. 2021 Feb 4;12:599742. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.599742

Algae as New Kids in the Beneficial Plant Microbiome

Sang-Moo Lee^1,^2,³,Choong-Min Ryu^1,^2,^*

¹Molecular Phytobacteriology Laboratory, Infectious Disease Research Center, KRIBB, Daejeon, South Korea

²Department of Biosystems and Bioengineering, KRIBB School of Biotechnology, University of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea

³Department of Applied Bioscience, Dong-A University, Busan, South Korea

Edited by: Ioannis Stringlis, Utrecht University, Netherlands

Reviewed by: Ke Yu, Henan University, China; Wu Xiong, Utrecht University, Netherlands

^✉

*Correspondence: Choong-Min Ryu,cmryu@kribb.re.kr

This article was submitted to Plant Symbiotic Interactions, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science

Received 2020 Aug 28; Accepted 2021 Jan 13; Collection date 2021.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

PMC Copyright notice

PMCID: PMC7889962 PMID:33613596

Abstract

Previously, algae were recognized as small prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms found only in aquatic habitats. However, according to a recent paradigm shift, algae are considered ubiquitous organisms, occurring in plant tissues as well as in soil. Accumulating evidence suggests that algae represent a member of the plant microbiome. New results indicate that plants respond to algae and activate related downstream signaling pathways. Application of algae has beneficial effects on plant health, such as plant growth promotion and disease control. Although accumulating evidence suggests that secreted compounds and cell wall components of algae induce physiological and structural changes in plants that protect against biotic and abiotic stresses, knowledge of the underlying mechanisms and algal determinants is limited. In this review, we discuss recent studies on this topic, and highlight the bioprotectant and biostimulant roles of algae as a new member of the plant beneficial microbiome for crop improvement.

Keywords: microalgae, microbiome,Chlorella, cyanobacteria, plant immunity, plant growth promotion (PGP), biological control

Introduction

Algae is a group of ancient photosynthetic organisms ranging from prokaryotic cyanobacteria to eukaryotic microalgae (Parker et al., 2008). Generally, algae are classified mainly depending on their color, shape, and life cycle (Blaby-Haas and Merchant, 2019). Out of more than 800,000 species of algae that exist in nature, only 5,000 have been characterized to date. Out of 5,000 species, only small number of the algae species have been selected to determine their potential applications in plant growth under defined growth conditions. Algae are broadly classified as micro- and macroalgae based on size. Macroalgae indicates large aquatic photosynthetic plants that can be seen without the aid of a microscope and can generally be divided into three groups: Green (Chlorophyta), Red (Rhodophyta), and Brown-Kelps (Phaeophyta—related to Chromista). Microalgae comprise representative genera, includingArthrospira,Chlorella,Dunaliella, Nostoc, andAphanizomenon (Elster, 2002). Prokaryotic microalgae, namely, cyanobacteria, play a critical role in the natural ecosystem, particularly in plant–microbe interactions. However, the idea that algae are a member of the plant-associated microbial community has long been debated (Berg et al., 2020).

Definition and Membership of the Microbiome

It is important to understand the definition of the microbiome before discussing algae as a new member of the plant microbiome, since microbe and microbiome are distinct terminologies. Most scientists follow the definition of microbiome first provided byWhipps et al. (1988), according to which a microbiome “may be defined as a characteristic microbial community occupying a reasonably well defined habitat which has distinct physio-chemical properties. This term not only refers to the microorganisms involved but also encompasses their theater of activity” (Whipps et al., 1988). However, the definition of microbiome has been revised several times in the last 20+ years to meet the technological and conceptual advances. “The microbiome is defined as a characteristic microbial community occupying a reasonable well-defined habitat which has distinct physio-chemical properties. The microbiome not only refers to the microorganisms involved but also encompass their theater of activity, which results in the formation of specific ecological niches. The microbiome, which forms a dynamic and interactive micro-ecosystem prone to change in time and scale, is integrated in macro-ecosystems including eukaryotic hosts, and here crucial for their functioning and health” (Berg et al., 2020).

Many microbiologists less considered algae and protists as members of the plant-associated microbiome (Longford et al., 2019;Wilpiszeski et al., 2019). However, most microbiologists agree that algae, except some macroalgae, are microorganisms based on their size and characteristics. In this review, we discuss only microalgae species, including both prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. The ecological niche of algae had also been debated. Here, we focus on algae as a member of the microbiome and their beneficial effects on plant fitness. To meet the minimum conceptual role, algae must exist on or around the plant surface and inside plant tissues.

Algae as Members of the Soil Microbiome

Because fresh and seawater were previously recognized as the habitat of algae, most microbiologists did not consider that algae could thrive in soil or on plant surfaces. However, more than 30 years ago, scientists investigated the distribution of algae in soil (Davey, 1989,1991;Davey and Clarke, 1991). Early studies were conducted to identify cryptogrammic flora on the Antarctic fellfield soil based on their chlorophyll contents and microscopic observations. These studies revealed that Oscillatoriaceae was the dominant family in the soil, up to a depth of 8 cm below the soil surface (Davey and Clarke, 1991). Limitations of the classification on algal species based on conventional microbiological approaches, including isolation andin vitro culture on artificial media, led to the development of molecular techniques, including PCR-based 18S rDNA sequencing of the algae community in the soil (Bérard et al., 2005;Bradley et al., 2016;Khaw et al., 2020). In areas with harsh climatic conditions, such as semi-arid steppes, warm deserts, and polar regions, the algal community forms a biological soil crust along with other microorganisms to protect against abiotic and biotic stresses (Zhang et al., 2011;Pushkareva et al., 2016;Krug et al., 2020). Algae were also identified as active microbes in agricultural fields by 18S rDNA sequencing (Bérard et al., 2005). For instance, four classes of algae were identified in soil samples collected from a vegetable field (depth: 0–15 cm) in Nigeria: Chlorophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, and Euglenophyceae (Adesalu and Olugbemi, 2015). Collectively, these studies suggest that algae are distributed across diverse environments, ranging from polar areas to agricultural fields. However, the interaction between land plants and algae has not been studied intensively. To utilize algae as plant health-promoting factors, it is important to understand the ecological niche of algae.

Ecological Niche

Previously, freshwater and seawater were considered as the ecological niches of algae, as described above. Considering algae as a member of the plant microbiome (phytobiome) has been debated because algae could not be isolated from the rhizosphere, phyllosphere, or endosphere (Gantar and Elhai, 1999;Gantar, 2000;Treves et al., 2016;Zhu et al., 2018). Moreover, the role of algae in plant fitness has not been evaluated extensively by biochemical and molecular analyses. Only recent studies demonstrate that algae are a member of the phytobiome. For instance,Chlorella species are found in the soil and on the plant leaf surface (Liu and Chen, 2016;Treves et al., 2016;Zhu et al., 2018), and cyanobacteria, such asNostoc andAnabaena spp., were identified on the plant root surface (Gantar et al., 1991,1995;Spiller et al., 1993;Gantar and Elhai, 1999;Gantar, 2000). However, recent microbiome analysis using the DNA sequence-based metagenome technology revealed that microalgae, including eukaryotic and prokaryotic (cyanobacteria) species, must be considered as members of the microbiome (Mendes et al., 2013;Xu et al., 2018). Microalgae have also been identified in the soil and in plant tissues (Leach et al., 2017). Previous studies on plant–algae interactions did not demonstrate the beneficial effects of algae on plant growth and defense. In this review, we focus on algae as a member of the beneficial microbiome and on their beneficial effects on plant health. Since the concept of ‘beneficial microbiome’ has not been defined clearly (Berg et al., 2020), beneficial algae could be categorized as having direct and indirect beneficial effects on plant, similarly to other beneficial microbes (e.g., PGPR). The bacterial and fungal inoculants on seeds, seedlings, and propagating plant materials secrete growth-enhancing compounds directly, which mimic plant hormones and promote increased plant growth and yield (Lugtenberg and Kamilova, 2009). The inoculants also promote plant growth by inhibiting pathogenic and deleterious plant-associated microbes and by activating plant innate immunity against plant pathogens; the latter represents an indirect effect of beneficial bacteria and fungi on plants. Another indirect effect of such inoculants is modulation of the microbiome, referred to as microbiome engineering (Dessaux et al., 2016). The direct and indirect effects of bacteria and fungi on plants are well known, but those of algae are a new emerging concept. Here, we summarize the beneficial effects of algae on crop plants in the greenhouse and field.

Plant Root Colonization and Para-Nodule Formation

Many species, ranging from moss to angiosperms, exhibit symbiotic interactions with algae (Meeks and Elhai, 2002;Santi et al., 2013). To interact with plants, algae must colonize the plant surface and cells within plant tissues, similar to other microbial organisms involved in symbiotic and mutualistic interactions with plants (Figure 1). Most examples of plant–algae interactions involve prokaryotic algae, i.e., cyanobacteria (Gantar and Elhai, 1999;Gantar, 2000;Treves et al., 2016;Zhu et al., 2018). Cyanobacteria can enter the plant through the stomata and colonize the intercellular space, forming loops and intracellular coils (Krings et al., 2009) (Figure 1).Anabaena spp. colonize the roots of wheat and cotton plants (Karthikeyan et al., 2009;Babu et al., 2015;Bidyarani et al., 2015) (Figure 1).Calothrix sp. was also found on the root system of wheat (Babu et al., 2015;Bidyarani et al., 2015). Beyond colonization of the root surface,Tolypothvix sp. andLeptolyghya sp. were detected in the intercellular space in Cycads plants (Cuddy et al., 2012) (Figure 1). Thus, the algae–plant interactions represent another example of a symbiotic relationship between the two organisms. A good example of this relationship is colonization of monocots, such as wheat and rice, byNostoc spp. (Gantar et al., 1991;Ahmed et al., 2010;Hussain et al., 2013,2015).Gantar et al. (1991) isolated diverse heterocystous nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria, includingNostoc,Anabaena, andCylindrospermum, from plant root and soil. Assessment of wheat seedling roots revealed two types of association patterns: loose colonization of root hair byAnabaena and tight colonization of the root surface within a restricted zone byNostoc (Gantar et al., 1991) (Figure 1).

Leaf and root colonization by cyanobacteria.(1) Cyanobacteria enter the leaf tissue through the stomata and colonize the intercellular space, forming a cyanobacterial loop.(2) On the root surface, cyanobacteria exhibit two types of colonization pattern; in the root hair, filaments ofAnabaena andNostoc species form loose colonies, and in the restricted zone on the root surface, specificNostoc species form cyanobacterial colonies.(3) Co-inoculation with 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) (synthetic auxin) andNostoc spp. increasespara-nodule formation and nitrogen fixation. A large number ofNostoc spp. isolates colonize the root endosphere and formpara-nodules to fix nitrogen.

In addition to the free-living lifestyle on the plant root surface,Nostoc species also exist as endosymbionts in the flowering land plant (angiosperm)Gunnera (Silverster and Smith, 1969;Silvester, 1976;Lindblad et al., 1990). Cyanobacteria also form symbiotic relationships with other plant species, including bryophytes (e.g.,Anthoceros), gymnosperms (e.g., Cycads), and water fern (Azolla) (Braun-Howland and Nierzwicki-Bauer, 1990;Lindblad et al., 1990;Meeks and Rai, 1990). Among these four multicellular plants,Gunnera L. develops well-organized, unique organs named glands through symbiosis withNostoc (Bergman et al., 1992). Intriguingly, the glands ofGunnera are morphologically similar to crown galls formed byAgrobacterium tumefaciens. The detailed mechanisms by which the following processes happen, have been elucidated as gland morphology, cell penetration, intracellular colonization, hormogonium formation, gland development, and host specificity. During symbiosis, cyanobacteria influence nitrogen fixation and release, heterocyst development, and consistence of symbiosis. Glands formed byNostoc on the stem ofGunnera plants are similar to nodules formed byRhizobium spp. and crown gall formed byA. tumefaciens (Rasmussen et al., 1996). TheNostoc genome does not contain homologs of the twoAgrobacterium genes required for T-DNA transfer-induced crown gall formation in plants, indicating that the mechanism of gland formation is distinct from that of gall formation. By contrast, the genome ofNostoc harbors homologs of theRhizobium nod-box genes includingnodEF,nodMN, andenoY. However, the induction of other critical nod genes, includingnodABC,nodD1, andnodD2, and nod protein, could not be detected inNostoc when treated with acidic mucilage secreted by stem glands (Rasmussen et al., 1996). These data indicate thatRhizobium–legume symbiosis is distinct fromGunnera–Nostoc symbiosis.

Scientists have attempted to form nodule-like structures and to functionally fix nitrogen in non-legume plants.Tchan and Kennedy (1989) succeeded in developing nodule-like structures, named para-nodules, using 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), a synthetic compound that mimics auxin, but they failed to fix nitrogen using nitrogenase-containing bacteria. Inoculation ofNostoc sp. strain 2S9B into the 2,4-D led para-nodule increased the acetylene reduction capacity by more than threefold compared with that of the untreated control (Gantar and Elhai, 1999) (Figure 1). In the absence of supplemental nitrogen, wheat shoot growth could be increased by co-inoculation with 2,4-D andNostoc sp. strain 2S9B (Gantar and Elhai, 1999;Gantar, 2000). Similarly, para-nodule formation and nitrogen fixation could also be induced in rice seedlings by treatment with 2,4-D andNostoc spp. (Nilsson et al., 2002). Two possibilities could explain why para-nodules do not occur naturally in land plants such as wheat and rice: (i) below-threshold levels of auxin, and (ii) lack ofNostoc spp. colonization on the wheat and rice tissues as the ecological niche (Figure 1). This can be used to identify specificNostoc spp. that elicit para-nodule formation in land plants in near future. Intriguingly, unlike prokaryotic algae, it is not reported that eukaryotic algae colonize on plant tissues.

Algae as a New Member of the Beneficial Plant Microbiome

Biological Control of Plant Pathogens

Algal species have been used intensively for biological control of fungal pathogens (Figure 2 andTable 1). In tomato and cotton, root-drench application of prokaryoticAnabaena variabilis,Anabaena torulosa,Anabaena laxa, andCalothrix sp. reduced damping-off symptoms caused byPythium debaryanum,Fusarium oxysporum,F. moniliforme, andRhizoctonia solani (Prasanna et al., 2008,2013;Chaudhary et al., 2012) (Figure 2 andTable 1). Additionally, the eukaryoticChlorella fusca protects host plant against pathogenic fungiColletotrichum orbiculare andBotrytis squamosa in cucumber and Chinese chive (Lee et al., 2016,2017;Kim et al., 2018a). The cell extract or filtered supernatant of cyanobacteria andChlorella species also exhibits biological control activity againstF. oxysporum,P. aphanidermatum, andSclerotinia sclerotiorum in tomato, pepper, and brinjal (Biondi et al., 2004;Kim and Kim, 2008;Manjunath et al., 2010). Algae can suppress fungal disease via two putative mechanisms. First mechanism involves inhibition of fungal pathogen growth (Figure 2 andTable 1). For example, cyanobacteriaAnabaena andCalothrix species showed antagonistic activity againstFusarium spp.,Pythium spp., andRhizotoctonia spp.in vitro (Chaudhary et al., 2012;Prasanna et al., 2013,2016), and eukaryoticC. fusca also inhibited the growth ofC. orbiculare hyphaein vitro and suppressed the formation of appressorium on cucumber leaves (Lee et al., 2016,2017). The second mechanism involves activation of plant immune responses.C. fusca treatment showed antagonistic activity againstC. orbiculare as well as the induction of defense-related structural modifications such as cell wall thickness, vesicle accumulation, and sheath formation, in cucumber leaves (Kim et al., 2018b).

Beneficial effects of algae on plants. In plants, prokaryotic microalgae such asNostoc andAnabaena, and eukaryotic microalgae such asChlorella, act as biological control agents(1), abiotic stress tolerance enhancers(2), biofertilizers that promote plant growth and crop yield(3), and anti-aging agents that delay senescence and enhance plant robustness(4).

TABLE 1.

Biological control of plant pathogens and insects using algal species.

Group	Algae species/consortia	Pathogen/insect type	Pathogen/insect name	Host plant	Treatment method	Product applied	References
Prokaryotic cyanobacteria	Anabaena variabilis RPAN59,Anabaena laxa RPAN8	Fungal pathogen	Pythium debaryanum, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.lycopersici, Fusarium moniliforme, andRhizoctonia solani	Tomato	Soil application	Cell culture and filtered supernatant	Chaudhary et al., 2012;Prasanna et al., 2013
	Anabaena torulosa, A. laxa, Calothrix sp.	Fungal pathogen	R. solani	Cotton	Soil application	Cell culture	Prasanna et al., 2016
	Nostoc commune FA-103	Fungal pathogen	F. oxysporum f. sp.lycopersici	Tomato	Seed coating	Cell extract	Kim and Kim, 2008
	Calothrix elenkenii	Fungal pathogen	Pythium aphanidermatum	Tomato, chili, and brinjal	Seed soaking	Filtered supernatant	Manjunath et al., 2010
	Nostoc strain ATCC 53789	Fungal pathogen	Sclerotinia sclerotiorum	Tomato	Seed soaking	Cell biomass and methanolic extract	Biondi et al., 2004
	Microcoleus vaginatus	Pathogenic nematode	Meloidogyne arenaria	Tomato	Root dipping	Filtered supernatant	Khan et al., 2005
	Oscillatoria chlorina	Pathogenic nematode	M. arenaria	Tomato	Soil application	Dried cell suspension	Khan et al., 2007
	Aphanocapsa albida, Anabaena oryzae, Nostoc muscorum, andCalothrix marchica	Pathogenic nematode	Meloidogyne incognita	Tomato	Soil application	Aqueous extract	Hamouda and El-Ansary, 2013
	Scytonema MKU 106	Chewing insect	Helicoverpa armigera, Heliothis larvae, andSylepta derogata	Cotton	Foliar application	Peptide extract	Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996
Eukaryotic green algae	Chlorella vulgaris	Pathogenic nematode	M. arenaria andXiphinema indexin	Tomato, grape	Soil application	Dried cell extract	Choleva et al., 2005;Bileva, 2013
	Chlorella fusca	Fungal pathogen	Colletotrichum orbiculare	Cucumber	Foliar application	Cell culture	Lee et al., 2016,2017;Kim et al., 2018a
	C. fusca	Fungal pathogen	Botrytis squamosa	Chinese chives	Foliar or soil application	Cell culture	Kim et al., 2018b
	C. fusca	Bacterial pathogen	Pseudomonas syringae pv.tomato	Arabidopsis	Foliar application	Cell culture/cell-free supernatant	Lee et al., 2020a
Cyanobacteria–bacteria consortia	Anabaena oscillarioides andBacillus subtilis	Fungal pathogen	F. oxysporum, P. debaryanum, P. aphanidermatum, andR. solani	Tomato	Soil application	Cell culture	Dukare et al., 2011

Open in a new tab

Microalgae species have also been used to control pathogenic nematodes and insect pests (Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996;Choleva et al., 2005;Khan et al., 2005,2007;Bileva, 2013;Hamouda and El-Ansary, 2013) (Figure 2 andTable 1). Root treatment of tomato with cyanobacteria such asMicrocoleus vaginatus,Oscillatoria chlorine,Aphanocapsa albida,Anabaena oryzae,Nostoc muscorum, andCalothrix marchica reduced gall formation caused byMeloidogyne arenaria andM. incognita (Khan et al., 2005,2007;Hamouda and El-Ansary, 2017). Soil-drench application ofChlorella vulgaris extract (1 g per pot) reduced infestation of grapevine roots byXiphinema index by 2–3-fold compared with the untreated control (Choleva et al., 2005,2007;Bileva, 2013). Foliar application of 0.01–0.1% peptides extracted from the cyanobacteriumScytonema MKU 106 reduced the feeding frequency of a chewing insect,Sylepta derogata, in cotton plants (Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996). The algae species can protect host plant against pathogenic nematode and insect pests by nematocidal or repellent activity rather than as plant immune activation (Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996;Choleva et al., 2007).

Compared with fungal pathogens and insect pests, biological control of bacterial pathogens using algae has remained largely unknown until 2020, when we reported for the first time the biological control of the bacterial pathogenPseudomonas syringae pv.tomato (Pto) byC. fusca in the model plant,Arabidopsis thaliana (Lee et al., 2020a,Figure 2 andTable 1). Foliar application ofC. fusca culture (10⁷ cells/ml) reduced the population ofPto inArabidopsis leaves by 10-fold. Further investigation revealed thatC. fusca and its determinantD-lactic acid prime plant innate immunity againstPto (Lee et al., 2020a). To the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports on the biocontrol activity of algae against phytopathogenic viruses. Therefore, testing the potential application of algae against plant viruses is important.

Induced Tolerance Against Abiotic Stresses

The application of algae-derived substances could also increase tolerance against abiotic stresses (Figure 2 andTable 2). In rice, extracellular products of the cyanobacteriumScytonema hofmanni nullified the effects of salt stress (<5 g/ml NaCl) on dry weight and length of shoot (Rodríguez et al., 2006). Under high salt stress, tomato plants treated with 1%Dunaliella salina hydrolyzate via spray application showed higher shoot dry weight, root dry weight, and chlorophyll a and b content than untreated plants (Arroussi et al., 2018), and soil treatment with water-soluble extracts ofChlorella ellipsoida andSpirulina maxima increased the total protein content of wheat grain by 1.4-fold compared with the control (Abd El-Baky et al., 2010). Moreover, treatment of fava bean plants withC. vulgaris culture induced drought tolerance (Li et al., 2014). Abiotic stress tolerance triggered by microalgae treatment is mostly linked to production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antioxidant activity in plants (Li et al., 2014;Arroussi et al., 2018). In tomato and bean, foliar application ofD. salina extracts andC. vulgaris activated antioxidant enzymes such as peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) (Li et al., 2014;Arroussi et al., 2018). Similarly, in bean plants, treatment withC. vulgaris culture increased stomata closure frequency and water use efficiency, thereby reducing transpiration and increasing drought tolerance (Li et al., 2014). However, further investigation of exact molecular mechanism and algal determinant for improving abiotic stress tolerance in plant will be required.

TABLE 2.

Enhancement of abiotic stress tolerance and anti-aging capacity of plants after application of algae.

Objective	Group	Algae species	Plant	Treatment	Product applied	Plant response	References
Abiotic stress tolerance	Cyanobacteria	Scytonema hofmanni	Rice	Soil application	Extracellular products	Salt stress tolerance	Rodríguez et al., 2006
	Eukaryotic microalgae	Chlorella ellipsoida	Wheat	Soil application	Water soluble extract	Enhanced salt tolerance and antioxidant capacity	Abd El-Baky et al., 2010
		Chlorella vulgaris	Vicia faba L.	Foliar application	Cell culture	Enhanced reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and more effective stomatal closure and water use efficiency	Li et al., 2014
		Dunaliella salina	Tomato	Foliar application	Polysaccharides	Salt stress tolerance	Arroussi et al., 2018
Anti-aging	Eukaryotic microalgae	C. vulgaris	Strawberry, lettuce, beet, and kale	Foliar or soil application	Cell culture	Improved shelf-life	Kim et al., 2014
		Chlorella fusca andChlorella strains ABC001 and HS2	Erinus alpinus L.	Soil application	Cell-free supernatant	Delayed plant senescence	Lee et al., 2020b

Open in a new tab

Algae as Biofertilizers

Prokaryotic cyanobacteria have been applied to monocots and dicots as biofertilizers to increase plant growth and crop yield (Figure 2 andTable 3). For example, rice plants treated withA. variabilis andNostoc sp. VICCRI via root-drench application showed greater plant height, leaf length, and grain yield than inorganic fertilizer (Singh and Datta, 2007;Innok et al., 2009). Inoculation withA. laxa andCalothrix elenkinii increased the germination of coriander seeds and promoted root and shoot growth in coriander, cumin, and fennel (Kumar et al., 2013). Soaking of seeds in a solution ofSpirulina platensis (2 × 10⁴ cells/ml) increased the fresh and dry weight, height, and root length of crop plants, including rocket, Bayam red, and Pak choi, by 1.2–3-fold compared with the untreated control (Wuang et al., 2016). In addition, filtrated supernatant of cyanobacteriaCalothrix sp.,Hapalosiphon sp.,Nostoc sp., andWestiellopsis sp., increased coleoptile and radicle length and seed germination in wheat by 2. 7-, 2. 1-, and 1.1-fold, respectively, compared with the sterile water control (Karthikeyan et al., 2009). Interestingly, treatment with multiple species of nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria has a greater impact on plant growth, probably via synergistic effects on nutrient production (Karthikeyan et al., 2007;Paudel et al., 2012).

TABLE 3.

Plant growth promotion following algal treatment.

Group	Algae species	Host plant	Treatment	Product applied	References
Prokaryotic cyanobacteria	Calothrix ghosei, Hapalosiphon intricatus, Nostoc muscorum, Westiellopsis prolifica, Calothrix membranacea	Wheat	Seed soaking	Filtrated supernatant	Karthikeyan et al., 2009
	Anabaena laxa and Calothrix elenkinii	Coriander, cumin, and fennel	Soil application	Cell culture	Kumar et al., 2013
	Nostoc sp. VICCRI	Rice	Soil application	Cell culture	Innok et al., 2009
	Anabaena variabilis	Rice	Soil application	cell culture	Singh and Datta, 2007

Eukaryotic green algae	Chlorella vulgaris	Wheat	Foliar application	Water soluble extract	Shaaban, 2001a
	C. vulgaris	Maize	Soil application	Water soluble extract	Shaaban, 2001b
	C. vulgaris	Lettuce	Soil application	Dried cell extract	Faheed and Fattah, 2008
	C. vulgaris, Scenedesmus quadricauda	Tomato	Hydroponic system	Co-cultivation with plant	Barone et al., 2019
	C. vulgaris, S. quadricauda	Sugar beet	Hydroponic system	Dried cell extract	Barone et al., 2018
	C. vulgaris	Tomato and cucumber	Seed soaking	Cell culture	Bumandalai and Tserennadmid, 2019
	Chlorella fusca	Barely, wheat, lettuce, pepper, melon, cucumber, perilla, onion, radish, and turnip	Soil application	Cell culture	Kim et al., 2012
	C. fusca	Spinach	Foliar or soil application	Cell culture	Kim et al., 2018b
	Chlorella pyrenoidosa	Soybean	Soil application	Cell culture	Dubey and Dubey, 2010
	Chlorococcum infusionum	Tomato	Hydroponic system	Co-cultivation with plant	Zhang et al., 2017
	Nannochloropsis oculata	Tomato	Soil application	Dried cell extract	Coppens et al., 2016

Microalgae consortia	Chlorella, Scenedesmus, Chlorococcum, Chroococcus, Phormidium, Anabaena, Westiellopsis, Fischerella, andSpirogyra	Wheat	Soil application	Cell culture	Renuka et al., 2016
	C. ghosei, H. intricatus, andNostoc sp.	Wheat	Soil application		Karthikeyan et al., 2007
	Nostoc, Anabaena, Westiellopsis, Aulosira, andScytonema	Rice	Soil application	Cell culture	Paudel et al., 2012

Cyanobacteria–other microbe consortia	Unidentified cyanobacteria and rhizobacteria	Wheat	Soil application	Cell culture	Nain et al., 2010
	Anabaena oscillarioides CR3,Brevundimonas diminuta PR7, andOchrobactrum anthropi PR10	Rice	Soil application	Cell culture	Rana et al., 2015
	A. torulosa andTrichoderma viride	Maize	Soil application	Extracted biofilms	Sharma et al., 2020

Open in a new tab

Similar to cyanobacteria, eukaryoticChlorella spp. increased the growth ofPerilla, onion, lettuce, Chinese cabbage, radish, turnip, and spinach plants when applied to roots and leaves (Kim et al., 2012,2018a) (Figure 2 andTable 3). Seed treatment withC. vulgaris promoted germination and shoot and root weights in lettuce, tomato, and cucumber (Faheed and Fattah, 2008;Bumandalai and Tserennadmid, 2019). In the field, root-drench application ofChlorella pyrenoidosa increased the shoot weight and grain yield of soybean plants by 70 and 53%, respectively, compared with control plants (Dubey and Dubey, 2010). Cell extracts ofC. vulgaris and dried biomass suspension ofNannochloropsis oculata showed plant growth-promoting activity in wheat, maize, tomato, and sugar beet (Shaaban, 2001a,b;Coppens et al., 2016;Barone et al., 2018). Interestingly, recent studies show that co-cultivation of sugar beet and tomato plants withC. vulgaris,Chlorococcum infusionum, andScenedesmus quadricauda using the hydroponic system simultaneously increases the biomass of both the host plant and eukaryotic algal species (Zhang et al., 2017;Barone et al., 2018,2019).

Plant Anti-aging Agents

Treatment with algae or algal solution also affect plant senescence (Figure 2 andTable 2). The ability to prolong plant development and delay the onset of age-related phenotypes is economically important in crop science and critical for fundamental plant research (Lim et al., 2007;Shahri and Tahir, 2014). During initial development of this anti-aging method, treatment with beneficial bacteria such asPseudomonas spp. andBacillus spp. was used to delay plant senescence (Ali et al., 2012;Carlson et al., 2015;Kuan et al., 2016;Naing et al., 2017). Interestingly, spray and irrigation application ofC. vulgaris culture prolonged the shelf-life of strawberry, lettuce, beet, and kale (Kim et al., 2014). In addition, we reported that root-drench application of the cell-free supernatant ofC. fusca,Chlorella sp. HS2 andChlorella sp. ABC001, delayed shoot and flower senescence by up to 4 weeks in the ornamental flowering plantErinus alpinus (Lee et al., 2020b). Given that other beneficial bacteria modulate ethylene signaling in plants (Ali et al., 2012;Carlson et al., 2015;Kuan et al., 2016;Naing et al., 2017), it is possible that microalgae suppress the ethylene signaling or biosynthesis pathway in plants. The detailed mechanism by whichChlorella mediates anti-aging effects in plants is, however, largely unknown.

Algal Determinants of Plant Health

Inhibitory Compounds Effective Against Pathogenic Microbes and Insect Pests

Like classic bacterial biocontrol agents, beneficial algae produce antimicrobial compounds that suppress bacterial and fungal plant pathogen (Figure 3). For example, 4,4′-dihydroxybiphenyl, norharmane prokaryotic algaeNodularia spp.and Nostoc spp. andNostoc insulare produces 4,4′-dihydroxybiphenyl, norharmane, and diterpenoids, which exhibit antibacterial activity againstEscherichia coli andPseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus subtilis, B. cereus,Staphylococcus epidermdis (Jaki et al., 2000;Volk and Furkert, 2006). In addition, cyanobacteriaAnabaena spp.,Chlorella spp., andScenedesmus spp., produced siderophore as micronutrient ferric and copper ion chelators (McKnight and Morel, 1980;Goldman et al., 1983;Benderliev, 1999;Benderliev et al., 2003). Siderophores produced by microbes, especially such asPseudomonas spp., were known as antimicrobial compounds and biological control agents in plants via chelating ferric iron, which can compete with bacterial pathogens for iron ions (Kloepper et al., 1980;Duijff et al., 1993;Lemanceau and Alabouvette, 1993). On the other hand, prokaryotic algae cyanobacteria can produce fungal cell wall-degrading enzymes including chitosanase, β-1,4-glucanase, β-1,3-glucanase, and benzoic acid, which can suppress growth ofFusarium sp.,Penicillium sp., andCandida sp. (López et al., 2002;Chaudhary et al., 2012;Natarajan et al., 2012;Prasanna et al., 2013,2016). Thus, further identification of microalgal antimicrobial compounds, and their biological control activity, is needed.

Algal determinants that act as plant protectants and stimulants.(A) Inhibitory compounds. Cyanobacteria reduce the population of pathogenic bacteria, fungi, and insect pests by producing antibiotic and pesticidal compounds. Cyanobacteria-derived 4,4′-dihydroxybiphenyl, norharmane, and diterpenoids exhibit antibacterial activity, and microalgal siderophores inhibit bacterial growth through iron (Fe) competition. In addition, cyanobacterial cell wall-degrading enzymes such as chitosanase, β-1,4-glucanase, and β-1,3-glucanase reduce fungal infection. Cyanotoxins such as anatoxin, microcystin, and nodularin can protect the host plant against insect pests.(B) Phytohormones. Microalgae-derived phytohormone-mimicking compounds modulate plant growth, immunity, and abiotic stress tolerance. Plant growth regulators such as auxin and cytokinin increase plant growth and development as well as crop yield. Algae species also produce jasmonic acid (JA), salicylic acid (SA), and ethylene (ET), which act as major defense-related hormones in land plants. In addition, microalgae also produce abscisic acid (ABA), a central regulator of abiotic stress tolerance.(C) Nutrition. Nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria promote plant growth by supplying macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Additionally, microalgae-derived vitamins, including vitamins B1, B2, B3, and B12, elicit plant immune response against phytopathogens.(D) Polysaccharides. Polysaccharides extracted from cyanobacteria and eukaryotic microalgae increase immunity and abiotic stress tolerance of the host plant.(E)D-lactic acid. Exogenous application ofD-lactic acid produced byChlorella elicits plant immunity via activation ofD-lactate metabolism and production of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS). AlgalD-lactic acid might also enhance abiotic stress tolerance in host plant by regulating ROS production.

In addition to antimicrobial substances, cyanobacteria also produce pesticidal and nematocidal secondary metabolites, referred to as cyanotoxins (Hamouda and El-Ansary, 2017) (Figure 3). Cyanotoxins function as neurotoxins and hepatotoxins in animals (Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996;Holajjer et al., 2013). The neurotransmitter-mimicking cyanotoxin, anatoxin-a, binds to eukaryotic nematode receptors and triggers continuous muscle contraction, causing muscle fatigue, and immobility (Carmichael, 1994;Dow and Swoboda, 2000;Mankiewicz et al., 2003). Moreover, cyanobacteriaMicrocystis spp. produce hepatotoxins including microcystins and nodularin (Holajjer et al., 2013), which inhibit the host metabolic system; for example, nodularin produced byNodularia spumigena inhibit protein phosphatase activity in animal cells (Ohta et al., 1994). Additionally, cyanobacteria also produce peptide toxins that act as repellents (Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996); for example,Anabaena andScytonema species produce a low molecular weight (<12 kDa) peptide toxin (Konst et al., 1965;Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996). Interestingly,Scytonema-derived peptide toxin acts as a repellent due to its strong smell, and reduces the population size of chewing insectsHelicoverpa armigera andStylepta derogate on cotton leaves (Sathiyamoorthy and Shanmugasundaram, 1996). Collectively, these reports suggest that algal substances can inhibit phytopathogenic bacteria, fungi, pests, and nematodes directly. However, most of these algal compounds exhibit antagonistic activity against phytopathogens onlyin vitro. Thus, it is important to verify the activity of purified algal compoundsin planta.

Plant Hormone-Mimicking Compounds

The plant growth-promoting microalgae, including prokaryotic cyanobacteria and eukaryotic microalgae, produce phytohormones such as auxin and cytokinin, which affect plant growth and development (Werner et al., 2001;Benjamins and Scheres, 2008).

Auxin regulates plant developmental processes including gametogenesis, embryogenesis, seedling growth, vascular patterning, and flower development (Hamann et al., 2002;Dimitrov and Zucker, 2006;Pagnussat et al., 2009). Auxins, including indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), indole-3-propionic acid (IPA), and 3-methylindole, have been detected in diverse microalgae species (Misra and Kaushik, 1989;Mazur et al., 2001;Stirk et al., 2002,2013;Karthikeyan et al., 2009;Hashtroudi et al., 2013). Interestingly, algal auxin seems to positively regulate plant–algae interactions (Figure 3). IAA produced byNostoc species promotes plant growth in wheat and rice; aNostoc mutant lacking the IAA biosynthesis gene, which encodes indole pyruvate decarboxylase, failed to promote plant growth (Hussain et al., 2013,2015). In addition to plant growth promotion, algal auxin is also tightly linked with the ability of microalgae to colonize host roots (Ahmed et al., 2010;Hussain et al., 2013,2015). Auxin production inLeptolyngbya sp. MMG-1,Chroococcidiopsis sp. MMG-5, andSynechocystis sp. MMG-8, was increased during their colonization of plant roots (Ahmed et al., 2010). Strikingly, the lack of indole pyruvate decarboxylase significantly reduced colonization of rice and wheat roots byNostoc species (Hussain et al., 2013,2015). Collectively, algal auxin might act as a putative signaling molecule that mediates plant–microalgae interactions.

Cytokinin promote division and differentiation of plant cells, especially in apical and axillary meristems, and development of gynoecium, and female gametophyte (Marsch-Martínez et al., 2012;Cheng et al., 2013;Schaller et al., 2014). Cytokinin compounds, includingtrans-zeatin,cis-zeatin, zeatin riboside, dihydrozeatin riboside, topolin, and zeatin-o-glucoside, were produced by many microalgae species (Stirk et al., 2002,2013;Tsavkelova et al., 2006;Hussain et al., 2010;Hussain and Hasnain, 2011). Similar with auxin, algal cytokinin also positively regulated plant growth promotion and root colonization (Figure 3). Knockout mutant of the cytokinin biosynthesis gene, which encodes isopentenyl transferase, in the plant growth-promoting cyanobacteriumNostoc AHM-12 failed to increase plant growth, and significantly reduced root colonization in rice and wheat (Hussain et al., 2013). Thus, in addition to auxin, understanding the molecular basis of how algal-derived cytokinin influence plant–algae interactions will be an interesting topic for future research.

In addition to growth-promoting phytohormone, defense-related hormones such as jasmonic acid (JA), salicylic acid (SA), and ethylene (ET) are produced by algae species (Rodgers et al., 1979;Kreslavsky et al., 1997;Tsavkelova et al., 2006;Natarajan et al., 2012). Plant immunity can be activated systemically by PGPR, depending on JA, SA, and ET signaling (Pieterse et al., 1998,2014;De Meyer et al., 1999;Kloepper et al., 2004;van Loon et al., 2006) (Figure 3). In addition, algae treatment can also induce activation of defense hormone signaling in host plant. Foliar application of the supernatant ofC. fusca activates SA and JA signaling upon pathogen inoculation inArabidopsis (Lee et al., 2020a). Similarly, treatment with liquid extracts of eukaryoticTetraselmis sp.,D. salina,N. gaditana,Aphanothece sp., andA. maxima induce the accumulation of the JA precursor, linolenic acid, in tomato (Mutale-joan et al., 2020). Thus, plant immunity triggered by algae is tightly involved in activation of defense-related hormonal signaling.

Polysaccharides

Algae produce diverse polysaccharides as cell wall components. Given their medical and cosmetic applications, algal polysaccharides are recognized as important substances (Figure 3). To utilize polysaccharides to improve plant health, studies have been conducted to gain molecular insight into the role of agal polysaccharides in plant protection (Arroussi et al., 2018;Farid et al., 2019). Bacterial and fungal polysaccharides such as lipopolysaccharides (LPSs) and EPSs are plant immune elicitors (Erbs and Newman, 2003;Park et al., 2008). Sulfated EPSs produced byD. salina increase salt stress tolerance, expression of genes encoding antioxidant enzymes (CAT, POD, and SOD), and accumulation of JA precursor in tomato (Arroussi et al., 2018). Crude polysaccharides extracted fromChlorella vulgaris,Chlorella sorokiniana, andChlamydomonas reinhardtii increase expression ofPR genes and genes encoding antioxidant enzymes such as β-1,3-glucanase, APX, and POD in tomato plants (Farid et al., 2019).

In addition to immune activation, algal polysaccharides can also improve the growth and abiotic stress tolerance of host plants. The application of algal polysaccharides extracted from cyanobacteriumS. platensis andA. platensis, and eukaryoticD. salina andPorphorydium sp. promoted shoot and root growth in in tomato and pepper (Elarroussia et al., 2016;Rachidi et al., 2020). Moreover, spray treatment of polysaccharides extracted fromD. salina increased the shoot dry weight, and root dry weight of tomato plants by 1.8- and 5. 5-, respectively, under high salt stress compared with untreated plants (Arroussi et al., 2018), implying that algal polysaccharides enhance salt tolerance. Compared with microalgae polysaccharides, macroalgal polysaccharides such as carrageenans and beta-glucans (laminarin, ulvan, and fucan) mainly function as biostimulants and bioprotectants (Mercier et al., 2001;Sangha et al., 2010,2015;Vera et al., 2012;Ghannam et al., 2013;Shukla et al., 2016;Pettongkhao et al., 2019;Zou et al., 2019). However, the structure of microalgal polysaccharides is largely unknown. Thus, to elucidate the mode of action of microalgal polysaccharides in plants, it is important to identify the main determinant(s) in crude polysaccharide algal extracts.

D-lactic Acid

D-lactic acid is a major compound produced byChlorella species (Gruber et al., 1974;Lee et al., 2020a). Recently,D-lactic acid in the supernatant ofC. fusca was identified as a determinant of plant immunity againstPseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 inArabidopsis (Lee et al., 2020a) (Figure 3). Especially, foliar application ofD-lactic acid primed production of ROS after flagellin 22 (flg22) treatment inArabidopsis (Lee et al., 2020a). Primed ROS production byD-lactic acid might be correlated withD-lactate oxidation and mitochondrial ROS (mtROS) production.D-lactic acid is metabolized by theD-lactate dehydrogenase (D-LDH), which localizes to the intermembrane space of mitochondria (Atlante et al., 2005;Welchen et al., 2016). Activation ofD-LDH correlates strongly with activation of mitochondrial antioxidant enzyme (Husic and Tolbert, 1987). InArabidopsis, exogenous application ofD-lactic acid increases expression ofD-LDH,cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 (COX2), andalternative oxidase 1 (AOX1) in flg22-treatedArabidopsis (Lee et al., 2020a). These mitochondrial antioxidant enzymes might be activated to catalyze mtROS produced byD-lactic acid. Thus, microalgal-derivedD-lactic acid enhances plant innate immunity and production of mtROS in plant.

The activation ofD-LDH byD-lactic acid can also affect abiotic stress tolerance via methylglyoxal (MG) detoxification (Figure 3). MG is a cytotoxic compound generated as a byproduct of glycolysis, which accumulates under abiotic stress conditions (Maurino and Engqvist, 2015). To detoxify the accumulated MG, plants activate the expression ofD-LDH, which encodes the last enzyme in the MG detoxification pathway (Maurino and Engqvist, 2015). Recently, studies showed thatD-LDH-mediated MG detoxification correlates with abiotic stress tolerance in yeast, sorghum, and rice (An et al., 2017;Jain et al., 2018,2020;Bhowal et al., 2020). In sorghum, the expression ofD-LDH1–4 genes was activated under heat, cold, salt, and drought stress conditions (Bhowal et al., 2020). In rice,D-LDH RNA interference (RNAi) plants were more sensitive to salt stress (200 mM NaCl) than wild-type plants (An et al., 2017). However, overexpression ofD-LDH2 conferred tolerance to multiple abiotic stresses, including salt stress, oxidative stress, osmotic stress, and heat stress in rice plants (Jain et al., 2020). Thus, microalgae-derivedD-lactic acid might alleviate abiotic stress tolerance in plants viaD-LDH-mediated MG detoxification.

Plant Macro- and Micronutrients

Algae have been utilized as a source of macro- and micronutrients for plants (Figure 3). Microalgae cyanobacteria possess specialized cells called heterocysts, which can fix atmospheric nitrogen (Singh and Bisoyi, 1989;Gantar et al., 1993;Karthikeyan et al., 2007;Babu et al., 2015). Thus, inoculation of soil with nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria enhanced plant growth by increasing the availability of nitrogen, carbon, and vitamins (Tripathi et al., 2008;Prasanna et al., 2009;Renuka et al., 2016). In addition, application of microalgae consortium comprisingChlorella,Scenedesmus,Chlorococcum,Chroococcus,Phormidium,Anabaena,Westiellopsis,Nostoc,Aulosira, andScytonema to soil enhanced the content of available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (Paudel et al., 2012;Renuka et al., 2016).

Algae also secrete vitamins, which promote plant growth and plant immunity (Havaux et al., 2009;Goyer, 2010) (Figure 3). Previously studies show that bacteria-derived vitamins B1, B2, and K3, act as elicitors of plant immunity against pathogenic fungi, bacteria, and viruses, and that biotin, thiamine, cobalamin, pantothenic acid, and niacin produced by bacteria enhance plant growth (Strzelczyk et al., 1991;Ahn et al., 2005;Taheri and Hofte, 2007;Liu et al., 2010;Taheri and Tarighi, 2010;Song et al., 2013). Cyanobacteria such asSpirulina,Anabaena,Microcystis,Nostoc,Phormidium,Oscillatoria,Chroococcus, and eukaryotic algae such asEuglrena, also produce thiamine (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), folic acid, ascorbic acid, nicotinic acid (vitamin B3), cyanocobalamin (vitamin B12), and vitamin E (Robbins et al., 1951;Koptera, 1970;Aaronson et al., 1977;Shah and Vaidya, 1977;Gupta et al., 2013). In addition, the extract ofN. muscorum andHapalosiphon containing vitamin B-complex (including cyanocobalamin, niacin, pantothenic acid, and folic acid) increases coleoptile length and leaf length in rice (Misra and Kaushik, 1989). Since land plants lack vitamin B12, their growth is supported by beneficial microbes containing vitamin B12 (Watanabe and Bito, 2018). Similarly, as beneficial microbes, microalgal species can also alleviate vitamin B deficiency in host plants. Further investigation of the effects of algae-derived macro- and micronutrients in plants is needed.

Interaction Between Microalgae and Other Microbes in the Plant Microbiome

Algae benefit plants through several mechanisms. In order to consider microalgae as part of the plant microbiome, it is necessary to understand the interactions between microalgae and other plant microbiota. Interestingly, previous reports showed the synergism between algae and bacteria during co-inoculation of plants. A mixture of cyanobacteria and plant-associated eubacteria or fungi additively or synergistically improves the growth and health of diverse crop plants (Tables 1,3) (Nain et al., 2010;Dukare et al., 2011;Rana et al., 2015;Sharma et al., 2020). Soil inoculation with a mixture containing the cyanobacteriumAnabaena oscillarioides and plant growth-promoting bacteriaBrevundimonas diminuta andOchrobactrum anthropi improved rice yield by 1.2-fold compared with the control (Rana et al., 2015). Treatment with a biofilm comprisingA. torulosa and the plant growth-promoting fungusTrichoderma viride increased the seed germination rate and radicle length in maize (Sharma et al., 2020). In addition, the combined application ofAnabaena spp. andB. subtilis reduced the severity of fungal disease caused byFusarium,Pythium, andRhizoctonia by twofold compared with the control (Dukare et al., 2011).

The interaction between microalgae and other microorganisms might be governed by interspecific exchange of metabolites (Gonzalez and Bashan, 2000;Kazamia et al., 2012;Kim et al., 2014). Plant-associated rhizobacteria or fungi support the growth and root colonization of microalgae species by providing secondary metabolites such as vitamin B12, siderophores, volatile compounds,N-acylhomoserine lactone, and EPSs (Gobler et al., 2007;Choix et al., 2012;Kazamia et al., 2012;Santos and Reis, 2014;Amavizca et al., 2017;Cho et al., 2019;Sharma et al., 2020). In turn, microalgae provide photosynthates, including fixed carbon, as nutrient sources for soil-borne microbes (Gobler et al., 2007;Kazamia et al., 2012). Taken together, these studies imply that exogenous microalgae can interact with other soil–borne microbes in plant microbiome, as do traditional plant-associated bacteria and fungi.

Rhizosphere Microbiome Engineering With Algae

Modification of the rhizosphere using microalgae, including cyanobacteria and eukaryotic microalgae, will potentially allow us to engineer and change the structure and effectiveness of the rhizosphere microbiome, thereby improving plant health. Previously, the effect of soil algae diversity on plants was investigated by application of a commercial proprietary suspension of microalgae called GOgreen^® (Hastings et al., 2014). Four algal groups, including green algae (Chlorophyta), blue–green algae (Cyanophyta), yellow–green algae (Xanthophyta), and diatoms (Bacillariophyta), are mainly found in soil (Paul and Clark, 1989). The application of GOgreen^® to maize roots under field conditions increased the number and diversity of diatoms and reduced the soil pH with a pH higher than 7. Since the connection between species diversity and their influence on ecological function is unclear, the authors measured two indicators of soil quality: organic matter content (OM) and cation exchange capacity (CEC). The values of OM and CEC were improved significantly by algae treatment (Hastings et al., 2014). In addition, inoculation of rice plants with the cyanobacteriumCalothrix elenkenii increased the bacterial population diversity in the microbiome by 10-fold (Priya et al., 2015). Fatty acid methyl ester analysis and 16S rRNA sequencing data indicated that Bacillaceae was the most abundant bacterial group induced by cyanobacteria inoculation. Moreover,C. elenkenii inoculation increased the shoot length, root length, fresh weight, and dry weight of plants as well as enhanced the level of plant hormones (IAA and ABA), chlorophyll, and antioxidant enzymes (POD, polyphenol oxidase [PPO], and PAL). However, direct evidence based on experiments using the gnotobiotic system was not provided. In the line of this study, more direct approaches were also attempted. Next-generation sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons was conducted to determine the effect ofC. vulgaris application on bean root microbiota (Kublanovskaya et al., 2019). Interestingly, no significant changes were detected in bacterial diversity in the bean rhizosphere upon the application ofC. vulgaris. Algae-mediated microbiome engineering for promoting plant health is in its infancy. Fine-tuning microbiome engineering for keystone taxa that affect plant growth and health is necessary, and algae and their products can be utilized for this purpose.

A synthetic microbiome comprising algae and bacteria represents a promising tool for the sustainable development of soil fertility, water preservation, and plant growth, especially under stress conditions (Nain et al., 2010;Rana et al., 2015;Perea et al., 2018). A consortium of eukaryotic microalgae, cyanobacteria, and bacteria will provide organic carbon for plant growth (Belnap, 2003;Bashan and de-Bashan, 2010), fix atmospheric nitrogen (Issa et al., 2001;Pointing and Belnap, 2012), and promote seedling survival (Godínez-Alvarez et al., 2012). Detailed investigation of the algae–bacteria network and their effect on the plant microbiome is required to maximize plant growth and protect plants against pathogens (Krug et al., 2020).

Potential Applications of Algae

The beneficial effects of algae on plants and agriculture have been described above. Large-scale production of algae has been optimized for improving human health; however, the application of algae for large-scale crop cultivation has not been elucidated. We summarized the determinants of algae that augment plant growth and immunity, and classified these determinants as secreted products and the cell itself (Figure 2). The inoculation of plants with cell wall components such as glucans, increased plant growth and activated plant defense responses (Mercier et al., 2001;Sangha et al., 2010,2015;Vera et al., 2012;Ghannam et al., 2013;Shukla et al., 2016;Pettongkhao et al., 2019;Zou et al., 2019,Figure 3). The products secreted by algae can be harvested in large amounts when algae are grown in liquid media.D-lactic acid was recently identified as an algal determinant that elicits plant immune response against bacterial pathogens (Lee et al., 2020a,Figure 3). Additionally, plant defense hormone-mimicking compounds, such as JA, benzoic acid and ET, were also detected in algae culture (Rodgers et al., 1979;Kreslavsky et al., 1997;Tsavkelova et al., 2006;Natarajan et al., 2012,Figure 3). These defense hormones strongly activate plant defense when supplied exogenously. Cell and cell envelope components of algae can be used for limited applications in the greenhouse and field to reduce the high production cost, although these products demonstrate high efficacy (Choleva et al., 2005,2007;Dubey and Dubey, 2010;Bileva, 2013;Coppens et al., 2016). Products secreted in the liquid culture of algae also show a great potential for application in the field (Shaaban, 2001a,b;Barone et al., 2018;Mutale-joan et al., 2020). Generally, large-scale production of algae, mostly by heterotrophic cultivation, is performed to harvest algal cells (Lee et al., 2020a). The cell-free components are considered waste products that need to be detoxified. If the cell-free extracts can be reused for plants, their potential applications will increase greatly.

However, several issues must be addressed prior to application of algae on crop plants. First, the potential harmful effects of cell-free extracts of algae should be evaluated and eliminated. In many cases, algae produce toxic compounds during cultivation. For instance, at high concentrations, 2,4-D (auxin) acts as a herbicide (Marth and Mitchell, 1944). Thus, quality control of the liquid culture of algae is critical. Second, production of algal determinants should be optimized for large-scale production. Third, formulation of cell-free extracts should be carefully considered. The cell-free extract could simply be applied by drench application or by using the drip-irrigation system. However, the delivery of a large volume of extract is problematic. Therefore, the extract should be vaporized and purified using chemical and physical procedures, and the final product showing high effectiveness should be used for agricultural applications. Furthermore, granulation of determinants is similar to that of other agricultural products such as fertilizers and agrochemicals. Finally, the specific procedure how to isolate effective algae in plant health improvement also must be developed in near future.

Previously, algae were not considered as a member of the beneficial plant microbiome. However, with recent progress in metagenome analysis, algae are now recognized as important members of the plant microbiome. While microbes such as bacteria and fungi have been used to improve plant fitness, new data indicate that algae also promote plant growth and act as biological control agents against pathogens by directly inhibiting pathogen growth and activating plant immune responses. Thus, algae represent a new bioactive material that can be utilized as biofertilizers and plant protectants, which implies that algae should be classified as a member of the beneficial plant microbiome.

Author Contributions

C-MR designed the review. S-ML created the figures and tables. C-MR and S-ML wrote the manuscript. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Funding. This research was supported by grants from the Rural Development Administration, Strategic Initiative for Microbiomes in Agriculture and Food, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Republic of Korea (as part of the multi-ministerial Genome Technology to Business Translation Program) (918017-4), Center for Agricultural Microorganism and Enzyme (Project No. PJ015049) of Rural Development Administration, and the KRIBB Initiative Program, South Korea.

References

Aaronson S., Dhawale S., Patni N., DeAngelis B., Frank O., Baker H. (1977). The cell content and secretion of water-soluble vitamins by several freshwater algae.Arch. Microbiol.11257–59. 10.1007/bf00446654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Abd El-Baky H. H., El-Baz F. K., El Baroty G. S. (2010). Enhancing antioxidant availability in wheat grains from plants grown under seawater stress in response to microalgae extract treatments.J. Sci. Food Agricult.90299–303. 10.1002/jsfa.3815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Adesalu T., Olugbemi O. (2015). Soil algae: a case study of two vegetable farmlands in Lagos and Ogun states, southwest Nigeria.IFE J. Sci.17765–772. [Google Scholar]
Ahmed M., Stal L. J., Hasnain S. (2010). Association of non-heterocystous cyanobacteria with crop plants.Plant Soil336363–375. 10.1007/s11104-010-0488-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Ahn I.-P., Kim S., Lee Y.-H. (2005). Vitamin B1 functions as an activator of plant disease resistance.Plant Physiol.1381505–1515. 10.1104/pp.104.058693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ali S., Charles T., Glick B. (2012). Delay of flower senescence by bacterial endophytes expressing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase.J. Appl. Microbiol.1131139–1144. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05409.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Amavizca E., Bashan Y., Ryu C. M., Farag M. A., Bebout B. M., de-Bashan L. E. (2017). Enhanced performance of the microalgaChlorella sorokiniana remotely induced by the plant growth-promoting bacteria Azospirillum brasilense and Bacillus pumilus.Sci. Rep.71–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
An B., Lan J., Deng X., Chen S., Ouyang C., Shi H., et al. (2017). Silencing of D-lactate dehydrogenase impedes glyoxalase system and leads to methylglyoxal accumulation and growth inhibition in rice.Front. Plant Sci.8:2071. 10.3389/fpls.2017.02071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Arroussi H. E., Benhima R., Elbaouchi A., Sijilmassi B., Mernissi N. E., Aafsar A., et al. (2018). Dunaliella salina exopolysaccharides: a promising biostimulant for salt stress tolerance in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum).J. Appl. Phycol.302929–2941. 10.1007/s10811-017-1382-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Atlante A., de Bari L., Valenti D., Pizzuto R., Paventi G., Passarella S. (2005). Transport and metabolism of D-lactate inJerusalem artichoke mitochondria.Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg.170813–22. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2005.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Babu S., Prasanna R., Bidyarani N., Singh R. (2015). Analysing the colonisation of inoculated cyanobacteria in wheat plants using biochemical and molecular tools.J. Appl. Phycol.27327–338. 10.1007/s10811-014-0322-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Barone V., Baglieri A., Stevanato P., Broccanello C., Bertoldo G., Bertaggia M., et al. (2018). Root morphological and molecular responses induced by microalgae extracts in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.).J. Appl. Phycol.301061–1071. 10.1007/s10811-017-1283-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Barone V., Puglisi I., Fragalà F., Piero A. R. L., Giuffrida F., Baglieri A. (2019). Novel bioprocess for the cultivation of microalgae in hydroponic growing system of tomato plants.J. Appl. Phycol.31465–470. 10.1007/s10811-018-1518-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Bashan Y., de-Bashan L. E. (2010). “Microbial populations of arid lands and their potential for restoration of deserts,” inSoil biology and agriculture in the tropics, ed.Dion P. (Berlin: Springer; ), 109–137. 10.1007/978-3-642-05076-3_6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Belnap J. (2003). The world at your feet: desert biological soil crusts.Front. Ecol. Environ.1181–189. 10.2307/3868062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Benderliev K. (1999). Algae and cyanobacteria release organic chelators in the presence of inorganic Fe (III) thus keeping iron dissolved.Bulg. J. Plant Physiol.2565–75. [Google Scholar]
Benderliev K., Ivanova N., Pilarski P. (2003). Singlet oxygen and other reactive oxygen species are involved in regulation of release of iron-binding chelators from Scenedesmus cells.Biologia Plant.47523–526. 10.1023/b:biop.0000041056.07819.df [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Benjamins R., Scheres B. (2008). Auxin: the looping star in plant development.Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.59443–465. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bérard A., Dorigo U., Humbert J. F., Martin-Laurent F. (2005). Microalgae community structure analysis based on 18S rDNA amplification from DNA extracted directly from soil as a potential soil bioindicator.Agronomy Sustainable Dev.25285–291. 10.1051/agro:2005004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Berg G., Rybakova D., Fischer D., Cernava T., Vergès M.-C. C., Charles T., et al. (2020). Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges.Microbiome81–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bergman B., Johansson C., Soderback E. (1992). Tansley Review No. 42. The Nostoc-Gunnera symbiosis.N. Phytol.122379–400. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1992.tb00067.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bhowal B., Singla-Pareek S. L., Sopory S. K., Kaur C. (2020). From methylglyoxal to pyruvate: a genome-wide study for the identification of glyoxalases and D-lactate dehydrogenases in Sorghum bicolor.BMC Genomics21:145. 10.1186/s12864-020-6547-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bidyarani N., Prasanna R., Chawla G., Babu S., Singh R. (2015). Deciphering the factors associated with the colonization of rice plants by cyanobacteria.J. Basic Microbiol.55407–419. 10.1002/jobm.201400591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bileva T. (2013). Influence of green algaeChlorella vulgaris on infested with xiphinema index grape seedlings.J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change4136–138. [Google Scholar]
Biondi N., Piccardi R., Margheri M. C., Rodolfi L., Smith G. D., Tredici M. R. (2004). Evaluation of Nostoc strain ATCC 53789 as a potential source of natural pesticides.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.703313–3320. 10.1128/aem.70.6.3313-3320.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Blaby-Haas C. E., Merchant S. S. (2019). Comparative and functional algal genomics.Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.70605–638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bradley I. M., Pinto A. J., Guest J. S. (2016). Design and evaluation of Illumina MiSeq-compatible, 18S rRNA gene-specific primers for improved characterization of mixed phototrophic communities.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.825878–5891. 10.1128/aem.01630-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Braun-Howland E. B., Nierzwicki-Bauer S. A. (1990).Azolla-Anabaena symbiosis: biochemistry, physiology, ultrastructure, and molecular biology.Boca Raton: CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
Bumandalai O., Tserennadmid R. (2019). Effect ofChlorella vulgaris as a biofertilizer on germination of tomato and cucumber seeds.Int. J. Aquat. Biol.795–99. [Google Scholar]
Carlson A. S., Dole J. M., Matthysse A. G., Hoffmann W. A., Kornegay J. L. (2015). Bacteria species and solution pH effect postharvest quality of cut Zinnia elegans.Sci. Horticult.19471–78. 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Carmichael W. W. (1994). The toxin of cyanobacteria.Sci. Am.27064–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chaudhary V., Prasanna R., Nain L., Dubey S., Gupta V., Singh R., et al. (2012). Bioefficacy of novel cyanobacteria-amended formulations in suppressing damping off disease in tomato seedlings.World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.283301–3310. 10.1007/s11274-012-1141-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cheng C. Y., Mathews D. E., Eric Schaller G., Kieber J. J. (2013). Cytokinin-dependent specification of the functional megaspore in the Arabidopsis female gametophyte.Plant J.73929–940. 10.1111/tpj.12084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cho K., Heo J., Cho D. H., Tran Q. G., Yun J. H., Lee S. M., et al. (2019). Enhancing algal biomass and lipid production by phycospheric bacterial volatiles and possible growth enhancing factor.Algal Res.37186–194. 10.1016/j.algal.2018.11.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Choix F. J., de-Bashan L. E., Bashan Y. (2012). Enhanced accumulation of starch and total carbohydrates in alginate-immobilizedChlorella spp. induced byAzospirillum brasilense: II. Heterotrophic conditions.Enzyme Microb. Technol.51300–309. 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2012.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Choleva B., Bileva T., Tsvetkov J. (2007). Organo-biological means and methods for control of plant parasitic nematodes as alternative of agrochemicals.Ecol. Fut.643–49. [Google Scholar]
Choleva B., Bileva T., Tzvetkov Y., Barakov P. (2005). Preliminary study of the green algae chlorella (Chlorella vulgaris) for control on the root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne arenaria) in tomato plants and ectoparasite Xiphinema indexin grape seedlings.Commun.Cations Agricult. Appl. Biol. Sci.70915–926. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Coppens J., Grunert O., Van Den Hende S., Vanhoutte I., Boon N., Haesaert G., et al. (2016). The use of microalgae as a high-value organic slow-release fertilizer results in tomatoes with increased carotenoid and sugar levels.J. Appl. Phycol.282367–2377. 10.1007/s10811-015-0775-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Cuddy W. S., Neilan B. A., Gehringer M. M. (2012). Comparative analysis of cyanobacteria in the rhizosphere and as endosymbionts of cycads in drought-affected soils.FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.80204–215. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01288.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Davey M. C. (1989). The effects of freezing and desiccation on photosynthesis and survival of terrestrial Antarctic algae and cyanobacteria.Polar Biol.1029–36. [Google Scholar]
Davey M. C. (1991). The seasonal periodicity of algae on Antarctic fellfield soils.Ecography14112–120. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1991.tb00641.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Davey M., Clarke K. (1991). The spatial distribution of microalgae on Antarctic fellfield soils.Antarctic Sci.3257–263. 10.1017/s0954102091000317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
De Meyer G., Capieau K., Audenaert K., Buchala A., Métraux J.-P., Höfte M. (1999). Nanogram amounts of salicylic acid produced by the rhizobacteriumPseudomonas aeruginosa 7NSK2 activate the systemic acquired resistance pathway in bean.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.12450–458. 10.1094/mpmi.1999.12.5.450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dessaux Y., Grandclément C., Faure D. (2016). Engineering the rhizosphere.Trends Plant Sci.21266–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dimitrov P., Zucker S. W. (2006). A constant production hypothesis guides leaf venation patterning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.1039363–9368. 10.1073/pnas.0603559103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dow C. S., Swoboda U. K. (2000).Cyanotoxins. In The ecology of Cyanobacteria.Berlin: Springer, 613–632. [Google Scholar]
Dubey A., Dubey D. (2010).Evaluation of cost effective organic fertilizers.India: Kilpest India Ltd. [Google Scholar]
Duijff B. J., Meijer J. W., Bakker P. A., Schippers B. (1993). Siderophore-mediated competition for iron and induced resistance in the suppression of Fusarium wilt of carnation by fluorescentPseudomonas spp.Netherl. J. Plant Pathol.99277–289. 10.1007/bf01974309 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Dukare A. S., Prasanna R., Dubey S. C., Nain L., Chaudhary V., Singh R., et al. (2011). Evaluating novel microbe amended composts as biocontrol agents in tomato.Crop Protect.30436–442. 10.1016/j.cropro.2010.12.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Elarroussia H., Elmernissia N., Benhimaa R., El Kadmiria I. M., Bendaou N., Smouni A., et al. (2016). Microalgae polysaccharides a promising plant growth biostimulant.J. Algal Biomass Utilizat.755–63. [Google Scholar]
Elster J. (2002). “Ecological classification of terrestrial algal communities in polar environments,” inGeoecology of Antarctic ice-free coastal landscapes, edsBeyer L., Bölter M. (Berlin: Springer; ), 303–326. 10.1007/978-3-642-56318-8_17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Erbs G., Newman M. A. (2003). The role of lipopolysaccharides in induction of plant defence responses.Mol. Plant Pathol.4421–425. 10.1046/j.1364-3703.2003.00179.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Faheed F. A., Fattah Z. A. (2008). Effect of Chlorella vulgaris as bio-fertilizer on growth parameters and metabolic aspects of lettuce plant.J. Agricult. Soc. Sci.4165–169. [Google Scholar]
Farid R., Mutale-joan C., Redouane B., Najib E. M., Abderahime A., Laila S., et al. (2019). Effect of microalgae polysaccharides on biochemical and metabolomics pathways related to plant defense in Solanum lycopersicum.Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.188225–240. 10.1007/s12010-018-2916-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gantar M. (2000). Mechanical damage of roots provides enhanced colonization of the wheat endorhizosphere by the dinitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium Nostoc sp. strain 2S9B.Biol. Fertility Soils32250–255. 10.1007/s003740000243 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gantar M., Elhai J. (1999). Colonization of wheat para-nodules by the N 2-fixing cyanobacterium Nostoc sp. strain 2S9B.N. Phytol.141373–379. 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00352.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gantar M., Kerby N., Rowell P. (1991). Colonization of wheat (Triticum vulgare L.) by N2-fixing cyanobacteria: II. An ultrastructural study.N. Phytol.118485–492. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1991.tb00031.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gantar M., Kerby N., Rowell P. (1993). Colonization of wheat (Triticum vulgare L.) by N2-fixing cyanobacteria: III. The role of a hormogonia-promoting factor.N. Phytol.124505–513. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1993.tb03842.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gantar M., Rowell P., Kerby N. W., Sutherland I. W. (1995). Role of extracellular polysaccharide in the colonization of wheat (Triticum vulgare L.) roots by N 2-fixing cyanobacteria.Biol. Fertility Soils1941–48. 10.1007/bf00336345 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Ghannam A., Abbas A., Alek H., Al-Waari Z., Al-Ktaifani M. (2013). Enhancement of local plant immunity against tobacco mosaic virus infection after treatment with sulphated-carrageenan from red alga (Hypnea musciformis).Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.8419–27. 10.1016/j.pmpp.2013.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gobler C. J., Norman C., Panzeca C., Taylor G. T., Sañudo-Wilhelmy S. A. (2007). Effect of B-vitamins (B1, B12) and inorganic nutrients on algal bloom dynamics in a coastal ecosystem.Aquat. Microb. Ecol.49181–194. 10.3354/ame01132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Godínez-Alvarez H., Morín C., Rivera-Aguilar V. (2012). Germination, survival and growth of three vascular plants on biological soil crusts from a Mexican tropical desert.Plant Biol.14157–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Goldman S., Lammers P., Berman M., Sanders-Loehr J. (1983). Siderophore-mediated iron uptake in different strains of Anabaena sp.J. Bacteriol.1561144–1150. 10.1128/jb.156.3.1144-1150.1983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gonzalez L. E., Bashan Y. (2000). Increased growth of the microalga chlorella vulgariswhen coimmobilized and cocultured in alginate beads with the plant-growth-promoting bacterium Azospirillum brasilense.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.661527–1531. 10.1128/aem.66.4.1527-1531.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Goyer A. (2010). Thiamine in plants: aspects of its metabolism and functions.Phytochemistry711615–1624. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.06.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gruber P. J., Frederick S. E., Tolbert N. (1974). Enzymes related to lactate metabolism in green algae and lower land plants.Plant Physiol.53167–170. 10.1104/pp.53.2.167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gupta V., Ratha S. K., Sood A., Chaudhary V., Prasanna R. (2013). New insights into the biodiversity and applications of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)—prospects and challenges.Algal Res.279–97. 10.1016/j.algal.2013.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Hamann T., Benkova E., Bäurle I., Kientz M., Jürgens G. (2002). The Arabidopsis BODENLOS gene encodes an auxin response protein inhibiting MONOPTEROS-mediated embryo patterning.Genes Dev.161610–1615. 10.1101/gad.229402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hamouda R. A., El-Ansary M. (2013). Biocontrol of Root knot Nematode, Meloidogyne incognita infected banana plants by Cyanobacteria.Egypt.J. Agronematol.12113–129. [Google Scholar]
Hamouda R. A., El-Ansary M. (2017). Potential of Plant-Parasitic Nematode Control in Banana Plants by Microalgae as a New Approach Towards Resistance.Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control27165–172. [Google Scholar]
Hashtroudi M. S., Ghassempour A., Riahi H., Shariatmadari Z., Khanjir M. (2013). Endogenous auxins in plant growth-promoting Cyanobacteria—Anabaena vaginicola and Nostoc calcicola.J. Appl. Phycol.25379–386. 10.1007/s10811-012-9872-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Hastings K. L., Smith L. E., Lindsey M. L., Blotsky L. C., Downing G. R., et al. (2014). Effect of microalgae application on soil algal species diversity, cation exchange capacity and organic matter after herbicide treatments.F1000Research3:28110.12688/f1000research.4016.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Havaux M., Ksas B., Szewczyk A., Rumeau D., Franck F., et al. (2009). Vitamin B6 deficient plants display increased sensitivity to high light and photo-oxidative stress.BMC Plant Biol.9:130. 10.1186/1471-2229-9-130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Holajjer P., Kamra A., Gaur H., Manjunath M. (2013). Potential of cyanobacteria for biorational management of plant parasitic nematodes: a review.Crop Protect.53147–151. 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.07.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Husic D. W., Tolbert N. (1987). Inhibition of glycolate and D-lactate metabolism in a Chlamydomonas reinhardtii mutant deficient in mitochondrial respiration.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.841555–1559. 10.1073/pnas.84.6.1555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hussain A., Hasnain S. (2011). Phytostimulation and biofertilization in wheat by cyanobacteria.J. Industr. Microbiol. Biotechnol.3885–92. 10.1007/s10295-010-0833-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hussain A., Hamayun M., Shah S. T. (2013). Root colonization and phytostimulation by phytohormones producing entophytic Nostoc sp. AH-12.Curr. Microbiol.67624–630. 10.1007/s00284-013-0408-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hussain A., Krischke M., Roitsch T., Hasnain S. (2010). Rapid determination of cytokinins and auxin in cyanobacteria.Curr. Microbiol.61361–369. 10.1007/s00284-010-9620-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hussain A., Shah S. T., Rahman H., Irshad M., Iqbal A. (2015). Effect of IAA on in vitro growth and colonization of Nostoc in plant roots.Front. Plant Sci.6:46. 10.3389/fpls.2015.00046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Innok S., Chunleuchanon S., Boonkerd N., Teaumroong N. (2009). Cyanobacterial akinete induction and its application as biofertilizer for rice cultivation.J. Appl. Phycol.21:73710.1007/s10811-009-9409-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Issa O. M., Stal L. J., Défarge C., Couté A., Trichet J. (2001). Nitrogen fixation by microbial crusts from desiccated Sahelian soils (Niger).Soil Biol. Biochem.331425–1428. 10.1016/s0038-0717(01)00046-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Jain M., Aggarwal S., Nagar P., Tiwari R., Mustafiz A. (2020). A D-lactate dehydrogenase from rice is involved in conferring tolerance to multiple abiotic stresses by maintaining cellular homeostasis.Sci. Rep.101–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jain M., Nagar P., Sharma A., Batth R., Aggarwal S., Kumari S., et al. (2018). GLYI and D-LDH play key role in methylglyoxal detoxification and abiotic stress tolerance.Sci. Rep.81–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jaki B., Orjala J., Heilmann J., Linden A., Vogler B., Sticher O. (2000). Novel Extracellular Diterpenoids with Biological Activity from the Cyanobacterium Nostoc c ommune.J. Nat. Products63339–343. 10.1021/np9903090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Karthikeyan N., Prasanna R., Nain L., Kaushik B. D. (2007). Evaluating the potential of plant growth promoting cyanobacteria as inoculants for wheat.Eur. J. Soil Biol.4323–30. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Karthikeyan N., Prasanna R., Sood A., Jaiswal P., Nayak S., Kaushik B. (2009). Physiological characterization and electron microscopic investigation of cyanobacteria associated with wheat rhizosphere.Folia Microbiol.5443–51. 10.1007/s12223-009-0007-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kazamia E., Czesnick H., Nguyen T. T. V., Croft M. T., Sherwood E., et al. (2012). Mutualistic interactions between vitamin B12-dependent algae and heterotrophic bacteria exhibit regulation.Environ. Microbiol.141466–1476. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02733.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Khan Z., Kim Y., Kim S., Kim H. (2007). Observations on the suppression of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne arenaria) on tomato by incorporation of cyanobacterial powder (Oscillatoria chlorina) into potting field soil.Bioresour. Technol.9869–73. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.11.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Khan Z., Park S., Shin S., Bae S., Yeon I., Seo Y. (2005). Management of Meloidogyne incognita on tomato by root-dip treatment in culture filtrate of the blue-green alga, Microcoleus vaginatus.Bioresour. Technol.961338–1341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Khaw Y. S., Khong N. M., Shaharuddin N. A., Yusoff F. M. (2020). A simple 18S rDNA approach for the identification of cultured eukaryotic microalgae with an emphasis on primers.J. Microbiol. Methods172:105890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kim J., Kim J.-D. (2008). Inhibitory effect of algal extracts on mycelial growth of the tomato-wilt pathogen, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici.Mycobiology36242–248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kim M., Shim C., Kim Y., Park J., Hong S., Ji H., et al. (2014). Effect of Chlorella vulgaris CHK0008 fertilization on enhancement of storage and freshness in organic strawberry and leaf vegetables.Kor. J. Horticult. Sci. Technol.32872–878. [Google Scholar]
Kim M.-J., Shim C.-K., Kim Y.-K., Jee H.-J., Park J.-H., Hong S.-J., et al. (2012). Effect of Green Algae, Chlorella fusca on Improving Seed Germination and Seedling Growth in Vegetable Crop and Minor Cereal.Kor. J. Org. Agric.2012491–492. [Google Scholar]
Kim M.-J., Shim C.-K., Kim Y.-K., Ko B.-G., Park J.-H., Hwang S.-G., et al. (2018a). Effect of biostimulator Chlorella fusca on improving growth and qualities of chinese chives and spinach in organic farm.Plant Pathol. J.34:567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kim S. J., Ko E. J., Hong J. K., Jeun Y. C. (2018b). Ultrastructures of Colletotrichum orbiculare in cucumber leaves expressing systemic acquired resistance mediated by Chlorella fusca.Plant Pathol. J.34:113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kloepper J. W., Leong J., Teintze M., Schroth M. N. (1980). Enhanced plant growth by siderophores produced by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria.Nature286885–886. [Google Scholar]
Kloepper J. W., Ryu C.-M., Zhang S. (2004). Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plant growth by Bacillus spp.Phytopathology941259–1266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Konst H., McKercher P., Gorham P., Robertson A., Howell J. (1965). Symptoms and pathology produced by toxic Microcystis aeruginosa NRC-1 in laboratory and domestic animals.Can. J. Comparat. Med. Vet. Sci.29:221. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Koptera Z. (1970). Biosynthesis of biotin, pyredoxin, nicotinic acid and pantothenic acids by some blue-green algae.Microbiol. Z32555–560. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kreslavsky V., Kobzar E., Muzafarov E. (1997). Effect of red radiation, kinetin and linuron on growth and ethylene production in Chlorella.Biol. Plant.39427–430. [Google Scholar]
Krings M., Hass H., Kerp H., Taylor T. N., Agerer R., Dotzler N. (2009). Endophytic cyanobacteria in a 400-million-yr-old land plant: A scenario for the origin of a symbiosis?Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol.15362–69. [Google Scholar]
Krug L., Erlacher A., Markut K., Berg G., Cernava T. (2020). The microbiome of alpine snow algae shows a specific inter-kingdom connectivity and algae-bacteria interactions with supportive capacities.ISME J.142197–2210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kuan K. B., Othman R., Abdul Rahim K., Shamsuddin Z. H. (2016). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria inoculation to enhance vegetative growth, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen remobilisation of maize under greenhouse conditions.PLoS One11:e0152478. 10.1371/journal.pone.0152478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kublanovskaya A., Khapchaeva S., Zotov V., Zaytsev P., Lobakova E., Solovchenko A. (2019). The Effect of the Microalga Chlorella vulgaris Ippas C-1 Biomass Application on Yield, Biological Activity, and the Microbiome of the Soil during Bean Growing.Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull.74227–234. [Google Scholar]
Kumar M., Prasanna R., Bidyarani N., Babu S., Mishra B. K., Kumar A., et al. (2013). Evaluating the plant growth promoting ability of thermotolerant bacteria and cyanobacteria and their interactions with seed spice crops.Sci. Horticult.16494–101. [Google Scholar]
Leach J. E., Triplett L. R., Argueso C. T., Trivedi P. (2017). Communication in the phytobiome.Cell169587–596. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.04.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lee S. M., Kim S. K., Lee N., Ahn C. Y., Ryu C. M. (2020a). D-Lactic acid secreted by Chlorella fusca primes pattern-triggered immunity againstPseudomonas syringae in Arabidopsis.Plant J.102761–778. 10.1111/tpj.14661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lee S. M., Lee B., Shim C. K., Chang Y. K., Ryu C. M. (2020b). Plant anti-aging: Delayed flower and leaf senescence in Erinus alpinus treated with cell-free Chlorella cultivation medium.Plant Signal. Behav.15:1763005. 10.1080/15592324.2020.1763005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lee Y. J., Kim S. J., Jeun Y. C. (2017). Ultra-structural Observations of Colletotrichum orbiculare on Cucumber Leaves Pre-treated with Chlorella fusca.Res. Plant Dis.2342–48. 10.5423/RPD.2017.23.1.42 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Lee Y. J., Ko Y. J., Jeun Y. C. (2016). Illustration of disease suppression of anthracnose on cucumber leaves by treatment with Chlorella fusca.Res. Plant Dis.22257–263. 10.5423/RPD.2016.22.4.257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Lemanceau P., Alabouvette C. (1993). Suppression of Fusarium wilts by fluorescent pseudomonads: mechanisms and applications.Biocontr. Sci. Technol.3219–234. 10.1080/09583159309355278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Li Y., Xu S.-S., Gao J., Pan S., Wang G.-X. (2014). Chlorella induces stomatal closure via NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS production and its effects on instantaneous water use efficiency in Vicia faba.PLoS One9:e93290. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lim P. O., Kim H. J., Gil Nam H. (2007). Leaf senescence.Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.58115–136. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lindblad P., Bergman B., Rai A. N. (1990). “The cycad-cyanobacterial symbiosis,” inCRC handbook of symbiotic cyanobacteria, ed.Rai A. N. (Florida: CRC Press; ), 137–159. 10.1201/9781351071185-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Liu F., Wei F., Wang L., Liu H., Zhu X., Liang Y. (2010). Riboflavin activates defense responses in tobacco and induces resistance against Phytophthora parasitica and Ralstonia solanacearum.Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.74330–336. 10.1016/j.pmpp.2010.05.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Liu J., Chen F. (2016). Biology and industrial applications of Chlorella: advances and prospects.Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol.1531–35. 10.1007/10_2014_286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Longford S. R., Campbell A. H., Nielsen S., Case R. J., Kjelleberg S., Steinberg P. D. (2019). Interactions within the microbiome alter microbial interactions with host chemical defences and affect disease in a marine holobiont.Sci. Rep.91–13. 10.1038/s41598-018-37062-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
López A., Ming D. S., Towers G. N. (2002). Antifungal Activity of Benzoic Acid Derivatives from Piper l anceaefolium.J. Nat. Prod.6562–64. 10.1021/np010410g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lugtenberg B., Kamilova F. (2009). Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria.Annu. Rev. Microbiol.63541–556. 10.1146/annurev.micro.62.081307.162918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manjunath M., Prasanna R., Nain L., Dureja P., Singh R., Kumar A., et al. (2010). Biocontrol potential of cyanobacterial metabolites against damping off disease caused by Pythium aphanidermatum in solanaceous vegetables.Archiv. Phytopathol. Plant Protect.43666–677. 10.1080/03235400802075815 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Mankiewicz J., Tarczynska M., Walter Z., Zalewski M. (2003). Natural toxins from cyanobacteria.Acta Biol. Cracov. Bot.459–20. [Google Scholar]
Marsch-Martínez N., Ramos-Cruz D., Reyes-Olalde J. I., Lozano-Sotomayor P., Zúñiga-Mayo V. M., de Folter S. (2012). The role of cytokinin during Arabidopsis gynoecia and fruit morphogenesis and patterning.Plant J.72222–234. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.05062.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Marth P. C., Mitchell J. W. (1944). 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid as a differential herbicide.Bot. Gazette106224–232. 10.1086/335289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Maurino V. G., Engqvist M. K. (2015). 2-Hydroxy acids in plant metabolism.Am. Soc. Plant Biol.13:e0182. 10.1199/tab.0182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mazur H., Konop A., Synak R. (2001). Indole-3-acetic acid in the culture medium of two axenic green microalgae.J. Appl. Phycol.1335–42. 10.1023/A:1008199409953 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
McKnight D. M., Morel F. M. (1980). Copper complexation by siderophores from filamentous blue-green algae 1.Limnol. Oceanogr.2562–71. 10.4319/lo.1980.25.1.0062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Meeks J. C., Elhai J. (2002). Regulation of cellular differentiation in filamentous cyanobacteria in free-living and plant-associated symbiotic growth states.Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.6694–121. 10.1128/MMBR.66.1.94-121.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Meeks J. C., Rai A. (1990). “Cyanobacterial-bryophyte associations,” inCRC handbook of symbiotic cyanobacteria, ed.Rai A. N. (Florida: CRC Press; ), 43–63. 10.1201/9781351071185-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Mendes R., Garbeva P., Raaijmakers J. M. (2013). The rhizosphere microbiome: significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and human pathogenic microorganisms.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.37634–663. 10.1111/1574-6976.12028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mercier L., Lafitte C., Borderies G., Briand X. (2001). Esquerré-Tugayé MT, Fournier J: The algal polysaccharide carrageenans can act as an elicitor of plant defence.N. Phytol.14943–51. 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00011.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Misra S., Kaushik B. (1989). Growth promoting substances of cyanobacteria. I: vitamins and their influence on rice plant.Proc. Ind. Natl. Sci. Acad. Part B Biol. Sci.55295–300. [Google Scholar]
Mutale-joan C., Redouane B., Najib E., Yassine K., Lyamlouli K., Laila S., et al. (2020). Screening of microalgae liquid extracts for their bio stimulant properties on plant growth, nutrient uptake and metabolite profile of Solanum lycopersicum L.Sci. Rep.101–12. 10.1038/s41598-020-59840-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nain L., Rana A., Joshi M., Jadhav S. D., Kumar D., Shivay Y., et al. (2010). Evaluation of synergistic effects of bacterial and cyanobacterial strains as biofertilizers for wheat.Plant Soil331217–230. 10.1007/s11104-009-0247-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Naing A. H., Win N. M., Han J.-S., Lim K. B., Kim C. K. (2017). Role of nano-silver and the bacterial strainEnterobacter cloacae in increasing vase life of cut carnation ‘Omea’.Front. Plant Sci.8:1590. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Natarajan C., Prasanna R., Gupta V., Dureja P., Nain L. (2012). Characterization of the fungicidal activity of Calothrix elenkinii using chemical methods and microscopy.Appl. Biochem. Microbiol.4851–57. 10.1134/S0003683812010115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nilsson M., Bhattacharya J., Rai A., Bergman B. (2002). Colonization of roots of rice (Oryza sativa) by symbiotic Nostoc strains.N. Phytol.156517–525. 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00534.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ohta T., Sueoka E., Iida N., Komori A., Suganuma M., Nishiwaki R., et al. (1994). Nodularin, a potent inhibitor of protein phosphatases 1 and 2A, is a new environmental carcinogen in male F344 rat liver.Cancer Res.546402–6406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pagnussat G. C., Alandete-Saez M., Bowman J. L., Sundaresan V. (2009). Auxin-dependent patterning and gamete specification in the Arabidopsis female gametophyte.Science3241684–1689. 10.1126/science.1167324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Park K., Kloepper J. W., Ryu C.-M. (2008). Rhizobacterial exopolysaccharides elicit induced resistance on cucumber.J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.181095–1100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Parker M. S., Mock T., Armbrust E. V. (2008). Genomic insights into marine microalgae.Annu. Rev. Genet.42619–645. 10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Paudel Y., Pradhan S., Pant B., Prasad B. (2012). Role of blue green algae in rice productivity.Agricult. Biol. J. North Am.3332–335. 10.5251/abjna.2012.3.8.332.335 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Paul E. A., Clark F. E. (1989).Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry.San Diego: Academic Press, Inc, 273. 10.1016/B978-0-12-546805-3.50004-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Perea J. R., Llorens-Martín M., Ávila J., Bolós M. (2018). The role of microglia in the spread of tau: relevance for tauopathies.Front. Cell. Neurosci.12:172. 10.3389/fncel.2018.00172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pettongkhao S., Bilanglod A., Khompatara K., Churngchow N. (2019). Sulphated Polysaccharide from Acanthophora spicifera Induced Hevea brasiliensis Defense Responses Against Phytophthora palmivora Infection.Plants8:73. 10.3390/plants8030073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pieterse C. M., Van Wees S. C., Van Pelt J. A., Knoester M., Laan R., Gerrits H., et al. (1998). A novel signaling pathway controlling induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis.Plant Cell101571–1580. 10.1105/tpc.10.9.1571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pieterse C. M., Zamioudis C., Berendsen R. L., Weller D. M., Van Wees S. C., Bakker P. A. (2014). Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes.Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.52347–375. 10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pointing S. B., Belnap J. (2012). Microbial colonization and controls in dryland systems.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.10551–562. 10.1038/nrmicro2831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Prasanna R., Chaudhary V., Gupta V., Babu S., Kumar A., Singh R., et al. (2013). Cyanobacteria mediated plant growth promotion and bioprotection against Fusarium wilt in tomato.Eur. J. Plant Pathol.136337–353. 10.1007/s10658-013-0167-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Prasanna R., Kanchan A., Ramakrishnan B., Ranjan K., Venkatachalam S., Hossain F., et al. (2016). Cyanobacteria-based bioinoculants influence growth and yields by modulating the microbial communities favourably in the rhizospheres of maize hybrids.Eur. J. Soil Biol.7515–23. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Prasanna R., Nain L., Ancha R., Srikrishna J., Joshi M., Kaushik B. D. (2009). Rhizosphere dynamics of inoculated cyanobacteria and their growth-promoting role in rice crop.Egypt. J. Biol.1126–36. [Google Scholar]
Prasanna R., Nain L., Tripathi R., Gupta V., Chaudhary V., Middha S., et al. (2008). Evaluation of fungicidal activity of extracellular filtrates of cyanobacteria–possible role of hydrolytic enzymes.J. Basic Microbiol.48186–194. 10.1002/jobm.200700199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Priya H., Prasanna R., Ramakrishnan B., Bidyarani N., Babu S., Thapa S., et al. (2015). Influence of cyanobacterial inoculation on the culturable microbiome and growth of rice.Microbiol. Res.17178–89. 10.1016/j.micres.2014.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pushkareva E., Johansen J. R., Elster J. (2016). A review of the ecology, ecophysiology and biodiversity of microalgae in Arctic soil crusts.Polar Biol.392227–2240. 10.1007/s00300-016-1902-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Rachidi F., Benhima R., Sbabou L., El Arroussi H. (2020). Microalgae polysaccharides bio-stimulating effect on tomato plants: Growth and metabolic distribution.Biotechnol. Rep.25:e00426. 10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rana A., Kabi S. R., Verma S., Adak A., Pal M., Shivay Y. S., et al. (2015). Prospecting plant growth promoting bacteria and cyanobacteria as options for enrichment of macro-and micronutrients in grains in rice–wheat cropping sequence.Cogent Food Agricult.1:103737910.1080/23311932.2015.1037379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Rasmussen U., Johansson C., Renglin A., Petersson C., Bergman B. (1996). A molecular characterization of the Gunnera–Nostoc symbiosis: comparison with Rhizobium–and Agrobacterium–plant interactions.N. Phytol.133391–398. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb01906.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Renuka N., Prasanna R., Sood A., Ahluwalia A. S., Bansal R., Babu S., et al. (2016). Exploring the efficacy of wastewater-grown microalgal biomass as a biofertilizer for wheat.Environ. Sci. Poll. Res.236608–6620. 10.1007/s11356-015-5884-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Robbins W. J., Hervey A., Stebbins M. E. (1951). Further observations on Euglena and B12.Bull. Torrey Bot. Club78363–375. 10.2307/2482017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Rodgers G., Bergman B., Henriksson E., Udris M. (1979). Utilisation of blue-green algae as biofertilisers.Plant Soil5299–107. 10.1007/BF02197736 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Rodríguez A., Stella A., Storni M., Zulpa G., Zaccaro M. (2006). Effects of cyanobacterial extracellular products and gibberellic acid on salinity tolerance in Oryza sativaL.Saline Syst.2:7. 10.1186/1746-1448-2-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sangha J. S., Kandasamy S., Khan W., Bahia N. S., Singh R. P., Critchley A. T., et al. (2015). λ-carrageenan suppresses tomato chlorotic dwarf viroid (TCDVd) replication and symptom expression in tomatoes.Mar. Drugs132875–2889. 10.3390/md13052875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sangha J. S., Ravichandran S., Prithiviraj K., Critchley A. T., Prithiviraj B. (2010). Sulfated macroalgal polysaccharides λ-carrageenan and ι-carrageenan differentially alter Arabidopsis thaliana resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.7538–45. 10.1016/j.pmpp.2010.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Santi S., De Marco F., Polizzotto R., Grisan S., Musetti R. (2013). Recovery from stolbur disease in grapevine involves changes in sugar transport and metabolism.Front. Plant Sci.4:171. 10.3389/fpls.2013.00171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Santos C. A., Reis A. (2014). Microalgal symbiosis in biotechnology.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.985839–5846. 10.1007/s00253-014-5764-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sathiyamoorthy P., Shanmugasundaram S. (1996). Preparation of cyanobacterial peptide toxin as a biopesticide against cotton pests.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.46511–513. 10.1007/s002530050852 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Schaller G. E., Street I. H., Kieber J. J. (2014). Cytokinin and the cell cycle.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.217–15. 10.1016/j.pbi.2014.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Shaaban M. M. (2001a). Green microalgae water extract as foliar feeding to wheat plants.Pak. J. Biol. Sci.4628–632. 10.3923/pjbs.2001.628.632 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Shaaban M. M. (2001b). Nutritional status and growth of maize plants as affected by green microalgae as soil additives.J. Biol. Sci.1475–479. 10.3923/jbs.2001.475.479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Shah A., Vaidya B. (1977). Detection of vitamin B 12 and pantothenic acid in cell exudates of blue-green algae.Biol. Plant.19426–429. 10.1007/BF02922978 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Shahri W., Tahir I. (2014). Flower senescence: some molecular aspects.Planta239277–297. 10.1007/s00425-013-1984-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sharma V., Prasanna R., Hossain F., Muthusamy V., Nain L., et al. (2020). Priming maize seeds with cyanobacteria enhances seed vigour and plant growth in elite maize inbreds.3 Biotech.101–15. 10.1007/s13205-020-2141-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Shukla P. S., Borza T., Critchley A. T., Prithiviraj B. (2016). Carrageenans from red seaweeds as promoters of growth and elicitors of defense response in plants.Front. Mar. Sci.3:8110.3389/fmars.2016.00081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Silverster W., Smith D. (1969). Nitrogen fixation by Gunnera–Nostoc symbiosis.Nature2241231–1231. 10.1038/2241231a04311589 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Silvester W. B. (1976). “Endophyte adaptation in Gunnera-Nostocsymbiosis,” inSymbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Plants, Vol. 7ed.Nutman S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 521–538. [Google Scholar]
Singh P., Bisoyi R. (1989). Blue green algae in rice fields.Phykos28181–195. [Google Scholar]
Singh S., Datta P. (2007). Outdoor evaluation of herbicide resistant strains of Anabaena variabilis as biofertilizer for rice plants.Plant Soil29695–102. 10.1007/s11104-007-9293-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Song G. C., Choi H. K., Ryu C.-M. (2013). The folate precursor para-aminobenzoic acid elicits induced resistance against Cucumber mosaic virus and Xanthomonas axonopodis.Ann. Bot.111925–934. 10.1093/aob/mct049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Spiller H., Stallings W., Woods T., Gunasekaran M. (1993). Requirement for direct association of ammonia-excreting Anabaena variabilis mutant (SA-1) with roots for maximal growth and yield of wheat.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.40557–566. 10.1007/BF00175748 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Stirk W. A., Ördög V., Novák O., Rolčík J., Strnad M., Bálint P., et al. (2013). Auxin and cytokinin relationships in 24 microalgal strains1.J. Phycol.49459–467. 10.1111/jpy.12061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stirk W., Ördög V., Van Staden J., Jäger K. (2002). Cytokinin-and auxin-like activity in Cyanophyta and microalgae.J. Appl. Phycol.14215–221. 10.1023/A:1019928425569 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Strzelczyk E., Dahm H., Pachlewski R. (1991). B-group vitamins production by mycorrhizal fungi in response to pH (in vitro studies).Plant Soil137237–241. 10.1007/BF00011202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Taheri P., Hofte M. (2007). Induction of systemic defense responses in rice against the sheath blight pathogen Rhizoctonia solani, by means of riboflavin.Commun. Agricult. Appl. Biol. Sci.72:983. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Taheri P., Tarighi S. (2010). Riboflavin induces resistance in rice against Rhizoctonia solani via jasmonate-mediated priming of phenylpropanoid pathway.J. Plant Physiol.167201–208. 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tchan Y. T., Kennedy I. R. (1989). IR Possible N_2-fixing root nodules induced in non-legumes.Agric. Sci.257–59. [Google Scholar]
Treves H., Raanan H., Kedem I., Murik O., Keren N., Zer H., et al. (2016). The mechanisms whereby the green alga Chlorella ohadii, isolated from desert soil crust, exhibits unparalleled photodamage resistance.N. Phytol.2101229–1243. 10.1111/nph.13870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tripathi R., Dwivedi S., Shukla M., Mishra S., Srivastava S., Singh R., et al. (2008). Role of blue green algae biofertilizer in ameliorating the nitrogen demand and fly-ash stress to the growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants.Chemosphere701919–1929. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.07.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tsavkelova E., Klimova S. Y., Cherdyntseva T., Netrusov A. (2006). Microbial producers of plant growth stimulators and their practical use: a review.Appl. Biochem. Microbiol.42117–126. 10.1134/S0003683806020013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
van Loon L. C., Geraats B. P., Linthorst H. J. (2006). Ethylene as a modulator of disease resistance in plants.Trends Plant Sci.11184–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Vera J., Castro J., Contreras R. A., González A., Moenne A. (2012). Oligo-carrageenans induce a long-term and broad-range protection against pathogens in tobacco plants (var. Xanthi).Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.7931–39. [Google Scholar]
Volk R.-B., Furkert F. H. (2006). Antialgal, antibacterial and antifungal activity of two metabolites produced and excreted by cyanobacteria during growth.Microbiol. Res.161180–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Watanabe F., Bito T. (2018). Vitamin B12 sources and microbial interaction.Exp. Biol. Med.243148–158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Welchen E., Schmitz J., Fuchs P., García L., Wagner S., Wienstroer J., et al. (2016). D-Lactate dehydrogenase links methylglyoxal degradation and electron transport through cytochrome C.Plant Physiol.172901–912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Werner T., Motyka V., Strnad M., Schmülling T. (2001). Regulation of plant growth by cytokinin.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.9810487–10492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Whipps J., Lewis K., Cooke R. (1988). “Mycoparasitism and plant disease control 161–187,” inFungi in Biological Control Systems, ed.Burge N. M. (Manchester: Manchester University Press; ), 176. [Google Scholar]
Wilpiszeski R. L., Aufrecht J. A., Retterer S. T., Sullivan M. B., Graham D. E., Pierce E. M., et al. (2019). Soil aggregate microbial communities: towards understanding microbiome interactions at biologically relevant scales.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.85324–319e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wuang S. C., Khin M. C., Chua P. Q. D., Luo Y. D. (2016). Use of Spirulina biomass produced from treatment of aquaculture wastewater as agricultural fertilizers.Algal Res.1559–64. [Google Scholar]
Xu J., Zhang Y., Zhang P., Trivedi P., Riera N., Wang Y., et al. (2018). The structure and function of the global citrus rhizosphere microbiome.Nat. Commun.91–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zhang B., Zhang Y., Downing A., Niu Y. (2011). Distribution and composition of cyanobacteria and microalgae associated with biological soil crusts in the Gurbantunggut Desert, China.Arid Land Res. Manag.25275–293. [Google Scholar]
Zhang J., Wang X., Zhou Q. (2017). Co-cultivation of Chlorella spp and tomato in a hydroponic system.Biomass Bioener.97132–138. [Google Scholar]
Zhu H., Li S., Hu Z., Liu G. (2018). Molecular characterization of eukaryotic algal communities in the tropical phyllosphere based on real-time sequencing of the 18S rDNA gene.BMC Plant Biol.181–14. 10.1186/s12870-018-1588-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Zou P., Lu X., Zhao H., Yuan Y., Meng L., Zhang C., et al. (2019). Polysaccharides derived from the brown algae Lessonia nigrescens enhance salt stress tolerance to wheat seedlings by enhancing the antioxidant system and modulating intracellular ion concentration.Front. Plant Sci.10:48. 10.3389/fpls.2019.00048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Movatterモバイル変換

PERMALINK

Algae as New Kids in the Beneficial Plant Microbiome

Sang-Moo Lee

Choong-Min Ryu

Abstract

Introduction

Definition and Membership of the Microbiome

Algae as Members of the Soil Microbiome

Ecological Niche

Plant Root Colonization and Para-Nodule Formation

FIGURE 1.

Algae as a New Member of the Beneficial Plant Microbiome

Biological Control of Plant Pathogens

FIGURE 2.

TABLE 1.

Induced Tolerance Against Abiotic Stresses

TABLE 2.

Algae as Biofertilizers

TABLE 3.

Plant Anti-aging Agents

Algal Determinants of Plant Health

Inhibitory Compounds Effective Against Pathogenic Microbes and Insect Pests

FIGURE 3.

Plant Hormone-Mimicking Compounds

Polysaccharides

D-lactic Acid

Plant Macro- and Micronutrients

Interaction Between Microalgae and Other Microbes in the Plant Microbiome

Rhizosphere Microbiome Engineering With Algae

Potential Applications of Algae

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Footnotes

References

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Cite

Add to Collections

Movatterモバイル変換

PERMALINK

Algae as New Kids in the Beneficial Plant Microbiome

Sang-Moo Lee

Choong-Min Ryu

Abstract

Introduction

Definition and Membership of the Microbiome

Algae as Members of the Soil Microbiome

Ecological Niche

Plant Root Colonization and Para-Nodule Formation

FIGURE 1.

Algae as a New Member of the Beneficial Plant Microbiome

Biological Control of Plant Pathogens

FIGURE 2.

TABLE 1.

Induced Tolerance Against Abiotic Stresses

TABLE 2.

Algae as Biofertilizers

TABLE 3.

Plant Anti-aging Agents

Algal Determinants of Plant Health

Inhibitory Compounds Effective Against Pathogenic Microbes and Insect Pests

FIGURE 3.

Plant Hormone-Mimicking Compounds

Polysaccharides

D-lactic Acid

Plant Macro- and Micronutrients

Interaction Between Microalgae and Other Microbes in the Plant Microbiome

Rhizosphere Microbiome Engineering With Algae

Potential Applications of Algae

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Footnotes

References

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases