Pedosphere 31(3): 496--509, 2021
ISSN 1002-0160/CN 32-1315/P
©2021 Soil Science Society of China
Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press
| Strategies to mitigate the adverse effect of drought stress on crop plants—influences of soil bacteria: A review |
Priyanka CHANDRA1, Amoolya WUNNAVA2, Pooja VERMA1, Amaresh CHANDRA3 , Rakesh Kumar SHARMA2 |
1Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132001 (India)
2Department of Biosciences, Manipal University Jaipur, Rajasthan, Jaipur 303007 (India)
3Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow 226002 (India) |
| ABSTRACT |
| Drought stress affects plant growth and causes significant issues in meeting global demand for food crops and fodder. Drought can cause physiological, physicochemical, and morphological changes in plants, which negatively affects plant growth and productivity. To combat this under the increasing global threat of water shortage and rapid population expansion, it is crucial to develop strategies to meet global food demands. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) may provide a safe solution to enhancing crop yields through various mechanisms. These soil bacteria can provide drought tolerance to crop plants, allowing them to survive and thrive in water-scarce conditions. Productions of phytohormones, free radical-scavenging enzymes, and stress-combating enzymes that can increase tolerance to drought-induced stress are key features of plant-associated microbial communities. This review summarizes the beneficial properties of microbes that help plants tolerate water scarcity and highlights the bacterial mechanisms that enhance drought tolerance in plants. |
| Key Words: abiotic stress,agricultural yield,drought tolerance,food crops,microbe,PGPR,rhizobactoria,water deficit |
| Citation: Chandra P, Wunnava A, Verma P, Chandra A, Sharma R K. 2021. Strategies to mitigate the adverse effect of drought stress on crop plants—influences of soil bacteria: A review. Pedosphere. 31(3): 496-509. |
| |
|
View Full Text
|
|
|
|
