Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34777275›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2021

Humic Substances in Combination With Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Alternative for Sustainable Agriculture.

Maura Santos Reis de Andrade da Silva, Bianca de Melo Silveira Dos Santos, Camilla Santos Reis de Andrade da Silva, Carolina Santos Reis de Andrade da Silva, Luiz Fernando de Sousa Antunes, Roberta Mendes Dos Santos, Carlos Henrique Barbosa Santos, Everlon Cid Rigobelo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhanced Production by Terra-SorbPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Humic Substances as a Versatile Intermediary.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Effects onMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors.

Maura Santos Reis de Andrade da SilvaDepartment of Agricultural Production Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
Bianca de Melo Silveira Dos SantosDepartment of Agricultural Production Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
Camilla Santos Reis de Andrade da SilvaDepartment of Soil, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Brazil.
Carolina Santos Reis de Andrade da SilvaDepartment of Geochemistry, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, Brazil.
Luiz Fernando de Sousa AntunesNational Agrobiology Research Center, Embrapa Agrobiologia, Seropédica, Brazil.
Roberta Mendes Dos SantosDepartment of Agricultural Production Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
Carlos Henrique Barbosa SantosDepartment of Agricultural Production Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
Everlon Cid RigobeloDepartment of Agricultural Production Sciences, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) and humic substances (HSs) are promising options for reducing the use of pesticides and mineral fertilizers. Although many studies have shown the effects of PGPB and HSs separately, little information is available on plant responses to the combined application of these biostimulants despite the great potential for the simultaneous action of these biological inputs. Thus, the objective of this review is to present an overview of scientific studies that addressed the application of PGPB and HSs to different crops. First, we discuss the effect of these biostimulants on biological nitrogen fixation, the various effects of the inoculation of beneficial bacteria combined with the application of HSs on promoting the growth of nonleguminous plants and how this combination can increase bacterial colonization of plant hosts. We also address the effect of PGPB and HSs on plant responses to abiotic stresses, in addition to discussing the role of HSs in protecting plants against pathogens. There is a lack of studies that address the role of PGPB + HSs in biocontrol. Understanding the factors involved in the promotion of plant growth through the application of PGPB and HSs can assist in the development of efficient biostimulants for agricultural management. This approach has the potential to accelerate the transition from conventional cultivation to sustainable agrosystems.

Indexed as

abiotic stressbiocontrolendophytic bacteriafulvic acidhumic acidnutrient uptakerhizobia

Identifiers

PMID34777275
PMCPMC8589081

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.