Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40452057›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2025

Microbial inoculants modulate the rhizosphere microbiome, alleviate plant stress responses, and enhance maize growth at field scale.

Davide Francioli, Ioannis D Kampouris, Theresa Kuhl-Nagel, Doreen Babin, Loreen Sommermann, Jan H Behr, Soumitra Paul Chowdhury, Rita Zrenner, Narges Moradtalab, Michael Schloter and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Principles for Rigorous Design and Application of Synthetic Microbial Communities.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

Davide Francioli *Department of Nutritional Crop Physiology, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. davide.francioli@hs-gm.de.
Ioannis D Kampouris *Institute for Epidemiology and Pathogen Diagnostics, Julius Kühn Institute (JKI)-Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Braunschweig, Germany.
Theresa Kuhl-Nagel *Plant-Microbe Systems, Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany.
Doreen BabinInstitute for Epidemiology and Pathogen Diagnostics, Julius Kühn Institute (JKI)-Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Braunschweig, Germany.
Loreen SommermannDepartment of Agriculture, Ecotrophology and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Jan H BehrPlant-Microbe Systems, Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany.
Soumitra Paul ChowdhuryHelmholtz Zentrum München-German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Rita ZrennerPlant-Microbe Systems, Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany.
Narges MoradtalabDepartment of Nutritional Crop Physiology, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Michael SchloterHelmholtz Zentrum München-German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Joerg GeistlingerDepartment of Agriculture, Ecotrophology and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Uwe LudewigDepartment of Nutritional Crop Physiology, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Günter NeumannDepartment of Nutritional Crop Physiology, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Kornelia SmallaInstitute for Epidemiology and Pathogen Diagnostics, Julius Kühn Institute (JKI)-Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Braunschweig, Germany.
Rita GroschPlant-Microbe Systems, Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 031B0514A- E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundField inoculation of crops with beneficial microbes is a promising sustainable strategy to enhance plant fitness and nutrient acquisition. However, effectiveness can vary due to environmental factors, microbial competition, and methodological challenges, while their precise modes of action remain uncertain. This underscores the need for further research to optimize inoculation strategies for consistent agricultural benefits.

resultsUsing a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach, we investigate the effects of a consortium of beneficial microbes (BMc) (Pseudomonas sp. RU47, Bacillus atrophaeus ABi03, Trichoderma harzianum OMG16) on maize (Zea mays cv. Benedictio) through an inoculation experiment conducted within a long-term field trial across intensive and extensive farming practices. Additionally, an unexpected early drought stress emerged as a climatic variable, offering further insight into the effectiveness of the microbial consortium. Our findings demonstrate that BMc root inoculation primarily enhanced plant growth and fitness, particularly by increasing iron uptake, which is crucial for drought adaptation. Inoculated maize plants show improved shoot growth and fitness compared to non-inoculated plants, regardless of farming practices. Specifically, BMc modulate plant hormonal balance, enhance the detoxification of reactive oxygen species, and increase root exudation of iron-chelating metabolites. Amplicon sequencing reveals shifts in rhizosphere bacterial and fungal communities mediated by the consortium. Metagenomic shotgun sequencing indicates enrichment of genes related to antimicrobial lipopeptides and siderophores.

conclusionsOur findings highlight the multifaceted benefits of BMc inoculation on plant fitness, significantly influencing metabolism, stress responses, and the rhizosphere microbiome. These improvements are crucial for advancing sustainable agricultural practices by enhancing plant resilience and productivity.

Indexed as

Agricultural InoculantsMicrobiotaRhizosphereStress, PhysiologicalZea maysBacillusPlant RootsSoil Microbiology

Identifiers

PMID40452057
PMCPMC12128319

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.