ReviewFrontiers in plant science2023
Testing plant growth promoting microorganisms in the field - a proposal for standards.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Yield: Molecular Crop Quality as a Missing Dimension of Green Chemistry in Sustainable Agriculture.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Co-occurrence networks reveal candidate AMF-microbe assemblages for generalist and crop-specific inocula.Mycorrhiza · 2026Article
- Microbial allies against drought stress: an optimized screening method to improve seedling survival for forest restorations.Environmental microbiome · 2026Article
- Chemical Signaling and Metabolomic Crosstalk in Endophytic Fungi-Medicinal Plant Symbioses for Natural Product Discovery and Sustainable Bioproduction.Metabolites · 2026Review
- Enhancing cucumber production through compost and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in an unheated soil based greenhouse.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The PGPB paradox: A critical review of field performance and practical constraints in agriculture.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agriculture: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effects of bacterial fertilizer and soil amendment onFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Genome Insights into Beneficial Microbial Strains Composing SIMBA Microbial Consortia Applied as Biofertilizers for Maize, Wheat and Tomato.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Plant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere for smarter and more sustainable crop fertilization: the case of PGPR-based biofertilizers.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Endophytic bacteria: a sustainable strategy for enhancing medicinal plant cultivation and preserving microbial diversity.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Culturomics- and metagenomics-based insights into the soil microbiome preservation and application for sustainable agriculture.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Chickpea seed endophyteFrontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Exploring overlooked growth-promoting mechanisms by plant-associated bacteria.Sustainable microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the European Union and worldwide there are a burgeoning markets for plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) and other biological agents as soil improvers, bio-fertilizers, plant bio-stimulants, and biological control agents or bio-pesticides. Microbial agents have a major share in this development. The use of such products is often advertised with the promise of contributing to sustainable agricultural practices by increasing crop growth and yield and offering an alternative or substitute to decrease the dependency of agriculture on hazardeous agrochemicals. In contrast to registered microbial plant protection products, PGPM that are marketed in the EU as soil improvers or plant biostimulants, are not strictly required to have proven minimum efficacy levels under field conditions. Manufacturers only have to ensure that these products do not pose unacceptable risks to human, animal or plant health, safety or the environment. Uniform guidelines comparable to the EPPO - standards (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation) to test the efficacy in field trials are not available. This paper attempts to fill the gap. It proposes guidelines for PGPM field trial design and implementation, as well as recommendations for the type and scope of data collection and evaluation. Selected research papers from literature were evaluated to analyze, whether and to what extent the requirements are already met. The majority of the papers had a clear experimental design followed by proper data evaluation. Frequent deficiencies were the low number of tested environments and crop species, insufficient site and agronomic management description and missing data on soil humidity and temperature. Using the suggested standards is assumed to increase the expressive power of tested microbial products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.