dry weight[86]
T. harzianumLycopersicon esculentumIncreased root and shoot growth. Maximized leaf area and vigour of tomato seedlings. Elicited the production of IAA and GA.[87]
T. viride and T. harzianumCitrullus lanatusIncreased the number of leaves, leaf dry weight, stem length and the number of branches. Enhanced chlorophyll content and N, P, K uptake. Also enhanced the fruit number, seeds number, fruit weight and dry weight.[49]
Phoma sp.GS 8-3, Trichoderma asperellum SKT-1,
Fusarium equiseti GF18-3 and Penicillium simplicissmum GP17-2
Allium cepaEnhanced the plant height, root length, bulb perimeter and plant dry weight.[88]
Table 2. Mechanism of resistance mediated by PGPF in different crop plants.
Table 2. Mechanism of resistance mediated by PGPF in different crop plants.
PGPFPlantEffectReference
C. cucumerinum and F. roseumS. tuberosumIncreased lignin deposition[194]
Trichoderma harzianum (T-203)Cucumis sativusEnhanced callose deposition[153]
F. oxysporumLycopersicon esculentumInduced resistance by reducing the incidence of Fusarium wilt disease[195]
F. oxysporumAsparagus officinalis
Lycopersicon esculentum
Exhibited HR response, increased defense related enzymes activity PO, PAL, lignin content and reduced the disease severity upon pathogen infection [196]
Pectobacterium atrosepticum and P. infestansSolanum tuberosumElicitors obtained from the culture filtrates induced high levels of phenolic compound and PAL enzyme activity[197]
Trichoderma sp.,Cucumis sativus, Arabidopsis thaliana.Triggered SA and JA/ET pathways in eliciting defense in plants[198]
Penicillium spp.P. glaucaumEnhanced protection against downy mildew pathogen[25]
Trichoderma harzianumCucumis sativus and Arabidopsis thalianaInduced systemic resistance in cucumber and A. thaliana with defense related genes expression[164]
Phoma sp., Penicillium sp., Trichoderma sp., Aspergillus sp., Fusarium sp.Lycopersicon esculentumEnhanced protection by reduction of disease against R. solanacearum with increasing the activity of defense related enzymes PAL, POX and GLU activities[32]
Penicillium simplicissimumCucumis sativusInduced protection against anthracnose disease showing a reduction in the lesion number and lesion diameter. Elevated the activity of exo-glucanase, exo-chitinase, PO and PPO[171]
Phoma spp. Cucumis sativusInduced resistance by increasing the chitinase activity upon infection with Colletotrichum orbiculare[180]
T. harzianumArabidopsis thalianaElicited callose deposition in the roots of seedlings[168]
Trichoderma virideCajanus cajan, Vigna radiata and Vigna mungoElevated the levels of ROS and increased the levels of PO, PPO and PAL activities. Maximized SOD, CAT, AOX activities and total phenolics. Reduce the severity of diseases against Fusarium oxysporum and Alternaria alternata[177]
Phoma sp. and non-sporulating fungusCucumis sativusInduced protection against anthracnose disease under pot and field conditions. Inhibited the germination of C. orbiculare pathogen. Elevated the formation of lignin and expression of PAL, PO, PPO, GLU and CHI activities upon pathogen infection[172]
Penicillium spp. GP16-2N. tabacumDecreased disease severity of Cucumber Mosaic Virus (CMV) in tobacco plants[75]
Trichoderma spp., T. viride, T. harzianumLycopersicon esculentumAntagonize the growth of A. solani (early blight pathogen) with a reduction in the percent disease index[199]
Rhizoctonia sp.Cucumis sativusInduced systemic resistance against C. orbiculare by reducing the total lesion number and total lesion diameter along with increasing the activity of POX enzyme[173]
A. nigerGlycine maxTriggered callose deposition in leaves and roots upon infection with Heterodera glycines[200]
Table 3. Mechanism of abiotic stress tolerance mediated by PGPF in different crop plants.
Table 3. Mechanism of abiotic stress tolerance mediated by PGPF in different crop plants.
PGPFPlantEffectReference
Trichoderma harzianum (1295-22)Zea maysMitigated oxidative stress caused by sodium hypochlorite and lipid peroxidation in sweet corn[233]
Trichoderma harzianum (T-22)Lycopersicon lycopersicumImproved seed germination under stress[35]
Exophiala sp. LHL08Cucumis sativusImproved growth under salinity and drought stresses[234]
Trichoderma harzianumLycopersicon esculentumIncreased plant growth biomass and Induced resistance to water deficit. Enhanced APX, CAT and SOD activity. Improved the ability of plants damage caused by ROS[235]
Trichoderma harrzianum and Fusarium pallidoroseumOryza sativaHigher biomass production and increased induction of SOD, CAT and POD[236]
Trichoderma hamatumOchradenus baccatusAlleviated abiotic salt stress by improving plant growth and antioxidant defense enzyme activity[237]
Penicillium sp.Sesamum indicumIncreased root and shoot length, maximized fresh and dry weight of seedlings under salt stress. Increased amino acid, chlorophyll a,b and total chlorophyll content. Also enhanced protein and nitrogen content. Induced protection against Fusarium wilt disease[206]
Trichoderma harzianumBrassica junceaMitigated NaCl stress by enhancement of antioxidant defense machinery. Improved shoot, root length and plant dry weight[211]
Trichoderma longibrachiatumTriticum aestivumIncreased the tolerance of plants to salt stress by SOD, POD, CAT gene expression[82]
Trichoderma atrovirideZea maysAmeliorated drought stress by enhancement of antioxidant defense in plant seedlings[210]
Trichoderma harzianumCucumis sativusImproved defense by alleviated oxidative and nitro-stative stress by minimizing ROS production and RNO species production upon infection with F. oxysporum by enhancing the antioxidant potential[238]
Talaromyces sp., Penicillium sp., Mucor sp., Fusarium sp., Pestalotiopsis sp., Aspergillus sp., etc.Oryza sativaImproved the growth of plants and antioxidant capability, also, to increase in proline and soluble sugar content[239]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Murali, M.; Naziya, B.; Ansari, M.A.; Alomary, M.N.; AlYahya, S.; Almatroudi, A.; Thriveni, M.C.; Gowtham, H.G.; Singh, S.B.; Aiyaz, M.; et al. Bioprospecting of Rhizosphere-Resident Fungi: Their Role and Importance in Sustainable Agriculture. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 314. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof7040314

AMA Style

Murali M, Naziya B, Ansari MA, Alomary MN, AlYahya S, Almatroudi A, Thriveni MC, Gowtham HG, Singh SB, Aiyaz M, et al. Bioprospecting of Rhizosphere-Resident Fungi: Their Role and Importance in Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Fungi. 2021; 7(4):314. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof7040314

Chicago/Turabian Style

Murali, Mahadevamurthy, Banu Naziya, Mohammad Azam Ansari, Mohammad N. Alomary, Sami AlYahya, Ahmad Almatroudi, M. C. Thriveni, Hittanahallikoppal Gajendramurthy Gowtham, Sudarshana Brijesh Singh, Mohammed Aiyaz, and et al. 2021. "Bioprospecting of Rhizosphere-Resident Fungi: Their Role and Importance in Sustainable Agriculture" Journal of Fungi 7, no. 4: 314. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof7040314

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop