ReviewWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2025
The PGPB paradox: A critical review of field performance and practical constraints in agriculture.
Review in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The chemical blueprint of Trichoderma for next-generation microbial biostimulants.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Bioprospecting osmotolerant phyllosphere bacteria: functional characterization and biotechnological application for enhanced nutrient use efficiency in solanum crops.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- Enterobacter Species: Opportunistic Human and Plant Pathogens With Plant-Beneficial Traits.Molecular plant pathology · 2026Review
- Application of Beneficial Bacteria to Enhance Plant Drought Resilience.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effect of PGPB-enriched organic fertilizer ORGAONEnvironmental microbiome · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While PGPB have historically been applied in agriculture, their formal recognition in the last century has driven intensive research into their role as sustainable tools for improving crop yield and stress tolerance. As they are primarily sourced from wild or native environments, the widespread enthusiasm has led to heightened expectations surrounding their potential, often based on the assumption that biological solutions are inherently safer and more effective than synthetic inputs. However, despite their popularity, increasing reports of inconsistent or limited performance under real-world, field conditions have raised critical questions about their credibility as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents. This commentary critically evaluates the reasons behind the limited success of PGPB in field settings, based on the latest scientific evidence. Particular focus is placed on the microbial conflict in the rhizosphere, the inability of PGPB inoculants to adapt in complex environmental conditions, limitations in modern agricultural practices, formulation challenges, and regulatory gaps. The paper recommends the need for a paradigm shift in PGPB research and deployment strategies to better align laboratory successes with the challenges and outcomes seen in actual field conditions. Such an approach is vital for reducing over-reliance on underperforming technologies and promoting more resilient, context-specific solutions for sustainable agriculture, especially in under-resourced regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40924218What 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.