SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.51 número2Identificación de variables correlacionadas con el daño por frío en Pitahaya (Hylocereus undatus Haworth)Micoflora asociada a manchas y tizones foliares en trigo (Triticum aestivum L.) de riego en El Bajío, México índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Agrociencia

versión On-line ISSN 2521-9766versión impresa ISSN 1405-3195

Agrociencia vol.51 no.2 Texcoco feb./mar. 2017

 

Crop Science

Does polymer-based encapsulation enhance performance of plant growth promoting microorganisms? A meta-analysis view

J. Alberto Pacheco-Aguirre1 

Esau Ruíz-Sánchez1 

H. Salomón Ballina-Gómez1  * 

C. Juan Alvarado-López1 

1División de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Instituto Tecnológico de Conkal, Tecnológico Nacional de México. 97345. Conkal, Yucatán, México. Avenida Tecnológico s/n.


Abstract

Various studies have been undertaken to evaluate the effect of polymer-based encapsulation on performance of plant growth promoting microorganism. However there is no systematic analysis about the performance of these microorganisms when encapsulated in a polymer-based matrix. Relevant published papers were retrieved by conducting searches in Google Scholar, Only Library, Science Direct, Springer Journal, Taylor & Francis and Wiley Online Library. An examination of 117 articles was carried out and of those only 11 satisfied our criteria for inclusion into the meta-analysis. From these articles, we selected 41 cases to be evaluated. We used as keywords “microcapsules”, “capsules”, “microorganisms”, “growth”, “promoting”, “germination” “bacteria”, “plant”, “sodium alginate”, “antagonist” and “fungi”. We used sample size, means, standard deviations, F-test statistics, χ2 and/or p-value. Also gum and hardener concentration, and type of microencapsulated agent, microorganism and plant species were manipulated as factors; and measures of leaf, shoot and root, and seed germination were taken as responses variables. A general trend of enhanced performance was observed for microorganisms examined (except Trichoderma harzianum), also among plant species a positive trend was observed in Triticum sp., Vigna radiata and Gossypium sp. Plant growth showed differential responses; positive on root mass and shoot length but no effects on seed germination. Analysis of hardener and gum concentrations revealed that polymers containing 2 % of both compounds are ideally suited to enhance plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) performance. We highlight beneficial effect of bacteria Bacillus subtilis when encapsulated in a polymeric gum. Positive effects of encapsulation for PGPM on plant root mass and shoot length were observed on Triticum sp., V. radiata and Gossypium sp. Hardener and gum concentrations of 2 % resulted in positive effects on plant growth promoting microorganism encapsulation performance.

Key word: Bacillus sp.; inoculant; microcapsules; plant growth; seed germination

Resumen

Varios estudios se han realizado para evaluar el efecto de la encapsulación basada en polímeros sobre el rendimiento del crecimiento vegetal que promueva el desarrollo de microorganismos. Sin embargo, no hay una revisión sistemática sobre el rendimiento de estos microorganismos cuando se encapsulan en una matriz polimérica. Los artículos relevantes fueron recuperados mediante búsquedas en Google Scholar, Only Library, Science Direct, Springer Journal, Taylor & Francis y Wiley Online Library. Examinamos 117 artículos y solo 11 satisficieron nuestros criterios de inclusión en el metanálisis. De estos artículos, se seleccionaron 41 casos para evaluarse. Como palabras clave se utilizaron “microcápsulas”, “cápsulas”, “microorganismos”, “crecimiento”, “promoción”, “germinación”, “bacterias”, “planta”, “alginato sódico”, “antagonista” y “hongos”. Utilizamos el tamaño de la muestra, los medios, las desviaciones estándar, las estadísticas de la prueba F, el valor de χ2 y/o p. También se manipularon como factores la concentración de goma y endurecedor, y el tipo de agente microencapsulado, microorganismos y especies vegetales; y las medidas de la hoja, el brote y la raíz, y la germinación de las semillas se tomaron como variables de respuesta. Una tendencia general de mayor rendimiento se observó para los microorganismos examinados (excepto Trichoderma harzianum); también entre las especies de plantas se observó una tendencia positiva en Triticum sp., Vigna radiata y Gossypium sp. El crecimiento de las plantas mostró diferentes respuestas; positivo en la masa de las raíces y en la longitud de los brotes, pero sin efectos en la germinación de las semillas. El análisis de las concentraciones de endurecedor y goma reveló que los polímeros que contienen 2 % de ambos compuestos son ideales para mejorar el rendimiento de los microorganismos que promueven el crecimiento de las plantas (PGPM). Destacamos el efecto beneficioso de la bacteria Bacillus subtilis cuando se encapsula en una goma polimérica. Se observaron efectos positivos de la encapsulación para PGPM sobre la masa radicular y la longitud de los brotes en Triticum sp., V. radiata y Gossypium sp. Las concentraciones de endurecedor y 2 % de goma tuvieron efectos positivos en la encapsulación de microorganismos que promueven el crecimiento de las plantas.

Palabras clave: Bacillus sp.; Inoculante; microcápsulas; crecimiento de las plantas; germinación de las semillas

Introduction

There is an effort to use beneficial microorganisms to promote plant growth in order to reduce the intensive use of agrochemicals and to contribute to the expansion of sustainable agricultural practices (Vassilev et al., 2001; Cappellari et al., 2013). Three major groups of microorganisms are considered beneficial to plant growth: mycorrhizal fungi, free-living plant growth promoting fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (Harman et al., 2004; Malusá et al., 2012). Mycorrhizal fungi include arbuscular mycorrhizae and ectomycorrhizae of multiple fungal clades such as Glomeromycota, Ascomycota, and Basidiomycota (Kuo et al., 2014). Free-living plant growth-promoting fungi include species of the genera Trichoderma, Aspergillus and Phoma (Harman et al., 2004; Salas, 2011). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria comprise the genera Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Enterobacter, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas, and some endophytes such as Axoarcus, Gluconacetobacter and Herbaspirillum (Siddiqui, 2006). The action of plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) was studied intensively in the last decade; increment in biomass and fruit yield of various cropped species due to direct and indirect effects was documented (Gupta et al., 2000; Saharan and Nehra, 2011). The most common direct effects are N fixation, phosphate solubilization, siderophore and phytohormone production, and indirect effects include induction of host plant resistance and antagonist against phytopathogen (Martínez-Viveros et al., 2010; Ahemad and Kibret, 2014).

Even though the inoculation of plants with PGPM is carried out commercially in agriculture, the formulation of inoculum with a reliable and consistent effect under field conditions is still problematic (Malusá et al., 2012). Successful formulation of PGPM must overcome difficulties arising from unfavorable soil temperature, humidity, salinization, UV-radiation, soil pH and water stresses (García et al., 2011). A key aspect of successful inoculation technology is to avoid losing activity of PGPM through the use of proper inoculum formulation and selection of an adequate carrier (Malusá et al., 2012). The carrier helps to deliver a suitable amount of microorganism in good physiological condition, which can then provide a suitable microenvironment and assure sufficient shelf life. Among the natural materials utilized as carriers, organic polymers are widely used (Bashan et al., 2002; Yabur et al., 2007). Organic polymers are compounds that cross-link forming a matrix, which temporarily encapsulates or immobilizes microorganisms that are then gradually released during polymer degradation (Malusá et al., 2012). The use of polymer-based encapsulation offers protection against environmental stress and consequently enhances the survival and release of microorganisms into the soil or seed (Guo et al., 2012). Materials used for polymer encapsulation ideally should be inexpensive and easily available, such as carboxymethyl cellulose, guar gum, xanthan gum, alginate and starch (Bhardwaj et al., 2000; Hernández et al., 2011).

The effect of polymer-based encapsulation on performance of PGPM has been evaluated. However there is no systematic analysis on the performance of these microorganisms when encapsulated in a polymer-based matrix. In this context, the present meta-analysis addresses the following questions: 1) does polymer-based encapsulation enhance microorganism performance? 2) is the response of polymer-based encapsulation of PGPM similar for all plant species? 3) what plant structures are most influenced when plants are inoculated with polymer-based encapsulated PGPM? 4) does the hardener or gum concentration of the polymer influence the performance of the encapsulated PGPM?

Materials and Methods

Definition of literature to search

In this meta-analysis we examined the effectiveness of using polymer-based microencapsulated agents on PGPM in different crops. The population was defined as the encapsulated and non-encapsulated microorganisms (rhizobacteria or free-living plant growth promoting fungi) used to promote growth in various crops. In the first round of literature search, studies were included if at least one of the following aspects were addressed as a core question in the work: 1) comparison of performance of polymer-based encapsulated and non-encapsulated PGPM, 2) comparison of different concentration of the polymer-based matrix or hardener for encapsulation were evaluated, and 3) evaluation of the seed germination or plant growth components were evaluated.

Collection of database and inclusion criteria

An electronic search was carried out from November 2013 to February 2014. Relevant published papers were retrieved through searches in Google Scholar and top peer review journals indexed in: Only Library, Science Direct, Springer Journal, Taylor & Francis and Wiley Online Library. For the studies search, the following combination of the keywords were used: “microcapsules”, “capsules”, “microorganisms”, “growth”, “promoting”, “germination” “bacteria”, “plant”, “sodium alginate”, “antagonist” and “fungi”.

The literature search comprehensively retrieved all relevant scientific studies reporting the effectiveness of using microencapsulated agents on PGPM for a wide variety of crops. Approximately 117 references were examined based on title, abstracts, and keywords within the first evaluation stage of this study. A subset of 91 irrelevant reports were excluded and 26 potential articles were identified to fulfill the eligibility criteria: 1) studies had to quantify the effects of polymer-based encapsulated and non-encapsulated PGPM on seed germination or plant growth variables (leaf area, leave biomass, root biomass, shot biomass, total biomass, number of leaves, root length and shot length); 2) studies had to include among their treatments the polymer-based encapsulated and the non-encapsulated PGPM, the latter was used as their respective control; 3) studies had to use natural polymers like gums to encapsulate microorganisms; 4) studies had to be written in English and be published in the peer-reviewed literature. We obtained 11 articles published between 2002 and 2012 that satisfied these criteria (Table 1; Appendix A), and from them we selected 41 cases to be evaluated by the meta-analysis.

Table 1 Overview of the data sources. Plant process: SG = Seed germination; PG = Plant growth. Plant growth structure: LA = Leaves biomass; LN = Leaves number; SB = Shoot biomass; SL = Shoot length; RL = Root length; RB = Root biomass; TB = Total biomass. 

Methodological assessment and data extraction

Before risk of bias assessment (BA) and data extraction (DE), the papers were selected through abstract screening and confirmed using the full articles. To conduct the DE the appropriate studies were analyzed and data extracted quantitatively. The data needed for analyses (sample size, means, standard deviations, F-test statistics, χ2 or p-value) were reported in the article, either in numerical or graphical form, or could be provided by the authors on request. The studies with more than one study design were duplicated and extracted as separate studies. Many studies reported multiple treatment comparisons, which were extracted as unique treatment comparisons (trials) for analytic purposes. Information extracted from each study included: 1) gum and hardener concentration, (1) type of microencapsulated agent; 2) type of microorganism; 3) type of plant species and; 4) study results. Variables taken included: leaf area (LA), leave biomass (LB), root biomass (RB), shot biomass (SB), total biomass (TB), leave number (LN), root length (RL), shot length (SL). These data were extracted for the control and treated groups.

Meta-analysis

The meta-analysis was carried out with the MetaWin 2.1 statistical program (Rosenberg et al., 2002). For performance of plant growth measures, the effect size was calculated as Hedges’s d, the standardized mean difference (Gurevitch and Hedges, 2001) between encapsulated and non-encapsulated treatment means: d=[(XO-XY)/s] J, where XO designates the mean of plant growth trait in encapsulated treatment, XY is the corresponding mean for the non-encapsulated treatment, s is the pooled standard deviation, and J is the small-sample-size bias correction factor. When the mean and standard deviations needed for calculation of Hedges’s d were presented in graphs, they were taken using ImageJ software (Rasband, 2012). In some studies these data were not available, and univariate statistics (F, χ2 or p-value) were converted into Hedges’s d estimates (Rosenberg et al., 2002).

Analyses were performed using the mixed-effects model, which assumes that studies differ due to sampling error and random variation. Given that these sources of variation are likely to be important in biological data, the mixed-effects model is preferred for these analyses (Gurevitch and Hedges, 2001). Bias-corrected bootstrap 95 % confidence intervals around the effect size were generated from 999 iterations, and effects are considered to be significant when 95 % confidence interval did not include zero. For those mean-effect sizes that were significantly different from zero, we calculated a fail-safe number (nfs) using the weighted method of Rosenberg (2005). This number represents how many additional studies of null effect and mean weight should be added to reduce the significance level of the observer mean effect to 0.05. A fail-safe number greater than 5n+10, where n is the original number of studies in the analysis, is considered robust against publication bias (Rosenthal, 1991). In addition, we examined publication bias by mean of funnel plots (Light and Pillemer, 1984). Funnel plots revealed a low probability that publication bias affected the data set. To test whether patterns differed among the explanatory variables discussed above (type of microorganism, plant species, plant growth structure, plant process, hardener and gum concentration) studies were subdivided into corresponding groups, and between-group heterogeneity was examined using the X2 statistic Qb (Gurevitch and Hedges, 2001). All figures were made using SigmaPlot version 11 from Systat Software.

Results and Discussion

The general response of the PGPM to the polymer-based encapsulation was positive [E ++ (mean effects size) = 0.8700; 95 % Bias CI (confidence interval) =0.02171 to 1.5178], although there was a clear difference among microorganism species (df=11, Q=22.6, p=0.01). The fungus Trichoderma harzianum showed negative effect, and the bacteria Rhodanobacter sp., Anthrobacter sp. and Azospirillum brasilense corrig. Tarrand et al, (1978) showed no response to the polymer-based encapsulation (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Mean Hedges’s d effect sizes (±95 % bias-corrected confidence intervals), sample sizes, and fail-safe numbers (nfs) for studies comparing polymer-based encapsulated versus non-encapsulated PGPM. Significant patterns occur when the intervals fail to include zero, which is marked with a dotted line. Microorganisms species in bold indicate that the fail-safe number is robust (>5 n + 10). 

The effects of polymer-based encapsulated PGPM in various plant species had a positive general tendency [E ++ (mean effects size) = 0.8654; 95 % Bias CI (confidence interval) =0.3093 to 1.5350]. Differential effects among plant species were not detected (df=6, Q=6.6, p=0.35), but the magnitude of the effect showed some variation (Figure 2). For example, in Triticum sp., Vigna radiata and Gossypium sp. there was a positive trend in the response, whereas in buffalo grass [Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.) Engelm], big salbrush [Atriplex lentiformis (Torr.) S. Watts], lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. 1753) and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), there was no response (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Mean Hedges’s d effect sizes (±95 % bias-corrected confidence intervals), sample sizes, and fail-safe numbers (nfs) for studies comparing the effects of polymer-based encapsulated versus non-encapsulated PGPM in different plant species. Significant patterns occur when the intervals fail to include zero, which is marked with a dotted line. Plant species in bold indicate that the fail-safe number is robust (> 5 n + 10). 

Plant growth was separated into the analysis of different plant structures, as well as the plant process. For plant growth, the effect of polymer-based encapsulation of PGPM was positive in 67.69 % of species used in this study [E ++ (mean effects size) = 0.6769; 95 % Bias CI (confidence interval) =0.1008 to 1.3027]. The magnitude of increase in growth, however, was different among plant structures (df=4, Q=13.91, p=0.007) in which only the root mass and shoot length showed a significant effect by inoculation of polymer-based encapsulated relative to free-cell PGPM; while total plant mass, shoot mass, and root length showed no apparent effect (Figure 3a).

Figure 3 Mean Hedges’s d effect sizes (±95 % bias-corrected confidence intervals), sample sizes, and fail-safe numbers (nfs) for studies comparing the effect of polymer-encapsulated versus non-encapsulated PGPM on growth of different plant structures (a) and plant process (b). Significant patterns occur when the intervals fail to include zero, which is marked with a dotted line. Plant structures and process in bold indicate that the fail-safe number is robust (> 5 n + 10). 

The response of plant process was categorical in comparison with plant growth and seed germination. However, the plant structures and plant process were not collinear. A trend of positive effect of polymer-based encapsulated PGPM was in general found [E ++ (mean effects size) = 0.9680; 95 % Bias CI (confidence interval) = 0.3714 to 1.6551]. The response on plant growth was highly positive, while on seed germination there was no response (df=1, Q=21.42, p ≤0.0001) (Figure 3b).

The concentrations of the hardener produced differential responses in the performance of the polymer-based encapsulated PGPM [E ++ (mean effects size) = 0.8652; 95 % Bias CI (confidence interval) = 0.3273 to 1.5450]. The effect however was not significant (df=4, Q=6.8, p=0.14), but an unimodal response for 1.1, 2 and 5.55 % (low and higher percentage of hardener) of improvement performance of polymer-based encapsulated PGPM was observed (Figure 4a). All gum concentrations, except the highest (3.5 %), showed beneficial effects on the performance of PGPM [E ++ (mean effects size) = 0.8702; 95 % Bias CI (confidence interval) = 0.2977 to 1.5245] (Figure 4b). No differential effects among gum concentrations were observed (df=3, Q=2.18, p=0.53), but the results for the concentration of 2 % were robust (Figure 4b).

Figure 4 Mean Hedges’s d effect sizes (±95 % bias-corrected confidence intervals), sample sizes, and fail-safe numbers (nfs) for studies comparing hardener (a) and polymeric gum concentration (%) (b) for encapsulating material. Significant patterns occur when the intervals fail to include zero, which is marked with a dotted line. Hardener and polymeric gum concentrations in bold indicate that the fail-safe number is robust (>5n+10). 

The present meta-analysis uncovers the effects of polymer-based encapsulation on performance of PGPM. Our main findings are as follows: 1) most of the PGPM included in the study responded positively and similarly in magnitude to polymer-based encapsulation, some of them, however, showed no response, and in the case of Trichoderma harzianum a negative response was observed; 2) the effects of encapsulation on performance of PGPM depended on the plant species inoculated, in this sense, clear trend of positive effects were observed on Triticum sp., Vigna radiate and Gossypium sp.; 3) increases in root mass and shoot length were the most common effects when plants were inoculated with polymer-based encapsulated PGPM; however, seed germination was unaffected when seeds were inoculated with polymer-based encapsulated PGPM; 4) concentration of the hardener and gum influenced the performance of PGPM when encapsulated with positive effects observed when concentrations of both hardener and polymer were 2 %, respectively. It is important to point out that in all cases the results are strongly influenced by the number of studies analyzed. As indicated by the fail safe number, most of our results were not robust enough to draw decisive conclusions (Fragkos et al., 2014), but there was a clear trend on the increase of PGPM performance when encapsulated in a polymer-based matrix. However, Belman and Wolfson (2014) consider that with a low number of articles, the case studies (41) could be a good number for meta-analysis if inclusion criteria were restricted to horticultural crop area. In spite of this, other studies could consider vote-counting techniques (where inclusion criteria used could increase to add studies to the meta-analysis) to strengthen evidence about this item (Butler et al., 2012).

Our analysis showed that in most of the PGPM species (67 %) the effects of using polymer-based encapsulating agent were positive compared to the effects of non-encapsulated PGPM. About one quarter of the species, however, showed no response to the encapsulation. It is important one case (Trichoderma harzianum) where the effect of the encapsulation was negative, which is due to bacteria having a better germination process than fungi, when used individually (El-Katatny, 2010).

The reason why not all PGPM showed positive response to the encapsulation might be related to two aspects: 1) there are species of microorganisms that naturally have a resistance per se to the harsh environment when exposed to these conditions; thus, adding a polymer-based matrix does not help to enhance the performance, specially for microorganisms that form biofilms and those that have the ability to recognize and cope with physical and chemical stressful conditions of a particular environment (Santos et al., 2010); 2) the polymer may have affected the viability or release of cells. This was observed in studies where different types of gums and species of PGPM were evaluated (Tittabutr et al., 2007).

We also observed that the response of the polymer-based encapsulated PGPM depended on, to a certain degree, the plant species evaluated. Surprisingly, in the species Lycopersicon esculentum, where several studies have been carried out, there was no positive effect of encapsulating PGPM. In this case, the germination levels influenced plant growth thus masking their positive effect following meta-analysis. This occurs because during seed germination the plant requires an immediate response from PGPM, however the onset of encapsulated PGPM action is often delayed due to the fact that the majority of the polymeric capsules are designed for prolonged release (Serban et al., 2010).

The difference in response among plant species might be attributed to aspects of the interaction between the microorganisms and plant roots. Various studies point out the importance of the association of microorganisms to plant when interacting in the rhizosphere (Saharan and Nehra, 2011). Thus, the polymer-based matrix might influence recognition of beneficial microorganisms by the plant roots, either by affecting physiological aspects of the association or by affecting the plant root system (Salamoni et al., 2010).

In our analysis we also found that when PGPM were encapsulated, plant growth was enhanced, in two ways: root biomass and shoot length. Surprisingly, we observed no effects on seed germination. This may suggest that a possible interaction of the polymer-based matrix with substrate or soil where seeds were deposited for germination could have affected the germination process and consequently the establishment of an ideal niche for the PGPM (Bashan et al., 2014). For these types of studies the soil, environmental conditions and seed characteristics must be taken into account when establishing the seeds that were coated with a polymer-based PGPM (Farnsworth, 2000). Even though we found no effect of the polymer-based encapsulation of PGPM on seed germination endpoints evaluated by this study, other aspects of seed germination might have received the benefits, such as increased seed viability under storage (Sivakumar et al., 2014).

As for our last question regarding the influence of the hardener and gum on the performance of polymer-based encapsulated PGPM, in both cases, concentrations of 2 % had clear trends of positive effects. The encapsulation of PGPM protects them from mechanical stress and harsh environmental conditions, like pH, dryness and UV (Mortazavian et al., 2007). However, when the concentrations of the hardener or the polymeric gum are inappropriate, the release and viability of the microorganisms are compromised, which in turn significantly affects the colonization of the rhizosphere by the PGPM (John et al., 2011).

Conclusions

Our analysis of literature about the effects of polymer-based encapsulation on performance of PGPM revealed differential responses in the type of microorganism, plant species, and hardener and gum concentrations evaluated. We detected specific responses for each of these groups, allowing us to describe the most important patterns. The PGPM Bacillus subtilis showed a strong positive effect when encapsulated in a polymer-based matrix. Plant species did not show clear pattern of responses, but there was a trend of positive effect in Triticum sp., Vigna radiate and Gossypium sp. Stronger positive responses were detected on root mass and shoot length, but we detected no responses on seed germination. Finally, we found that 2 % concentration for the hardener and the polymeric gum provided significant positive effects when encapsulating PGPM.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank PROMEP-SEP for the postdoctoral scholarship to JPA (Document No. PROMEP/103.5/13/4719).

Literature Cited

Ahemad, M., and M. Kibret. 2014. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 26: 1-20. [ Links ]

Bashan, Y., J. P. Hernandez, L. A. Leyva, and M. Bacilio. 2002. Alginate microbeads as inoculant carriers for plant growth-promoting bacteria. Biol. Fertil Soils. 35: 359-368. [ Links ]

Bashan, Y., L. E. de-Bashan, S. R. Prabhu, and J. P. Hernandez. 2014. Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: formulation and practical perspectives (1998-2013). Plant Soil. 378: 1-33. [ Links ]

Belman, D., and P. Wolfson. 2014. The New Minimum Wage Research. Employment Research. 21: 4-5. [ Links ]

Bhardwaj, T. R., M. Kanwar, R. Lal, and A. Gupta. 2000. Natural gums and modified natural gums as sustained-release carriers. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 26: 25-38. [ Links ]

Butler, J., M. P. D. Garratt, and S. R. Leather. 2012. Fertilisers and insect herbivores: a meta-analysis. Ann. Appl. Biol. 161: 223-233. [ Links ]

Cappellari, L. R., M. V. Santoro, F.Nievas , W. Giordano, and E. Banchio. 2013. Increase of Secondary metabolite content in marigold by inoculation with plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria. Appl. Soil Ecol. 70: 16-22. [ Links ]

El-Katatny, M. 2010. Enzyme production and nitrogen fixation by free, immobilized and coimmobilized inoculants of Trichoderma harzianum and Azospirillum brasilense and their possible role in growth promotion of tomato. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 48: 161-174. [ Links ]

Farnsworth, E. 2000. The ecology and physiology of viviparous and recalcitrant seeds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31: 107-138. [ Links ]

Fragkos, K. C., M. Tsagris, and C. C. Frangos. 2014. Publication bias in Meta-Analysis: Confidence intervals for Rosenthal’s fail-safe number. Int. Sch. Res. Notices. 2014:17. doi: 10.1155/2014/825383 [ Links ]

García G. K., V. H. Poggy, G. F. Esparza, R. J. Ibarra, and C. J. Barrera. 2011. Small microcapsules of crystal proteins and spores of Bacillus thuringiensis by an emulsification/internal gelation method. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 34: 701-708. [ Links ]

Guo, L., Z. Wu, A. Rasool, and C. Li. 2012. Effects of free and encapsulated co-culture bacteria on cotton growth and soil bacterial communities. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 53: 16-22. [ Links ]

Gupta, A., M. Gopal, and K. V. Tilak. 2000. Mechanism of plant growth promotion by Rhizobacteria. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 38: 856-862. [ Links ]

Gurevitch, J., and L. V. Hedges. 2001. Meta-analysis: combining results of independent experiments. In: Scheiner, S. M., and J. Gurevitch (eds). Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. pp. 347-369. [ Links ]

Harman, G. E., C. R. Howell, A. Viterbo, I. Chet, and M. Lorito. 2004. Trichoderma species - oportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2: 43-56. [ Links ]

Hernández S., M., C. F. D. Hernández, M. G. Gallegos, S. R. H. Lira, H. R. Rodríguez, and C. N. Aguilar. 2011. Biocontrol of soil fungi in tomato with microencapsulates containing Bacillus subtilis. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 6: 189-195. [ Links ]

John, R. P., R. D. Tyagi, S. K. Brar, R. Y. Surampalli, and D. Prévost. 2011. Bio-encapsulation of microbial cells for targeted agricultural delivery. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 31: 211-226. [ Links ]

Kuo, A., A. Kohler, F. M. Martin, and I. V. Grigoriev. 2014. Expanding genomics of mycorrhizal symbiosis. Front. Microbiol. 5: 1-5. [ Links ]

Light, R. J., and D. B. Pillemer. 1984. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 191 p. [ Links ]

Malusá, E., L. Sas-Paszt, and J. Ciesielska. 2012. Technology for beneficial microorganisms inocula used as biofertilizers. Sci World J. 2012: 1-12. [ Links ]

Martínez-Viveros, O., M. A. Jorquera, D. E. Crowley, G. Gajardo, and M. L. Mora. 2010. Mechanism and practical considerations involved in plant growth promotion by rhizobacteria. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 10: 293-319. [ Links ]

Mortazavian, A., S. H. Razavi, M. R. Ehsani, and V. S. Sohrab. 2007. Principles and methods of microencapsulation of probiotic microorganisms. Iran. J. Biotech. 5: 1-18. [ Links ]

Rasband, W. S. 2012. ImageJ. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. [ Links ]

Rosenberg, M. 2005. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 59: 464-468. [ Links ]

Rosenberg, M. S., D. C. Adams, andJ. Gurevitch . 2002. MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2.1. Sinnauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. [ Links ]

Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA. 168 p. [ Links ]

Saharan B., S., and V. Nehra. 2011. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A critical review. Life Sci. Medicine Res. 21: 1-30. [ Links ]

Salamoni A. T., M. R. Sierakowski, M. E. Jaziri, and M. Quoirin. 2010. Xyloglucans from Hymenaea courbaril var. stilbocarpa seeds affect Arabidopsis thaliana seedling growth by enhancing lateral root development. Rev. Bras. Bot. 33: 539-545. [ Links ]

Salas-Marina, M. A., M. A. Flores-Silva, M. G. Cervantes-Badillo, M. T. Rosales-Saavedra, M. A. Islas-Osuna, and S. Casas-Flores. 2011. The plant growth-promoting fungus Aspergillus ustus promotes growth and induces resistance against different lifestyle pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 21: 686-696. [ Links ]

Santos, S. N., V. N. Kavamura, J. L. Silva, I. S. Melo, and F. D. Andreote. 2010. Plant growth promoter rhizobacteria in plants inhabiting harsh tropical environments and its role in agricultural improvements. In: Maheshwari, D. K. (ed). Plant Growth and Health Promoting Bacteria. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. pp: 251-272 [ Links ]

Serban, F., F. Oancea, O. Sicuia, F. Constantinescu, and S. Dinu. 2010. Responsive polymers for crop protection. Polymer 2: 229-251. [ Links ]

Siddiqui, Z. A. 2006. PGPR: Biocontrol and Biofertilization. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 318 p. [ Links ]

Sivakumar, P. K., R. Parthasarthi, and V. P. Lakshmipriya. 2014. Encapsulation of plant growth promoting inoculant in bacterial alginate beads enriched with humic acid. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 3: 415-422. [ Links ]

Tarrand, J. J., N. R. Krieg, and J. Dobereiner. 1978. A taxonomic study of the Spirillum lipoferum group, with descriptions of a new genus, Azospirillum gen. nov. and two species Azo- spirillum lipoferum (Beijerinck) comb. nov. Azospirillum brasilense sp. nov. Can. J. Microbiol. 24: 967-980. [ Links ]

Tittabutr, P., W. Payakapong, N. Teamroong, P. W. Singleton, and N. Boonkerd. 2007. Growth, survival and field performance of bradyrhizobial liquid inoculant formulations with polymeric additives. Sci. Asia 33: 69-77. [ Links ]

Vassilev, N., M. Vassileva, R. Azcon, and A. Medina. 2001. Application of free and ca-alginate-entrapped Glomus deserticola and Yarowia lipolytica in a soil-plant system. J. Biotechnol. 91: 237-242. [ Links ]

Yabur, R., Y. Bashan, and G. Hernandez-Carmona. 2007. Alginate from the macro algae Sargassum sinicola as a novel source for microbial immobilization material in wastewater treatment and plant growth promotion. J. Appl. Phycol. 19: 43-53 [ Links ]

Appendix A

  • El-Katatny, M. 2010. Enzyme production and nitrogen fixation by free, immobilized and coimmobilized inoculants of Trichoderma harzianum and Azospirillum brasilense and their possible role in growth promotion of tomato. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 48: 161-174.

  • Guo, L., Z. Wu, A. Rasool, and C. Li. 2012. Effects of free and encapsulated co-culture bacteria on cotton growth and soil bacterial communities. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 53: 16-22.

  • Grandlic C., J., M. W. Palmer, and R. M. Maier. 2009. Optimization of plant growth-promoting bacteria-assisted phytostabilization of mine tailings. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41: 1734-1740.

  • Hernández S., M., C. F. D. Hernández, S. R. H. Lira, and M. G. Gallegos. 2010. Biocontrol de Rhizoctonia solani y Fusarium sp. con microencapsulados de Bacillus subtilis y su efecto en crecimiento y rendimiento de tomate (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Rev. Agraria. 7: 17-25.

  • Jain R., J. Saxena, and V. Sharma. 2010. The evaluation of free and encapsulated Aspergillus awamori for phosphate solubilization in fermentation and soil-plant system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 46: 90-94.

  • Omer, A. M. 2010. Bioformulations of Bacillus spores for using as biofertilizer. Life Sci. 7: 124-131.

  • Rekha P., D., L. Wai-An, A. B. Arun, and Y. Chiu-Chung. 2007. Effect of free and encapsulated Pseudomonas putida CC-FR2-4 and Bacillus subtilis CC-pg104 on plant growth under gnotobiotic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 98: 447-451.

  • Saxena J., M. 2011. Efficacy of rhizobacterial strains encapsulated in nontoxic biodegradable gel matrices to promote growth and yield of wheat plants. Appl. Soil Ecol. 48: 301-308.

  • Vassilev N., M. Vassileva, R. Azcon, and A. Medina. 2001. Application of free and ca-alginate-entrapped Glomus deserticola and Yarowia lipolytica in a soil-plant system. J. Biotechnol. 91: 237-242.

  • Wu Z., Y. Zhao, I. Kaleem, and C. Li. 2011. Preparation of calcium-alginate microcapsuled microbial fertilizer coating Klebsiella oxytoca Rs-5 and its performance under salinity stress. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 47: 152-159.

  • Young C., C., P. D. Rekha, W. A. Lai, and A. B. Arun. 2006. Encapsulation of plant growth-promoting bacteria in alginate beads enriched with humic acid. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 95: 76-83

Received: October 2015; Accepted: November 2016

* Author for correspondence: horacio.ballina@itconkal.edu.mx

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License