Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34156754›Full record

ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2021

Realities and hopes in the application of microbial tools in agriculture.

Bruna D Batista, Brajesh K Singh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Rethinking microbial biopesticide development and uptake.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bruna D BatistaHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8127-4665
Brajesh K SinghHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4413-4185
Western Sydney University · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DP190103714Australian Research Council DP210102081Cotton Research and Development Corporation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of microbial tools to sustainably increase agricultural production has received significant attention from researchers, industries and policymakers. Over the past decade, the market access and development of microbial products have been accelerated by (i) the recent advances in plant-associated microbiome science, (ii) the pressure from consumers and policymakers for increasing crop productivity and reducing the use of agrochemicals, (iii) the rising threats of biotic and abiotic stresses, (iv) the loss of efficacy of some agrochemicals and plant breeding programs and (v) the calls for agriculture to contribute towards mitigating climate change. Although the sector is still in its infancy, the path towards effective microbial products is taking shape and the global market of these products has increased faster than that of agrochemicals. Promising results from using microbes either as biofertilizers or biopesticides have been continually reported, fuelling optimism and high expectations for the sector. However, some limitations, often related to low efficacy and inconsistent performance in field conditions, urgently need to be addressed to promote a wider use of microbial tools. We propose that advances in in situ microbiome manipulation approaches, such as the use of products containing synthetic microbial communities and novel prebiotics, have great potential to overcome some of these current constraints. Much more progress is expected in the development of microbial inoculants as areas such as synthetic biology and nano-biotechnology advance. If key technical, translational and regulatory issues are addressed, microbial tools will not only play an important role in sustainably boosting agricultural production over the next few decades but also contribute towards other sustainable development goals, including job creation and mitigation of the impacts of climate change.

Indexed as

Agricultural InoculantsAgricultureClimate ChangeCrop ProductionPlants

Identifiers

PMID34156754
PMCPMC8313292
OpenAlexW3174475288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.