Challenges, Future Prospects and Conclusions

  • P. Parvatha Reddy


The challenges in developing PGPR for commercial application include screening and selection of potential PGPR strain, microbial ecology and interaction, fermentation technology and shelf life of formulations, patent protection and prohibitive registration cost, awareness, training and education shortfalls and lack of multidisciplinary approach. Another challenge of using PGPR is natural variation. It is difficult to predict how an organism may respond when placed in the field (compared to the controlled environment of a laboratory). Another challenge is that PGPR are living organisms. They must be able to be propagated artificially and produced in a manner to optimize their viability and biological activity until field application. Technology challenges include delivery system and biopesticides quality.

PGPR-mediated agriculture is now gaining worldwide importance and acceptance for an increasing number of crops and managed ecosystems as the safe method of pest control. Biocontrol has untapped potential and is underused, underexploited, underestimated, often untried and therefore unproven. The new tools of recombinant DNA technology, mathematical modelling and computer technology combination with a continuation of the more classical approaches such as importation and release of natural enemies and improved germplasm, breeding and field testing should quickly move biocontrol research and technology into a new era. Although activity and effects of biocontrol have been reported for a number of antagonists, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. This deficiency in our knowledge often hinders attempts to optimize the biological activity by employing tailored application strategies. Biocontrol efficacy of PGPR may be improved by genetically engineering them to overexpress one or more of these traits so that strains with several different antiphytopathogen traits can act synergistically. New insights are certain to be gained from the recently published genomic sequence of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf5, which already has revealed biosynthetic potential for many previously undetected compounds likely to contribute to the broad antifungal activity of this strain. More detailed studies are needed on the composition of the rhizosphere population, the effect of cultivar on bacterial population dynamics, the influence of inoculum density on antagonistic activity, the survival of inoculum under adverse conditions and the role of environmental conditions in altering the activity of rhizobacteria. An attempt to overcome problems of varying efficacy may be attained by strain mixing, improved inoculation techniques or gene transfer of active genetic source of antagonists to the host plant. The soil microbes are active elements for soil development and the basis of sustainable agriculture.


Biocontrol Agent Pseudomonas Fluorescens Patent Protection Fermentation Technology PGPR Strain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bloemberg GV, Lugtenberg BJJ (2001) Molecular basis of plant growth promotion and biocontrol by rhizobacteria. Curr Opin Plant Biol 4:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowen GD, Rovira AD (1999) The rhizosphere and its management to improve plant growth. Adv Agron 66:1–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cattelan AJ, Hartel PG, Fuhrmann JJ (1999) Screening for plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to promote early soybean growth. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1670–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farwell AJ et al (2007) Tolerance of transgenic canola plants (Brassica napus) amended with plant growth-promoting bacteria to flooding stress at a metal-contaminated field site. Environ Pollut 147:540–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fravel DR, Rhodes DJ, Larkin RP (1999) Production and commercialization of biocontrol products. In: Albajes R, Lodovica Gullino M, Van Lenteren JC, Elad Y (eds) Integrated pest and disease management in greenhouse crops. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giacomodonato MN, Pettinari MJ, Souto GI, Mendez BS, Lopez NI (2001) A PCR-based method for the screening of bacterial strains with antifungal activity in suppressive soybean rhizosphere. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 17:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glick BR (1995) The enhancement of plant growth by free-living bacteria. Can J Microbiol 41:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gouws LM (2009) The molecular analysis of the effects of lumichrome as a plant growth promoting substance. Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  9. Holguin G, Glick BR (2001) Expression of the ACC deaminase gene from Enterobacter cloacae UW4 in Azospirillum brasilense. Microbial Ecol 41:281–288Google Scholar
  10. Jetiyanon J, Kloepper JW (2002) Mixtures of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria for induction of systemic resistance against multiple plant diseases. Biol Control 24:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larkin RP, Roberts DP, Gracia-Garza JA (1998) Biological control of fungal diseases. In: Hutson D, Miyamoto Y (eds) Fungicidal activity, chemical and biological approaches. Wiley, New York, pp 149–191Google Scholar
  12. Mansouri H, Petit A, Oger P, Dessaux Y (2002) Engineered rhizosphere: the trophic bias generated by opine-producing plants is independent of the opine type, the soil origin, and the plant species. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:2562–2566PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. McSpadden Gardener BB, Fravel DR (2002) Biological control of plant pathogens: research, commercialization, and application in the USA. Plant Health Prog. doi: 10.1094/PHP-2002-0510-01-RV, OnlineGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakkeeran S, Fernando WGD, Siddiqui ZA (2005) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria formulations and its scope in commercialization for the management of pests and diseases. In: Siddiqui ZA (ed) PGPR: biocontrol and biofertilization. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 257–296Google Scholar
  15. Paulitz TC, Belanger RB (2001) Biological control in greenhouse systems. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39:103–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sabitha D, Nakkeeran S, Chandrasekar, G (2001) Trichoderma – bioarsenal in plant disease management and its scope for commercialization. In: Proceedings of the Indian Phytopathological Society, Southern Zone meeting, 10–12 Dec 2001, Indian Institute of Spice Research, Calicut, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  17. Schisler DA, Slininger PJ (1997) Microbial selection strategies that enhance the likelihood of developing commercial biological control products. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 19:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siddiqui IA, Shaukat SS (2002) Resistance against damping-off fungus Rhizoctonia solani systematically induced by the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa (1E-6S(+)) and P. fluorescens (CHAO). J Phytopathol 150:500–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Silva HSA, Romeiro RS, Mounteer A (2003) Development of a root colonization bioassay for rapid screening of rhizobacteria for potential biocontrol agents. J Phytopathol 151:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weller DM, Raaijmakers JM, McSpadden Gardener BB, Thomashow LS (2002) Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 40:309–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yardin MR, Kennedy IR, Thies JE (2000) Development of high quality carrier materials for field delivery of key microorganisms used as bio-fertilisers and bio-pesticides. Radiat Phys Chem 57:565–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Parvatha Reddy
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations